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
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
By means of commercial and subsidised delivery, the Government are ensuring that gigabit-capable connections are available to 99% of UK premises by 2032 through, for instance, Project Gigabit. This is critical for all UK communities if the public are to take advantage of the opportunities of technology, including the transformational investment in AI that the Chancellor announced yesterday, and if the United Kingdom is to win the global race for AI and be at the forefront of quantum computing as a result of the Government’s pledge to procure those connections. If everyone in every community across the UK is to win, they need to be connected, including those in Hexham.
Joe Morris
Yesterday I spoke to my constituent Luca, who has spent months campaigning for the investment that is needed to secure a reliable internet and phone connection for his community in the village of Lambley. He has been pushed from pillar to post between private companies, national agencies and local government, and meanwhile the residents of Lambley continue to live without effective internet connection. The solutions depend on funding and co-operation, which are challenging owing to the location and the lack of accountability. Will the Minister meet representatives of Coanwood parish council, Luca and me to try to find a way forward for Lambley and other rural communities?
Ian Murray
I am happy for that to be arranged with Luca, the parish council and my hon. Friend, along with officials from Building Digital UK, so that we can explore the solutions that are possible for his constituents. The Minister for Digital Economy, who sits in the other place, will be holding a surgery for Members of this House on 14 April, and I think my hon. Friend should go along and discuss these issues with her as well.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I could reel off countless examples of villages in my constituency where hard-to-reach areas simply have no broadband at all, let alone fibre broadband. Constituents and businesses are tearing their hair out. At what point will the Government possibly accept that if the millions—if not billions—of pounds are to reach those hard-to-reach places, it would probably be better to help those people to get, for instance, satellite broadband instead, so that they can have access to the internet now rather than having to wait for years?
Ian Murray
I am happy for the hon. Gentleman also to meet representatives of BDUK and the Minister for Digital Economy. He is absolutely right; while there will continue to be gaps for the very hardest-to-reach places, there are solutions out there, like wireless solutions, fixed-wireless access and, indeed, satellite broadband, which BDUK is examining now.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Starlink is a US telecoms company owned by a South African American who advocates civil war in the United Kingdom. OneWeb is a European satellite telecoms company, which is part-owned by the UK. Yesterday the Science Minister told my Committee that OneWeb could be used to ensure domestic communications resilience in remote areas. Can the Minister tell me whether our critical rural broadband infrastructure is more dependent on Starlink or on OneWeb?
Ian Murray
We are a shareholder in Eutelsat, of which OneWeb is a part, and we will be examining all these issues. We have asked for Eutelsat to come forward with proposals to ensure that we have that resilience here in the UK, and we want to make more use of that shareholding.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The roll-out of Project Gigabit in my constituency has been a failure because Freedom Fibre has handed back the contract, with many thousands of properties unconnected, and the replacement contract is likely to take many more years to deliver gigabit access to thousands of my constituents. The all-party parliamentary group on digital communities, which I chair, has suggested some solutions to the problem. Will the Minister come to one of our meetings, and meet us, in order to understand how critical this is for rural communities?
Ian Murray
I am happy to ensure that the Minister in the other place who deals with this particular issue meets the APPG. However, Project Gigabit is designed to adapt in the event of a contracted supplier no longer being able to complete its planned delivery, using a mix of contracts and interventions. We are keen to hear from the hon. Lady about the experiences of her constituents.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
One of the defining impacts of this Government is the action that we are taking to tackle violence against women and girls, and that means making illegal online that which is illegal offline. Intimate image abuse is now a priority offence; cyber-flashing is a priority offence; nudification apps are being banned, and we are standing up to Grok, and as a result the spread of intimate deepfakes has stopped; and non-consensual intimate images are now taken down within 48 hours. We will of course continue to engage with the BBFC and a range of other organisations in fulfilling our demands for parity.
Emily Darlington
Like many colleagues in this House and the other place, I am deeply concerned about the current unacceptable regulatory gap between online and offline pornography, and the public share that concern. The findings of recent research conducted by the BBFC indicate that 64% of pornography users believe that violent pornography contributes to violent sexual behaviour in the real world, and 80% would support new regulation. Does the Minister recognise the clear public demand for online-offline parity, and will he commit himself to introducing legislation to ensure that content that it would be illegal to supply on our high streets is no longer permitted online?
Kanishka Narayan
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s engagement in her constituency and on this debate nationally. She has been a strong champion for the voices of victims, particularly in relation to this question. I entirely agree with her demands for parity, and that is exactly the commitment we have made as a Government. We have set up a cross-Government unit to make sure that we deliver on that plan within six months.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Some 50% of boys aged 11 to 13 have already viewed online pornography. Clearly, frequent exposure to violent sexual content is damaging young people’s minds and their understanding of relationships. Does the Minister agree that, alongside engagement with platforms, the criminal law must be modernised to ban online extreme pornography?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for that incredibly important point. That is exactly why we have already made a series of legal changes, not least to ensure that cyber-flashing and intimate image abuse are priority offences under the Online Safety Act 2023. We have mandated highly effective age assurance on pornography sites and sites with content that is harmful to children. We want to go further still where there is clear evidence to do so, and we will do that through the national consultation that we have launched.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
This Government have already launched five AI growth zones, creating 15,000 jobs and unlocking £40 billion of investment in industrial heartlands across the country. The east midlands AI growth zone— a high-potential bid for that is under active consideration —could bring thousands of good jobs to the region, including in Nottinghamshire, unlocking investment, creating opportunities and regenerating the area in partnership with local businesses and universities.
Steve Yemm
Fourteen years of Conservative economic decline saw jobs and opportunity leave places such as my constituency of Mansfield, and AI now presents a chance to turn that around. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government roll-out of AI growth zones, creating opportunity across the country, will translate into local jobs and skills in left-behind communities?
Liz Kendall
In the 14 months we have been in government, our AI growth zones have done more to level up the country than Conservative Members achieved in 14 years; these zones are being built in the areas that once led the industrial revolution and will now lead the technological revolution. We are also upskilling 10 million workers with free AI skills, introducing the first dedicated national apprenticeship in practical AI and automation, and delivering our £27 million TechLocal programme to help people from all walks of life move into AI. We are determined to ensure that AI benefits people in Mansfield and every part of the country, so that no one is left behind.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Every child deserves the best possible start in life, and that applies as much to the online world as it does to the real one. We know that families everywhere are grappling with the impact of phones and social media. That is why we have launched our national consultation, and we have had over 25,000 responses so far. We want to hear from everyone, particularly children and young people themselves, and the consultation—with a child-friendly design—will be one of the first of its kind to hear specifically from them. We also want to make sure that we particularly reach out to children with special educational needs and disabilities, and those in care, for their views.
Naushabah Khan
Parents in Gillingham and Rainham strongly back this Government’s efforts to keep children safe online. Does the Secretary of State agree that repealing the Online Safety Act, as Reform has pledged to do, would recklessly expose our children to online predators and leave them without the protections they deserve, and that any party serious about families must have a credible plan for children’s online safety, not simply tear one up?
Liz Kendall
I think the party that wants to repeal the Online Safety Act puts children at risk. Its Members do not stand for British values and they do not stand for British law; Labour Members do.
Jacob Collier
There are strong and differing views across this House and the country on a social media ban for under-16s. Indeed, when I have spoken to young people, that has come out, and there was not a strong feeling in my old school, de Ferrers academy, about this. Can the Secretary of State say what engagement she will have with young people, so that decisions about their lives are directly fed into this consultation?
Liz Kendall
Not for the first time, my hon. Friend is spot on. I spoke to young people at Fullhurst school in my constituency and they had very different views about this proposal. We really want to hear directly from young people themselves—we have already had over 1,700 responses—but especially from children. We are partnering with UK Youth and Volunteering Matters to run a series of seven youth-led events across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We will also pilot other potential interventions, including overnight curfews and daily screentime limits, working with children and parents to see what works in practice and its impact on family life.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I hope this is a helpful suggestion to the Secretary of State. There have been some objections to a social media ban for young people based on the fact that it would create a cliff edge, whereby they have no involvement with it and then total involvement with it. Does she agree with me that one way to minimise that danger is to encourage children to use the internet, which is not interactive, as that will gradually acclimatise them for the day when they are able to use interactive services more safely?
Liz Kendall
The right hon. Gentleman is always helpful—well, not always, but on this occasion he has been very helpful. The cliff-edge argument has been made to me personally by the NSPCC, the Molly Rose Foundation, the Internet Watch Foundation and others, and it is one that we should take seriously. I have spoken to schools in my constituency about how best to handle it if we were to go ahead with the ban. There is a really important point about young people’s education and awareness, because life is online now and we have to prepare children for the future. That is at the heart of the issues we are debating in the consultation.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I recently visited Lytchett Minster school and Queen Elizabeth’s school, and I held a session asking the young people about their views. Overwhelmingly, the children in sixth form supported a ban and the children in the younger part of the school did not. How will the Government tailor the questions for younger children and older children, so that we get a true understanding of the problem?
Liz Kendall
I would love it if the hon. Lady sent me a report or a note on that, because alongside the consultation, which is specifically designed for children and young people, many of us in this House are talking to schools. I say to everybody: do send in those views, and I promise I will read them all.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
I am very proud that this Labour Government have put the biggest investment into research and development of any Government ever, with a record £38 billion for UK Research and Innovation, including £14 billion for curiosity-led research. This week, we announced our ambitious plan to buy usable, large-scale quantum computers by the early 2030s, backed by £2 billion of funding—a world first. We are backing our world-leading quantum sector, because we are determined to do everything to back our brilliant British scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs.
Adam Thompson
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Despite the massive Government increases in funding generally, in a recent meeting of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, we heard how the Science and Technology Facilities Council is currently dealing with a significant reduction in funding, particularly in particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics. Michele Dougherty, the executive chair of the STFC, placed the blame squarely on decisions made prior to her arrival and explained her efforts to sort out the mess, but it is the scientific community, research professionals and UK science that will feel the brunt of this funding crunch. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that UK science is not damaged by STFC’s historical failings?
Liz Kendall
A lot of concerns have been raised by the physics community about this issue. The STFC’s budget is actually flat over the spending review, but, as the executive chair says, there have been overspends in its budget over the past five years or so. Those overspends have had to be met from elsewhere in UKRI’s budget, meaning other things have not been funded as a result. STFC and UKRI are looking at how to get the balance right among their different projects. They, and our Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, will be engaging closely with the physics community over the coming months to make sure we get this right.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
My constituent George works for the Science and Technology Facilities Council. He has highlighted to me that UK Research and Innovation is developing a model that significantly reduces spending for all areas of science under the STFC’s remit, including quantum science, particle astrophysics and theoretical physics. Given that the STFC has already warned staff of potential job losses and that it ran a voluntary exit scheme last year, can the Secretary of State reassure the research community, including my constituent in Chorleywood, by confirming that the STFC science facilities and national labs have the necessary funding and will continue commissioning excellent research for years to come?
Liz Kendall
I reassure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Chorleywood—a place I know well—and people right across the country that this Government have provided the biggest ever funding settlement for science. The STFC’s budget is not being cut; it is actually rising slightly, but is flat over the spending review period because of the impact of inflation. Within that context, it is right to ask the STFC and UKRI together to get those budgets under control. Experts will be helping to ensure that we prioritise the most important research. We strongly back curiosity-led research, especially in physics, which is so important for the foundation of our economy and society. However, we do need to sort this problem out.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Modern warfare is technological warfare, so UK research and innovation is critical for our defence. When the Secretary of State has spoken with the Defence Secretary about the defence investment plan, as I assume she has, which sectors has she prioritised for investment in UK companies in research and development—drones, space, cyber, chips? Could she spell out her vision of the role of UK tech in defence, if she has one?
Liz Kendall
As the former head of MI6 has repeatedly said, the single biggest thing that we could do to strengthen our defence and national security is to invest in research and development. UKRI has had the biggest funding settlement from any Government ever under this Labour Government. The Conservatives want to slash UKRI’s budget by £6 billion, which would wipe out all our funding for AI, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and much more. We are backing our defence sector, with 10% of the defence equipment budget going on backing UK businesses—the Tories would slash the funding on which they depend.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
UK Research and Innovation funding will continue to be undermined if the Government’s own procurement strategy sees billions going to companies outside the UK, such as Palantir in the US, when British tech has the solutions. Although we welcome the announcement of AI investment funding, it pales in comparison with the ongoing procurement investment. Will the Government back Liberal Democrat amendments to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill for a comprehensive digital sovereign strategy, backing British tech, research and innovation, which is vital for both our economy and our national security?
Liz Kendall
I am proud of this Government’s plan to back UK AI companies and our sovereign capabilities, with £500 million backing our new sovereign AI unit and £1 billion of free compute for British researchers and scientists. We are also overhauling Government procurement to ensure that we back innovative tech companies in the UK, both big and small. That is the way forward to seize the opportunities for growth and secure our sovereign capabilities.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
No woman or child should live in fear of having their image sexually manipulated by technology. That is why in the past six months we have made intimate image abuse and cyber-flashing priority offences under the Online Safety Act 2023; criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes and mandated that those images are taken down within 48 hours; introduced an offence banning AI nudification apps; and stood up to Grok and X. We know that technology moves fast and, as a Government, we have to keep up. Where we need to go further, we will.
Kirith Entwistle
Although I am proud of the steps that our Government have taken to advance online safety, we are merely playing catch-up. What more are the Government doing to ensure that we keep pace with the reality facing women and girls and how will they address emerging technologies such as AI smart glasses, which are operating without scrutiny?
Liz Kendall
One of my reflections in this job is that it took eight years for the Online Safety Act 2023 to come in, and it is still to be fully implemented. We need to move faster. MPs discuss a Finance Bill every year, and technology moves incredibly fast, so I am always prepared to take further action when it is needed.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I am asking this question on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot be here today, but wants the House to know how important this issue is to her. The lobular moon shot project is a plan to fund critical research into lobular breast cancer. It is a disease often missed by screening and with no targeted treatment. A total of 463 Members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, support this plan. The Health Secretary says that there is no political disagreement on this, yet nothing has materially happened. His Department now says that it is for DSIT and UK Research and Innovation to comment on budget allocations and spending research priorities. I ask the Secretary of State this: is the moon shot project a research priority for her, as it is for 463 of her parliamentary colleagues?
Liz Kendall
Anything that deeply affects the lives of thousands of people is a priority for me. I am more than happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and others to reach a resolution here. My understanding is that we need to get right the quality of bids, but I would of course be happy to meet to discuss this further.
Peter Fortune
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. She should know that, on 22 April, vigils will be held across Westminster for the 22 women diagnosed with this insidious disease every day. I thank her for that commitment to work with the Health Secretary between now and then so that we can highlight this issue. Will she agree to come back to the House and update us on the comments and discussions that she has had with the Secretary of State for Health?
Liz Kendall
Yes, because I always believe in action, not just words.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
This Government are determined to protect the UK’s position as a world-leading creative powerhouse and unlock the extraordinary potential of AI to grow the economy and improve British lives. Today, we published a report and impact assessment, fulfilling the commitments made in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. We have listened to the views on our initial consultation and confirmed that the Government no longer have a preferred option. We have also set out where we will do more work with our creative and AI sectors, including on digital replicas, labelling AI-generated content, creator control and transparency and support for our brilliant small and independent creatives. Every country is grappling with this issue and we are determined to get this right, so that both these vital sectors can continue to flourish, thrive and lead the world.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
First, may I affirm the importance of the project that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about? The Government are backing the future of nuclear fusion across the country, and this site in particular has a huge contribution to make. Construction will be on its way by the end of the decade, with research and development tests before that. At the heart of it, we will be backing the use of AI to further our clean energy goals in fusion and beyond.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
Yes. We have already had more than 25,000 responses to our consultation, including 1,700 from children and young people. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member wants to send in the views of their constituents, including of young people, I will personally read them.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Our deepest condolences are with the families and friends of the two young people who have died following the outbreak of meningitis B in Kent. Others are seriously ill, and this will be a deeply difficult time for their loved ones. Health experts are working to identify close contacts and distribute antibiotics, and we will begin a targeted vaccination programme in the coming days. Can I take this opportunity to ask anyone who attended Club Chemistry on 5, 6 or 7 March to please come forward to receive antibiotics?
Yesterday President Zelensky addressed parliamentarians, including many Members. I had the opportunity to reaffirm to him that no matter what other international events, the UK’s support for Ukraine will not waver. I also welcomed Prime Minister Carney and NATO Secretary-General Rutte to Downing Street for further discussions on international security.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Wendy Morton
May I associate myself with the comments and condolences of the Prime Minister in relation to those affected by the meningitis outbreak?
New data today shows that nearly 60% of hospices are considering cutting frontline services. In the west midlands, St Giles hospice has already reduced beds and staff due to financial pressures. With services being cut, can the Prime Minister explain why hospices are being told to wait until autumn for the new framework, and will he commit today to proper long-term, sustainable funding to secure this vital lifeline for the future?
The Prime Minister
It is important that the funding and framework are put in place. We support the work of hospices and are doing everything we can to support them.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My first instinct is always to protect people from the cost of living. The immediate action we have taken in relation to those who heat their homes with oil is the £53 million that we announced this week. That is particularly important for rural communities and for Northern Ireland. De-escalation in the middle east is the quickest way to reduce the cost of living. Anyone who advocated for the UK to rush headlong into the offensive without a clear picture of what it would mean for our forces or without thinking through the economic impact for families should stand up and apologise.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
The Prime Minister tried to avoid scrutiny on the Mandelson files by releasing the documents immediately after Prime Minister’s questions last week, so let me ask him now: did he personally speak to Peter Mandelson about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as our ambassador to Washington?
The Prime Minister
Let me start where I must. It was my mistake in making the appointment. I have apologised to the victims of Epstein, and I do so again. The Government are complying with the Humble Address in full, and we are continuing to support the police in their investigation. The matter of process was looked at by the independent adviser on ministerial standards. It is clear that the appointment process was not strong enough, and that is why I have already strengthened it. It was my mistake, and I have apologised for it. The right hon. Lady should follow suit and apologise for her gross error of judgment in calling for the UK to join the war in Iran without thinking through the consequences.
Mrs Badenoch
I know the Prime Minister does not want to talk about the documents that he tried to bury last week. He is going to try to talk about anything else, but he is not going to get away with it. I asked him a question; he did not answer.
We know that the Prime Minister was warned about the risk of appointing Peter Mandelson. This is not about the process. He knew that Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s house after Epstein had been convicted for child prostitution—he knew that. So I will ask him again: did he speak to Peter Mandelson about that before the appointment? Yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I have already made clear that Peter Mandelson was asked questions and gave untruthful replies. The Government are complying with the Humble Address. The process has been set out. The independent adviser looked at it, and he said,
“the relevant process for a political appointee was followed”.
Obviously, this is a question of my judgment, but what about the Leader of the Opposition’s judgment? She wanted to rush into a war with Iran without thinking it through. At the weekend—three weeks in—she said, “Oh, there isn’t a clear plan behind the US strikes in Iran.” That is the question she should have asked at the start. The decision to commit the UK to a war is the biggest decision a Prime Minister can take, and she was completely wrong.
Mrs Badenoch
I did not hear an answer, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is right: it is about his judgment. He has repeatedly told us that Peter Mandelson lied to him, but he will not tell us if he actually picked up the phone and spoke to Mandelson before appointing him. That does not make any sense. The Prime Minister told us on the record that he “believed the lies” that Mandelson told him, but if he did not speak to him, how can he say that?
The Prime Minister
The process is clear, and it has been looked at by the independent adviser. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the process and judgment on appointments, but she appointed the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who said last night that Muslims praying in public—including the Mayor of London, practising his faith—are not welcome. He described it as an
“act of domination…straight from the Islamist playbook.”
It is utterly appalling. If he were in my team, he would be gone. The Leader of the Opposition should denounce his comments, and she should sack him.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about Justice Secretaries. His Justice Secretary is abolishing jury trials; my shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values. I know who I would rather have sitting on the Front Bench next to me, and it is not the Justice Secretary.
This is important: the Prime Minister wants to talk about anything except what I am asking him. Three times I have asked him whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson; three times, he has refused to answer. We can only assume that he did not speak to Peter Mandelson. From the documents published, we know that he left the questioning about Mandelson’s relationship with a convicted paedophile to two of Mandelson’s closest friends, one of whom was also friends with a convicted paedophile. Asking those questions should have been his job. Why did he fail to do his duty?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition’s position is that the shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values when he says Muslims praying together in Trafalgar Square are not welcome. Even Tommy Robinson—I can hardly believe that I am saying this—has said today that if the shadow Justice Secretary had made those hateful comments two years ago, the Conservative party would have kicked him out. Tommy Robinson is not some sort of moral signpost; he was pointing out how much her party has changed—it is more inclined to his views—and he is right about that. The fact that the shadow Justice Secretary is sitting on her Front Bench shows that she is too weak and has absolutely no judgment.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about my leadership. I am shocked. His former deputy has just fired the starting gun on the race to replace him. I will tell him one thing: she and I both agree that this weak man should be replaced by a strong woman. [Interruption.] But I am not finished, Mr Speaker—I have too much to say to him.
There is still a lot to ask about the Mandelson files. The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had kept up a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The documents released also show that he had been warned about appointing Mandelson. He claims he was lied to. Mandelson had twice been fired for dishonesty, so why did the Prime Minister believe Peter Mandelson over the vetting documents?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition asked about leadership. When I see religious events in Trafalgar Square—when I see Hindus celebrating Diwali, when I see Jews celebrating ChanukahLive!, when I see Christians performing the passion of Christ, or Muslims praying—that shows the great strength of our diverse city and country. I have never heard her party call out anything other than the Muslim events; it is only when Muslims are praying. The only conclusion is that the Tory party has a problem with Muslims. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that I am not responsible for the answers? I just have to say that.
Mrs Badenoch
It is a shame that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the answers either. He wants us to believe that he is a serious leader, but he does not do the work. He outsources the decisions and when things go wrong he blames the vetting, he blames the chief of staff, he blames the Cabinet Secretary—he blames anyone but himself. This Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson, but did not bother to ask the questions. If he cannot be straight with the House on something as simple as this, why should we believe a word he says about anything?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition talks about doing the work. Three weeks ago she said we should rush into war. She did not do the work; she did not think through the consequences. Committing our military to a war without thinking through the consequences is the gravest mistake for a Leader of the Opposition. She comes back a week later and says, “Oops! I got that one wrong.” She is utterly irrelevant and she has no judgment. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said that I should have empty-chaired the most important NATO summit in years, this is the Leader of the Opposition who said that Greenland is a second-order issue, and this is the Leader of the Opposition who would have jumped into a war with Iran without stopping to think.
On top of that, this week, we have the failure to condemn and sack—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I repeat that I am not responsible for the answers, but this is certainly not Opposition questions.
The Prime Minister
Add to that the failure to condemn and sack the shadow Justice Secretary for the poison and division that he spreads. It is turning out to be quite a month for the Leader of the Opposition who claims that she never makes any mistakes.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
We have seen this play out before: a US rush to military escalation with no plan for what comes next. We have seen schoolgirls bombed in Iran, whole families killed in Lebanon, chaos in a region already scarred by repression and genocide, and economic shocks that hurt the most vulnerable at home. In Irish, there is a phrase, “Ní mhealltar an sionnach faoi dhó”—have we learned no lessons? People are asking exactly that: how many times do these horrors play out before the lessons are learned? The Prime Minister has said that the UK
“will not be drawn into the wider war.”
Will he guarantee two things: that that position will hold in the face of mounting pressure from Trump and Netanyahu, and that this House will get a vote before the UK is involved in any further conflict?
The Prime Minister
Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, my principles have been clear and unwavering. We will protect our people in the region, we will take action to defend ourselves and our allies, and we will not be drawn into the wider war. I want to see this war end as quickly as possible. The longer it continues, the bigger the impact on the cost of living. That is where we have intervened to support households with the costs of heating oil. The best way forward is a negotiated settlement, with Iran giving up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in offering my condolences to the family and friends of the two young people who have been killed by the meningitis bug in Kent and all those affected by this horrifying outbreak.
Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is critical for the defence of our nation and the whole of Europe, but the current Trident missiles will reach the end of their lives in the 2040s. We have to make a choice now: lease new missiles from the United States, accepting whatever terms the President gives us, or build our own here in the United Kingdom. The Conservatives and Reform say that we have to rely on President Trump and the United States because we could not possibly do it ourselves. Does the Prime Minister agree with them?
The Prime Minister
Our independent nuclear deterrent protects us every day, and we should never forget how important it is. It is important that we renew it. We will do that in the best interests of Britain. The right hon. Member is openly advocating a plan without knowing how much it would cost and how it would work. That is not the way to deal with our independent nuclear deterrent.
Ed Davey
I am surprised by that response. The French can do it—does the Prime Minister really think Britain cannot?
Moving on, a New World investigation into GB News has found hundreds of shocking breaches of the rules of impartiality and accuracy, yet Ofcom has repeatedly refused to take action. Andrew Neil says:
“Just as Fox basically became the channel of Donald Trump, it’s clear they have turned GB News into the Reform channel”.
We cannot let GB News propaganda turn our great country into its version of Trump’s America. Either the Government rules are not fit for purpose or Ofcom is not properly enforcing them—which is it?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is right to raise an important question of free speech and our media. It is a matter for Ofcom, and it is important that we let it deal with it.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and the others who attended the UN Commission on the Status of Women event. We are committed to halving violence against women and girls wherever it takes place, whether that is online, offline or on our streets. That includes banning deepfakes and tackling non-consensual intimate images and abusive, vile content online.
Following up from last week, I was deeply concerned that Travelodge cancelled its meeting with MPs. I want it to put that right and put it right swiftly.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Member for raising that, and I acknowledge the question he asked me last year. I pay tribute to him and to Kate for her campaign. It is vital that we look closely at the rare and tragic cases where things went wrong. We must not fail to do so, so that we maintain confidence in our health service—important in relation to covid, of course, but, as he rightly points out, important today as well. We are committed to looking at reforms to the vaccine damage payment scheme and engaging with those affected to ensure that it meets their needs. We expect the fourth module of the covid inquiry to report next month, which will look specifically at the issue he has raised. I can reassure him that we will look at other recommendations very closely.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I welcome the Mayor of London’s crackdown. The Metropolitan police have made hundreds of arrests and recovered thousands of phones, and mobile phone theft has fallen. I agree with her that there is more to do, and we must work with the tech industry in order to do it. If we can reduce the value of stolen phones, it will help to break the business models that drive theft. We are committed to working with the industry, and are willing to consider any further necessary action to drive down that crime.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman says, the Chancellor set out yesterday the huge economic opportunities of innovation and AI. We have put £5 billion behind British start-ups, and we will launch our sovereign AI unit with £500 million to help AI businesses start and grow. We are investing the £2 billion that he refers to in our quantum capabilities so that we can be the first country in the world to roll-out quantum computers at scale. Procurement must be the launchpad for start-ups, and we are determined to deliver that.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
That is a good example. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Thanks to our record investment in the NHS, we have the lowest waiting list numbers for three years, the shortest A&E waits for four years, and the fastest ambulance response times for five years. Stronger community health services, such as the local innovation centre that he mentions, are at the heart of our 10-year plan to go further. We would not have come this far already without the decisions made at the Budget, which were opposed by all Opposition parties.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are not abolishing jury trials, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have worked with women and girls who have been victims of sexual violence and rape, and have waited a very, very long time for their cases to go to court. Many of them drop out because of the wait. They have described to me personally the mental anguish that they go through when their case cannot be heard for years, and when they are told of adjournments time and again. I am not prepared to look them in the eye any longer and not do something about it—we owe it to them.
This is about getting the balance right. We are not abolishing jury trials. About 3% of cases go to jury trial, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, while 97% do not. After these changes, it will be 2.25%. That is the difference between the policy that we are advancing and the policy as it now is. We are not abolishing jury trials, and I am not prepared to see victims of violence against women and girls repeatedly let down. That is what happened for 14 long years, and it is not good enough. I set my face against that and I am doing something about it.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am very proud of our Employment Rights Act 2025. It delivers strong rights and protections, including for all our brilliant school staff. My hon. Friend is right: Reform Members would rip up those protections. They have nothing to offer but grievance and division, and they have no judgment: just like the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said that we should do “all we can” to support the US strikes. He said:
“I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”
It was perfectly, perfectly clear that he got it completely wrong, and perfectly, perfectly clear that he is now desperately trying to U-turn. Absolutely no judgment: not fit to be Prime Minister.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
Oil and gas will be part of the mix of our energy for many years to come, as I have set out many times. The hon. Member is now highlighting the consequences of the war that he said we should rush into. He wanted us to go to war. He said it was “perfectly, perfectly clear” that we should support the strikes. Then, just like the Leader of the Opposition, a week later he said, “Oh no, I got that one wrong.” You cannot make mistakes about decisions as serious as committing to war. It is a gross error.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. We will always protect high welfare standards, and, through our food and drink deal, we are bringing down barriers for farmers selling to our largest market. Alongside our record £11.8 billion farming budget and investment in cutting-edge innovation, our farming profitability review is focused on boosting profitability. I have already acted and set up the farming and food partnership board, investing £30 million in our farmer collaboration fund.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I know how much it impacts his constituents and how deeply they feel about it. It is important, as we reset and clear up the mess that was left, that we have in our mind’s eye those who are most affected, and make sure that it is fair and that their voices are heard, and we will do so.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a great champion on this issue and I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the Rail Minister to discuss the detail. The previous Government took the decision not to shortlist Burnley Manchester Road station for accessibility improvements. We are giving Lancashire combined county authority £641 million, with the freedom to invest in its priorities, including better accessibility. That is what a Labour Government represent: empowering local people to make the best decisions for their local area.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We have set out the process and it has been put before the House—[Interruption.] I know why Opposition Members do not want to talk about the war: because they supported going into the war, without thinking through the consequences. That is a huge error of judgment. I realise that they do not want to talk about it ever again—I am not surprised. Nor do they want to talk about the shadow Justice Secretary saying that Muslims are not welcome to pray in Trafalgar Square. The Leader of the Opposition should remove him from the Front Bench, or I suspect he will be sitting up on the Reform Bench next.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, the chief executive officer of Travelodge has today again refused to attend a meeting with Members of this House and the other place to answer serious concerns about guest safety and safeguarding. This refusal only deepens the lack of trust in the company’s commitment to protecting women and vulnerable guests. Will the Prime Minister meet me and invite the CEO of Travelodge to discuss the issue? Will he join me in urging the CEO to explain directly to all parliamentarians why she is unwilling to face scrutiny on such an important matter?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and he has raised it with me personally. Our thoughts are obviously with the victim. I was very concerned to hear that the CEO of Travelodge cancelled the meeting with MPs and I would urge them to reconsider. That meeting needs to go ahead with relevant MPs and with the relevant Minister, and the sooner it goes ahead the better. I hope that the CEO of Travelodge is listening to this exchange. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue, not just on this occasion but on repeated occasions.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have clearly explained that you are not responsible for the quality, or lack of it, in a Minister’s answers—or even a Prime Minister’s answers—but can you explain for the benefit of the House and the viewing public what Prime Minister’s questions is supposed to be about: namely, that the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members get to ask the Prime Minister a question about a subject of their choice, and that it is not an opportunity for him to then berate them for not asking a question about a completely different subject that he wishes had been asked?
Mr Speaker
As a long-standing Member who came in with me in 1997, the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the rulings that you have made from the Chair, which I think are always perfect and completely right, we are now entering a new period in which a Prime Minister answers a question about a subject that was not asked and then focuses on asking a question of the Opposition Front Bench. Notwithstanding the ruling that you have just made in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), can you tell me what parliamentary mechanisms there are and who I can approach to see whether the Standing Orders need to be reformed to give you the power to determine what is an answer to a question and what is a completely pathetic response?
Mr Speaker
There is a real weakness in that, because there is an assumption that the person knows the answer. I will leave it at that.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are also not responsible for the questions asked. The Leader of the Opposition said that it was following British values to attack Muslims praying. I just wonder if that brings this House into disrepute in regard to British values.
Mr Speaker
This is an important point: we need tolerance, and it is about respecting one another. You have put your point on the record, but I am not going to enter into a debate. I will leave it at that for the moment.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and notwithstanding your ruling, Mr Speaker, “Erskine May” makes it clear that Ministers come to the House to answer questions, does it not? While the Standing Orders might need refining, do they not already make it clear that that is the purpose of the sessions that we have daily and, in the case of the Prime Minister, weekly?
Mr Speaker
Sir John, you are just continuing a debate that I think I have already given the answers to. We will leave it at that.
Menstrual and Gynaecological Health
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the teaching of menstrual and gynaecological health in certain educational settings; to provide for training, guidance and resources to support such teaching; to provide that training includes content about awareness of racial discrimination in menstrual and gynaecological health; to require the Secretary of State to take steps to increase public understanding of menstrual and gynaecological health, including measures to counter inaccurate or misleading information online relating to menstrual and gynaecological health; and for connected purposes.
In this Bill, I am addressing one aspect of women’s health: menstrual health. Menstrual health is surrounded by misinformation, fear and a failure to support millions of women and girls. For women who menstruate, their experience of asking for advice or even medical treatment is routinely dismal—ask any woman from their school days onwards. It is a nightmare of stigma, shame and a failure of the NHS to help. The recent Women and Equalities Committee report states:
“Stigma around menstruation, sex, fertility and childlessness is a barrier to discussion of reproductive ill health. It contributes to delays in diagnosis and treatment, and can lead women and girls to turn to online forums to self-diagnose or to avoid seeking treatment altogether.”
That self-diagnosis can be misguided and dangerous, fed by dubious online claims and fake cures. The internet is not a safe place for clear expert advice for girls and women wanting to know about their periods and menstrual health.
A poll commissioned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists found that more than half—53%—of women in the UK who had experienced symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction did not seek help from a healthcare professional. One in five—21%—felt too embarrassed to seek support. In 2018, a YouGov poll found that period shaming happens at home, in the workplace and at school in the UK.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists further noted:
“There is an immense societal pressure on women and girls to conceal their periods due to beliefs that menstruation is unhygienic or unclean, and talking openly about periods is often not considered as a social norm.”
We live in a modern-day society with an openness to addressing all manner of health issues, including mental health, yet talking about menstrual health remains stigmatised, shrouded in shame, embarrassment and the frankly medieval attitudes held by many.
In the call for evidence for the women’s health strategy, 29% of respondents said that they did not feel comfortable talking to healthcare professionals about gynaecological conditions. For teenage girls aged 16 and 17, that figure rose to 40%. Those shocking figures show that this stigma has real-world consequences for women’s health. Women and girls get the wrong advice, dangerous advice or no advice. Their shame means that their conditions and diseases are not diagnosed. Sadly, conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, fibroids, polycystic ovary syndrome, pelvic inflammatory disease, pelvic organ prolapse and ovarian cysts are far too often missed, leaving many women to endure years of unnecessary pain.
The time to receive a diagnosis of endometriosis has actually gone up, not down, with women waiting on average nine years and four months. For women of colour and women from other ethnic minority backgrounds, the average wait for diagnosis is 11 years. We might wonder, “Why are women of colour waiting longer?” Well, I am afraid to say that we suffer discrimination in the health system. Our pain is dismissed and our concerns are ignored. Well-documented bias is embedded in the NHS when it comes to black women’s health, leading to poorer outcomes and terrible experiences for so many women.
We must address the cultural assumptions in some communities that tell girls that periods are a punishment, dirty, something to be ashamed of or something to be kept as a secret. A dangerous cocktail of misogyny, misinformation and myth is leading to girls and women being misinformed, mistreated and misdiagnosed. My Bill aims to tackle that stigma and get society talking about periods and menstrual health. Let us smash the stigma, starting in schools, with teachers being well-equipped to support their pupils. No schoolgirl should suffer in silence.
Let us use the roll-out of more diagnostic hubs and the shift to more community-based preventive care to raise awareness about menstrual health. We need more public awareness campaigns, on the same scale as the NHS sepsis campaign, for not just the public, but medical professionals from the very start of their careers. Every doctor needs proper training in menstrual health to spot endometriosis, fibroids and other gynaecological conditions early; to give proper advice to their patients; to debunk online myths and misinformation; and to be aware of and tackle racial bias in the healthcare system.
We need every employer to be aware of menstrual health, to have proper systems of support in place in the workplace, to have period products available for free, and to recognise that if a woman needs time off because of their blinding pain, they are not making it up. I welcome the work of the TUC and the trade unions in this area.
We also need to have more difficult conversations. We need more men squirming in their seats as we discuss our periods, our bleeding and our pain, and we need to stop talking in euphemisms—all those silly little terms about periods that disguise the reality and stop an open conversation. We need not only more women’s voices to be heard, but women to be actively leading the design and delivery of the healthcare system. The NHS must no longer be male by default. I speak to so many women and girls who have been let down and whose mental and physical health have been damaged. This must stop.
The upcoming women’s health strategy must be more than a document; it must be a manifesto for revolutionary change—what is the point of it otherwise? There must be no more girls crying in changing rooms, no more workers hiding in toilets, and no more shame.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ms Abena Oppong-Asare, Marsha De Cordova, Olly Glover, Paulette Hamilton, Carolyn Harris, Christine Jardine, Tulip Siddiq, Valerie Vaz, Gill Furniss, Kirsteen Sullivan, Simon Hoare and Sir Alec Shelbrooke present the Bill.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 409).
Opposition Day
Fuel Duty
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 103 / Noes: 259 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that it is wrong to increase the main fuel duty rates on 1 September, then again on 1 December 2026, with a further increase on 1 March 2027, by a total of five pence per litre, as global oil prices are rising; notes that these increases will affect drivers, farmers, businesses and other hard-working people already struggling with higher taxes and higher cost of living as a result of the Government’s economic policies; and calls on the Government to maintain the five pence per litre cut to the main fuel duty rates introduced by the previous Government beyond September 2026.
Once again, this House has come together to hear of yet another egregious tax on transport, pushed out by this Labour Government at a time when people across the country are worried about the cost of getting around. On this occasion, in their infinite wisdom, the Government have decided that this is the opportune time to cancel the fuel duty freeze that the last Conservative Government kept for 13 years, which protected hard-working people from paying extra to get to work, attend appointments and visit friends and family. The Conservatives cut fuel duty by 5p per litre in 2022—the biggest ever cut in fuel duty—which really helped when the economy was facing headwinds from Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Under this Government, though, on top of the countless tax rises that they have already shafted us with, we cannot even get through two years before they decide that the British people need yet another tax rise. It is a tax rise that is being introduced in a sneaky and stealthy way. Labour is deploying its salami tactics—1p in September, the back to school tax; 2p in December, the Christmas shopper tax; and 2p in March, springtime for taxes. We should not forget that a 5p per litre increase in duty is actually a 6p per litre increase, because VAT is added on top of that tax.
In September last year in this Chamber, the Transport Secretary trumpeted that Labour had
“frozen fuel duty—that is what we have done”—[Official Report, 11 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1021.]
Yet we know that is simply not the case. It reminds me of my childhood, watching Chris Tarrant on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” saying, “But we don’t want to give you that.” The Transport Secretary has said that tax rises are now coming, not once or twice, but three times: in September, in December, and in March next year. With economic growth at a dismal 0%, the British people deserve better than underhand tactics swindling them out of the pounds in their pockets to pay for more welfare. It is a tax on every car, every van, every motorbike and every bus, and it is also a tax on hauliers, businesses and families—it is a tax on the country as a whole. Thanks to the Transport Secretary’s Government, those families will be forking out an extra £156 a year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State and the Opposition on securing this debate. It is important that we consider this matter, as we are fast approaching a crisis that cannot be circumnavigated. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the Government must consider reopening North sea production to produce enough for our needs, if they continue to refuse to play their part in securing fuel elsewhere? Does he not agree that fuel duty would benefit from self-reliance, rather than dependence on volatile nations, as we have at this very moment?
Mr Holden
I could not agree more with the hon. Member. We need to get back to drilling in the North sea. Norway is drilling on one side of the same basin and getting the benefit of those jobs and the tax revenue. It bemuses me why we are not doing that here. The shadow Energy Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has consistently said from these Benches that that is exactly what we should get on and do.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about North sea oil and gas extraction. The Labour party says that will not make any difference to the global price of oil and gas, but billions and billions of pounds in tax will be lost as a result of having no new licences in the North sea. Those billions could be used to replace the revenues generated by fuel duty. In fact, if the Government wished, they could convert those billions into cuts in price at the pump for every single family in the country, including those in rural Beverley and Holderness who are suffering today.
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The Government are forgoing tax revenue that is going into the coffers of other Treasuries right across Europe and across the world, but why? To what end? We will see whether Ministers will answer why they are willing to forgo hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds every year. [Interruption.] They could spend that on anything they wanted to, and they are not even going to do it.
Mr Speaker
Order. Parliamentary Private Secretaries are not there to chirp all the way through and give solutions to a problem. I have great confidence in the Minister’s ability to answer when he comes to speak.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s policy fails on its own terms, because they say they want to subscribe to net zero and make us much greener in how we approach our energy consumption, yet we know that importing liquefied natural gas from countries such as the US has a carbon cost that is a multiple of extracting the stuff in this country within our own territorial sea? If the Government are serious about net zero, they would therefore be pumping LNG from the North sea, not importing it from the US.
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and he makes it clearly. He is in agreement with the Climate Change Committee, which says that we will have to be using oil and gas well in to the second half of this century. Why on earth should we not drill our own at lower cost and bring in those jobs and taxation, while getting the environmental benefits of doing it on our own doorstep under British regulations? It would not be extracted in other countries with lower regulations and lower environmental standards. The best environmental standards in the world exist in our North sea.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Part of this debate is about sustainability and net zero. Colleagues have already made a number of interventions on that, and I understand the shadow Secretary of State’s position. Does he agree that while we are focusing on the hike in fuel duty, the Government are also increasing the charges on electric vehicle drivers? Both sets of drivers are being hammered by this Government, who have not thought through the consequences of their policy.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point at this juncture. It is clear that the Government are trying to undo the damage they have done with their new tax. They are having to put more money into the electric car grant than they will get out from these pay per mile schemes, which they had previously said they would not introduce. The Government are costing themselves more money by imposing a tax. Whether it is the North sea or taxation policy, what they are up to is incredible. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has said that, after this tax hike, the average driver will pay almost £40,000 in fuel taxes over their lifetime, and it will be a higher proportion of someone’s income if they are in a lower paid job and need a car to get about.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State is talking about how money may be spent from taxation. I highlight that local authority road maintenance budgets halved from £4 billion to £2 billion in the 13-year period from 2006 to 2019. If we look at inflation, Bank of England data shows that from 2006 to 2026, overall inflation ran at 74%, but fuel inflation was just 58%.
Mr Holden
Indeed. On the hon. Member’s second point, inflation would have been higher overall if fuel inflation had been higher overall. He makes an important point about potholes and road maintenance. It is interesting that he stood on a manifesto at the last general election that promised to fill an extra million potholes a year. We saw the figures just a few weeks ago showing that exactly the same number of potholes were filled last year as were filled in the last year of the previous Government. I look forward to seeing his Government starting to deliver on any of their pledges. Perhaps they could do so a bit more easily if they had that tax revenue coming in from the North sea, as those on the Opposition Benches would like to see.
This is Labour’s regressive tax raid. Do we expect those on the Government Benches to understand just how punitive this tax measure will be? Of course not. How could they understand, when it is rural communities that will be hit hardest, as it always is with transport? The truth is that the Department for Transport and the Treasury working together is more like watching an episode of “Hustle”. The con is on, and it is being perpetuated by this Labour Government.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in large rural constituencies such as mine, it is not just about constituents having to pay additional fuel duty at the pump, because they also pay it through everything they buy? Everything has to be transported into these rural areas, and there are services that they require. They therefore pay twice, which makes this tax rise doubly regressive.
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. It is not just those who have a car who will be paying for this policy—although they will be paying the most—and it is not just those who rely on a van for their business or work to get around who will be paying; everyone will be paying, whether they use the bus or are just going to the shops. The truth is that everything has to be transported by road in this country. This tax rise will have huge inflationary pressures right across the board, not just for fuel, whether for heating or for road transport, but, as he is right to say, for so many other areas—areas that have not even been considered by the Treasury.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
All my right hon. Friend’s arguments stand, and that was true before the war in Iran. The Prime Minister stood there on Monday saying that the freeze is still in place, but the world has literally changed around us. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that this Government are not being reactive and following the change? There will be a big impact and a knock-on effect, and the Prime Minister is touting this policy as though it is new, when it was in the Budget last year.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will be aware that when the fuel price goes up, the Government’s VAT revenues from fuel go up at the same time. They are already seeing hundreds of millions of pounds a year extra in VAT, purely from the fact that the underlying price has gone up. My hon. Friend makes another important point, which is that this is a moment for the Government to reconsider. We on the Opposition Benches opposed this measure at the Budget, because we thought hitting working families was the wrong thing to do, but it is doubly the wrong thing to do when prices are also going up internationally.
Carla Lockhart
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the £53 million is welcome, but that calculates to about £35 a household, which is nothing in the grand scheme of things? Does he agree that fuel duty should be cut, VAT should be removed and the North sea opened up? That should come alongside dealing with fertilisers and red diesel, which are heavily impacted too. We need support for people now.
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady raises an important point. As she suggests, the tax revenues from reopening the North sea for oil and gas could be spent in a number of ways, but we have to open the North sea—a cost-free and environmentally positive alternative—to obtain those revenues, and then we can consider all the different ways in which Members across the House would want to spend the money.
Since the Labour Government came to office, we have seen just how much they have hit transport across the country. The fuel duty rise of 5p a litre is just the latest example. First they abolished the much-loved £2 bus fare cap, which the Conservatives had pledged at the general election to continue for the entirety of this Parliament: they have put bus fares up by 50%. They have also jacked up airport business rates, by a staggering average of 295%. Who is benefiting from that? Certainly not passengers, certainly not the airlines, and certainly not British business. They have also raised air passenger duty, with passengers facing a 15% jump in one year alone, followed by permanent increases, year after year after year, of between 3% and 4%, just to get on to a plane.
In the last few weeks the Government have raised the price of railcards for the first time since—[Interruption.] Perhaps they would like to chunter about this one. Do you remember this one, guys? We hear nothing from them on this. They have raised those prices for the first time since 2013—the first time for more than 10 years. They have increased the price of senior railcards, veterans’ railcards, young people’s railcards. New taxes on people throughout the country are being raised by this Government. We are seeing a 16% rise for the first time since 2013, and they did not even know about it, because they do not care about young people, about old people, about those who are being affected by the tax rises that will be hitting people all over the country from September onwards.
Labour has also just introduced a new policy that will leave ferry passengers on the Isle of Wight facing bigger crossing charges: £30 more per crossing. That will hit family holidays in the UK, and it will hit people from the Isle of Wight who are just trying to go about their daily lives. Labour is stealthily—
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Is it worth emphasising that the Conservatives froze fuel duty for 14 years, which took £100 billion off the cost of driving? That is an example of taxes that we cut over those 14 years. In contrast, this Government have increased taxes by £66 billion in the past two years. Is it not outrageous?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend is right, and some of those tax rises are hitting many of the companies that will also be hit by these fuel duty rises. I have spoken to hauliers, in my constituency and across the country, who already face increasing business rates and increasing national insurance costs and are now being hit with a fuel duty rise as well.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a great speech, as we always expect from him. Does he remember that, for the 2024 Budget, the Chancellor stood there and said that increasing fuel duty would be the wrong choice for working people? She said then that that was because of uncertain global events, and that the cost of living remained high. Does my right hon. Friend remember anything changing between 2024 and now? I do not think that the position has got any better—does he?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend is entirely right. She is also a real champion for the North sea oil and gas sector, which is largely based in her constituency.
What are we seeing on top of those taxes on railcards, ferries and airlines—through increased airline business rates—and, obviously, the 50% hike in bus fares? What else is Labour up to? Well, the Government have been talking quite a lot about something called “simpler fares.” What they are actually doing is cutting out the cheaper fares preferred by passengers and replacing them with more expensive ones. That has been confirmed, in a letter to me, by none other than the Secretary of State for Transport, who I note is not present today. She says:
“Some passengers may pay more under this new structure but will gain”
—perhaps—
“more flexibility for their return journey”.
Well, my constituent Mr Nottage, of Ramsden Bellhouse near Billericay, has been quite perturbed about having to pay an extra 10%, and he is having to pay an extra fiver a year for his senior railcard as well. That hardly suggests that rail prices have been frozen under Labour. In fact, rail prices are going up for working people across the country.
Mr French
My right hon. Friend is making a passionate speech about the increase in rail fares for his constituents in Billericay, but he will be aware that drivers in Billericay, like those on the south side in Bexley, have also faced increases in the Dartford bridge charge, which this Labour Government hiked by 40% last September. Sadiq Khan has introduced the Blackwall tunnel charge for those trying to travel from east to south and in the other direction, and the ultra low emission zone has been expanded for those who need to travel into London—again, against the wishes of people in outer London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem is not just the Government’s increased taxes on drivers, but the increased taxes from the Mayor of London on everyone on the outskirts of London who needs to travel in and out?
Mr Holden
That is an extremely important point. This is not just about the Labour Government; it is also about Labour mayors and Labour councils and their war on motorists up and down the country, whether it is the Dart charge or the ULEZ charge. We have even seen Zipcar having to cease operations in the UK because of the Mayor of London’s extension of that congestion charge to electric vehicles every day. We are actually seeing a reduction in shared transport options under this Labour Government and this Labour Mayor, here in our capital city, and it is an absolute disgrace.
Mr Holden
I am sorry, but I need to make a little more progress, but I will happily come back to my hon. Friend later.
However we travel, Labour is after us. Is it a boat? Is it a train? Is it a plane? No, it is Labour’s taxman coming for us. And where will this money be spent—all the extra money from Labour’s taxes on the public? It will not be spent on hard-working families or to create jobs and boost opportunities; it will be frittered away on more welfare, because this Prime Minister and this Government Front Bench are too weak to stand up to their own Back Benchers and ensure that welfare is kept under control. They are picking the pockets of hard-working people to pay for those who choose not to work.
When it comes to paying at the pump, Rachel Reeves has been happy to try to lay the blame at the feet of the petrol stations, but what makes up most of the cost of a litre of petrol? Her fuel duty is by far the biggest chunk. In fact, taxes make up 55% of the cost of fuel, and it is going up under Labour. When the Energy Secretary was presented with these sickening statistics, he claimed:
“That’s why we’ve frozen fuel duty.”
Why on earth do the Government not do what we did by freezing it all the way through? They could do it today, but they are not going to do it because they are too afraid of their own Back Benchers when it comes to welfare. I am surprised that Members are aligning themselves with the spluttering spinelessness of Mr Miliband—I am sorry; I mean the right hon. Member for Doncaster North. We know that for her and Ed, when the facts change, when countries all around the world change, Labour just digs in.
Mr Speaker
Order. You have referred to “Rachel Reeves”, but she is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that “Ed” is quite the right title either, and I know that you would not want to get that wrong.
Mr Holden
Of course not, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) should always be given his proper title.
This is very similar to the Government’s pathetic intransigence when it comes to the zero emission vehicle mandate. They remain entirely aloof, soldiering on, whatever the cost is to British companies, British workers and British taxpayers. This is just like the electric car mandate, with its impact on industry. The unions—Labour’s own paymasters, for crying out loud—the Financial Times, and even the renewables sector: everyone knows that we must have a change in the electric vehicle mandate. Everyone on the Opposition side of the House also backs driving ahead with North sea oil and gas exploration, but what do the Labour Government do? They just bury their heads in the sand and turn to taxation instead in order to pay for their policies.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Stuart, can you make a better effort than just waving your hand? You are not at a taxi rank. Is the shadow Secretary of State giving way to Mr Stuart? There you are, Mr Stuart: he is giving way to you. If you get off the seat, it might help.
Graham Stuart
I do not know whether I am being picked on or specially singled out, but in any case, Mr Speaker, thank you for selecting me.
One aspect that my right hon. Friend has not mentioned today is the Clean Power 2030 action plan. Bringing it forward from 2035 means that we are overpaying for the renewables, and locking in those overpayments for 20 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, along with the immediate negative impacts on our economy and, most importantly, on our constituents, locking in long-term contracts for overpriced renewables will increase the cost of living even further?
Mr Holden
That is another important point, which has also been raised with me by companies such as electric vehicle charge point manufacturers here in the UK. Some of them are on the verge of collapse because of that high cost of electricity. Although the Government say that they are pursuing a green agenda, what they are actually doing is making electricity so expensive that no one can operate a business in this country without paying such high energy prices that it becomes uneconomical to do so.
Dave Doogan
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned his perception of the intransigence of this Labour Government, to which I would add their brittle hubris in their pursuit of not achieving any form of economic growth. Does he agree that the Chancellor would not have to keep dipping into the pockets of hard-working people in the midst of a cost of living crisis if she had a clue about how to achieve economic growth?
Mr Holden
It is not often that I agree with an SNP spokesperson, but I very much do so today. The hon. Member makes an incredibly important point. The Labour party came to office talking about how growth was its No. 1 priority. Has anybody heard Ministers, or heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), say that on the telly recently? I certainly have not. Their talking point has, sadly, been put to one side, and we can all see why. On their watch, growth has totally collapsed, inflation has gone up and unemployment has gone up. Growth has collapsed on his watch. For all of his high-falutin’ ideas, he is a member of a Government who have collapsed growth in this country, and he cannot even accept it.
Mr Holden
No, I have already given way to the hon. Member.
We in the Opposition are all praying for a U-turn on the fuel duty policy, which would be very welcome. We would rather that they had never come up with the policy in the first place because, just as with the previous 16 U-turns, we argued against each policy before the Government did it, and they then had to U-turn on them. Just as on the family farms tax, on which they have partially U-turned, the grooming gangs, on which they have U-turned, and winter fuel, on which they have had to U-turn, after sticking the boot in, we really hope they will think again about this, but I am not holding much store by that.
What is really worrying me and families and up and down the country, as well as Opposition Members as they go back to their constituents, is that people are facing cost of living pressures right across the board. Those running businesses are really having to make decisions about whether they hire another person or in many cases, sadly, let people go because of the taxes already imposed by this Government. This is just another tax—another tax on businesses, pensioners and families up and down the country.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Gosport is not a rural area, but it is reportedly the largest town in the UK without a railway, so people rely on their cars to get around. We all know that the Chancellor cannot control events in the middle east, but being in government is about making choices. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the choice is whether we are going to keep punishing traders who have already had so much punishment from this Government, and keep punishing people who do not have a choice about using their cars?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes the really important point that this is about choices. She is also right that many people do not have such a choice about their cars, and nobody has a choice about going to a shop to buy food, which will be delivered by some form of road transport at some point. So everybody will be paying for Labour’s road tax or fuel duty increases, and that is what we are opposing today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) makes a broader point on the choices that this Government are making about on whose backs they are balancing the books. They are choosing to balance the books on the backs of working Britain. Businesses up and down the country are facing tax after tax and new bill after new bill, in the Government’s relentless pursuit to do our country down and throttle anything that seems to give a half chance of delivering growth, all to pay for a ballooning welfare bill. They would put Dumbo to shame, because they do not have the guts to reduce welfare—heaven forbid—and they do not even have the guts to try to slow the pace of the increase in welfare.
We voted against tax hikes in the Budget because they are the wrong thing to do for growth in our country and for families in our country. We are voting against a tax hike today because of the circumstances now. Especially with an international environment of soaring prices, to saddle motorists with an extra hike in the cost of getting around is the wrong thing to do. That is why the Leader of the Opposition tabled our motion, and why we are urging right hon. and hon. Members across this House to say no to Labour’s hikes on fuel duty.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“recognises that, at the Autumn Budget 2025, the Government extended the five pence per litre fuel duty cut for five months and cancelled the inflation linked increase for 2026-27; welcomes that Fuel Finder helps consumers compare prices and encourages competition and that the Government has ensured that all UK petrol filling stations must report prices within 30 minutes of a change; notes that HM Treasury will continue to work with the Competition and Markets Authority on behalf of consumers; and further notes that the Government keeps fuel duty under review and that a rapid de-escalation in the Middle East is the best way to keep prices low at the pump.”
I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), for opening this debate. The Government recognise that fuel costs matter enormously to people right across the country. Fluctuations in pump prices cause fluctuations in working people’s bank balances. The effects are real and, as we have heard, widespread; about 80% of us drive each week. That is why the Government have already taken action to ensure that fuel remains affordable. In November’s Budget, we extended the temporary 5p per litre cut to fuel duty for a further five months. Additionally, we cancelled the inflation-linked increase planned for 2026-27. Our fuel duty changes will save the average motorist over £90. In 2026-27 alone, a van driver will save an average of £100, rising to more than £800 for heavy goods vehicle drivers.
Torsten Bell
I will make a bit of progress, and then I am sure I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who is always very enthusiastic. He did actually stand up on this occasion. That is what a learning curve looks like—it is a shame Conservative Front Benchers have not found one in 14 long years.
Torsten Bell
That was not the best; there is much more to come. I am enjoying the enthusiasm.
Sector-specific support continues for the likes of agriculture and horticulture, which retain access to red diesel, after it was withdrawn from most sectors in 2022. Our extension of the temporary 5p fuel duty cut includes a proportionate reduction for rebated fuels, including red diesel.
As the shadow Secretary of State noted, the context is that we are entering the third week of the ongoing conflict in Iran, the effects of which have spread directly across the middle east and indirectly around the world. In responding to that conflict and those effects, the Government’s priority will always be the national interest. The immediate focus is on protecting British nationals in the region, and taking necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies. That is supported by the Chancellor’s decision not just to deliver the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war, but to approve access for the Ministry of Defence to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities to the middle east.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. With the strait of Hormuz in effect closed, does that not prove the point we have been making for years, which is how important it is for our energy security to have new licences in the North sea? The Minister is known as “Torsten Tax”, so I will ask him about tax. Does he accept that not having new licences in the North sea will lose this country billions in tax revenue—yes or no?
Torsten Bell
Our position is to deliver a stable transition. That was the position of the Conservative party. It is the party that introduced the energy profits levy. [Interruption.] I will answer the question. Gas and energy from the North sea will be part of the energy transition in the UK for some decades to come, as several Members have mentioned. That is why the Chancellor met the industry in recent days, and why we are setting out proposals to allow tiebacks that will help us get gas out of the ground in the near future. Longer-term changes will take significantly longer, but none of what I have heard from Conservative Members is an excuse for rejecting the tens of billions of pounds of renewable energy investment that is important for delivering domestic energy security for this country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I like the Minister very much, not least because he represents the Welsh seat of my birth and upbringing, and because I have such respect for him, I am going to try to make the point to him that I have so far made with zero success to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, among others. It is all well and good to talk about the greatest increase in spending on defence since the end of the cold war if we are comparing the post cold war period with what is—shall we say?—a quiet defence period, but we are not. What we need to spend now is not to be compared with what it was like after the end of the cold war, but what it was like during the cold war, and during the cold war we regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. If he recognises that there is some merit in that argument, could he try to persuade his colleagues to stop making that false comparison?
Torsten Bell
I thank the right hon. Member for his kind remarks, even if they were driven by geography rather than personality. I will take what I can get in today’s debate! Since we are being kind to each other, I recognise the point he makes about the significant uncertainty we face in this world today. That uncertainty always existed to a significant extent, if we are honest, and I think most Conservative Members realise that defence cuts year after year in the last decade were a mistake—
Torsten Bell
The right hon. Member is nodding. So I would offer that by way of comparison.
Torsten Bell
I will make a bit of progress, and then take some interventions.
As I was saying, we are providing additional capabilities to the middle east, but I want to be clear that the UK will not be drawn into a wider war. We on the Labour Benches have been clear about our approach. We are in the business of protecting British nationals, not of trying to deliver regime change from the air. We need to de-escalate the conflict and we are playing our part in doing so, but the full economic impact of the conflict will of course depend on its severity and duration. Recent events have led to significant increases in oil and gas prices. As of this morning, oil prices remain over $100 per barrel and gas prices at 129p per therm.
Harriet Cross
Yesterday, the Chancellor said it was great that Norway and Canada were increasing their production of oil and gas, and congratulated them doing so. And who could disagree with that—other than, seemingly, herself and the Cabinet? Does the Minister agree that, along the same lines, we should be increasing our production from the North sea and lifting the ban on North sea licences?
Torsten Bell
As I have said, oil and gas will be with us for some time. [Interruption.] Let me finish. That is why the Chancellor met the sector. [Interruption.] I hear all the chuntering from Opposition Members, but I did not hear as much chuntering when we saw a 70% fall in jobs in the North sea on their watch. [Interruption.] That is the truth of what you delivered. Now, on top of that, you are trying to double down. The Conservative party is doubling down on opposing investment in renewable energy, threatening those jobs. The Labour party believes in domestic energy security delivered by a range of sources, including the nuclear that the Conservatives failed to invest in.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister has been saying “you”, but I am not responsible for these things; I would not want that responsibility.
Simon Hoare
We see you as responsible for everything, Mr Speaker!
The Minister was clearly right to point out the inflationary cost pressures as a result of the Iranian situation. He might be reminded that the announcement the Chancellor made on the increase in fuel duty predates that situation. Were it not to have been made, and given the impact that we are seeing on, among other things, fuel costs from Iran, would he and the Chancellor be thinking that now is a good time to make an announcement about increasing fuel duty? The world has changed and surely this policy should change as well to reflect the immediacy of the situation.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his question and his invitation to discuss some hypotheticals. I would just point out that it is only next week that the policy of extending the 5p freeze comes into effect. Fuel duty will be frozen until the end of August this year. That is the position as it is. I will turn later to how we think about the future, because that is a fair question, but the policy I am talking about comes into effect next week exactly.
Simon Hoare
There are a huge number of families up and down the country who manage their household budgets incredibly tightly. They will be thinking about whether they can afford a holiday this year and so on. I appreciate that August seems a long way away, but many of those people will be sorting out their budgetary plans now. I am not certain that those “just about managing” families, as we used to call them, can wait until August for any clarity or certainty. Do not play cat and mouse with the British people; take the sensible decision now, and press pause to reflect the dramatic change in circumstances we are seeing.
Torsten Bell
I completely agree with the hon. Member that families up and down the country are worried about what they are seeing on their TV screens about the conflict in the middle east—maybe because they know people directly, but also much more universally about the effect on all of us and on their budgets—and they expect a Government who take a sensible approach, meaning that we protect household finances, which I will come to, as well as the public finances. That means taking decisions based on recognising the unavoidable uncertainty about how the future of the conflict plays out.
Torsten Bell
I am going to make a bit of progress, but I will give way soon, because Members have been very patient.
I was coming on to the fact that we are not in the business of delivering regime change from the air, but we do need to de-escalate the conflict and we will play our part in doing that.
Oil and gas prices remain below the peaks they reached in 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I do not want to hide the fact that, as we have just discussed, these are significant increases. Oil is up by 40% and gas prices have risen by around 64% since the end of February. The movement in energy markets we have already seen are likely to put upward pressure on inflation in the coming months—exactly as we have just discussed—but the ultimate size of the effects is highly uncertain. What is certain is that in the face of them, this Government will take the necessary decisions to help protect both household finances and, as I was just saying, public finances. I want to make it clear that, given the very real uncertainty, the policy and approach we are taking does give an assurance to households about how we will act.
Dr Luke Evans
That is good to hear. As it is under review, it sounds as if, should there be a change, the Government would look to support the British public, and I support that. Is there some kind of framework that the Government are using to make this decision? Is there a trigger point on fuel prices, or on how long petrol prices remain at that level? This relates to the previous question about budgeting. Are the Government using triggers, or is it just finger in the air and wait and see what happens?
Torsten Bell
I understand why the hon. Member is asking that. I would gently point out that the level of petrol prices today is lower than at the time of the election, when the Conservatives had a temporary 5p freeze and explicitly did not include continuing that freeze in their manifesto. I offer that by way of indication of where we are today.
We will keep working towards a swift resolution, one that brings stability back to the region, security to Iran’s neighbours and relief to households in the UK, who are understandably worried about the effect of the conflict.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister rightly talks about household budgets, but the other impact, particularly of the gas price, is industrial energy costs in this country, not least for the ceramics sector, which is gas-dependent rather than electric-dependent. When the Chancellor was asked about gas prices in her statement last week, she pivoted straight to the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is an electrical subsidy. What is coming down the line to help the gas-intensive sectors, which currently get no relief and which are seeing, as the Minister points out, a huge increase in the price per therm, particularly for those sectors looking to renegotiate their long-term contracts?
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I regularly discuss exactly the kind of industries he raises today, because he is such a powerful champion on their behalf. Most firms, obviously, will be significantly more hedged than households against changes in prices, but he is absolutely right to say that the effect of energy price rises is very uneven across our industrial base. He is right to highlight energy-intensive industries and what the Government are doing when it comes to the increase in the discount delivered by the supercharger in the coming months and then the BICS in the years ahead. He is also right to make sure that we keep concentrating on this issue in the months ahead, and I am sure I will be talking to him and others about it.
We want the war to end as swiftly and quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes and the greater the impact on the cost of living back here at home. A rapid de-escalation remains the best way to protect people from further fuel price increases—despite the bluster today, I think that is the goal of everybody sitting in this House—and that requires a return to the diplomatic process. It also means the security of vessels passing through the strait of Hormuz. On that front, the UK will play its part as the global hub of maritime insurance, but I want to be clear, given some of the things that have been said in recent weeks, that this is a complement—not an alternative—to the physical security of vessels.
As the Chancellor said following her call with G7 Finance Ministers last week, we are supporting a co-ordinated release of oil reserves. That has helped to some degree to stabilise international oil markets. We have also asked the Competition and Markets Authority to remain vigilant on price developments for essentials such as road oil and heating oil. On Friday, the Chancellor and the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary met petrol retailers to make it clear that the Government will not tolerate anyone exploiting the current situation to make excess profits.
Dave Doogan
What evidence did the Chancellor have to suggest there was profiteering in petrol retailing? The Petrol Retailers Association rightly took umbrage at the implication of the Chancellor; I think that did not go quite the way that she thought it would.
Torsten Bell
This Government are showing that we care about the living standards of households up and down the country, and that is exactly what we should be doing. Encouraging all retailers to engage in the fuel finder scheme, which I will come to in a second, is very important. On heating oil, we had heard worrying evidence from people—I suspect the hon. Gentleman has, too, from his constituents—about the behaviour of some suppliers.
To further support competition in the market, we are introducing the fuel finder to ensure that petrol stations publish their live prices. That will make it easier for drivers to choose the lowest price. Since the beginning of February, all UK petrol stations have been asked to report price changes for petrol and diesel within 30 minutes.
Almost 90% of retailers have already registered. Last week, officials were instructed to accelerate the integration of fuel finder into major digital map applications, which will make it easier for drivers to use.
This tool sits alongside action to support households who rely on heating oil, as I just touched on. As the Prime Minister announced earlier this week, the Government will provide an additional £53 million of targeted support for the vulnerable households who would struggle to make an up-front lump sum to top up their tanks.
Dr Luke Evans
It sounds as though this support will be provided through the crisis and resilience fund, which replaces the household support fund. The problem is that many more people will not fall within that, despite seeing the price of heating oil double, if not triple—plus doubling the amount they have to order. What support is there for them? If those figures are going from £500 to £1,500 overnight, that will be a huge impact, and they will not get the £35 from the Government.
Torsten Bell
The hon. Gentleman is right, at least within England: yes, the funding will be delivered via local authorities, through the mechanism that was the household support fund, which becomes the crisis and resilience fund in a few weeks. We have written to local authorities to make it clear that they do not need to wait for the new fund to be in place and can start making commitments today. The decision on exactly who qualifies as vulnerable sits with local authorities, because one thing we have learned is that different parts of the country have different challenges on this issue.
Torsten Bell
I will make a bit of progress; I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
To reflect the highly uneven geographical spread of heating oil reliance, as highlighted by lots of Members in recent weeks, not least those from Northern Ireland and west Wales, the funding will be allocated on the basis of census data, instead of via usual mechanisms.
I have focused so far on laying out the challenge facing the country and our consistent approach to this conflict, but as this is an Opposition day, it would be rude not to talk a little about the Opposition, who have displayed rank opportunism and incoherence. This week, the Leader of the Opposition has said that she is
“concerned that there isn’t a clear plan behind the strikes”,
which is the opposite of what she has been saying for weeks. She welcomed the strikes and the military action that she now says lacked a clear plan. She called for Britain to get involved in the military action that she now admits lacked clear objectives. She says that her leadership is about consistency, but, on this most important of issues, the whole country can see that she is just making it up as she goes along—a cavalier attitude without a second thought for the consequences for households here in the UK. She does not get to wrap herself up in another country’s flag and play politics with a serious conflict and then pretend she never did so once the consequences for those living in the United Kingdom became clear.
Opportunism is the word for the Opposition on fuel duty, too. For all the froth from the shadow Minister, the truth is that the previous Government did not budget for any extension of the 5p cut—they explicitly said that it was temporary. Here is the truth on the level of fuel duty: through their entire 14 years in office—
Torsten Bell
Wait for it; I am going to come to come to those 14 years. The hon. Gentleman is going to regret saying that. Through the Conservatives’ entire 14 years in office, fuel duty was never lower than it is today. In fact, it was higher than it is today for 80% of the time they were in office.
Several hon. Members rose—
Torsten Bell
I absolutely understand why the shadow Minister is looking so worked up; fuel prices matter for everyone, especially those travelling long distances. After all, it is around 270 miles from North West Durham to Billericay—once he found his new constituency, that is. I know it is called a chicken run, but I am assuming he drove.
The Opposition may not be serious, but these are serious times. The cost of living matters. In a few weeks’ time, fuel duty will be 11p lower compared with the plans we inherited from the previous Government. Our action on fuel duty will save the average motorist over £90, on top of the savings from the Government’s fuel finder scheme. We will, of course, continue to keep fuel duty under close review, but it is frozen now and will remain frozen in the months ahead.
Torsten Bell
We will continue to be responsive to a changing world, be responsible in the national interest and with the public finances, and take the necessary decisions to help families with the cost of living. That is this Government’s promise.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Well, it was clear that the Minister was not giving way. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for bringing forward this debate. It is a really important one because the impact of fuel costs—both for motorists and for those having to heat their homes—is devastating.
Over the past three weeks, people’s entire ability to budget to be able to afford to live, to buy food and to pay the rent or the mortgage has changed. It has been turned on its head. In every city, town and village in our country, everybody is affected one way or another. I do not mean to diminish the impact of fuel price increases in our cities, which has been huge; nevertheless, for people living in a city, the chances are that they work in the same city, and the chances are also that they can, if need be, leave their car at home, if they have one, and take advantage of public transport. I am very supportive of a cap on bus fares—I wish we still had a £2 cap, but the £3 cap is still a lot better than what we had in the past—but they are a fat lot of good if there is no bus to get on at all.
In rural communities like mine, people on the most modest of incomes have to own a car in order to access our economy or any kind of life at all. Somone living in Kendal might work in Grange-over-Sands, or vice versa; someone living in Ambleside might work in Barrow, or vice versa; someone living in Kirkby Stephen might have to travel 60 miles every day to go and work in the hospitality and tourism industry in Windermere or Bowness. The impact of the fuel price rises over the past three weeks is utterly devastating for these people. Diesel in Cumbria is 160p a litre—up to 170p in some cases—and petrol is near to 140p a litre. Indeed, red diesel is passing the £1 mark for the first time.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a north-west MP representing a rural constituency. Even those of our constituents who work in big suburban areas like Manchester and elsewhere still need to get to a train station, so even those who spend significant time in larger urban areas still rely on their car to be able to get to what resembles public transport to commute to and from work.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That will be the case across my communities, too; many people will drive to Penrith, Oxenholme, Grange-over-Sands or Windermere to park and then catch the train to their place of work or study. These are significant costs. Of course, it is worth bearing in mind that these fuel costs will also have a significant impact on public transport providers down the line, and will make it hard for them to continue their current services. The hon. Gentleman’s point was well made and well delivered.
We are talking about motor fuel costs rising, but there is also the impact, as has been mentioned already by hon. Members, on heating oil. The costs for people heating and running their homes have been immense and are causing real hardship already. In Cumbria, 46,000 homes are off-grid. About 35% of the homes in my constituency are off-grid, with people relying on heating oil; in Kirkby Stephen, Tebay and Brough, 74% of properties are off-grid, while in Hawksford, it is almost 80%.
I asked my constituents—many of them did not need asking, I have to say—to give me their impressions and experiences of the past few weeks. It is clear that heating oil has literally doubled in price overnight, although I have heard reports of it trebling, too. Many of my constituents cannot afford to get any more heating oil until or unless the prices drop.
It is important to remember that in a community like mine, 25% of our housing stock was built before the turn of the 20th century. This is true of many colleagues’ constituencies as well. Many properties are solid wall properties, which are very difficult or expensive to insulate—a problem that this and previous Governments have failed to deal with adequately. People are therefore spending a fortune heating their difficult-to-insulate homes, and are now in a situation where they are having to spend up to three times more just to keep their homes vaguely warm.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
In my constituency there is a mother whose daughter lives with a disability and is reliant on a particular type of prescription food that has to be kept at ambient temperature. If the temperature of their house drops, the food perishes, and she cannot eat. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the concern facing residents now—my constituent was prepared to pay whatever it took, but she could not secure a delivery at all—but the fear of the next crisis in the spike in oil prices? That is why we need to call for a cap on heating oil for our rural constituencies.
Tim Farron
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is a reminder that people’s experiences of increased prices are myriad in type. What those people have in common is a shared and sudden hardship that forces them to make incredibly difficult decisions—or, indeed, choices if they have choices to make.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The hon. Member makes an important point about the impact on rural areas. Does he also agree that we should bear in mind the consequences of this price spike on businesses? Many of the businesses in my patch are also off grid. Having gone through the winter period and perhaps hoping for some good fortune in the spring, they are now facing this big barrier. Indeed, some have already told me that they are cutting back on operations and contemplating closure because of this new pressure.
Tim Farron
Any effort that the Government make in supporting people and businesses through this process will have a medium to long-term positive impact on the Treasury: if we can keep businesses in business, making a profit and keeping people in work, those companies and employees will be paying tax and refunding much of that investment—so investment it truly is. Our amendment sets out some practical alternatives. It acknowledges the devastating impact of the Government’s decision to increase fuel duty from September, and it calls for that to be cancelled. It focuses also on the experiences of rural and other off-grid communities that have been left exposed by years of under-investment. It specifically calls on the Government to cancel the fuel duty rise, immediately to zero-rate VAT on heating oil, to develop a price cap mechanism for heating oil and other uses of energy, to expand rural fuel duty beyond the relatively small number of places in which it currently operates, and to invest in an emergency upgrade programme, so that we are not so exposed to these things in the future.
I recognise—and welcome to a degree—the Government’s announcement this week on some support for homes and businesses that are reliant on heating oil. I have done my sums and it works out at £35 per household. That is an inadequate sticking plaster. It will not have much of an impact on household finances. What we need is an energy price cap for people who live in rural communities, otherwise they will continue to believe that this Government, and perhaps others before them, do not really care very much about them. They will focus on the energy bills of other people, but not on those of people in rural communities. Therefore, this announcement does not go remotely far enough, although we are happy that the Government have at least begun to talk about the matter.
The impact of the massive price rises in energy costs—motor fuel, car fuel, heating oil and other forms of fuel—is absolutely local. It is house by house, family by family, community by community, business by business. It is bound to be observed that this has been triggered by the actions of one D. Trump in the White House. The war has entered the lives of people in Iran, and the lives of innocent people across the middle east and a range of different countries. It has also had a massive impact on the global economy. As has been said, it all comes down to who controls the strait of Hormuz, which Iran effectively does at the moment. As long as that is true, whatever the President of the United States says, Iran is effectively winning.
In the meantime, fuel prices are rocketing. Quite simply, as the International Energy Agency has noted:
“The war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”
That is quite something. It does not make me an enormous expert in international affairs to conclude that this was all utterly and totally predictable when Donald Trump began this war. As others have mentioned, this is about not just oil, but gas, fertilisers and petrochemicals—crucial inputs, Higher prices and increased scarcity will have a massive impact on our economy more broadly, and on the cost and availability of food production, with the result that, sadly, we can look forward to increased food prices in coming months.
My community is the most visited place—outside London—in the United Kingdom. We are home to a huge tourism economy. Some 60,000 people in Cumbria earn their living in hospitality and tourism, which is already struggling because of the Government’s national insurance rise more than a year ago. We are an economy that very much relies on small businesses. One in four people in the workforce in my constituency works for themself. Smaller businesses, which are much less likely to be able to withstand these shocks, are the backbone of our economy.
I have talked about food prices, and I am bound to mention the impact on our farmers. Let us not forget that by December this year direct payments will be over. So many people in my area, particularly those farming in the uplands of Cumbria, are on incomes that are less than the minimum wage. They seek to look after our environment, our landscape, the backdrop to our tourism economy, and, even more importantly, to feed us. The cost of their production will rise as a consequence of all these events and there will potentially be an impact on our food prices.
I mentioned the rural fuel subsidy earlier, which came about as a consequence of the Liberal Democrats’ time in government, when we were in coalition with our Conservative colleagues. Outrageously, though, it applies to only 21 places in the UK, not one of them in Wales and only one of them in Cumbria—a lovely place called Grizebeck. That means that the Government have a mechanism by which they could help rural communities, and we ask them, at the very least, to double the access and scope of the rural fuel duty subsidy right across the country—including, first and foremost, I am bound to say, in the lakes and dales of Cumbria. Everyone will be hurt by the impact on inflation—reduced demand, inequality and unfairness for those earning the least will potentially be huge.
The Government’s fuel duty rise exacerbates a problem, which has, as I have said, been created in the White House. The United States needs to fix the problem that it created. It cannot be up to others to save it from its failures to think things through. Colin Powell, a person who is perhaps wiser—I think that is fair to say—than the current occupant of the White House, once said to George W Bush that,
“if you break it, you own it”.
That was said of the war in Iraq. Surely the same can be said now to the President of the United States. I gently point out that it applies also to those in the Conservative and Reform Front-Bench teams who egged the President on in the first place.
NATO allies should not be joining Donald Trump in a war that he started without ever consulting his allies or explaining his war aims. He wants us to fall in line meekly, but we must not do so. Donald Trump still cannot articulate his endgame or what victory would look like. He went to war thinking that the Iranian regime would fall quickly—of course, it has not—and that Tehran would not attack the Gulf states or close the strait of Hormuz, which of course was always likely. Why would we align not just with such a moral outrage, but with such epic stupidity? Although I am grateful to the Conservatives for submitting a timely and important motion, we must remember that they are part of the reason that we are in this mess. [Interruption.] I will wrap up, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Meanwhile, against the backdrop of that international situation of extreme danger, my constituent in Kirkby Stephen fills up with diesel that costs 25% more than it did three weeks ago. Her home is cold, because she cannot buy any more heating oil, as it has gone up threefold in the past three weeks. She travels to Windermere to earn the minimum wage, and at the end of the day it is barely worth the bother. Do not tell her that politics does not change things; it really does. Our amendment aims to change things for her for the better.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is great to be able to speak today in this important debate. I am glad that this is one of the topics that the official Opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition, have brought to the House, because fuel duty impacts everybody. It impacts every family, every household, every business, hauliers—everywhere we go, everything that we see is impacted by fuel duty, and that is no more obvious than in rural areas.
People in our rural communities rely on cars more than anywhere else. We cannot rely on buses, because they are not reliable. We cannot rely on trains, because half of the time they are not there. We cannot rely on tubes, because we do not have any near us. Cars are the lifeblood of rural communities. We would be stuck without them, and therefore they are vital. The majority of the public know that too. There are 36 million petrol and diesel vehicles in the UK, and every single one of them will be taxed when fuel duty goes up. Fuel duty is a tax on every single vehicle, and all those vehicles are driven by somebody, so this is a tax on everybody.
Rural communities will feel this change so much more because they are so much larger. The best way to demonstrate that is to compare the size of constituencies. My constituency in Aberdeenshire in north-east Scotland is large; it is nowhere near the largest Scottish constituency, but it covers 2,076 sq km. That is larger than the combined total of the constituencies of Treasury and Transport Ministers multiplied by three. Indeed, if the large constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), is removed from that equation, the total combined constituency area of the Treasury and Transport ministerial teams is 380 sq km. I assume, therefore, that it is no coincidence that they do not appreciate how important cars are for getting around large constituencies and how much increasing fuel duty will impact rural constituents.
While distance is important, price is also vital. The “Fuel Finder” tool that has been created is helpful, not least because it tells me that in my constituency fuel is on average 147p per litre, compared with 139p per litre in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. We are already paying more in rural constituencies, and we already have to drive our cars further, so we are filling up our cars more often and at a higher price. Fuel duty rises impact us more than those living in urban areas.
This is a point I keep coming back to, but rural communities do not have a choice—we have to drive. We have to drive to get to work, to get children to school, to go to doctors appointments. To use an example, my constituency has seen many bank closures, meaning that constituents in Ellon have to drive to Inverurie in order to bank. That is a 28-mile round trip—just to bank. That distance is further than the breadth of many Members’ constituencies, east to west or north to south.
It is not just fuel duty that the Government are targeting. At the Budget they announced their new 3p per mile charge for electric vehicles. Constituents of mine who live in Huntly and commute to Aberdeen to work, often in the oil and gas sector, travel 17,800 miles a year—based on their working five days a week, 46 weeks a year—just to get to work. The pay-per-mile system that the Government have brought in will mean that those constituents pay £535 a year just to get to work in their electric car. Perhaps Treasury Ministers cannot imagine having to do a 77-mile round trip to get to work, but that is what my constituents do and they are being penalised for it.
When the Treasury Front Bencher winds up, I would be grateful for confirmation that pay-per-mile for electric vehicles will not be a gateway to pay-per-mile for petrol and diesel vehicles. That would cripple rural communities, rural families, and rural businesses. It is a slippery slope that the Government have started on with EVs, and if the system progresses to cover petrol and diesel vehicles, it will be a hell of a lot worse for a lot of people.
We all know that supply is just as important as price, if not more important; we have been talking about it a huge amount since the events in Iran. People panic when they get to the pumps because they see the price going up, but they will panic more if they get to the pumps and there is no supply at all. I am not saying that we are there at the moment, but we need to consider how important supply is.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically well-informed speech. Might she reflect on the cost of moving around by car for the Prime Minister in his Holborn and St Pancras constituency and the necessity to move around by car for his constituents compared with mine in the Isle of Wight and hers in Gordon and Buchan?
Harriet Cross
Absolutely; I think a lot of us can relate to the fact that in some constituencies people have no choice but to use their car. They will use their car and keep using it, because they have to, and if they are using their car, they need to fill it. Therefore, they need petrol and diesel at affordable prices, and increasing fuel duty is making that less affordable. Fuel duty makes up 38% of the cost of a litre of petrol. The wholesale price is 33%, which feeds into it, so any increase in fuel duty makes prices more and more expensive. The decision to do that is completely under the control of this Government.
Refining is a vital part of the production of petrol and diesel for our vehicles. The UK has a very good record on refining, as we are net exporters of petrol from our refineries, but in the last two years alone, two refineries—a third of the UK’s refineries—have been lost, and our capacity is going down. That is not least because of the carbon tax, which has nearly doubled under this Government. It has made refining in the UK more difficult, putting industries under pressure and ensuring that the de-industrialisation of the UK under this Labour Government continues.
Members need not look any further than the oil and gas sector, particularly in north-east Scotland, to see the de-industrialisation of the UK in action. The coherence of this Government’s oil and gas policy is non-existent. They know that we need oil and gas for years to come, and they say that we need oil and gas for years to come, yet they do not want British oil and gas for years to come. We have the largest tax on any mature basin, which this Government extended and increased in their first Budget. They have banned new licences, meaning that reserves will be left under the North sea. Norway will then drill those reserves, and we will import from Norway. There is no coherence in their strategy.
As a result of the ban on new licences, we are also exporting jobs. The skilled workers in the oil and gas sector who produce our oil and gas and contribute to our fuel security will move abroad. They have the skills and are valued workers, yet other countries value them more than we do in this country. The Government’s policies show that. One thousand jobs a month are being lost, and billions in tax revenue is being lost. Billions in investment is being lost, which I know the Treasury Front-Bench team know very well following their recent meetings with the sector. The Government—either because of their own ideology or the one being imposed on them by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—do not want to use our own natural resources. They would prefer to import, at huge financial and environmental cost and at the cost of work and jobs, in order to satisfy themselves that they are reaching a target that they imposed on themselves.
Some 70% of the UK’s energy still comes from oil and gas, and it will do so for many years to come. Electricity, which is the power that the Government refer to in their 2030 target, makes up only 20% of our energy. In reality, the vast majority of the energy that keeps this country going and powers the UK comes from oil and gas. Some 50% of the gas that we use every day comes from the North sea. Shutting down the North sea impacts our fuel security instantly and into the future, and it will keep doing so.
There are enough reserves in the North sea with the correct fiscal and regulatory conditions to support British energy security, but this Government have decided that they do not want them and would prefer to source oil and gas from elsewhere. We heard that yesterday from the Chancellor herself, who was delighted that Norway and Canada have increased production. Why would we not do the same? We can do the same. Why are we still waiting for Rosebank and Jackdaw to be approved? Why are we sitting on those applications? It makes no sense. All of these decisions affect our fuel security and the cost of living for households. They affect the amount of supply we have for all the things that we use energy for, yet this Government are happy to forgo that just for their headline.
I am delighted that we are discussing fuel duty for our rural communities and businesses, but this debate also shines a light on the vital importance of our oil and gas supply into our refineries and our cars and vehicles. That is why I am delighted to support the Opposition’s motion today.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who spoke with her usual passion on behalf of her constituents and a sector that is important to her local economy, and with the depth of knowledge that the House has come to expect from her. She raised the important theme—I touched on it slightly in an intervention on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), as he opened the debate for the Government—of the Government’s lack of consistency or common sense as a starting point, and of fleetness of foot in responding to events as they materialise.
My hon. Friend referred to the absurdity of the Government saying in one breath, “As we transition to a renewable, clean, green energy source, we will continue to need oil and gas in our economy, but we would prefer to buy it from a third country’s production even though we have it literally on our doorstep.” There is a lack of imagination and, as I said, fleetness of foot as the Government respond to pressures in the changing landscape. If the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury will indulge me, I invite him to consider what he would be saying about the proposals announced in the Budget to increase the main fuel duty rates if he were on the Opposition Benches or at the Opposition Dispatch Box rather than speaking for the Government.
The point that I made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury was a simple one. I did not support the Chancellor’s announcement on fuel duty, but she had a common-sense approach to it and was perfectly within her rights as Chancellor of the Exchequer to make that rate announcement. It predated the events in Iran. I ask the Minister to consider what he would say if he were on the Opposition Benches and he faced intransigence from a Government who said, “We understand that costs are going up. We understand the volatility of the market. We understand the enormous pressures being placed on all households—in particular those with low incomes, the elderly, the vulnerable and the just about managing—but we are still going to plough on.” If they said that rather than, “We still want to increase fuel duty, and we may very well do so in the future, but now is not the time. We are going to pull the plaster off this thing and reverse the announcement. We are not going to increase fuel duty, because the tail of this fuel pricing crisis will be quite long, irrespective of whether the situation in Iran and the strait of Hormuz comes to a conclusion in the foreseeable future,” I think he would be jumping up and down, pulling his hair out and accusing the Government of being tin-eared and tone deaf.
I hope that the Government Whips get the timing of this week’s debate right so that we do not have the ignominy of the Minister wishing he had spoken for a further 20 minutes and people dramatically falling ill in the Lobby but then miraculously, at the stroke of 7 pm, suddenly rising Lazarus-like from near deathbed experiences to get on with their parliamentary business. When he comes to sum up, I hope that he will reflect on the need for a rapid response in real time.
On that theme, may I address one aspect of the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister? As the Minister probably knows, last week there was a hugely useful meeting with the Minister for Energy and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore. Many of us who attended were pleased that it had taken place. We took away a variety of responses, but it certainly seemed that the Government were getting it. However, there is the perpetual repetition of the point that they are continuing to work with the Competition and Markets Authority on regulation of the heating oil market. That is a long-term solution; it will not solve the problems today. I do not think that is a crutch on which the Government can rest and presume that the House and our constituents will be satisfied. There must be two workstreams here, with future regulation in the medium to long-term and immediate help in the here and now.
Fuel Finder, which is referenced in the Prime Minister’s amendment, can be useful. However, the Minister will probably know, or will have heard, that in rural areas we do not have a petrol station by every village green or on every corner, and in my constituency—I will deal in miles rather than the modernity of kilometres, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan did—which is about 440 square miles, people are having to drive a 5, 10 or 15-mile round trip to fill up their cars. Therefore, Fuel Finder—welcome as the idea that sits behind it is—is really only of use to people who have a larger number of fuel stations where they can fill up their vehicles in close proximity to where they live or work.
I want to say a word or two about heating oil. Thanks to figures produced by the House of Commons Library referencing the census data of 2021, we know that about 7.1% of households in the south-west of England use heating oil; the UK average figure is 4.9% and the figure for the North Dorset constituency is 13.71%. I understand that those figures do not include households using liquefied petroleum gas—they merely include traditional heating oil—and they certainly do not include the vital requirement of red diesel for the farmers of North Dorset.
Not increasing the main fuel duty would help everybody in our country, but it would disproportionately benefit those whom we referred to at a certain time in our recent political history as “just about managing”. Those are not households that are supported by a raft of welfare state interventions and benefits, and they are not people who are disabled and unable to work. They are people who are doing their best and doing their bit—often couples working more than two jobs just to keep the roof over their head and food on the table. I am certain that when one is in the Treasury dealing with telephone-number sums day in and day out, an increase of 5p per litre does not sound like a vast amount, but when the household budget is so finely balanced that a couple of quid here or there makes all the difference, those 5p’s add up.
I do not want to turn this into a rural versus urban debate, but it is important for urban Members of Parliament to hear about the reality of living in rural areas. We are lucky to live in rural areas—we have beautiful environment, lovely countryside and a slower pace of life—but every economist recognises that the cost of delivering services, the cost of produce and the cost of transport is greater in rural areas. That is principally for two reasons that result from sparsity of population: greater distances must be travelled to access them, and there are higher costs in getting to those rural markets because they are further away from the nexus of the transportation networks. All those things have a knock-on effect. If there was a choice and people could say, “Oh, I could jump on a tram, a tube, a bus or a light railway and forgo using my car or my van,” of course they would do so as a way of saving additional expenditure.
It is depressing that although I think I am right in saying that at no time since 1966 has the Labour party in government had a higher number of Members of Parliament representing rural constituencies, unless those MPs are in deep camouflage this afternoon, they appear to be showing what I would describe politely as precious little interest in the welfare of their constituents. Maybe that is because they realise that those on the Treasury Front Bench have almost given up on rural Britain, probably promoted by a lack of knowledge and understanding, and certainly by a lack of curiosity to find out anything about what it is like to live in our rural communities. Maybe they have given up trying to persuade those on their Front Bench of the need for a change of heart. On the Conservative Benches, and on those of the other Opposition parties, we will not give up advocating the cause of our rural communities.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about rural areas, but those of us who do not represent rural constituencies—mine is neither semi-rural nor urban—face exactly the same issues as the rural areas. The increase in fuel prices is impacting on everybody in their daily lives and most people are now thinking, “Enough is enough”. Does he agree?
Simon Hoare
I do. My right hon. Friend is right to point to the universality of the negative impact of the proposal. As a good Yorkshirewoman who I know is always persuaded by the validity of common sense, I hope that she will accept the point that when everybody says that the impact on rural communities will be disproportionately felt, that is amplified when one recalls that, on average, the annual income of people living in rural areas is lower than that of those who live in urban or suburban areas.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are only two Labour Members of Parliament sitting on the Government Benches for this debate on the increase in fuel duty. Does he think that the other 400 Labour MPs are right now in a huddle, in a darkened room with the Chancellor, lobbying her to reduce that tax and to freeze fuel duties, or does he think that they might have gone home?
Simon Hoare
I would probably suggest to my hon. Friend that a lie-down with a cold flannel in a darkened room might be a good idea for him if that is what he thinks they are doing. I think that they have broadly given up. Let us just make the point. I do not want to rub Government Members’ noses in it, but with the exception of the Whip, who has to be here, the Parliamentary Private Secretary, who feels that she has to pass important pieces of paper from the officials’ Box to her Minister, and the Minister, who has to be here whether he likes it or not, therein ends the interest of the governing party on this particular issue.
Let me amplify a little further my point about necessity. North Dorset is predominantly an economy of micro and small businesses; a lot are family-owned, many are not. Medium-sized enterprises are often looked at as something to be aspired to, but it is predominantly micro and small. There are also a few large businesses such as Dextra, based in Gillingham in my constituency, and Hall & Woodhouse, a brewery that will be known to many colleagues across the south-west and the south—companies that I would classify as the larger employers of North Dorset—and they are seeing their costs go up.
I know that some have used the phrase “white van man and woman”—I think of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who once said it with a bit of a curl of her lip and a sort of snarl in her voice. I do not say it in that way. I admire white van man and woman, who have got off their backsides and set up a business, entrepreneurially, maybe employing one person. They provide vital services to communities and need that vehicle to either go and pick up kit and product so they may fulfil their jobs, or to travel many miles to their work to put food on their table. They are going to be hit.
I think of my farming vets in North Dorset, who have to travel distances to attend to animal welfare issues. My constituency has a very high percentage of retired people—the highest in the county of Dorset—and I think of the carers who are having to use their cars to travel, to visit, to help and to make sure that those people are okay. I also think of my farmers, who, as the Minister will know, play a vital role in delivering not just environmental management but, crucially, food security. They are seeing prices rise as a result of current pressures, not just for the fuel that they use but for the fertiliser that they have to buy.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend eloquently sets out that this impacts just about everybody in their daily lives, up and down the country and across communities. Does that not highlight why we took great efforts to freeze fuel duty when we were in government? I would even go so far as to say that those on the Conservative Benches are the friends of the motorist, in contrast with those on the Labour Benches who simply see the motorist as a cash cow.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend is right. It is important to relitigate this point: we froze fuel duty not merely because we could but because there was a reason so to do. It is why—I say this as a former Local Government Minister—we enhanced and protected and preserved the rural services delivery grant to reflect precisely the additional costs for local government of providing services in rural areas. Again, that was not just slashed but scrapped by the Government in the local government settlement.
There are also the costs of the school run, and I am going to have to declare an interest as a parent of three daughters still at school. When my wife takes our three girls to school, it is a 22-mile round trip from home to school and back, and then again in the afternoon. Forty-four miles for no other reason than to transport three children to school to get an education and to fire up their ambition and aspiration. Hundreds of parents across the constituency do exactly the same, and they will be impacted negatively as a result of this increase.
I think as well about those who are trying to get to hospital appointments. I live relatively close to the West Dorset border, but if a constituent living close to me has to go to Dorchester hospital, they perform something like a 40-mile round trip just to get to a hospital appointment. This is not just a tax increase in isolation; it comes on top of the other inflationary pressures that the Government have authored as a result of national insurance and business regulation and so on making things much harder for businesses, which means that all the costs of those in the business sphere will, by definition, be passed on to customers. I really hope that people do not decide to miss that hospital appointment, not because they no longer need it but because they feel that they cannot afford to travel to and from it.
The Minister does not need me to tell him of the acute pressure that our hospitality sector is facing across the whole UK, and rural areas in particular. Pubs face great pressures, and many in the North Dorset constituency are closing, regrettably. If people cut back on their travel because petrol or diesel has become too expensive and they have reduced their travels to merely just what they would deem to be the absolute essentials, then leisure and relaxation purposes will be eradicated from their menu of choice. That, again, will have a negative pressure on a sector already hit.
I always like to try and wind you up, Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying something like, “To bring my opening remarks to a conclusion”. You will be delighted to know, however, that I am bringing my overall remarks to a conclusion. Sometimes Governments move slowly because the process requires them to. Sometimes, as we have seen in other circumstances, where they have a will, Governments can move incredibly quickly. If the PPS could leave her Minister alone for just a moment, I would appreciate it if he listened to this.
Simon Hoare
This is a point I made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. All these increases—in council tax, domestic and transport fuel, food prices and so on—are putting pressure on so many household budgets. The Minister knows that; he will see the data from his officials in real time. Families need to make plans—can they afford that holiday during the school summer holidays or to travel to visit a relative later in the year? I am sure that to the Treasury and to the broad, big-picture statistician, these small matters, individual cases, vignettes and cameos of people’s lives are slightly a nuisance, but these are real lives lived on a daily basis by our constituents.
It would be indefensible, illogical and an act of self-harm for the Government to proceed as the Chancellor suggested that she would and increase main fuel duties from 1 September. Some tactical guy may well be looking at a whiteboard in No. 10, desperately trying to fill in the late summer grid when the House is not sitting, saying, “I know, in the third week of August, we will mention that we are not going to do it.” I can understand that in public relations or media management terms, but I say to the Minister, who is a common-sense man—I hope that he will get the common sense of this—that this has all the signs and hallmarks of an inevitable change of heart from the Government. It is not a question of whether but when. He will be sustained—I am sure there will be other calls on him to spend it—by a massive increase in VAT from heating oil from domestic uses over the next several weeks. If we can agree that it is a question of not whether but when, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of my hard-working constituents of North Dorset, my farmers and those micro and small businesses, I urge the Minister to recognise the common sense, the necessity and that the landscape has changed in just those few short weeks since the Budget was delivered, to make that change and to announce it soon.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who eloquently championed his local area and covered every point that we could possibly raise—I shall follow humbly on his coat-tails.
Fuel duty is a war on the motorist. It is an attack on hard-working families who have scrimped and saved to drive their child to that special holiday or even to do the school run each day. This tax is regressive. It will hurt normal, hard-working families across Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages. It will also hurt small and medium-sized enterprises, care workers and all the key workers who have to drive from outside Buckinghamshire to work in the area. We have care workers who come from other counties to work in Bourne End, Wooburn and Marlow because the cost of living is so high. That extra driving, that extra cost on their transport, will be devastating to our local care-working community and to those who provide vital services, such as our firefighters and police officers, who often have to drive to the fire station or police station where they are based. That extra cost is the difference between a family making it each month and slightly going under. That is who we are speaking for today: the people who are paying their taxes, working hard and wanting to do the right thing but are being punished by this fuel duty increase.
My constituency is also impacted by rises in off-grid heating oil prices. I myself have off-grid heating oil, and many of my constituents in Dorney, Wooburn, Bourne End, Flackwell Heath and Iver are impacted by price increases. Although we are near London, we are actually very rural. I have more pensioners per capita than pretty much anywhere else—you might be the No. 1 winner, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would come second. This extra cost will push my pensioners into poverty. They are barely making ends meet right now. They are humbly going about their business, but they all need transport as well. We have poor transport links so people need to use their cars, and my pensioners will be adversely affected by this fuel duty increase. It is incredibly unfair that the increase is coming in now given that world events are causing oil prices to increase anyway, so families, workers and the taxpayer will be further punished.
It would be hard to have this debate without mentioning my right hon. Friend the former Member for Harlow, Robert Halfon, who led the charge on fuel duty. For years, he was the passionate voice making this point clear across the House: high fuel duty taxes are regressive because they affect working people the most. They are a brake on economic growth. We all saw the golden moment on Sunday morning when the harsh inconvenience of the facts hit the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero: that 38% of the cost of petrol is down to fuel duty, a tax entirely in the hands of the Government. This Secretary of State, who could power the entire country with hot air, seemed to get the message slowly but surely, and there is no problem to which the answer is not a faster and more ruinous race to net zero, putting ideology ahead of working families. To govern is to choose, and this Government always choose the most damaging economic pathway for families.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech as usual. Is she aware of analysis from the Taxpayers’ Alliance that says the average household will pay £40,000 in fuel duty over a lifetime under the Chancellor’s plans? That is several thousand pounds more than the median disposable income for a household. Does she feel, as I do, that this is an unsustainable burden on people who are already struggling to get by?
Joy Morrissey
It is a shocking burden and one that many people and hard-working families will not be able to bear. I am often told by the London elite that people need to switch to electric cars and do all these other things, but many people cannot afford an electric car or the cost of electricity, or even to put fuel in their petrol car. Families will be at breaking point, and they have no alternative to taking their child to school or the doctor. That extra burden can push a family completely over the edge.
We need to make our economy competitive again. We need to look at ways to make energy and fuel affordable for everyone. Working people are being saddled with higher costs and taxes while more money is being pumped into benefits Britain because of the weakness of a Prime Minister without a backbone. It is time to put working people first. It is time for another Government U-turn.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“In these difficult circumstances, while the cost of living remains high and with a backdrop of global uncertainty, increasing fuel duty next year would be the wrong choice”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 817.]
Those are not my words, as it happens, but I agree with them. In fact, that was what the Chancellor said in her first Budget. Having increased taxes by £40 billion in that Budget, people might have thought that that would be the end of the talk of fuel tax hikes. However, this Government’s approach is all about higher spending, taxation and borrowing, so it was not that surprising when, in her second Budget, the Chancellor set out plans to scrap the 5p a litre cut introduced by the Conservative Government in 2022—a cut, remember, introduced in the wake of price increases after Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We introduced that cut to recognise that, for rural communities such as mine in North West Norfolk, a car or van is a lifeline, not a luxury. They connect farmers to markets and help children get to school, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said. They allow people to get to work or to health appointments, and they keep rural enterprises in business. Every penny added to the cost of fuel has a bigger impact in areas where public transport is limited and journeys are longer.
This would be the first fuel duty rise for 15 years, taking £3.6 billion from hard-pressed motorists. Unless Labour Members support our motion, that tax increase will take effect from September this year, and the average family will pay £150 more a year. The Road Haulage Association estimates that the increase would add £2,300 a year to the operating costs of an HGV. It is little wonder that it described the measures as a “hammer blow” for many small businesses.
It gets worse. Labour Members often like to talk about the past 14 years of Conservative Government, but one thing we did over those 14 years was to freeze fuel duty. From next April, this Government will end that freeze, and inflation-linked rises will follow, making the end of support for motorists that is calculated to have been worth £120 billion over the period of Conservative government. Through this debate, the Conservatives are once again speaking up for the British people. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister about fuel duty increases last week, but he wanted to talk about anything but that topic—as he did again this week. Under pressure, he is beginning to shift his position. He has said that the increase is now under review. Where is his leadership? It is utterly lacking.
And where are Labour Members? No Labour Back Bencher is prepared to stand up and speak in this debate. Even the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) is notable by his absence. They will be whipped today to vote against our motion, as they were on the family farm tax, the winter fuel payment cuts, a national inquiry on grooming gangs, and more. Given their absence, I suspect that they sense another U-turn is coming. The Minister will once again have to defend a policy that he knows will probably be changed again, like the family farm tax, and the 3,000% increase in the landfill tax, which the Government also ditched under pressure. The Prime Minister is too weak to make a decision. Now he wants to go up to his study and read more papers alone, ponder it and think about what he should do.
People increasingly feel that they are working harder and getting less, and that too many people are signed off on sickness benefits. The Government are making their life harder. On Labour’s watch, inflation has increased and unemployment is rising month after month. Labour Members’ constituents will see that, when the Government had the opportunity to stand up for families who rely on their cars, for the white van man, and for people in rural communities, they utterly failed to do so.
When the Chancellor was asked whether she would reverse this fuel tax hike, she said something very revealing:
“I’m very loath to spend Government money on something that the market should be doing”.
Government money? There is no such thing. That is taxpayers’ money. This Government think that everyone’s money belongs to the state, and people should be thankful to keep some of it. That attitude explains Labour’s £66 billion of tax increases to fund higher welfare spending, it explains the Government’s failure to control spending and live within our means, and it explains why the tax burden is at a record high and will only increase.
The impact is evident in the latest British social attitudes survey. Support for higher spending and taxation is falling, while support for lower taxes and lower spending is growing. That is the approach that the Conservative party has set out. We would make £47 billion of savings in public spending, including £23 billion in welfare—the Minister can have those ideas for free. We would use half that sum to reduce the deficit, and the other half to get the economy growing by scrapping stamp duty, and scrapping business rates for 250,000 leisure, retail and hospitality businesses.
The Government are putting up tax and making prices rise at a time of growing uncertainty. That is the wrong choice. That is why I will vote to ease the burden on British motorists and against Labour’s fuel duty hike.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
My constituents have borne the brunt of Labour’s slew of anti-motorist policies. The impending rise in fuel duty is yet another attack on Bromley motorists. Some 80% of households in Bromley and Biggin Hill have at least one car or van—significantly higher than the Greater London average—and driving is often a necessity for my constituents, particularly in Biggin Hill, where public transport is unreliable.
Driving charges in London can now cost up to £40 a day, but it is even more for van drivers. That is a direct result of the policies of the Labour Government and Sadiq Khan. A rise in fuel duty will increase that cost further. In April last year, Sadiq Khan imposed a new toll on the Blackwall tunnel. For car drivers using it at peak times, the toll is £8 a day for a trip across the river and back. For van drivers, the bill is £13. The toll also means that there is now only one free crossing east of Tower bridge, at Rotherhithe. That comes on top of Labour’s expansion of the ultra low emissions zone, and the congestion charge, fuel costs and parking charges. It is becoming simply impossible for people to drive to work in London. That affects everyone who needs to drive, from tradesmen to NHS shift workers.
When I was a London Assembly member, I worked to expose Mayor Khan’s preparations for road pricing in London, which London Centric fully exposed late last year. Under Labour’s plans, motorists could be charged 40p per mile for driving in outer London, 60p per mile in inner London, and £2 per mile, with a £5 fee, for central London. The mayor has repeatedly denied that he plans to introduce such pay-per-mile pricing, but the Government’s decision to introduce a pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles is exactly the sort of cover that he needs to introduce it. I can reassure my constituents that I remain steadfastly against pay-per-mile pricing.
Naturally, my constituents were furious to hear the Chancellor announce that, from April 2027, the fuel duty freeze, which has been in place for 16 years, will be scrapped—along with the 5p cut that the previous Government put in place—and that fuel duty will begin to rise with the retail prices index. As prices at the pump spike as a result of the conflict in Iran, the argument for retaining the fuel duty relief introduced by the previous Government, to support cash-strapped motorists, is even stronger.
In Bromley and Biggin Hill we do not have the London underground or the docklands light railway, and Biggin Hill does not even have a railway station, so people are highly reliant on cars. The Labour party, here and in City Hall, needs to understand that. The Government and the Mayor of London must end their war on motorists, and scrap their fuel duty rise and any plans for further attacks on motorists, before it is too late.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Our current and persistent reliance on oil for transport, rising costs as a result of instability in the middle east, and the ongoing fuel duty freeze, all have consequences for people who use any form of transport in their daily lives. I agree with the Government—and with the many Back Benchers who have joined in supporting them—that it is far too soon to consider the Conservative motion’s demand for further multiple and ongoing freezes.
The fact remains that ending the conflict in the Gulf and the wider middle east is the best way to ease fuel market price rises. The risk of profiteering by fuel providers is a far greater threat to household budgets than fuel duty collected for the public purse. The Conservatives should consider the consequences before offering their support for any more of President Trump’s appallingly badly thought-out decisions.
Dr Luke Evans
At what point would the Green party feel that we should step in to support those in rural communities? Green Members often say that the Government need to provide more support, but if we cannot de-escalate because this is not our war, how can we support constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth, in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and up and down the UK?
Siân Berry
My speech will continue to put the case for alternative interventions that will help everybody in every family in the constituencies mentioned.
Campaign for Better Transport has pointed out to the Chancellor that the total cost of cancelling all the planned increases to fuel duty in line with the retail prices index since 2011 has brought real-term cuts for motorists for 14 years, and cost the Treasury a cumulative £133 billion between 2011-12 and 2024-25. The additional 5p cut, meant as a temporary measure when introduced five years ago, has alone cost £13 billion since then.
The fuel duty freeze has been regressive. It has helped the richest tenth of households save nearly three times as much as the poorest tenth. The fact remains that the poorest people, who can afford no holidays whether or not the Government agree to this motion, are not driving or owning cars. Yet through all this time the cost of bus and rail travel, upon which those who cannot afford to own a car rely, has continued to rise.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I completely understand what you are saying about public transport, but in rural communities, such as mine in Somerset, there is no public transport, so how can someone get to college? How can someone get to work? How can apprentices actually get a job? What you are saying is great, but that is a 10-year plan. We need action now.
Adam Dance
I apologise for saying “you”, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Member agree that that plan is for the next 10 years? We need change now. We need fuel duty sorted out now.
Siân Berry
I have not yet outlined my plans; I have merely complained about the rising cost of bus and rail fares that has accompanied continued freezes in fuel duty. I will move on to my next point.
I am very aware of the manospherical gender ratio there has been in the Chamber throughout the debate, and that is pertinent to this point. Hon. Members must remember that, in any given family with a car who are just about managing, the poorest and most disadvantaged members of that family will most likely be the spouse and children of the main driver. Those people, in any part of the country, including in rural areas, often have little or no access to the basic mobility that a car can provide. They are dependent on good public transport services—often absent. They are dependent on safe streets—often absent. They are dependent on transport services to access their jobs, daily lives and essential services when the car is in use by the main driver. Members should not forget that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Luke Evans
As the hon. Lady rightly points out, if someone is using alternative transport, such as buses, they are still affected by fuel duty—even more so. On top of that, the Government have already increased the cost of a bus ticket by 50%, so her argument does not hold water.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If multiple Members are seeking to intervene, please indicate whose intervention you are taking. It makes it easier for the Chair to know whose name to call.
Siân Berry
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I confess that I am not used to being intervened on in this fashion as I am such a minority in the Chamber, but someone has to make these points and I will continue to do so. The point about buses is well made. We need bus services and we need controls on bus fares, which we did not have until recent years. These are ongoing injustices that have compounded over the years, while people buying fuel from the pumps have been somewhat protected. But I am not saying there are easy answers.
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady has potentially misunderstood the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). She is making the case, perfectly rightly, for better public transport in this country, but bus companies and train operators running diesel trains—of which there are still a number—pay fuel duty, too. If fuel duty goes up, that will impact fares.
Siân Berry
We need more robust interventions on fares as well, and we need much more help for bus companies to be able to switch to electric vehicles and to electrify their fleets. I raised many of those points on the Bus Services Bill Committee. I shall now give way to the hon. Lady.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We know that Trump’s illegal war in Iran has driven up global oil prices. To give an example, just yesterday I visited Edward Thomas & Son, a coach company in Epsom and Ewell. Last Thursday, it was forced to accept an unpriced oil delivery for its regular order of white diesel at £31,082 for 18,000 litres. In February, the same order was £23,614. That is almost a 30% increase. Ninety per cent of its work is helping children get to school, go on school trips and so on. Does the hon. Member not agree that this is just unacceptable? These are people trying to go about their day-to-day lives and just get to school.
Siân Berry
I have incredible sympathy for the people whose cases have been outlined in this debate. I am setting out a case for action that is going to make a difference, including de-escalating the conflict in the middle east, which the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) briefly supported in his intervention.
I will move on to the alternative plans. Transport & Environment recently reminded us in its briefing, ahead of the spring statement, of the investments and initiatives that are really needed to help people in transport poverty. The Social Market Foundation has pointed out that despite over £100 billion being spent on cuts and freezes to fuel duty, it has made little impact on transport poverty. We have to find ways that are better value for money. Transport & Environment has suggested salary sacrifice, public transport travel cards, reinstating £2 bus fare caps, and, in the current context, targeted payments for vulnerable people and direct support for small businesses, sole traders and low-income households. That would ensure that help reaches those most exposed to the energy price rises, rather than repeating the regressive tax cuts that have taken place.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
In Wales, it is fantastic news that the Welsh Labour Government have put in place a £1 cap on bus fares for young people and a £3 fare for all people over 18. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a fantastic use of funding by the Welsh Labour Government?
Siân Berry
I agree that those are good initiatives. I also celebrate the initiative of the Scottish Government, led by the Green party, to make bus fares free for people under 22. Young people desperately need that support because they rarely have access to the family car, as I mentioned.
All these interventions represent good value for money. This month, analysis by the Climate Change Committee has reminded us that we can significantly reduce the UK’s exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets if we just think a little further into the future and get things done. The Committee estimates that the transition will cost around £4 billion a year to make our climate targets. That is the cost of one oil shock like the one we are experiencing now, but it would deliver huge benefits, including resilience, the next time this happens, and we can predict that it might.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way—I thought I would give her some further relief from the interventions from the manosphere on the Conservative Benches. She is talking about the importance of investing in clean energy to make our country more resilient and to do the right thing for the planet. Does she agree that doing that is often more cost effective for families as well? Just last week, I met with Fife Communities Climate Action Network in my constituency to talk about some of its great work to encourage and support insulation of people’s homes, for example. Does she agree that that is positive and that investing in clean energy—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Has the hon. Lady finished her intervention?
Madam Deputy Speaker
A point of order in the middle of an intervention, Dr Evans? I assume this point must be very pertinent and very urgent, but I will let the hon. Lady finish her intervention first.
Melanie Ward
Does the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) agree that investing in clean, green, home-grown energy is the way to ensure that we have energy security for our country in the future?
Dr Evans
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the chance to make a point of order about the intervention made by the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). She labelled the Conservative Benches “the manosphere”. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, think that it is suitable to use sex as a pejorative just because there happen to be only male Members sitting on the Conservatives Benches at this point in the debate? I would envisage it being a problem if I used such a term the opposite way to label only females sitting on the Labour Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Dr Luke Evans, you have most definitely got your point on the record. Unfortunately, the Chair is not responsible for the language used by Members—if only we were—but you have made your point and it is most definitely on the record. Siân Berry may wish to respond to that or to continue with her speech.
Siân Berry
I would very much like to continue with my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). We will never truly protect the families who are struggling with daily living costs, driven by fossil fuel dependence, if we do not get our economy and our transport system completely off the addiction to oil and gas that they suffer from.
I remind the House that every £1 invested in achieving climate targets is estimated by the Climate Change Committee to generate between £2 and £4 in wider economic benefits. These include major public health improvements and NHS savings that could reach another £130 billion by 2050. These are all excellent investments that have been resisted for years and years by people who should know better.
Finally, I would like to quote the Social Market Foundation. It has said that Government policy to keep freezing fuel duty has “inadvertently” hurt drivers,
“with policies that end up encouraging car use arguing that the bigger issue is a lack of investment in alternatives to driving, keeping people reliant on costly cars.”
The Conservatives should consider that if they wanted to carry out the measures that they ask for without corresponding consequences for public services, health and wellbeing, they might have considered that air travellers pay no fuel duty at all in this country. Air travel demand is driven by the most wealthy passengers, with the broadest shoulders, including those in the private jets owned by Conservative party donors and other owners of private jets. The Conservative motion could have gone further, and been more practical and less short term in its thinking altogether. Green MPs will not be supporting the Conservative motion and I am grateful for the time that the House has given me to explain why.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I come here today with a mission. Unfortunately, for the past two years I have not followed closely enough the Labour party’s position on what the Government want to deliver. I have lost track of whether we are talking about pillars, aims, priorities, staging points, milestones or foundations, but at the start of the year the latest reinvention was a mission focused on the cost of living.
That was a slight change from when the Government first took office, because their main aim and their No. 1 priority at that point was to go for growth. Alas, as we have seen, that is not happening—the last figures say growth is 0%. What is more, it was evident that all the Government policies that were being put in place were actually anti-growth, as we are starting to see.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In a pithy sentence, will the hon. Gentleman describe the mission of the Conservative party?
Dr Evans
To win the next election, because then we can deliver the change that we are talking about.
On reducing the cost of living—the Government’s No. 1 aim for January—it seems bizarre that the measures that are being put in place have done nothing to support that. The Prime Minister went on the news on Monday with a five-point plan to deal with what is going on. He said energy bills would be capped, but we already knew that because it was announced in the Budget and the cap is in place until July. He said the fuel duty cap would be extended until September, but we knew that because it was in the Budget and then it is set to rise.
Melanie Ward
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the Conservative policy was in relation to fuel duty at the last election? By my recollection, it was that fuel duty would have been higher under the Conservatives than it is now under this Labour Government.
Dr Evans
The best way to decide how someone is going to behave in the future is to look at their past habits: we froze fuel duty for 15 years, and when a crisis hit in 2022 we reduced it. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make when the hon. Lady intervened. The Government have come up with a plan that is a talking shop and not doing anything. In response to the situation in Iran, they have simply reannounced what was in the Budget and further conversations with the CMA and the heating oil firms to work out whether they should or should not do something. That is precisely the point I am making: the rhetoric from the Government was “We are going to go for growth” but they then put in place some anti-growth policies, whereas now the cost of living is the No. 1 priority, but they are simply talking about that and making things worse.
Catherine Fookes
The Government are not just talking about it—we have put £53 million into supporting the cost of heating oil. That is doing something about it. When the Conservatives were in government, they took 200 days to do that.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out because I was the energy PPS in the Home Office at that time, so I saw exactly how that worked, what it looked like and how difficult it is to put measures in place. Let me remind her that the Conservatives made a £200 unconditional payment to anyone who could claim that they were living off grid. That is a stark difference from this Government, who have put aside £53 million for the 1.5 million people across the entire nation who use heating oil because they live off grid—£35 per person. The Government have ringfenced that money, so it will only be available to the houses that are hardest hit, meaning that most households will not get any payment at all. That is the exactly the point I am trying to make: the Government talk a good game, but when it comes to delivery, they are not doing what they say.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making some impassioned points about heating oil. I have a simple question for him: does he believe that the war in Iran increases the cost of heating oil or not, and will he reject the escalation that the Leader of the Opposition has called for in entering that war in the first place?
Dr Evans
Of course the war increases the risk. The Americans chose to go into that war and that is now having an impact on all of us. The question under debate is what are we doing about that and what measures are being taken. We are discussing fuel duty, which, as it stands, the hon. Gentleman’s Government will increase in September.
I have asked the Government to talk about the framework and the trigger points. I was glad to hear from the Minister that that increase is under consideration, but we need to know when that consideration will be made and what the trigger points are, because, as I rightly highlighted, we have seen all this before in 2022. We know what it looks like and we know how difficult it is to get to the canal boats, the park homes and the people living off grid.
The fifth point that the Prime Minister made earlier this week was about de-escalation, but he has no control over that if he says that he is not involved in the war. I am all in favour of de-escalation, but that is not a domestic policy that will bring down the cost of living—nothing tangible can come from that stance.
Why does this all matter so much? I live in and represent a rural constituency that is about 85% agricultural. We sit in the very heart of England, at the centre of the logistics industry. That means that every single day men and women from across Barwell, Earl Shilton and Donisthorpe get up, drive their vans, go out and drive their lorries, and support the economy.
Adam Dance
My constituent Sam works in a local haulage company. He tells me that the average profit margin for a company like his is 2%, while the cost of running a typical lorry has increased by 22%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must support rather than damage this industry that we rely on to deliver essential goods, starting by cancelling the plan to increase fuel duty?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The Road Haulage Association has estimated that the fuel duty change will involve about an extra £2,000. On top of that, the change will hit the individual householder or car owner by about £140. The Government talk about making a difference, for example with the warm home discount or freezing energy prices, but those measures will already have evaporated given the very nature of the fuel duty escalation, on top of the prices that are rising because of Iran. People who work in the logistics industry are very susceptible to these fluctuations. It is right that we all want to move to electricity, but that is not going to happen immediately. I do not disagree with many of the arguments about the direction that we need to take, but the question is: what can we do now in the light of the reaction from Iran?
My constituents do not have the choice of walking or getting a bus, because we are a rural constituency and they rely on their cars. This increase will hit their cost of living by the very nature of the way it comes in. Let us contrast that with the 14 or 15 years of Conservative Government. That is usually the stock answer we hear from Labour Members. Gosh, 14 years! Yes, for 14 years we froze fuel duty because we recognised the impact it had on our households, on the white van man who is out working, on the delivery driver and on the lady who is driving from Hinckley to take a package up to Appleby Magna. Those people really need that support, and the change that we made and delivered had an impact.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that small businesses, not only in Bridgwater but across the country, were hit last year by the Chancellor’s jobs tax and have been hit this year by the additional burden of the unemployment Act and higher business rates, and that the prospect of higher fuel duty in September is disastrous not just for families who use their car for personal transport but for every small business?
Dr Evans
In true style, a knight of the realm recognises my very next point, because all these policies need to be set in context. Context is important, because each Government might need to raise taxes at some point, but here we have a toxic concoction of employment rights, more red tape, business rates going up and the support around business rates being taken away, fuel duty going up, national insurance contributions going up and the minimum wage going up. Any of those in isolation might be a good idea and might need to be done for support, but taken together they run against the Government’s milestones, mantras, missions—whatever they want to call them—on growth and the cost of living.
The pay-per-mile proposals for electric vehicles have been touched on, but I would like to expand on the issue. The proposals have brought huge consternation to many of my constituents. When I raised this issue straight after the Budget, I was blown away by the number of people from across the country who contacted me after seeing my question about how the proposals would work. There are simple, fundamental questions that the Government have not set about addressing. For example, what happens in the second-hand market? Who is judging when the mileage is being done? Are we likely to have monitors in our cars? That is meant to be done at an MOT, so what happens if I sell my car six months into it? What happens if someone lives in Northern Ireland and commutes to the Republic of Ireland? Where does the tax go then? What happens if we drive to Europe? For example, many people from my constituency like to take their caravan down to France for a holiday. Where do they pay their tax? How does that work?
The proposals are having the effect of stalling growth in the electric car market. Many people are saying, “I made the choice. I wanted to do the right thing for the environment and for my family, because that was a good decision to make”, but they are now regretting that decision, and the market is stalling as a result. I ask the Government how will that impact be felt in the context of fuel duty, and where will those measures fit into the framework of a continuing Iranian war?
To close where I started, I agree that in this place we can have a difference of opinion on when it is the right time to do something. I am pleased that the Minister said that everything was under consideration. That is really important for those listening outside. After all the Punch and Judy of this place on whose policy was right, whose was wrong and what has happened before, at the end of the day it is the families in Hinckley and Bosworth who will be looking at their budgets and at the uncertainty they see on the TV, and trying to decide what they should do.
I simply ask the Minister to outline what he would consider to be a trigger point for change. Would it be a certain price value for heating oil? Would it be a certain price value for petrol? Would it be a certain duration of the conflict? None of us knows when the conflict will end. All these questions could be addressed in a framework that we learned from during our time in government. In 2022, we had to come up with support schemes from scratch.
Mr Charters
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that 5p fuel duty cut at the height of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it was too slow. Will he remind the House of the level that diesel had got to at the pump when the 5p cut came in? Was it two quid? It was far too late, wasn’t it?
Dr Evans
Forgive me; I would be happy to give way again if the hon. Gentleman knows what the value was at that point. I do not know what it was because at the time I was working in the Energy Department trying to help support those households who were struggling and suffering, particularly those who lived in caravan parks, static homes and canal boats, who are off-grid and suffered by the very nature of where they got their fuel. He is right to say that we have to take this in the round. I have heard the Chancellor say that multiple times. How long will this go on? The decision is under consideration. I am not asking about when the decision is made or how to make that decision. This is more about understanding at what point we make those decisions and when the Chancellor decides that it is the right time to step in. It may well be that that decision was too late and that lessons could be learned. How do we know? That is the question I am posing to civil servants and this Government, because the hon. Gentleman’s party is now in charge of setting that out and deciding when is too long and when is too late.
I would argue that the current payment of £53 million is not enough for my constituents. Many of them will not benefit, because they will not be covered by the resilience fund. What the Government have done under the resilience fund—formerly the household support fund—is simply delegate the decision making to councils. Under the previous Government, when we were in charge, we chose not to do that because we wanted to support everyone who was struggling. It is this Government’s job to set out why they are not going to do that.
I would argue that keeping the fuel duty rise in September will create a terribly difficult time for any of us who drive cars or run a business that uses vehicles. Let us not forget that the energy price cap will change in July. The Government have rightly said that it is frozen until then, but the impact on prices will not come through the system until July, so we might well see prices and the price cap rise very quickly in July just as the fuel duty is about to come in in September. We are back to the point made by the knight of the realm, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) about this toxic concoction of everything happening at once. I urge the Government to be aware of that and to set out the trigger points and the framework.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I raised this entirely inevitable circumstance with the Chancellor at the spring statement, and she did something that she is given to do, which was to glaze over briefly and then talk about the strength and broad shoulders of the Treasury because of the difficult decisions that she had taken, as though they affected her and not the working people up and down these islands who have had their bank accounts raided by an insatiable appetite for more and more tax from this Government.
Dave Doogan
How could I not give way to the Scottish Labour MP who has managed to come in here for the tail end of the debate?
Melanie Ward
That was a little bit unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman is talking about raising taxes, and I just wonder whether he would acknowledge that the SNP Scottish Government actually have higher taxes in place than the Government in England.
Dave Doogan
I am very happy to explain that to the hon. Lady when I get to that element of my speech, which I will in due course.
The other thing that really irritates me about this Government is the way that they talk about the just transition. They say, “We will be using fossil fuels for another 50 years, and we will be producing them in the United Kingdom”, as though they hold all the levers. Let me explain something to Members on the Government Front Bench: if they continue to apply Labour’s atrophying interventions in the North sea oil and gas sector, the industry, which is global—I do not know whether that is news to Ministers—will go somewhere where it can make a living and a profit and does not have some sort of nefarious Government taxing it out of existence.
The specific 5p fuel duty referred to in the motion, is regressive—that much is pretty clear—and iniquitous. It is particularly iniquitous to people who live in parts of these islands that are more remote, such as my constituency. I see that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is back in the Chamber. She detailed that her constituency is 2,076 sq km. This is not a competition, but Angus and Perthshire Glens is 5,525 sq km and 166% larger than her constituency, actually.
Harriet Cross
I thank my constituency neighbour—almost—for giving way. Although my constituency might not be the biggest, it is definitely the prettiest.
Dave Doogan
This is where I practise respectful disagreement.
For rural areas such as my constituency, the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, and many other places across all four nations, this issue is really challenging. There is not limited access to public transport in many places such as ours; there is no access to public transport in any meaningful sense. Remote areas get a lot more winter, and the people there tend to work in more agricultural professions. They tend to drive larger, heavier vehicles that are more fuel-hungry, so they will end up paying more. Deliveries have to come from further away, and that all gets added to the cost. Of course, all that adds to the cost to councils of delivering public services. The public services delivered in constituencies such as mine are very much more expensive to deliver than those in Holborn and St Pancras.
It is on that point that we need to see how much harder this issue will impact on people in rural areas. I have looked at the “Fuel Finder” app. At the BP petrol station at the bottom of Montrose before crossing the river, the price of a litre of petrol is 149.9p. If I go to the BP petrol station over at Vauxhall Bridge Road, the price of a litre of petrol is 5p cheaper. People in Scotland are already paying a premium that people in London and the south-east do not pay on their fuel, and the 5p that the Labour party wants to apply will come on top of that.
The UK rate of oil consumption for heating is 4.9%. In Angus and Perthshire Glens, the rate is 13%. Some 6,101 households heat their homes with oil. Oil has gone up sometimes by 150%, so a £300 to £400 delivery is getting on for £1,000. There are also punitive requirements for the volume that people get delivered. A further 2,000 people in my constituency are on tankered gas. That must not be forgotten in this cost spike crisis, which, as I said, I predicted at the Chancellor’s spring statement.
Dave Doogan
Before the hon. Lady gets back to her feet, she asked me about tax and she should be aware—although apparently she is not—that most income tax payers in Scotland pay less tax. Over and above that, her constituents do not have to pay for their tuition fees when they go to university. All her constituents, like my constituents, pay 30% less for their council tax than people in England. The Scottish living wage that her constituents benefit from is 74p per hour higher than the UK’s minimum wage. Of course, her constituents get the £40 Scottish child payment on top of all the other benefits that the SNP has delivered. On that note, I will take her intervention.
Melanie Ward
I could come back to the hon. Gentleman on all the ways in which my constituents are getting really poor value for money in Scotland, such as the cuts to police numbers in Fife and excessively long waiting lists in the NHS that are not falling, as they are under a Labour Government in England.
The hon. Gentleman talks about heating oil. He will be aware—in fact, I think he referenced it—of the additional £4.6 million for the Scottish Government that the Prime Minister announced on Monday to support people in rural areas and vulnerable households dealing with the increases in the price of heating oil caused by the war in the middle east. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Scottish Government will make that funding available to his constituents and my constituents?
Dave Doogan
I do not have the detail of the Scottish Government’s plans, but I am pretty sure that nobody in England or anywhere else in the United Kingdom has received actual monetary support from that funding.
Let us be really clear. The Chancellor talks about the broad shoulders of the Treasury and says that thanks to her fiscal wit—if you can believe that—she has come up with £52.4 million. If we divide that money across the number of people who will need support, it comes out at about £35. That is £35 of support from a Labour Government for people seeing a £700-odd price shock in heating oil. Somebody somewhere in the Treasury needs to get themselves a calculator.
The fuel duty increase is inflationary: it will feed through to the prices of goods and services, all of which will subsequently have VAT added on to them. The 5p added to the price of fuel is actually 6p, because it is added before the VAT is added to the fuel, so it is not 5p at all.
I am pretty certain that we can read in the Government’s amendment to the motion the vacuous nature of their application to this subject. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I am pretty confident that a wee bit closer to the time of the elections in Scotland and Wales in May, the Government will suddenly find the wit to scrap this hike in fuel duty. I am quite happy for them to do that, but as other people have pointed out, households are in crisis now. Now is the time for the Government to lead, but that will never happen with a Labour Government.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is good to speak in this debate on a subject that is impacting on all our hard-working businesses, families, hauliers and those involved in the logistics industry—the rise in fuel duty.
It is clear that Labour is planning to put up fuel duty for the first time in 15 years. Despite the conflict in the middle east, which is pushing up inflation and the cost of petrol at the pump, we have a Chancellor who said in her spring statement that this Labour Government have “the right economic plan” and boasted that households would be better off. She is doubling down on her plan to hike fuel duty, fund more welfare handouts and scrap the two-child benefit cap. That is not benefiting the grafters who are driving local economic growth across our constituencies. That is why increasing fuel duty for the first time in 15 years is such a negative approach, and it is impacting on all those across our constituencies.
Robbie Moore
Last autumn, my constituent Lesley O’Brien got in touch with me with serious concerns about the ramifications of any potential fuel duty hikes on the road haulage sector. As well as being a trustee of the Road Haulage Association and the founder of the transport forum Freight People, Lesley is the joint managing director of Freightlink Europe, a haulage company based in my constituency in West Yorkshire. It is a traditional, family-run business, based on the core values of honesty, respect and a dedication to provide the best level of service to customers.
However, businesses such as Freightlink Europe, and the hard-working people who run them and are employed by them, face unprecedented difficulties. Many haulage companies and those involved in logistics have contacted me directly with their deep concerns. Through no fault of their own, the average profit margin for many of those businesses has been significantly reduced to only 2%, if not lower, and the cost of running a typical haulage business has increased by more than 22% in recent years.
Melanie Ward
I wanted to respond to the point that the hon. Gentleman made a moment ago. He said something to the effect that the people who would benefit from our Government lifting the two-child benefit cap were not grafters. Does he not agree that the people who will benefit from the two-child benefit cap being lifted are children who were living in poverty, and that the majority of the households that those children live in are, in fact, in work? They are grafters.
Robbie Moore
My firm view is that the Government should be supporting all of those individuals to drive economic growth across the country. By removing the two-child cap, the Government are saying to those families who have worked out what their household spending power will be over a long period of time, “If you want to have more than two children, the Government will step in and pay for you.” That negatively impacts hard-working families that have made those hard fiscal decisions throughout. The reality is that increasing the level of welfare spending by taxing businesses such as those across my constituency—those involved in the haulage industry and the logistics sector that will now see a hike in the price of fuel—negatively impacts those who are driving economic growth, and therefore impacts everybody.
Tom Hayes
I think the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) was making is that, contrary to what the hon. Member said, the majority of parents of children who are disadvantaged by the two-child benefit cap are working. They are grafters; they are the hon. Member’s constituents, who are often working multiple jobs just to make ends meet in the difficult cost of living crisis that we inherited. Surely he is not calling the parents who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child benefit cap, including his constituents, workshy.
Robbie Moore
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not turned up to this debate—a debate on an incredibly important issue that is impacting all of our constituents, including his—in good enough time to make a speech on the fuel duty increase, but wants to turn the debate back to a point that I answered in my response to the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). That point still stands. If the Government increase taxes on the hard-working businesses and individuals across the country who want to drive economic growth in order to benefit only a very few people, they are not providing opportunity for many young people and hard-working families across all our communities.
Dr Luke Evans
Back when we were in government, one of the ways we tried to solve this problem was by changing the universal credit cut-off limit from 63% to 55%, which meant that the more work people did, the more money they kept. That is exactly the way to support people back into work: making sure that they keep more of their own money. That incentivises work, rather than disincentivising it. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an ideological difference here? We support work; the other option is just a handout.
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. By taxing families and individuals less, we provide them with more money in their pockets and we drive economic growth, as they have more of their own domestic spending power.
This Labour Government want to hit many businesses and individuals with three consecutive fuel duty hikes in a matter of months. If these proposals go ahead, motorists and haulage companies face being hit with the biggest tax burden in years. The road haulage industry is critical to our nation’s economic success: goods are moved around daily, and logistics are key to keeping our country moving. Everything we eat, drink, wear and consume depends on road haulage services—on companies such as Freightlink Europe. Road freight moves 81% of all goods, and 98% of all agricultural and food products are moved around the country by road haulage.
The Road Haulage Association estimates that a 5p rise in fuel duty will result in a typical motor vehicle-owning household spending an extra £100 each year and increase annual household spending by £1.9 billion, which is a whopping £7.3 billion over the rest of this Parliament. In my eyes, that is a significant additional tax burden for this Government to put on those households. At a time when the conflict in the middle east is pushing up inflation and the cost of petrol at the pump, it is beyond belief that Labour wants to push ahead with this fuel duty hike.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I want to highlight the choices that people living in rural constituencies such as mine are making. In Coldstream, the price of diesel per litre has gone up from £1.41 to £1.69 over the past few days. That is a huge increase, but because of the prospective tax rise that is coming down the line from the Labour Government, constituents tell me that they are looking at jobs and considering their alternatives, because they have to drive to get to work. A constituent who has been offered a new job that is further away, and who will have to drive further to get to it, is thinking about turning it down because once the 5p fuel duty increase comes in, he will not be able to get to his job.
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come on to the additional challenges in rural areas, but he makes a clear and concise point: if people have to travel further for a job opportunity, they are going to be taxed more by this Labour Government. That is on top of the Labour Government removing the rural services delivery grant that was providing additional support to many local authorities operating in rural communities. We clearly have a Government who are not interested in supporting our rural communities. Of course, this fuel duty hike comes on top of the increase in employer national insurance contributions and business rates. It will impact our care workers, our district nurses and our hospice sector, all of which are also impacted by the rise in employer national insurance contributions.
At a local level across the Bradford district, we face an additional tax burden: the clean air zone, which was rolled out several years ago. A taxi driver with a non-compliant vehicle who wants to travel into Bradford—an area that we all want to see grow and thrive economically—faces a daily charge of £7 to do so. A white van driver is charged £9 daily to go into Bradford, and someone operating a bus or a heavy goods vehicle is charged £50 a day to do so, as a result of the choices that Labour-run Bradford council has made.
Labour-run Bradford council has received £20 million from collecting this additional tax from our hard-working businesses over the period that the clean air zone has been in force across Bradford. It is something that I am firmly opposed to. Bradford council will say that it is going to spend this money wisely across the district, but based on a freedom of information request that I submitted to Bradford council, I can contradict that narrative. As of 2023, just £4.1 million of all highways spending was spent within the Keighley and Ilkley constituency over a six-year period. To put that in context, the spending in Bradford East, Bradford West and Bradford South was £19.2 million, £17.4 million and £13.1 million respectively. That illustrates that there is no fairness in how Bradford council spends the money it is collecting from my hard-working constituents across Keighley and Ilkley.
Robbie Moore
The right to roll out a clean air zone was given to local authorities, enabling them to make that decision, but some local authorities have refused to do so. The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, decided not to roll out a clean air zone—that is an example of a Labour administration at a local level making the right decision on this issue. Labour-run Bradford council, however, decided to impose an additional tax on hard-working motorists across the Bradford district. As a result, places in my constituency such as East Morton face increased traffic congestion, road usage and speeding in the areas outside the clean air zone, where motorists try to take different roads to avoid any additional charge.
Rural communities will also be hard hit, as has been rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). Many of those businesses are in our farming community, which has already been hit by additional cash-flow implications. One point that has not been raised in this debate so far is the increase in red diesel prices, which have spiked by 60% in the last month alone, as supplies remain tight. From the research I have done, red diesel has increased up to an average of 109p a litre in March, up from 67p a litre in February. Farming businesses are reporting being quoted a variety of prices in the past month, ranging from 100p a litre to 135p a litre. That is a significant increase from the 67p a litre we saw just last month.
Several farmers are rightly querying why red diesel prices appear to have increased much more rapidly than road diesel and petrol prices. What meetings is the Minister having with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers specifically on red diesel, which is having an impact right now on the cash flow of many of our hard-working farmers? That is in addition to delinked payments dramatically dropping, the chop and change over the sustainable farming incentive, and the uncertainty that this Government are creating for many of those working within our farming community, and that is on top of fertiliser prices going up.
The Prime Minister said earlier this week that he will always support working people, but what does that say to those hard-working people across the country and across Keighley and Ilkley, such as Lesley O’Brien, who I mentioned earlier? Businesses and employers face bigger and bigger hurdles the longer this Labour Government are in power. Three consecutive rises in fuel duty is an insult to hard-working people across this country. The Prime Minister and this Government need to get a grip, back our hard-working businesses and show some empathy to those concerns consistently being raised by Opposition Members. It is disappointing, although perhaps not surprising, that we have not heard one Labour Back Bencher contribution in an incredibly important debate on fuel duty.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Without getting into a fight about who has the biggest constituency, Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey is in the top five for geographic size, and my constituents grapple on a daily basis with energy costs across the whole suite of energy measures, whether that is road fuel, heating oil, tank gas, or the electricity prices that they pay. The issue for them is that the combination of all those things is totally disproportionate. The highest prices for road fuel are paid in rural areas such as those in my constituency. The highest price for heating oil is paid there, because there are high distribution costs. The highest price for electricity, because of high standing charges, is paid in my constituency and in constituencies in north Wales and Merseyside, which is the other high standing charge area.
The combination of all that means that my constituents are paying substantially more for their energy than constituents elsewhere in the country. Successive Conservative and Labour Governments have presided over discriminatory—I do not use that word lightly—energy charging for electricity. To have that compounded by the highest fuel charges and the highest oil charges is extremely painful for those households who, like everyone else, are suffering from the cost of living crisis. They also have the coldest temperatures in the UK, and these constituencies are producing the highest amount of energy per capita. The people who are using that energy hundreds of miles away are paying less to use it. The situation is utterly disgraceful and needs to change.
This Government have had nearly two years to make changes to standing charges and electricity prices, but they have not done it. They have not made a decision on it, and decisions are taking far too long to be made. Pace is everything in this. People are suffering every single day, but it is not just the individuals who suffer. Many Members have referred in this debate to the cost to businesses in these areas, generally from high transport costs. For businesses to get around and deliver their goods, to get their goods to market and to get their supply chain to deliver to them frequently involves travelling large mileages. Public services, including our emergency services, are paying vast amounts for fuel.
On Monday, while I was experiencing a very enjoyable walk to work on a bright spring day here in London, my constituents in Aviemore were contending with a temperature that felt like minus 5°, and the Highland council and the trunk road authority had gritters out for a considerable part of the day to keep the roads safe. Those gritters travel hundreds of miles on their routes because that is what they are required to do, which means that local authorities, the NHS boards and other public or emergency services are paying out vast and unpredictable amounts for fuel when budgets have already been set. Capital projects involve built-in risk to cover future price increases that are quite considerable, so they are protected to an extent, but that does not apply when it comes to public authorities’ day-to-day operational costs. The fuel price increases include increases in heating oil prices. Many primary and secondary schools in the Highlands, and Moray and Aberdeenshire and in other parts of Scotland—and, indeed, other rural areas in the rest of the UK—pay for their heating oil, and these increases will have a very detrimental impact on them.
The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) made many reasonable points about the impact of the energy profits levy and the fiscal regime that governs North sea production, and about the need for us to continue to produce oil and gas for as long as is required, while still making a transition. Let me gently point out to Conservative Members that while I agree with them that the EPL needs to be changed immediately—in fact, it is beyond time for it to be changed—they have drawn away from that transition to renewables because of the pulling away from climate change targets. I know that North sea companies agree with them about the EPL, but they were utterly dismayed about that pulling away from the transition, because the oil and gas majors are the same people who are investing in renewables. We need to get that transition right to avoid the job losses that the hon. Member mentioned.
A number of Members mentioned bus fare caps. Let me, again, gently point out that in my constituency in the north of Scotland, and across the highlands and islands, a pilot is being run for a £2 cap enabling people to travel, in some cases, for hundreds of miles for £2. That is progressive, because people in, for example, Inverness in the highlands who need access to services have to travel hundreds of miles to get it. The cap is about treating people with fairness, recognising that they are at the heart of our energy production and are still paying more for their energy, and giving them some services back for that. Peak rail fares have also been withdrawn.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), who mentioned heating oil support in Scotland, has left the Chamber, but I can tell the House that the Scottish Government have more than doubled the heating oil funding provided by the UK Government—although is still nowhere near enough, because the UK Government should be taking far more responsibility and putting in far more money. People will be able to apply for that support from 1 April, and it will be delivered through Advice Direct Scotland. there is a plan in place, and it is moving forward.
Red diesel used to be available to local authorities for gritting roads. Reinstating it would make a huge difference to the local authorities in the north of Scotland who have to spread grit for considerably longer than those in many other parts of the UK, and I urge the Minister to consider doing so, because it is essentially an emergency service. Our roads would not be safe in the depths of winter without being gritted, and making red diesel available to those vehicles again would not be a bad idea at all.
Finally, let me simply urge the Government to take account of what happens in rural areas—how people commute, how they get to work, and how services are delivered—and to consider that in the context of fuel duty. They have the power to fix fuel duty. Such certainty is important, especially to people who are planning and budgeting for a year ahead, and that applies to public services in particular.
John Lamont
To pick up the hon. Member’s point about fairness, he will be aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted that Scottish taxpayers are £710 on average worse off compared with taxpayers in England as a result of the Scottish Government’s higher rates of income tax. Does he think that is fair?
Graham Leadbitter
I have always believed that the tax we pay is part of a contract with the state, and that we should consider whether it is reasonable to pay that price for the services we get back. I would also observe that we have to look at tax in the round. Broadly speaking, council tax in Scotland is considerably lower than in the rest of the UK. The tax on the accommodation I use in London is certainly considerably dearer than that on my own property at home, which is larger, and that is pretty much the case throughout Scotland. The cost of living is generally cheaper in Scotland than it is in central London.
Graham Leadbitter
And the taxation being paid gives people back more services and better services. Things such as the removal of peak rail fares and the freeze on bus fares—the cap on bus fares has been put in place and is being tested in the north of Scotland—all really benefit people. Beyond that, however, more than half of taxpayers in Scotland do not pay more income tax than people do south of the border. That is a fact.
I urge the UK Government to consider many of these proposals. They could consider measures on bus fares and peak rail fares, but they also have the power over key taxation levers, including fuel duty. They need to make decisions quickly to give people more certainty and a little bit less risk about where things are going. Some things are not controllable, and I wish the Government did not have to consider them, because they are difficult, but the Government have levers that can make it a bit easier for people, and they should use those levers.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
How absurd it is that, on an issue that affects each and every one of our constituents, whether they drive their own car or take the bus or a diesel-powered train, not one Government Back Bencher—not one—sought to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make a speech either to defend the Government’s plan to increase fuel duty this September, or perhaps even to have the backbone to stand up and oppose it.
Meanwhile, from the Conservative Benches, we heard the case set out clearly and with passion by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), in opening the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) rightly spoke about the volume of internal combustion engine vehicles in the United Kingdom, exploring how far this tax rise will go and how Labour simply does not understand rural life, as well as the folly and unfairness of “pay per mile” for rural communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) rightly identified the absurdity of the Government preferring to import oil rather than use our own resources in the North sea. On the fuel finder, he made an accurate point, which I recognise from my own constituency, about the scarcity of filling stations in rural communities. I accept that we had a bit of a trade-off with constituency sizes this afternoon, but I can think of only eight filling stations in my modest 336 square miles in Mid Buckinghamshire. It is a point well made that, in rural communities, people often have to travel great distances to fill up with fuel, and may end up burning more fuel by going to the apparently cheaper station further away.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) spoke good Buckinghamshire common sense when making points about rural communities. Likewise, that case was made by my hon. Friends the Members for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) made good points about the simply ridiculous and hideous levels of taxation on motoring in our capital city under Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan.
Let us ask a very simple question. When the Chancellor talks about asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more, does she mean the care worker filling up their car to get around to their house visits, particularly in rural communities? Does she mean the self-employed delivery driver keeping our high streets alive? Does she mean the small business owner trying to make ends meet? I very much hope that she does not, but what we see on the ground, as the reality, is that those are exactly the people who will be hit hardest by this policy of increasing fuel duty.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Given the hon. Gentleman’s concern for the various categories of workers and businesspeople he has just set out, can he explain why his party, when in government, planned to oversee an increase in fuel duty and did not budget for the kind of freeze that he is now demanding, were it to have won?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is late to the debate—we have been around that a few times over the course of the afternoon. The record of the Conservatives in government was to freeze council tax and freeze fuel duty—indeed, we cut it when we saw Russia invade Ukraine in 2022. Conservatives stand on a proud record of keeping fuel duty down, freezing it and cutting it. It is his party that, in government, is going to increase it on hard-working people this very year.
Let us be absolutely clear: this is a tax rise, a regressive tax hitting the poorest the hardest; a deliberate, calculated and, frankly, cynical tax rise phased in carefully in the hope that people will not notice. We have a rise in September—a back to school tax. We have another in December—a Christmas shopping tax. And then, in March, we have a spring clean of people’s wallets. Three moments in the year, three hits to working people.
Dr Luke Evans
It would be remiss of me not to point out that in July the price cap will be reviewed. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a decent chance, given what is happening in Iran, that we may well see an increase in energy bills anyway?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a clinically accurate point, and he is absolutely right to do so.
The truth is that the headline figure does not even tell us the full story. This is not just a tax rise; it is a tax on a tax. Fuel duty is applied first and then VAT is charged on top of it. So when the Government increase fuel duty, they are also increasing the VAT paid on that tax—a tax on a tax. That means that what they present as a 5p rise is not really 5p in practice, but closer to 6p at the pump—a hidden double tax built into the system, taking more from every driver, every business and every household.
We saw that argument tested just this weekend. The Energy Secretary was asked directly about the soaring cost of fuel and his instinct was simply to point to global events, external pressures and anything other than the decisions being made here at home in Whitehall. But he was confronted by a simple, undeniable fact: a breakdown of the price of a litre of petrol showed that fuel duty alone accounts for around 38% of the cost and, once VAT is added on top, that more than half of what drivers pay at the pump is tax—more than half.
Let us be clear: this is not simply about international markets or events beyond our control. Of course global factors play a role and of course wholesale prices fluctuate, but when over half the price at the pump is made up of taxes set by this Government, Ministers cannot hide purely behind external circumstances. They cannot blame global markets and ignore their own policy choices. And they certainly cannot claim to be easing the cost of living while actively increasing the tax burden built into every litre of fuel. The consequences ripple through the entire economy. Equally, when prices go up, including at the hands of the Chancellor, crime also rises. Already we are seeing reports from our hauliers across the country of fuel thefts taking place. That is serious.
Fuel is not a luxury; it is fundamental to how the country works. It is how goods get to our supermarkets, how tradespeople get to jobs and how carers reach the most vulnerable. When the cost of fuel rises, the cost of everything else rises—shops feel it, businesses feel it, families feel it—and it is, of course, inflationary. That matters not just for household budgets, but for the public finances. Around a quarter of the United Kingdom’s national debt—some £750 billion—is index-linked, so higher inflation means higher debt interest costs. In other words, this policy risks making the Government’s own fiscal position worse even as it makes life harder for working people.
The question is: what are the Government going to do, and why are they doing this? Why impose higher costs on drivers, businesses and families at a time like this? The answer lies in a failure at the heart of this Government’s approach: they have lost control of welfare spending. Instead of taking the difficult decisions required to ensure that welfare spending is sustainable and properly targeted, they have allowed costs to rise and rise. Now, having failed to grip that challenge, they are asking working people to pick up the bill. We have already seen tax increases on jobs, family businesses, our high streets and our farmers; this is simply the next step. Drivers are being asked to pay the price for the Government’s failure.
There is a different approach. In government, the Conservatives understood the pressure that fuel costs place on households and businesses, which is why we cut—I repeat, cut—fuel duty, froze it year after year, and stepped in again when global pressures caused prices to spike. We recognise that Governments do not balance the books by making it more expensive for people to go to work or to set up or operate a business and do not hide tax rises within the price at the pump. No one can create a system where people are taxed twice—once through fuel duty and then again through VAT applied on top—and call that fair. This policy fails the basic tests; it is an unfair tax. We Conservatives will oppose this unfair tax rise, and any Member who cares about what our constituents are paying at the pump will surely vote for our motion tonight.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank hon. Members for their contributions throughout the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) in particular for his winding-up, as well as the Tory Whips for giving me the opportunity to remind the House of his support for Liz Truss as PM. My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), has just passed me the 10 reasons the hon. Gentleman set out for supporting Liz Truss for PM—I do not know whether that is something he now regrets.
I will turn to the serious matter at hand. We are debating this issue at a time of significant international uncertainty. As the House is aware, we are now in our third week of the conflict in Iran and across the middle east. As the Prime Minister has made clear, our priority will always be the national interest through protecting British nationals and supporting our allies.
This Government recognise that the conflict is not just a matter of foreign policy, and that it also has direct consequences for individuals and families here in the UK. Movements in global energy markets are likely to put upward pressure on inflation, and the longer this conflict continues, the greater the risk it poses to both economic stability and the cost of living in the UK.
That is why the Government are clear that rapid de-escalation remains the best way to protect people from further fuel price increases. We are working with our international partners to support efforts to secure key energy routes and guarantee the security of vessels passing through the strait of Hormuz. We are also supporting a co-ordinated release of collective International Energy Agency oil reserves, the release of which has helped to stabilise international oil markets.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister is right to talk about de-escalation and look to the international side, but, as I raised in my speech, there are domestic factors at play here too. What are the Government doing to set out a timeline to make these decisions and assess their implications so that the country can plan around what may or may not be going on? We do not know how long this will go on. What points are the Government looking at to make and inform their decisions?
Dan Tomlinson
I will come on to talk about fuel duty; I was just setting out the context at the opening of my speech.
The Government’s approach is to focus squarely on the British national interest and the economic interests of British households. The Opposition have clearly taken a different approach, choosing instead at times to egg on military action, focusing more on posturing and trying to get one up on the Government than on looking after our own at home and abroad.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My hon. Friend hits the nail precisely on the head. We are debating a possible fuel duty increase seven months ahead of it happening. The reality is that the Opposition have been caught championing an illegal war in the middle east that the public of this country do not support, and they are trying to divert it with this nonsensical argument.
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right: the Opposition are totally on the wrong side of common-sense public opinion in this country. On the most important of tests, they have failed. He is also right to point out that the fuel duty increase is pencilled in for September, as the Chancellor set out in last year’s Budget. I think it is worth reminding the House that fuel duty right now is lower than it was in 12 of the 14 years of the Conservative Government. In 2010, 2011, 2012 and all the way up to 2022, fuel duty was higher than it is now.
In the 2025 Budget, we extended the temporary 5p per litre cut in fuel duty until the end of August this year, and we cancelled the inflation-linked increase that had been planned for 2026-27. Taken together with decisions made since the 2024 Budget, the Government’s fuel duty freeze will save the average motorist more than £90 compared with the plans that we inherited. Conservative Members, who have made contributions in this debate, stood in the July 2024 general election on spending plans that would have had fuel duty increase by 5p—[Interruption.] Yes, it is true.
Unless the Conservatives are disowning the official forecasts that were published before the general election and the manifesto on which they stood—which, by the way, did not mention plans for fuel duty—I think we are again discovering that there were further black holes in the Conservatives’ spending plans. Their plans, which were set out in the official forecast in the run-up to the general election, said that fuel duty would increase by 5p last year—by RPI last year—and then by RPI again this year. We have instead chosen to freeze fuel duty both last year and this year and to maintain the 5p cut until September of this year.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and other Members made very important points about the impact of fuel price increases on those in rural communities. He will be aware, as I believe it applies to his constituency and to some of the others mentioned today, of the rural fuel duty relief scheme, which does provide a reduction to motorists in those parts of the country that are more rural. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, which some in this Chamber attended, I am always happy to receive representations on whether that scheme should be widened.
The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked about the electric vehicle excise duty change that will be introduced in the coming years, and whether it will be extended. No, it will not. The plan is as set out at the Budget last year. Government Members think that it is fair that all vehicles that contribute to the wear and tear on our roads should also contribute towards the repair costs and to the public finances, and they will do so at a lower rate of 3p rather than 6p, which was the average amount paid by those who pay fuel duty.
Harriet Cross
Just for clarification, my point was that that is a pay-per-mile scheme and that the pay-per-mile basis would not be extended to petrol and diesel cars. Is the charge per mile on EVs a gateway for that extending to petrol and diesel vehicles?
Dan Tomlinson
The EVED charge is on electric cars because they do not pay fuel duty. Petrol cars do pay fuel duty, which, because it is on a litre of petrol, is a charge that is determined by how much someone drives.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) made some good points about public transport. I congratulate her on getting through the speech after the very large number of interventions that she had to respond to—and she responded to them well. I point out that this Government are introducing the first rail fares freeze in 30 years and that we are investing £38 million to roll out 319 new zero emission buses across England—lots of good things.
As ever, decisions on taxation will be taken at the appropriate time, based on the best evidence and with careful regard to the public finances. The Government will continue to take the right decisions, protecting the public finances and supporting families with the cost of living.
The previous Government left us with the worst living standards stagnation in memory. A Reform Government would crash the economy just like Liz Truss did, with wild unfunded promises. The Greens would push up energy bills by blocking clean power. This Government reject the chaos offered by Opposition parties. We have an economic plan that is the right one for Britain. Our plan means that we are more prepared for this shock than otherwise, with borrowing falling by 1% of GDP last year, our power supply now less reliant on the gas rollercoaster, living standards rising, inflation falling, and the big and right decision to take £117 off annual energy bills in April yet to come. It is the right plan, and this Government will stick to it for the good of the British people and this great country that we all serve.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 368 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 277 and the Noes were 98, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Student Loans
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to set the interest rate on Plan 2 student loans at a level which ensures that balances will never rise faster than RPI inflation; further calls on the Government to stop the freeze on repayment thresholds; and also calls on the Government to create more apprenticeships for 18-21 year olds, funded by controlling the number of places on university courses where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the cost to graduates and taxpayers.
In June 2023, the then shadow Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), proclaimed, “Graduates, you will pay less under Labour”. Well, it turns out that that was not true; under Labour, graduates are paying more. So far, under this Government tuition fees have gone up twice. This is a long way from the abolition of tuition fees offered up by a fresh-faced candidate for the Labour leadership just a few years ago—I wonder what happened to him.
It is no wonder that students feel misled by this Government. Not content with hiking tuition fees when they said they would not, this Government also froze the thresholds for repayments, making loans even more expensive for graduates. As with everything this Chancellor touches, she makes it worse. Her choice to freeze the repayment thresholds has left young people paying more and sooner. What did the Chancellor say when challenged about the threshold freeze in January? She said that the student loan system is “fair and reasonable”. To be clear, this was the stance—that the student loan system and the threshold freeze were “fair and reasonable”—of the Labour Government as recently as January. Tell that to the graduate forced to pay an extra £24,000 because of the Chancellor’s changes. The Chancellor is wrong: it is not fair or reasonable.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Given that plan 2 tuition fees were introduced by the Conservatives in 2012, that they froze the repayment thresholds in 2016 and that they abolished the maintenance grants, was that fair then?
Laura Trott
The hon. Gentleman is missing the fact that Labour has made it worse. Even now, the Chancellor has changed her tune—no surprise given the track record of this Government. She now says that the system is “broken”, but young people are apparently not at the “front of the queue”. I did not see that on the front of the Labour manifesto. We on the Opposition Benches think that young people should be at the front of the queue, because thanks to Labour, Britain’s youth unemployment rate has topped the eurozone for the first time ever. Graduates coming out of university cannot get jobs. Graduates in work are seeing their student debt mounting up.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I have been contacted by many students in Epping Forest who are deeply concerned about their future debt and by many graduates who are worried about ballooning debt on these plan 2 loans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government have an opportunity to step in and relieve the pressure on young people and adopt the Conservative plans to scrap real interest rates on these plan 2 loans?
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a chance today to create a new deal for young people. I hope that some Government Members vote for it.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I must declare an interest as someone in the first year group to have a plan 2 student loan under the broken system introduced by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that we have today. Will the right hon. Member apologise to my generation for £9,000 tuition fees, for the broken system she created and for failing to introduce the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 that this Government have acted to introduce?
Laura Trott
If the hon. Lady thinks the system is broken, I invite her to vote for our motion.
Every metric for young people has got worse since this Government came in. It is crystal clear that for young people, as for the rest of the country, Labour is not working.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will have noted, as I have, that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and other Labour Members wish to talk about the past. Our constituents, and graduates who are paying these outrageous sums, want to talk about the future. At the general election, they listened to Labour’s promises on lowering costs for graduates, but the Government are doing exactly the opposite. By deflecting and talking about the past rather than accepting responsibility for the government that they are delivering, Labour Members are letting down all those young people, whose aspirations should be respected.
Laura Trott
My right hon. Friend is quite right: not only did Labour mislead the public, but it then made things worse. Now, Labour Members will not vote to fix it. That is Labour all over.
We need a plan to fix the problem, but it is not enough to fiddle with one part of the problem. We need comprehensive change, and that is exactly what we Conservatives have come up with: a new deal for young people. The plan, which could be implemented today, would reverse the threshold freeze, make interest rates for plan 2 loans inflation-only, stop dead-end degrees, and boost apprenticeships so that young people have real choice when they leave school, not a future weighed down by debt.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady talks about a comprehensive plan and giving people choices, but this is not a comprehensive plan for student loan reform; it is a plan written on the back of a fag packet. It basically revolves around restricting university access, which is always the go-to solution for the Conservatives. In truth, it will mean that people like me—I was the first person in my family to go to university—will not get to go to university. People who go to Brunel University in my constituency will face restrictions in course levels. That is not a widening of opportunity and choice, but a restriction of them.
Laura Trott
No, the plan would massively widen choice. At the moment, the number of young people who want to start apprenticeships is much smaller than the number of apprenticeships available—we need to change that and the system. It is not good enough for the Government to table an amendment to our motion stating that they will make the system fairer and financially sustainable, when they are making it less fair and less financially sustainable.
At the moment, the system is punishing aspiration, and that is demoralising for young people. They leave university having done everything that was asked of them. They work hard and get a promotion, and then the interest on their loan goes up. They pay back far more than they ever borrowed. A typical plan 2 graduate needs to earn £66,000 a year just to keep pace with the interest. Young people should not be punished for doing the right thing.
Helena Dollimore
The right hon. Lady talks about making the system fair. Will she comment on what her party did in government? The Conservatives abolished the maintenance grant, which means that low-income students have bigger debts and have to pay back more. This Labour Government have acted to bring back the maintenance grants that her party took away.
Laura Trott
The Chancellor said that the system was fair and reasonable—what a joke! The Government do not recognise the scale of the problem, but we do, and we have come up with a plan to fix it. What is their plan? It does not exist.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Vacancies for graduates have gone down precipitously this year compared with the same time last year. That should worry those of us who are interested in the future. How can we rebalance the offer to young people so that they are not sold a pup—as they have been by consecutive Governments over many years—in relation to what a degree will mean for their future career prospects? How can we ensure that our incredibly valuable further education sector is supported—probably at the expense of some of our lesser universities?
Laura Trott
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is nothing progressive about letting a young person take a university degree that has negative returns for them. That is not fair or right, and we should fix it.
The problem is not just the loans, but a system that funnels young people into university courses that do not get them jobs and do not allow them to repay their loans. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that 30% of university degrees have negative returns for those who study them. It is not just that they do not help, but that they have negative returns. It is worse for those students to go to university—that is not progressive.
Some 75% of the value of loans for creative arts courses is not paid back. Creative arts is an engine of the UK economy, but too many courses just do not deliver jobs in the industry that they purport to serve. It is a mis-selling scandal where brochures promise a glittering career, but the courses deliver nothing but debt and a dead end. That is not right. Of course, creative arts courses that actually lead to jobs should continue, but those who are selling a lie do not have any place being taxpayer funded.
The consequences of this broken system are already becoming clear. According to the Centre for Social Justice, more than 700,000 graduates are currently out of work and claiming benefits. That should concern every Member of this House.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Is my right hon. friend also concerned by the fact that, last year, the Office for National Statistics said that 257,000 people left the UK, up from an expected 77,000? Three quarters of those people were under the age of 35. That shows that young people are fleeing this country to look elsewhere for work. Does she share my concern that that is the case?
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend is, as ever, absolutely right. Opportunity should be created for young people here, not in other countries, and that is what we want to create.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
It is a long time since I went to university, but there was a belief then that the least important things we got out of it were degrees and job prospects. There was a value in education itself. The right hon. Lady seems to think that the only reason to go to university is mercenary.
Laura Trott
It seems like the hon. Gentleman was at university only yesterday. If we are asking young people to take on a mountain of debt, it is important for them to know that they will get a job and have prospects afterwards. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposition, and it is one that I will argue for.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I was of the Tony Blair generation. We were told that unless we went to university, we were a failure, and that everyone should be able to go to university. That was fundamentally wrong; it led to a two-tier system where those who did not go to university were asking why not. I remember young people at my sixth form asking, “Am I not as bright? Do I not have the same prospects?” They should have been encouraged and supported. For example, my brother went into carpentry while studying philosophy at Birmingham. He could have started his career at a much earlier point. By rebalancing, we are giving the right recognition to the skills and training needed earlier, rather than pushing people into unnecessary debt traps.
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend is spot on. It is not well known that apprenticeship degrees are more oversubscribed than Oxford and Cambridge. These are things that young people want to do, and that is why we are trying to expand them. Instead of celebrating the expansion of low-value degrees, the Government should ask whether it is right to continue pushing young people down a path that leaves them with debt but no clear prospects.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call John Slinger. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”]
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am grateful to hon. Members for giving me such support. The right hon. Lady makes the point that creative arts subjects are perhaps not providing young people with job prospects. Would she not concede that we need people with creative arts skills and experience in our society and economy? The sector contributes £124 billion to our economy. What we need is what this Government are doing: investing in the creative arts sector. We need people who are skilled and trained in that sector so that they can do those jobs. She is offering only a litany of woe.
Laura Trott
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening when I covered that point. The whole point is that those degrees do not lead to jobs in the creative arts industry. It is a mis-selling scandal. They promise a glittering career in the creative arts and do not actually deliver it. I think that is a problem, and I am sad that the hon. Gentleman does not think that.
What are students receiving in return for these enormous fees?
Laura Trott
I will not. When the hon. Gentleman tried to intervene on me recently, he accused me of jumping on a bandwagon about rape gangs, so he will forgive me for not taking another intervention from him.
Too often, students are receiving minimal face-to-face teaching, limited supervision and a university experience that falls far short of what was promised. This is not a fair system and it is not a sustainable one either.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The right hon. Lady says that the system is unfair. Does she agree that charging interest rates during maternity and paternity leave is also unfair? It disadvantages people in the workplace, especially women, who have worked hard to get into progressive careers through university education, and they are penalised at that point.
Laura Trott
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. I totally agree with him that it is something that needs to be looked into and fixed.
As I have mentioned, we know that 10 times as many young people want an apprenticeship at 18 as there are places available. The demand is there, but the places are not. To me, it makes complete sense to move from funding dead-end courses at universities to giving young people the opportunity to do an apprenticeship that will get them into a job, and they will emerge from that apprenticeship with no debt. We want fundamental change to the system so that at 18, young people have a choice between a high-quality university place, an apprenticeship or going into work. That is a Conservative choice.
What is Labour’s response to that proposal? Last weekend, the Government announced that they will compensate for some of the mess that they created in the form of youth unemployment when they hiked up employer national insurance contributions, but they are robbing Peter to pay Paul—exactly the sort of economic thinking that we have come to expect. They are punishing employers with a jobs tax, which one of the Cabinet finally admitted this week has caused a huge spike in unemployment, and they are giving back £3,000, but only to those who have been on universal credit for six months. Fiddling with a system that needs fundamental reform and clearing up the mess of the Chancellor’s Budget is almost a full-time job for this Government.
The Conservatives are the only party putting forward a serious plan to help young people, whether by abolishing stamp duty for first-time buyers or through our new deal.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The motion in the right hon. Lady’s name states that
“balances will never rise faster than RPI inflation”.
She was a senior Treasury Minister. Does she share my regret at the decision to suspend routine methodological improvements to the retail prices index, which led to the gap between the RPI and the lower consumer prices index rates more than doubling?
Laura Trott
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, and I look forward to his bringing it up with the Chancellor at questions.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I say to Labour Members that we all want to get this issue sorted out. When I spoke to the Chancellor during the spring statement, she said that the way that she was going to control student loan interest rates was by controlling inflation, but we all know what is happening in the middle east at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that policy is wishful thinking and that we need to think about the issue properly in order to change the system?
Laura Trott
Exactly. The Chancellor gave it all away when she said that young people are at the back of the queue—that tells us all that we need to know about this Government.
The Government amendment is the usual mishmash of nothingness, and I suspect many Labour Members are disappointed. The amendment welcomes
“the Government’s commitment to make the system fairer and financially sustainable”,
even though the only thing that the Government have done so far, which is the threshold freeze, has made the system less fair and less sustainable for young people. But don’t worry, there is more. Labour Members are today going to welcome a “target”—not any action lines, but a target—even though it is a target that the Government are currently missing, as the share and volume of under-25s starting apprenticeships in the last academic year have fallen. What a mess!
We need a different approach. The Conservatives believe that the system needs fundamental change. We believe that students should not be mis-sold degrees that promise the earth and deliver nothing but debt, that the freeze on thresholds is wrong, that students on plan 2 loans should only pay interest at inflation, and that young people deserve a new deal. That is what we are asking the Government to vote for today, so that young people will be put not to the back of the queue but to the front of it.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I beg to move
an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“recognises that the Government inherited the current broken student loans system, including Plan 2, which was devised by previous administrations; welcomes the Government’s commitment to make the system fairer and financially sustainable; further welcomes the support the Government is providing to young people through the Youth Guarantee; supports the Government’s target for two thirds of young people to achieve higher level skills by the age of 25, including reversing the decline in apprenticeships under the previous Government; and further supports the reintroduction of maintenance grants, which had been scrapped under the previous Government, to help ensure that background is not a barrier to opportunity for young people.”
I welcome the Opposition’s focus today on opportunities for young people, student loans and apprenticeships. I am pleased that the House has the opportunity to scrutinise this broken system devised by the Conservatives, who tripled tuition fees, introduced plan 2 loans and presided over a decade that saw a 40% drop in young people starting apprenticeships.
David Reed
We have heard the argument repeatedly that it was the Conservatives and the coalition Government that brought in these changes. I am someone with a plan 2 loan. I was in the generation that Blair told to go to university, and at no point did anyone in that Blair Government talk about how the jobs market would take on so many graduates or, most importantly, who would pay for those people to go to university. Does the Minister agree that the 50% of school leavers who went to university should be paid for by the 50% that did not?
Georgia Gould
I think it is really relevant to make sure that the public know who created this system—and not only created it, but froze those loans 10 times over the last 12 years—[Interruption.] I know that it is inconvenient for the Conservatives to be reminded of these truths, but we have lived through them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I must be suffering from some sort of political amnesia, because I was absolutely convinced that it was a Labour Government that introduced tuition fees in the first place. Maybe the Minister will correct me.
Georgia Gould
I was talking about plan 2—[Interruption.] The debate today that has been called by the Opposition is about plan 2 loans—a system that was created in 2012 by the Conservatives.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I have read the motion and the amendment. Students today are on a new loan—the plan 5 loan—and Conservative Members have completely forgotten current students. The Government amendment talks about the system in the round. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that the Government are going to look at the system in the round and not just at plan 2, so that all students and graduates have a fairer system?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy on this issue. I know that he represents a number of students, and this is something that he has raised continually. We have heard the concerns about student finance, and it is something that we will be looking at. I am really happy to take that conversation forward.
Dr Murrison
My constituents are not interested in the past, particularly the distant past; they are interested in the future. They have heard what the Conservatives would do, but we have yet to hear from the Government of the day what they will do. Will the Minister enlighten us?
Georgia Gould
I think that the past is really relevant. I was a council leader during the last Government and I saw the cuts to local youth services, to early years support and to all our public services. We lived through that time when young people really were at the back of the queue, and we are rebuilding from that through investment in tackling child poverty, in youth services and in schools, and through the historic investment in special educational needs and disabilities provision. Those choices that we are making really matter, and are relevant to the discussion we are having.
In terms of what we are actually doing, we are increasing the threshold to £29,385 this year, which will help to support people this year after the threshold was frozen for four years by the previous Government.
Helena Dollimore
The Opposition talk about amnesia. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is they who have collective amnesia about the system they created? My generation certainly do not have amnesia about the debt repayments we made when Liz Truss crashed the economy and sent interest rates soaring—that is what the Conservatives presided over. We do not have collective amnesia about them abolishing maintenance grants for the lowest income students. It is this Government who are acting for my generation with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I just remind Members that interventions need to be shorter than that.
Georgia Gould
I would be delighted to take the right hon. Member’s incredibly short intervention.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The Minister’s hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), asked a perfectly reasonable question about looking at the thing in the round, and her answer was that she would take the conversation forward. I think we need more than that.
Georgia Gould
We have acknowledged the issues and the unfairness in the system. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education have acknowledged that, and we have said that we will look at it.
I will make progress. Under the last Government, the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by 250,000. Today, nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That is the legacy of the Conservatives, but this Government are turning that around. We are renewing the post-16 education landscape and celebrating routes into vocational education not by restricting university, but by opening up new high-quality vocational routes. We are introducing new V-levels and new foundation apprenticeships and supporting students to get excellent university education across the country.
The Opposition talk a lot about higher education and suggest that too many young people go to university. It is interesting that they can never tell us who should no longer go or which courses they should not study.
Georgia Gould
Did the right hon. Member tell me who should not go to university? I can tell the Conservatives that when they close the drawbridge, it is pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who will end up not at university. That is the consequence. We are opening up access to apprenticeships and vocational routes not by closing down university routes, but by opening up other routes.
Dr Luke Evans
The Opposition have made the argument that 30% of courses leave people with a negative bank balance. That is the problem that we are trying to solve. We are not denigrating anyone for wanting to choose; this is about ensuring that the quality of the course means that people have a positive life outcome, not a negative one. Does the Minister agree with that principle?
Georgia Gould
We are absolutely committed to driving up the quality of all university courses, and we are acting on that.
Conservative Members have attacked arts and creative courses as the areas where they would like to see a reduction. We have just seen the British talent at the Brits and the Oscars. This is one of our highest-growth industries. We saw this in our schools when there was a reduction in education in the arts, and we are seeing it now as the Conservatives attack those courses in universities.
Graham Stuart
Young people in my constituency are looking for a bit of hope. How should they interpret the Minister’s answer to her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and the fact that the Chancellor has said that young people are at the back of the queue? From that very recent mood music, it does not sound as if there is much to hope for from this Government.
Georgia Gould
I have spent the last few months travelling around the country talking to young people about the investment that Labour is putting in to support young people with special educational needs and to support schools and youth clubs. That is what the Labour party is doing in power, and there is huge hope that comes from that. Those are the areas where we need to prioritise investment.
The chance to study in higher education for those who want to and who have the ability to changes lives. We are determined to support students who want to go to university to fulfil their aspirations. We must not lose sight of the value that student loans provide in enabling that and levelling the playing field at the point of access. They remove the up-front financial barriers to study and enable students to repay when they are earning.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister is making an excellent and powerful speech on the motion. One aspect of the broken student loans system is the maternity penalty. When someone is on maternity leave, the interest on a student loan continues to accrue, despite income dropping below the repayment threshold. That means that graduates with student loans who take maternity leave face a longer repayment period and a greater total loan amount. Will the Minister take that concern back? Will the Government have a look at this perceived inequality?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As she knows, increasing security for women on maternity leave is a really important part of this Government’s agenda, and that is why we are taking forward the Employment Rights Act 2025. It is important to note that in the system, if income goes below a threshold and someone is out of work generally, they will not have to pay. That is very different from a commercial loan, but I will absolutely take her point back.
The student loan system delivers tuition fee funding—some £10.7 billion in 2024-25—to our world-class higher education sector, a sector that remains by any objective metric one of our nation’s greatest exports and a global beacon of intellectual excellence. It is important that we remember what is at stake here. From pioneering laboratories developing quantum computing and agritech to those at the forefront of advanced manufacturing and genomics, our universities are the primary engines of the research that will define the 21st century, and the impact of our universities goes beyond their pivotal contribution to the economy and the careers of individual learners. By exposing students to diverse perspectives and expanding their social horizons, these institutions help our young people to build the networks, resilience and life skills that define a person long after they have graduated.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I have a creative arts degree. Not only did it give me the opportunity to meet people, importantly, it enabled me to access the fashion industry as somebody growing up outside of London. Does the Minister share my concern that removing those degrees would create London-centric creative industries?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful point. Her creative arts degree was of huge benefit in getting her to this place.
Dr Murrison
Does the Minister think that the creative industries are the exclusive province of universities? If that is what she thinks, can I invite her to visit Trowbridge college in my constituency—an excellent further education college—and see what it is doing with multimedia to give kids the skills they need, as part of the growth in the economy that the Government are sorely lacking?
Georgia Gould
Of course I recognise the critical role that FE colleges play in supporting children into the creative industries. That is why this Government are backing FE colleges after the previous Government failed to do so. However, we do not believe that closing down routes to university is the best way to support our creative industries. We can have both, and we can have opportunities for both.
Laurence Turner
Is it not also the case that kids from working-class backgrounds were increasingly shut out of traditional apprenticeship routes under the previous Government because of the artificial entrance requirements, which employers said were blocking them from hiring the best? Employers said that those requirements should be scrapped, but the Department for Education blocked that under its previous management.
Georgia Gould
We saw a 40% reduction in young people’s apprenticeships over a decade. That was the legacy of the Conservative party.
While the foundational principles of our higher education funding and student finance system might be solid, they are straining after more than a decade of neglect and mismanagement, on top of the structural flaws baked into the system by the Conservatives. First, a legacy of seven years of frozen tuition fees has contributed in no small part to a significant and growing number of English higher education providers facing financial challenges. Analysis published last autumn by the Office for Students indicates that without mitigating action, some 124 providers—45% of those included in the OfS financial sustainability report—could face a deficit in 2025-26.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister is making an important point. The economics of higher education are actually quite complicated; there is a great deal of cross-subsidy, with the humanities and the arts effectively supporting science, medicine and engineering courses and so on. Does the Minister agree that we should be worried that the Opposition parties’ proposals would put jobs and the viability of universities at risk?
Georgia Gould
My hon. Friend makes an important contribution to this debate.
The Government have taken the tough, immediate action that is required, including by making the difficult decision to increase tuition fees by forecast inflation, balancing the need to give the sector stability with fairness to students and taxpayers. We are also asking more of the sector: we expect higher education providers to demonstrate that they deliver the very best outcomes, both for those students and for the country, in return for the increased investment we are asking students to make. To achieve this, this Government will link future fees increases to university quality, as I have said. This will protect taxpayers’ investment in higher education and incentivise high-quality provision for students without taking away opportunities.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
The Minister is typically generous with her time and courteous in the number of interventions she accepts. May I gently take her back to lines 3 to 4 of the text of the Prime Minister’s amendment on student loans, which state that this House
“welcomes the Government’s commitment to make the system fairer and financially sustainable”.
To avoid this sounding like jam tomorrow and to reassure young people—I have a lot of respect for the Minister, and I will be generous—can she give one or two concrete announcements today of specific measures that she is bringing forward that will achieve that commitment?
Georgia Gould
We are lifting the threshold, which will make a difference this year for students. We have already announced that, and we have said that we will continue to look at this matter as we look at a wide range of issues. We accept that the system created by the Conservatives is not fair.
More broadly, this Government are resetting the contract for young people across the landscape. Beyond our new deal for young people who do not go to university, we will support more young people into work and training through a £2.5 billion investment in the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy over the next three years and—this is incredibly concrete—we will support almost a million young people and deliver almost 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this week’s announcement of the new deal for young people beyond university. One of the challenges in a seat like Peterborough is that not enough young people get to either apprenticeships or university. Does the Minister agree that one of the challenges we face is that we spend so much time in this place and in the media debating university routes as the path to success, but we do not spend half as much time as we need to discussing apprenticeships? The youth guarantee starts to put that right.
Georgia Gould
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We need to open up access to apprenticeships. That is why the Government are making this investment, and it is why we have set that ambitious target for young people to go to university and to access apprenticeships.
Robin Swann
On that point, does the Minister agree that there is another way? The Open University also allows people to earn and learn at the same time. The situation is not as simple as university or apprenticeship. There is a middle way and, as a former graduate of the Open University, I encourage the Government to support it.
Georgia Gould
We are committed to opening up those routes to lifelong learning, and we are setting out plans on that. I welcome that intervention.
Dr Murrison
With hindsight, does the Minister regret Tony Blair’s announcement in the late 1990s that more than 50% of school leavers should go to university? Would it not have been better to have said that all young people leaving school should either go to university or into high-quality apprenticeships or training?
Georgia Gould
Opposition Members were accusing me of talking about the past, but I think I was nine years old when that was going on. I do not regret the real focus on opening up access to university, because that opened it up to disadvantaged pupils who might never have had that opportunity. Today, we recognise that we need both those routes. There has not been enough investment or focus on vocational pathways. We absolutely agree with that, and we are putting that right. It is our ambition to have a more sustainable, more specialised and more efficient sector that better aligns with the needs of the economy.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister is being generous with her time, and I thank her on behalf of Opposition Members. Does she believe that there is an oversupply of courses in higher education? She has spoken about trying to evolve and reform the model, and the concern among Opposition Members is that there seems to be pressure on a lot of children to go to university, even though they will not get a graduate bonus associated with that. A lot of us question the financial viability of HE. What are her views on that?
Georgia Gould
We want young people to have a choice: to go to university, to study, to take up an apprenticeship or to earn and learn. We want that range of routes to be available and for young people to have high-quality careers education, so that they know what the opportunities are in their local communities.
We want higher education providers to go further to give their students the best course and employment outcomes, ensuring that the sector remains globally competitive. The Government are committed to ensuring that higher education is open to all who have the ability and the desire to pursue it. In the 2028-29 academic year, we will be reintroducing targeted, means-tested maintenance grants of up to £1,000 a year, increasing the cash in students’ pockets without increasing their debt. To help students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, we are already delivering on a commitment to future-proof maintenance loans by increasing them in line with forecast inflation every academic year to try to ensure that support keeps pace with financial pressures. In the academic year 2026-27, care leavers will become automatically eligible to receive the maximum rate of maintenance loans, which will provide vital extra support for one of the most vulnerable groups in society.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I welcome support for people from the most vulnerable groups who are heading to university, but will the Minister acknowledge that by enabling those groups to take the maximum amount of support, the Government are also enabling them to have the maximum amount of debt at the end of their university careers? A frequent problem throughout all this has been the fact that either the people in the middle who do not quite get the support that they need or those at the far end of the system who do need support are saddled with the most debt, because they will not have the parental assistance that would help them to leverage against the loan repayments for the rest of their careers.
Georgia Gould
I think it important to make it clear—some people watching the debate will be worried about this—that these are not normal loans, in that young people who are not earning, or are earning below the threshold, do not have to pay anything. In the long term, if they have not earned enough by the end of their careers, they do not have to pay the whole amount, and they do not have to pass that on to future generations.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way: she has been very generous with her time. I think there is a point of principle in this debate, and I should like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. Does she believe that there is any degree offered by a university in which it is not fair to invest taxpayers’ money? If the quality is not good enough, surely it is not fair for the individual to be indebted. Will the Minister concede that there probably are some courses, across the country, that it is not fair for the taxpayer to subsidise?
Georgia Gould
I have made it very clear that we want to increase the quality of courses, and that is one of the conditions that we attached to increasing the fees in a fair way, but we want to do that by ensuring that those courses are of high enough quality, rather than scrapping the opportunity for young people to go on them.
Looking further ahead, I can tell the House that the Prime Minister’s ambition is to see two thirds of young people in higher-level learning by the age of 25. With the lifelong learning entitlement, which will be launched in January 2027—a policy that the last Administration failed, year after year, to deliver—we are transforming higher education from a “one-shot” opportunity into a flexible and responsive system with learners at its centre. As was mentioned earlier, the LLE will allow learners to fund individual modules and reskill throughout their careers, at colleges and universities alike.
We now have a responsibility to ensure that the benefits of higher education are maintained for future generations, and to clean up a student loan system in which interest rates have been allowed to spiral and students are confused about what is the right path for them. We absolutely recognise that there are failings in the system, but it is not a system that we built; it was a system that the Conservatives created. We know that student loan repayments are a concern for graduates, which is why we increased the plan 2 repayment threshold last year and why we are increasing it again next month, to £29,385. Borrowers who earn below that amount annually will not be required to make any repayments at all. This threshold is higher than the median graduate salary three years after graduation.
Graduates generally go on to benefit from higher earnings, and it remains reasonable for those who gain the largest financial benefits from their degrees to contribute more towards the cost of their studies than those who have not gone to university, or graduates earning lower salaries. Lower earners will still benefit from the unique protections that student loans offer. Any unpaid loan balance, including interest accrued, will still be cancelled at the end of the loan term at no detriment to the individual, outstanding debt is never passed on to a borrower’s family, and having an outstanding student loan is not a barrier to accessing a mortgage. Student loan balances do not appear on borrower credit records, although regular student loan repayments will be considered, alongside other living costs, as part of the affordability check for mortgage applications.
I want to say how seriously the Government take the cost of living challenges that young people face. Too often this generation have found their challenges ignored. We are working hard to tackle these issues by extending Government-funded childcare, reducing energy bills, freezing rail fares, rolling out free breakfast clubs, building new homes and introducing the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Before Conservative Members once again line up to criticise the decisions that we have made, I would like to take a moment to remind them of their track record on this matter. Plan 2 student loans were designed and introduced in 2012 by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, with a repayment threshold of £21,000 per year and interest rates of up to 3% above inflation. Those are the very interest rates that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are now calling to be reduced. Having said that they would increase the plan 2 repayment threshold to reflect earnings, they froze it for four years. The Conservatives then froze it in 2016 and in 2017, and again from 2021 to 2024. In total, there was a decade of freezes by the opposition parties. It is their mismanagement that now necessitates a further freeze to the threshold. I do not remember any of this outrage from those Members when they created and built this system.
As we have heard, the Opposition’s solution is to cut courses and cut opportunities. We will not make reckless and unfunded changes to student loans. Student finance and higher education funding is a complex, interconnected system. We are considering a range of options to make the system fairer, but we must be fiscally responsible and consider carefully how change would be funded. Politics is about choices.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Would the Minister consider doing something about the cost of accommodation in university towns and cities? Where I come from in north Somerset there is no university, and at the moment people do not really have the option to go anywhere except a city, which is incredibly expensive. Would she give some consideration to reducing those costs on ordinary working families?
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Member for that comment, and that is why we are supporting maintenance grants to help students with the cost of living.
I will conclude by saying that our approach to further reform of the system will be deliberate, evidenced and fiscally responsible. We are here not to tear down the house, but to repair the roof that was left to leak.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I am grateful to the Opposition for this debate. In the recent Westminster Hall debate on this topic, we heard powerful testimony about the reality that graduates face in making repayments every month and watching their balance grow, with their plans deferred and lives constrained. I am sure we will hear more of that today, and those stories deserve to be heard and to receive a clear response, not a political runaround.
Parts of the motion are not wrong. The plan 2 threshold should be unfrozen, and while we may disagree on the specific change proposed, the interest structure does need reform, as the Liberal Democrats have said clearly. The motion also calls for more apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds, and we welcome such investment in principle. We would go further by doubling degree apprenticeships in priority sectors and introducing skills co-operatives specifically to help small businesses to pool resources to take on apprentices they could not otherwise afford.
However, the question is whether the motion as a whole represents a serious plan, and I am afraid that it does not. Specifically, it calls for
“controlling the number of places on university courses where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the cost to graduates and taxpayers.”
Let us be clear about what
“controlling the number of places”
means. It means cutting. The courses they have in mind are arts, humanities and creative subjects.
The argument rests on a definition that sounds objective but is not: which courses have benefits that are significantly outweighed by their costs? The proxy appears effectively to be graduate salaries. Graduate salaries are a poor measure of what society gains from a degree. Nursing, teaching, social work and creative arts all underperform on salary data while delivering enormous public value, so what logic are the Conservatives applying? Even on salary terms, cutting arts places would damage science, technology, engineering and maths, not protect it, as one Labour Member mentioned. Arts courses are relatively cheap to deliver and cross-subsidise expensive laboratory provision. The Institute for Fiscal Studies explicitly found that reducing arts funding may, perversely, reduce funding for STEM.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. The Conservatives talk about cutting public funding for courses such as creative arts, but that will not stop the wealthiest students from accessing those courses. Does he agree with me that all that will happen is that people from more deprived parts of our country will not be able to access them, and that there will be one rule for them and another rule for everyone else?
Ian Sollom
The history of access to university demonstrates that point well.
Graham Stuart
I am trying to follow the mental perambulations of the left. The argument seems to be that people from working-class backgrounds can go on courses that lead them to have negative outcomes—poor earnings—and that the very course they are on, which does them little good, with so much promised and so little delivered, actually has the opportunity to cross-subsidise other people doing other courses. Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) seem to think that is a good thing. Can they not see that, in reality, it is not?
Ian Sollom
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because that is one part of the argument I am making. There is a very important point about that, which is that it could equally be an argument for making the loan system fairer in its repayment terms to reflect that.
There is a deeper problem, too. The graduate earnings premium has declined in Britain, but not because we have too many graduates; it is because we have too few skilled jobs. That is a demand-side failure and a Conservative legacy. Our peers in OECD countries have expanded graduate numbers while maintaining the graduate premium, because they built the industries and invested in the regions that generate high-skilled employment. Cutting student numbers accepts our economic underperformance as permanent. It is, as I have said before, a counsel of despair dressed up as policy.
Then there are the creative industries: over £100 billion a year to the British economy; one of our most successful global exports; built on a pipeline of arts graduates. The answer is not to stop training the people on whom the whole pipeline depends. Ultimately, the value of an education cannot be read entirely from a graduate’s salary. The capacity for critical thinking, empathy and cultural participation are public goods, hidden in plain sight, that show up nowhere in write-off rates. A party that asks only “What does it pay?” has already decided something important about what it values.
Dr Ben Spencer
On the broader point of principle about the value of certain subjects, I intervened on the Minister and she failed to answer, so I will ask the hon. Gentleman the same question. Does he think that there are some subjects offered by some universities for which the value is quite poor and that it is unfair for the taxpayer to subsidise them? Does he think that in principle it is possible that those subjects exist?
Ian Sollom
The point is to allow the market and the regulation of that market to decide. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. To be helpful, the hon. Member might reflect on the fact that the microphone is in front of him; it makes it much harder for Hansard and for the viewing public to pick up his words if he faces the back of the Chamber.
Ian Sollom
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will turn to the threshold and the interest rate—areas on which we do substantially agree with the Conservative motion’s diagnosis, if not its proposed remedy. In the system as it stands, the interest rate matters financially only for those who repay in full, which most graduates do not. That is by design to share the costs between the graduate and the state. It means that the largest benefit of the Conservatives’ proposal would flow to the highest earners—those who repay completely. As analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown, it would be regressive in its distribution, which is why more thought is required on interest structure.
On the threshold, the picture is more straightforward. Before the election, the Education Secretary promised that graduates would pay less under Labour, as the shadow Minister said, and, in their first Budget, the Government left the threshold rising. Then, in their second Budget, the Government froze the threshold for three years from 2027.
Ministers have cited a £5.9 billion figure as the yield of this change, but we should be clear about what that figure is: it is the discounted present value of extra repayments across nearly 30 years, with the bulk sitting in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s. The annual cash impact during this Parliament is relatively small, and the change barely moves the needle on the Chancellor’s own fiscal rules. Graduates will bear a real and immediate burden in their payslip for the remainder of their loan for a cash-flow improvement that is modest in this Parliament and does nothing at all for the Chancellor’s balanced Budget rule. Of all the choices in November’s Budget, why did they make this one?
I note that the Government’s amendment today welcomes a commitment to making the system fairer, and such commitments should be welcomed. However, graduates are waiting for action. Let me therefore set out what the Liberal Democrats would do. First, we would unfreeze the plan 2 threshold immediately and tie it to earnings, as was originally promised. Secondly, we would restore meaningful maintenance grants. Students from the poorest families can borrow £1,284 less today in real terms than in 2020-21. The £1,000 grant reaches about 10% of students, restricted to specific subjects. I think we can do better on maintenance policy: grants must be available regardless of subject, and the parental income thresholds that have been frozen since 2008 must be urgently uprated.
Thirdly, we would establish a royal commission on graduate finance, including plans 2, 3 and 5—plans 3 and 5 have terms that are, in several respects, even harsher. All those plans should be in scope. It should also have independent oversight of key parameters. That is not to delay, but to look seriously at fairer interest structures, total repayment caps and progressive repayment rates, and, critically, to build the cross-party settlement that is the only real protection against the next Government squeezing graduates again.
The system has been treated as a fiscal convenience rather than a social contract by the previous Government, and now by this one. Graduates deserve better.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Eighteen months ago, my constituents in Kettering chose to elect a 26-year-old as their MP. I believe they did so because they wanted a Labour Government, but also because young people in my constituency, and their parents and grandparents, wanted me to speak of my own experience of how tough it has been for my generation.
One of the tasks we navigate as MPs is how best to use our privileged position in this building to influence change.
As often one of the only young people in the Chamber, and almost always the only young woman—[Interruption.] Okay, depending on what we define as young. [Interruption.] Okay, let me say as one of the only women in their 20s in this Chamber, I try to share the perspective of a younger person. I often felt that that was missing in debates when I watched politics as I was growing up. I shall share that perspective in this debate using my own experience, and in doing so I hope to highlight the generational inequalities that have turned into deep-felt frustration—a frustration that made me join a political party, that made me campaign for a change in Government and that drives me in this place every single day.
I declare the fact that I have a plan 2 student loan close to £90,000. Before getting elected to this place, I was working full time for years, just watching my student loan grow. In Kettering, I grew up in a single-parent household. My mum, who is a youth worker, raised me by herself. At school, like so many others, I struggled to work out what I wanted to do and what I wanted my career path to look like. What I knew more than anything else was that I wanted to work hard enough to give myself a better life. It was so clearly communicated to me at school that that route to a better life was going to university. On reflection, I wish someone had spoken to me about apprenticeships and other options.
In the desire that many young people have to build themselves a better life, I and people around me did the things that we were told to do: we worked hard, we went to uni, and we got a degree. There is a lot said about what Gen Z expect from life, but ordinary hope and ordinary aspiration, despite what social media tells us, is not to live in Dubai, or to buy avocados and an iced matcha every day; it is to live in a home that we are not worried we will be kicked out of.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is giving a powerful speech. On behalf of her generation, is she disappointed that, having promised to reduce the costs for graduates repaying student loans, the Government are making it worse? Is she disappointed that, when challenged over this broken system, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the hon. Lady and people like her are at the back of the queue?
Rosie Wrighting
There are many levers that this Government can pull to make life better for graduates. I understand that, given the economic situation, some of those levers are easier to pull than others. I am glad that measures such as the Renters’ Rights Act 2026 are coming forward and making a difference for my generation every single day. I have voiced my view that the system is not fair and that I would like my Government to look at it, and I think that that has been heard.
Let me return to what I was saying. We want to be able to live in a home that we are not worried we will get kicked out of, and even one day not to have to live with strangers or parents. We want to be able to make the choice to have a child if that is right, and to decide to go on holiday without maxing out our credit cards. I do not think that that is asking too much. That is hope and aspiration. I want to live in a country where it is reasonable for ordinary young people to want those things and, more importantly, to think that they are achievable.
Of all the damage that the Conservatives did, one of the worst things for me was the damage to hope. I started university in 2016. My tuition fees were £9,000 a year, but my maintenance loan was £12,000 a year. I am now paying back more not because my education cost more, but because I came from a low-income family and needed that support to live.
Danny Beales
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. This place is much better for her presence, speaking up for people in her situation. It sounds like we had a similar background, but I was fortunate enough to be on a plan 1 system and, under a Labour Government, benefited not only from an educational maintenance allowance to stay on at sixth form, but from grants as well as loans. It sounds like she was not able to benefit from that because of the Conservative party. Does she agree that the restoring of maintenance grants and the uplifting of maintenance loans to match the cost of living will benefit people who come from backgrounds such as ours?
Rosie Wrighting
I do not think it has been talked about enough in this debate, or in the debate more widely, just how much is added on for students who have to take out a large maintenance loan because they come from a low-income family. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that.
When maintenance grants were scrapped by the Conservatives, that cost did not disappear.
Rebecca Smith
The hon. Lady is giving an excellent speech, but there is a whole cohort of plan 1 students who experienced the exact situation that she is describing. In 1997, Tony Blair said that he would not introduce tuition fees. In 1998, he did, and the Labour party then also scrapped maintenance grants. I was 16 in 1997 and was suddenly faced with needing to pay fees and get a loan in order to go to university, and had no family support to afford it. It is important that we recognise that it was the Labour Government who did that in 1998, having said that they would not. We can give just as many examples of decisions that the previous Labour Government made as we can of those made by the previous Government.
Rosie Wrighting
I was born in 1997, so the hon. Lady will forgive me if I cannot recollect that. I do not think that graduates are arguing that we should not pay. There is an understanding that graduates should pay for their degrees; it is the scale and fairness within the system that I want to highlight.
When maintenance grants were scrapped, the cost did not disappear; it was simply shifted. It was shifted on to students and turned into debt, and the burden was put on those from the lowest-income families. The very policy that enabled working-class kids to go to university gave us the highest debt as soon as we left. That is not fairness, and that is not opportunity. It is generational inequality designed into a system that disproportionately impacts people who do not have a savings account waiting for them when they turn 18, who do not have the money for a house deposit, and who cannot ask for help for childcare.
That is why I welcome this Government taking steps to strengthen maintenance support, including through the return of maintenance grants. If the Conservatives truly cared about those students, I would have expected them to welcome that.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I too welcome the reintroduction of maintenance grants, which, let us be clear, were scrapped by George Osborne when he was left to his own devices in 2015. However, does the hon. Lady accept that £1,000 a year for certain selected subjects will not even touch the sides and suggests that some poor students deserve support but not others? Does she think that that is the right way forward?
Rosie Wrighting
I appreciate that it is a start. I welcome our introduction of £1,000, but I do think there is more to do. I also acknowledge that we are in a tough economic environment and this is what the Government have chosen to prioritise.
It is not by accident that my generation have it so hard. Make no mistake: these decisions were taken by the Conservative party when they were in government. They asked my generation to do more with less, to bear a heavier burden, and then left us behind. The Tories calling this debate today, pretending that they have the answers to fix the system that they broke, is insulting to young people across this country.
Graham Stuart
Would the hon. Lady not find it rather worse if we were not reflecting on our time in power and the fact that we were thrown out and were not trying to come forward with constructive proposals to make things better? The important thing is to listen to people like the hon. Lady and our constituents, reflect and come forward with proposals. That is what we are doing. We are trying to look forward, not play some history game.
Rosie Wrighting
The previous Conservative Member who intervened asked me about 1997, so there is some looking back going on. I would welcome the Conservatives reflecting on their time in power, but unfortunately that is not what I have seen today and it is not the tone of the conversation that I hear coming from the party.
The Tories are calling on the Government to change the plan 2 repayment system, when they designed plan 2 student loans; to end repayment thresholds, when they froze them; and to create more apprenticeships, when they left one in eight young people not earning or learning. When we hear the Conservative party now proposing to cut interest rates on student loans, we have to ask: where was this concern when they were in government? Where was this concern for the thousands of young people—my peers, my friends, people around me—facing high student loan payments today?
The reality is that what Opposition Front Benchers are proposing would disproportionately benefit the highest earners—those most likely to pay off their loans in full—do little for the majority of graduates, and do almost nothing for those from low-income backgrounds, who are less likely ever to clear their debts. It is the same Conservative party.
I feel strongly that we now have a chance to say something to young people about their future, because after years of broken promises what we see is frustration, and something more dangerous than that: a loss of belief that working hard will mean people will get on. When that belief goes, opportunity goes with it. The real legacy of the last 14 years is not just high debt but diminished hope. I genuinely believe that it is only Labour that offers the chance to restore fairness between generations—not headline-grabbing tweets—and we are starting to do that by strengthening support for renters, delivering the youth guarantee, expanding childcare and taking steps to ensure that maintenance support works for students, not against them.
It is only Labour that can do something bigger and restore to an entire generation the belief that if you work hard, whether at school, at work, at university or through an apprenticeship, you can build a better life. That is a real life, with a secure home, the ability to start a family and confidence that efforts will be rewarded with opportunity. When my mum encouraged me to pursue education, she believed that she was giving me a better life. That is what young people deserve today: not just to be able to hope for a better future, but to have that within their reach.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There will be an immediate five-minute time limit.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
When I woke up this morning and sprang out of bed thinking about my upcoming 57th birthday, I was feeling quite young and sprightly, but having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) I feel particularly ancient and amazed that I have managed to get to my feet to give this speech. The hon. Lady gave a compelling and interesting speech, which gave those of us of an earlier vintage when it comes to university experience much to think about. The House should be grateful to her for what she had to say.
The Government’s prognosis is slightly odd. It seems to be, “It’s a terrible system—it’s broken and it’s not working. We will have a little think about it. I’m not quite sure what we’re going to do or when we’re going to do it. You’re at the back of the queue, but we’re not going to tell you how long the queue is.” It like one of those call centre things where we are told, “Your call is important to us—please wait,” and we are waiting and waiting in the queue, but we do not know for how long. Such policy issues require long-term, settled solutions. It cries out to me as something that would really benefit from cross-party working, which would give some solidity and sense to long-term policy making.
I welcome the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, because it starts to address a pressing issue in our inboxes that is of concern to our constituents. Should we go back to the idea of a graduate tax? I do not know. It is clear that all Governments and all parties should view money spent on education in the university sector and elsewhere not as expenditure but as an investment, from which the state and society should have an expectation of a return.
It is crucial that we are sensitive on the point about controlling the number of places available. We do not want to reduce the evaluation of education to a utilitarian exercise, but clearly one has to look at value for money. Education is more than just the end of the process: it is an enriching, personal development, friend-making process providing us with all the keys to life’s doors as we face them.
When I went up to university way back in 1987—I do not suppose that the mother of the hon. Member for Kettering had even thought about her then—one in eight did so. That was not a sustainable figure if we wanted to see a growing economy. I had gone to an ordinary state school in south Wales and was the first in my family to go to university. Is 50% of our young a sustainable figure when clearly the job market is changing?
I welcome whatever anybody wishes to do to support vocational and technical education and apprenticeships. There are other ways. I say this—I suppose I must declare an interest—as someone whose eldest daughter is applying to university at the moment, but it is often my fellow sharp-elbowed middle-class parents who push their children towards university and fail to recognise the importance, value and use of apprenticeships and other forms of getting on in life. There needs to be a societal step change. We have to think seriously about that and particularly about supporting our FE colleges. Many of my young constituents attend Yeovil college, just over the border in Somerset. It is a first-class college with great ties to local businesses such as Leonardo, and it provides a good start in life for many young people in North Dorset.
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering about the benefit of stability that a settled future—putting down roots, starting a family and so on—can bring. We should encourage our young to think like that, but also to understand the wide range of educational opportunities that exist for them. We cannot ignore this any longer. Too many of our university institutions are just about hanging on in there financially, many are tottering on the brink, and we have a model that we cannot sustain, the utility of which is proving even harder to demonstrate to our constituents. I say to the Minister that doing nothing and putting this at the back of the queue is not a sustainable solution.
John Slinger
The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to “the back of the queue”, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say “back of the queue”. She actually said, after her Mais lecture:
“we want to make improvements. But is it front of the queue? No, it’s not.”
May I just say—[Laughter.] Right hon. and hon. Members can chunter from a sedentary position, but Conservative Members have repeatedly said “back of the queue”. That is not what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that point?
Simon Hoare
What I do accept is that the hon. Gentleman is swiftly gaining a reputation in this place as the only Labour Member who would defend a policy of the slaughter of the firstborn. He will defend anything. I seem to remember that he was one of the only Labour Members who stood up and defended Lord Mandelson’s appointment to be ambassador to Washington.
Simon Hoare
No, I will not give way; one can be a useful idiot only so often in an afternoon. I say to the Minister: whether it is at the front of the queue, the back of the queue or the middle of the queue, this is an issue that cannot be put aside any longer.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Simon Hoare
I am just about to give up and I will not get an extra minute. I like the hon. Gentleman very much and in ordinary circumstances I would, but I will not.
We need some urgency on this matter, and I urge some cross-party working to make sure that all our constituents, whether urban or rural, and whether first, second, third or fourth-generation university students, get the very best deal and start in life that they can as they begin their working lives.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). Like him I am a father—I have two children who have graduated recently. I also worked in higher education for a time.
I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. I will discuss three aspects of this important issue: first and foremost, the legacy left by the last Government, which we heard a little bit about earlier; secondly, the measures that are being taken by the current Government to address that; and thirdly, what more might be done to help.
Turning to the legacy of the last Government, we should be quite simple and straightforward about this: the last Government left a terrible mess in higher education. Today, the Conservative party is trying to quite simply rewrite history when it comes to student loans. It was the last Government, supported by the Liberal Democrats, who designed the plan 2 student loans, and the last Government who froze the thresholds for 10 years. They are now the ones complaining about the very system that they devised, when actually, they should be apologising for the mess they left behind. Sadly, we face the ridiculous situation where they are campaigning to resolve the very problem that they created. It is all a little bit rich.
In contrast, the current Government are trying to clear up that mess and to build a better future for young people. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their work to invest in children and young people, whether by investing in Best Start, with four new centres in Reading and many more across the country, or in our schools. It was a pleasure to welcome the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to a breakfast club recently. We are also investing in school buildings and teachers’ pay, which I remind Opposition Members is an important area of policy, given the mess they left teacher recruitment and retention in when they left office. The Government are also updating the school curriculum and consulting on modernising special educational needs and disabilities provision. These are all important steps forward and examples of real investment in children and young people.
As part of that, I know that the Minister and her colleagues are trying to address some of the issues around student finance, and I welcome the reintroduction of maintenance loans in particular. There have been some thoughtful comments about their power and importance to many people of lower means in encouraging them to get on with studying at university.
The Government are doing wider work to tackle the cost of living, and it is important to see the support for maintenance loans in that context. The freeze on rail fares will help students and young people, as will the move to cut energy prices. We have also heard about the work to support renters. Indeed, the work to build more houses will help young people buy their own homes. The Government are helping our young people in many ways. There remains more to be done, as has been said, and I ask the Minister to continue to look into the effects of the plan 2 scheme. Given my area is in the south-east of England, I would like to highlight the challenges faced by young people living in higher-cost areas.
I know that the Minister cares deeply about this issue, and it was a great pleasure to have her in Reading recently talking to families about special educational needs. She does care and she is looking into this issue, so I hope that we will hear more about it. We have had a terrible inheritance, but action has been taken, and I look forward to hearing more.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
A particularly pressing issue of concern is youth unemployment, which has skyrocketed to record levels on Labour’s watch, with the unemployment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds at nearly 16%. Failing the youth of this country is tantamount to abandoning our future. It is because of the political choices made by this Government that young people are struggling to secure employment. We have the lowest graduate recruitment levels on record and 700,000 graduates on benefits. To make matters worse, far too many of those who can find employment are then stuck in an endless cycle of student debt, while taxpayers have to pick up the tab for those who will never be able to fully repay the balance and write off their loans.
I have been contacted by many graduates in Bromley and Biggin Hill who are deeply concerned about the freeze on student loan repayment thresholds. They see it as an unfair decision that heaps additional financial pressure on graduates, who are already struggling with the rising cost of living. In a sense, it changes the rules for graduates after the fact. For many, what was meant to be an investment in education and the future workforce now creates a sense of permanent debt, rather than a manageable contribution based on the ability to pay. This cannot go on, or we will risk undermining trust in the student finance system altogether.
The Conservatives have a plan: a clear new deal for young people—a step-by-step plan to fix what the Government are making worse. It is a plan that I fully support and that would be of huge benefit to young people in Bromley and Biggin Hill. Under our plan to abolish real interest rates on plan 2 student loans, we will ensure that student loan balances never rise faster than RPI inflation. For example, a doctor at Princess Royal university hospital in Bromley in 2029 with £80,000 of student debt would save £58,000 in lifetime repayments and clear their loan sooner. A graduate in Bromley with £40,000 of student debt and on a salary of £50,000 would save £26,000 in lifetime repayments and would clear their loan five years faster than under the current system. It is only the Conservatives who will end the unfair interest rises, fund 100,000 more apprenticeships and encourage young people into work with a £5,000 first job bonus. We have a plan to restore aspiration for young people; the Government are failing them.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and in particular to my role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary university group and to my membership of the University and College Union.
I must note my shock and awe at the Conservatives’ decision to hold an Opposition day debate on the current state of student loans. It is a system that they created in government, that they subsequently broke, and that has left a generation of students and graduates utterly and comprehensively beaten. I remember well when they—with the support of the Liberal Democrats—tripled student fees in 2012. At the time, I was a student and the president of a sports club at my university. We saw a huge downturn in involvement with extracurricular activities that year, because of the additional pressure put on new students by the fee increase. Indeed, I remember very well that a friend who worked in the events team at our student union referred to October 2012 as “the death of fun”.
I accept that the sector needed intervention, and I believe that the architect of the policy, now the Lord Willetts, took difficult decisions that he felt were needed to make the university sector sustainable. I do not believe, however, that he had factored into his plan the Tories’ subsequent freeze in fee increases and repayment thresholds, or their later abolition of maintenance grants. Although the initial increase was a blow to students, the following decade of failed Tory policy has left our university sector in tatters. It has left our institutions facing years of staff dissatisfaction and industrial action, and it has created a whole generation saddled with unbelievable student debt. The Tories created, and then compounded, a system that looks like a graduate tax, smells like a graduate tax, and yet provides the uniquely deep personal pressure that sits astride hundreds of thousands of pounds of apparent debt, crushing millions of students who have been to university in the past 14 years. The Tories enacted almost irreparable damage on the university sector, and did immeasurable harm to a whole generation’s experience of university. The death of fun indeed!
I am amazed, then, at the decision to table this Opposition day motion. In choosing to tinker around the edges of the policy cesspit that they created over many years, the Tories exhibit the most unbelievable brass neck. There is not a hint of an apology for the damage that they did, nor a modicum of understanding of the work that this Government are doing to dig us out of the mess they left us in. The Government are taking the tough but fair decisions necessary to protect taxpayers and students now and for the future.
Under the system, lower-earning graduates will always be protected, with any outstanding loans and interest continuing to be written off after 30 years. I believe it is right that those who can repay their loans do so, and that graduates earning the highest salaries contribute more towards their student loan repayments, but the Government must also repair the damage that was left to us by the Tories. That is why I strongly support the Government’s plan to restore maintenance grants and increase maintenance loans in line with inflation, as I believe should always have been the case. These measures ultimately support low-income students to access, and participate and excel in, higher education. When I was teaching degree-level apprenticeships in electromechanical engineering, I saw what widening participation measures achieved in practice: it allowed access to education for people who did not otherwise have it. I saw the profound good that those measures achieved.
Universities UK still supports the income-contingent loan repayment system, which has facilitated a huge advance in access to university over the past two decades. It notes that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to enter university, and that the number of pupils who received free school meals and went on to university doubled from 2005-06 to 2023-24. Successive reviews of the higher education finance system have concluded that it is the fairest way of funding higher education. It was Labour policy, made when we were last in government, that achieved those significant improvements.
Although I acknowledge that the Government have a difficult time ahead in solving the Tory mess, I am deeply supportive of the Prime Minister’s huge new target for universities and apprenticeships: that by the age of 25, two thirds of young people should be studying for a degree or taking up a gold-standard apprenticeship. Labour is taking action to ensure that young people are either earning or learning, with 200,000 job and apprenticeship opportunities over the next three years. I also strongly support the £2.5 billion investment that forms the Government’s youth guarantee. We must use it to expand employment support, offer grants to employers who hire young people, and provide a jobs guarantee to create subsidised work placements for long-term unemployed 18-to-24 year olds.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I have said this in the House before, but I will say it again: this is a Prime Minister who promised change and then changed his promise. On this subject, we only have to look at his 10-point plan from 2020. He said:
“My promise to you is that I will maintain our radical values and work tirelessly to get Labour in to power—so that we can advance the interests of the people our party was created to serve. Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand.”
In point 2, he said:
“Support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning.”
He was right that Labour won a landslide election, but, strangely enough, that promise has gone.
Dr Evans
Exactly. It was not in the manifesto, and the Prime Minister made a promise. He made a promise when he stood to be Labour leader, and it was not there. Worse still, what did he do in his first Budget? He increased student fees from £9,250 to £9,535. And last year, he froze the thresholds. That is important, because he promised one thing and then changed his promise.
When it comes to student loans, we have heard a lot of tittle-tattle on both sides of the House, but all parties—including the Liberal Democrats, wherever they happen to be—have a responsibility. In 1998, it was Tony Blair who brought forward tuition fees. He then increased them in 2004. Then there was an increase in the coalition years, which the Liberal Democrats stood on an election manifesto not to do. And here we are now, having just been over what the Labour Government said they were going to do and now have done.
Does it really matter? Yes, there was an issue hidden in the plan 2 student loan, but it has come to fruition because of what we have seen across the globe. I do not think anyone was raising those concerns back then, but the Government have to deal with things that come up. That is what we are looking for today. That is what students outside this place will be listening for. Two years in, what is the solution? At the end of the day, it is the middle earners who are being squeezed. It is unfair, because no matter how hard they work, their debt is going up. Principally, regardless of our political position, I think we all agree that is unfair.
The question is how we solve it. When the Chancellor was asked that question, she said:
“So, yes, we want to fix it. Yes, we want to make improvements. But is it front of the queue? No, it’s not... Politics is about priorities. I’m not denying there is a problem. I’m not blind to that, but what I do say is there has to be some patience.”
Tell that to the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) or the people from Hinckley and Bosworth whose debt, no matter what they do or how hard they earn, is going up.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
A constituent of mine, who aspires to be a GP, like the hon. Member, left university £44,000 in debt. She is actually paying more in interest than on her loan repayments. Does the hon. Member agree that the system deters graduates from following the very careers that we so desperately need them to follow in this country?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I expect his constituent will be shocked to hear that this is not a priority for the Government. It is unfair, which is why the Opposition at least tried to put up a solution. I was expecting the Government to turn around and say why it does not work, and perhaps offer us something different. That is what the public and his constituent want to hear, and certainly what mine do.
The Chancellor went on to say:
“If you say to me, ‘you shouldn’t have done child poverty and you should have reformed the student loan system,’ I just strongly disagree with that.”
Actually, that is very honest. I give her credit for that, but look at the wider context and what that means for younger people. As we have heard, unemployment in the UK is at its highest since 2021, and since 2015 for those aged 16 to 24. UK youth unemployment, for the first time ever, is above the European average. Let that sink in. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), 257,000 people left the UK last year when it was expected to be 77,000, and three quarters of them were under the age of 35. Those people will not be recorded among the number of young people who are not in employment, education or training because NEET numbers are not calculated to include such cases. So not only do we have youth employment going up, but herds of young people are moving elsewhere. That is a tragedy for our economy and for those young people, because they are having to look elsewhere to find work, the lifestyle they want and their place in the world. To me, that is really sad.
What is the Government’s solution? They have already increased taxes on businesses, introduced more red tape and seen youth unemployment go up, and they have said to businesses, “Do you know what we are going to do? We are going to give you £3,000 to rehire the person who lost their job.” They have created a hole and they are now trying to fill it themselves, but they are only filling it halfway.
The Conservatives have set out a solution in the document that we have brought forward. Agreed, it does not fully cover the entire student loan system, and I agree with my hon. Friends that the whole approach needs to be carefully looked at, but at least the Conservatives are offering solutions and have time to develop them. The Government are having meetings and talking, but I see no solutions, and that is a shame.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I declare an interest as I am a former student with a plan 2 loan. I became a student during the first year that plan 2 loans were introduced. I remind hon. Members that I had a very tough Saturday job when I was growing up, in case anyone is shocked that I am indeed young enough to be a plan 2 student.
Frankly, I am shocked at the brass neck of Conservative Members. When I was at school, I remember having conversations with other working-class kids like me who were thinking about going to university—I was the first in my family—who were being put off because the Conservatives had put up the fees from £3,000 to £9,000. There was no consideration then for what young people were going through. There was no plan for young people, and certainly not for young people like me, who grew up in communities like the ones that I grew up in, with parents who never had the opportunities that all the Conservative Members at that time had got for free.
Dr Luke Evans
As a doctor, I was lucky enough to have funding to go towards my education, but I am always surprised to hear people saying that we should put more funding into students on the back of the porters and the receptionists who never went to university. It is those people’s taxes that are supporting those students—that 50% helped to get me where I am. What does the hon. Gentleman say to people like those in his community? They are the ones who are being left behind by paying their taxes for other people to have their time at university.
Alex McIntyre
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that I am coming to exactly that point later in my speech.
Of course there are challenges with this system. There were challenges with it back when it was introduced in 2012. We pointed out the fact that there are huge generational inequalities: there are hon. Members present in the Chamber who did not pay tuition fees at all and had lower house prices when they graduated, so they could afford to buy a house. Those challenges continue, and part of the reason that I got into politics was to deal with those intergenerational inequalities. We all talk about broken promises, but what happened to the promise about levelling up? In my mind, levelling up was about creating more opportunities for young people in places like mine in Gloucester, but those opportunities were never delivered by the Conservatives.
I want what is best for young people and for the university sector in my constituency. I am delighted to be able to take this opportunity to welcome the brand new university campus that the University of Gloucestershire has opened in the city centre, taking over the Debenhams building and creating a new campus for students, with a public library, so that young people in Gloucester can see what that opportunity looks like going forward.
We need to ensure that we are creating opportunities for all young people, because despite the move towards more people going to university, only a third of people in Gloucestershire will go to university, and in the most deprived parts of my constituency, that number is fewer than one in five. That is why I am proud that the Government are introducing maintenance grants, and why I am backing the new target of two thirds of young people going to university or doing gold-standard apprenticeships, because university might not be the best route for everybody. Generations of young people in my community were left behind by the Conservatives, who had no plan in Government for young people in my constituency.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech and we hear where he is coming from, but over the 14 years of Conservative Government, 800 jobs were created every day and unemployment was brought down to near record lows. Since his party has come to power, with the mission that he is describing, what has happened? Unemployment is up by 25% and youth unemployment has now eclipsed even that of Europe. The Government are not delivering. I hope in the next part of his speech, he is going to talk about what the Government need to do now in order to make things better for young people, because at the moment every indicator is going the wrong way, including the cost of student loans.
Alex McIntyre
I am always happy to be educated by privately educated Oxbridge graduates who did not pay a penny for their student fees. The right hon. Gentleman will find that employment levels have actually gone up. The number of people in employment has gone up under this Government—[Interruption.] Well, that’s the stat. If he wants to check, he is more than welcome to.
I welcome the youth guarantee that the Government have talked about this week, introducing more apprenticeships and opportunities for young people and tackling the people in my constituency who have been furthest from employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) made a fantastic speech about some of the other things we are doing for young people. It is not just about education; it is about renters’ rights and expanding free childcare.
Dr Spencer
I am not privately educated, and nor did I go to Oxbridge. I am where I am today because I went to a state grammar school. The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech about breaking down barriers to social opportunity. Would he agree that grammar schools are a key part of that?
Alex McIntyre
Gloucester has a number of grammar schools and they are doing very well for the students there. I went to a grammar school—[Hon. Members: “Oh!] I went to a state school, and my parents worked really hard to get me there. If Members want to talk about my background, where I came from and how I got to this place, I am very happy to do that. It was quite different from the background of a lot of people on the Conservative Benches.
I am proud to stand here, as the son of a train conductor, talking about opportunities for young people in my constituency who have been left behind for generations, written off and, quite frankly, talked down to by the Conservatives, who talk about making sure that the arts are only for the wealthiest who can afford to go to university and not be spread out, as if education is not actually a benefit to everyone in society and should only be in the purview of those who can afford to pay for it. It is disgraceful, it is taking us back generations and, quite frankly, I am sick to death of hearing about it.
Politics is the language of priorities. As I have said, there are undoubtedly challenges with this system, but the Conservatives left behind so many messes after 14 failed years in government that we cannot fix them all in the first five years of a Labour Government. We are going to need at least a decade. We said that in the manifesto. We talked about a decade of national renewal, and we are committed to that because we cannot afford to fix all the messes that you left behind straight away because you left the economy in a mess as well—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. They left the economy in a mess—you had nothing to do with it.
I would say to the Minister, as a parent and as someone who is on plan 2 and has spoken to lots of my residents, that if there is money available and if there is an opportunity, we need to look at the expansion of free childcare. We are talking about priorities and how we can support young people at the moment, and the 30 hours of funded childcare is very welcome, but it does not cover the cost of childcare for people who are working full time throughout the year, not just in term time. That is preventing young people from starting their families and getting on, and this could be a really good opportunity if there was money available. This is about priorities and about how we can support young people. I welcome what the Government are doing, but if I were to give them a gentle nudge in any direction, I would encourage them to look again at what we can do to expand the offering of free childcare.
I am not going to take lectures from the Conservatives on young people. They had no plan for young people during their 14 years. They did not care about young people like me when they were in government. Quite frankly, they wrote me off and I had to fight my way to get here today—[Interruption.] Yes, I did go to a grammar school and I am proud of that. I did quite well for myself, but my parents sacrificed a lot for me to get here, so I am not going to take lectures from the Conservatives on that. This Government are fixing the mess that they left behind. Of course there are challenges in the system, but I welcome the measures that the Government have taken so far, and long may that continue.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Education is one of the few forces of life that allows a person not only to imagine a different future but to reach it. It is more than a qualification. It is more than a certificate. It is more than even a career. It is the moment where circumstance loosens its grip and possibility takes hold. A good education does not simply serve the individual; it strengthens families and it uplifts communities. It is the most powerful engine of social mobility we possess, and it is the surest path by which talent can rise, irrespective of where it begins. However, if we are to be true to that belief, we must confront a most uncomfortable question. What does it say about us as a nation if the very ladder we offer is weighed down by a burden that grows faster than the lives it is meant to lift?
Today, far too many graduates look not at opportunity, but at a balance that rises year after year, and not simply with the cost of living but more than that. This is a system in which interest is not just keeping pace with inflation, but outstripping it, and where the cost of learning risks becoming a source of anxiety that follows people into their working lives, their families and their futures.
This is not just an economic issue, but a moral one. Education should open doors, not cast longer shadows. The reforms that the Conservatives support are a simple settlement, yet they are profound in their principle. They would ensure that student loan interest rises only with inflation, not above it, moving from RPI plus 3% to RPI alone, and preventing the trap of pushing low to middle earners to pay more than the threshold.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the IFS report evaluating his party’s proposal. It states that the proposal would do zilch, nada, zero when it comes to monthly repayments, and the IFS shows that lower and middle earners would not benefit at all. It is a plan for higher earners, isn’t it?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
If the hon. Member does not want to tackle the problem of the inadequacy and inequality between a high earner on £150,000 who will pay off their debt of around £46,000 over an 11-year period, and a lower or middle-income earner on £50,000 who will pay off their debt of around £80,000 over a much longer period of time, then I am afraid the public watching this debate will have serious questions about the Government’s resolve in tackling this issue.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I will make a little progress.
The changes that the Conservatives propose would not remove responsibility for the student or change the process by which graduates repay, but they would fundamentally restore a sense of fairness. This is not about numbers on a balance sheet; frankly, it is about a young person deciding whether it is worth taking the risk of going to university. It is about a graduate wondering why their debt grows despite doing everything right, and it is fundamentally about trust that if people work hard, play by the rules and invest in their future, the system will be fair in return.
We return to the timeless understanding that education is in the interests of us all, not just because of what it gives to an individual, but because of what it gives to society as a whole. I think of the words of Benjamin Franklin, who said:
“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.”
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
This Opposition debate brings to mind the old proverb that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, and the second-best time is today. During this debate, we have heard from Opposition Members who were part of the Government who planted that tree and proceeded to do absolutely nothing while it grew wildly out of control, until today apparently. I will come on to their motion. Whether those Opposition Members are Conservatives, Liberal Democrats—whose leader was a Minister in the coalition Government—or Reform, which is starting to look the part of a 2019 Tory tribute act, it is down to them, because they planted that tree.
That irony is not lost on me, and graduates in Stevenage and across this country understand that context all too well. Graduates face interest rates that begin accumulating from their first day of study. They see their loan balances rising even as they make repayments year after year, and they tell us time and again that the situation feels hopeless. They shape real decisions about work, housing and family life. They affect the very people powering our economy, raising the next generation and driving the growth that this Government are creating. Some Opposition Members have the audacity to look at this misshapen, neglected tree and ask why it offers so little shade to the graduates standing beneath it.
This Labour Government have taken on the task of fixing 14 years of mistakes and failures with the commitment and energy that is required. As Full Fact’s manifesto tracker has confirmed, two thirds of our pledges are either already delivered or on track—far more than can be said for the previous Government. One of the key missions in the manifesto on which I stood was to remove barriers to opportunity for our young people. Millions of our young people did everything we asked of them—they studied, they trained and they invested in their futures. They kept their part of the bargain, and they deserve a Labour Government who support them, rather than a Government who quietly undermine their ambitions, as happened for so many years.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am probably one of the very few people in this House who benefited from not going to university—I did Open University later, so luckily I did not have a student loan, and I am probably a little on the old side as well. However, there is something fundamentally unfair about the Government’s policy. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the young people who he talks about so passionately are being penalised by his party? He has talked about track records, so can he explain why youth unemployment is going up under this Labour Government?
Kevin Bonavia
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. [Hon. Members: “Right honourable.”] Yes, right honourable —I remember her time as Chief Whip. Like her, I did not have the burdens that people who went to university after me had to face, so I am very conscious of my responsibility to those generations and the generations to come. I am glad that the right hon. Lady has raised the issue of young people, because this Government recognise the extra pressures that young people face. That is why we are taking measures to help those who are feeling the pressures of the cost of living, whether on transport, childcare, or so many other things. We are helping our younger people and looking at how we support our students into the future—we are bringing back the maintenance grants that I benefited from all those years ago.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government are helping young people, and mentioned transport. Bus fares have gone up by 50%, from £2 to £3; for somebody who travels every day to work and back, that is £500 a year out of taxed income. That is not helping. Fuel duty is going to go up in September—that is not helping. The cost of heating oil is going through the roof, and there is going to be nothing for anyone who goes to work—that is not helping either. Can the hon. Gentleman start to look at the reality of what is happening? It is not good for young people, and unemployment among young people is going up, not down.
Kevin Bonavia
I respectfully disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. He took me to task on transport; I come from a constituency where we desperately need more bus services. That is why we now have the Bus Services Act 2025, which I believe he would probably have voted against. We are making a difference for young people, and indeed all people who need to use those services.
The greatest responsibility we owe to the generations that will come after us is providing them with opportunities and lifting them up, not holding them back. We need to look at the tough issues and find answers to them. What the Opposition have tabled today is a motion that suggests that they can fix their own broken plan 2 loan system by
“controlling the number of places on university courses where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the cost to graduates and taxpayers.”
How on earth are they going to find out what those courses are? The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), plucked some of them from the air—“Oh, we’re not sure about some of these creative arts courses.” How is she going to evaluate that? Are we going to have a commission? Is the party of the free market going to control the market? How is it going to do that?
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Bonavia
I am afraid that I will not give way, because I want to explore this a bit further.
The Opposition really have not thought this motion through at all. Are they going to have a commission saying, “We have worked out that this degree is going to produce this value”? How is that going to affect the economy at a time when we perhaps need more creative degrees? How is this all going to work? There will be more bureaucracy and more costs, and the price is going to be paid by our young people who cannot choose their own futures. That is what would happen if this really misguided motion were implemented. This plan is not even half-baked—it is as oven-ready as Boris Johnson’s pathetic Brexit deal, which this Government are trying to fix.
We cannot change the moment when the tree was planted by Opposition parties, but we can tend that tree now. I have full faith that this Labour Government will do just that.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2026
Finance Act 2026
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Act 2026
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Act 2026.
Student Loans
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 88 / Noes: 266 - Question accordingly negatived.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Labour is failing young people. Youth unemployment is up since Labour took office—it is now higher than in the eurozone. There are more people not in education, employment or training since Labour took office—now nearly 1 million. There is a midlife crisis in our economy, too. More than 2 million people aged between 50 and 64 are on out-of-work benefits. The deal for young people is bad, and it has been made worse by this Chancellor.
Too many young people are coming out of university with excessive debt, and they do not know what the future terms of their borrowing will be. If a private provider were to provide loans in this way, where someone did not know when they signed up what the interest rates, repayment deal or income threshold would be, that provider would be unable to enforce it—it would be unlawful. When it comes to this Government and the Chancellor freezing the threshold, for some reason those on the Government Benches think that is okay.
We have heard from Government Members who said that they joined the Labour party to fight for a better deal. We heard from the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), who said that she is here to fight for her generation—generation Z. Is she not bitterly disappointed at the limp response from her Government now that they have power and can do something about intergenerational justice as she sees it? Instead, Labour Members come into this House to defend their Government increasing debt for students and freezing the earnings threshold at which those young people have to start repaying.
Mr Charters
I am on plan 2, and I had a targeted maintenance grant. I will ask the hon. Member a simple question: does he think it is a fairer system to have targeted maintenance grants in it—yes or no?
Joe Robertson
Let me ask the hon. Member a question, because his party is in government, he has power and he can change things. Does he think the system is fair? No, he does not, because he has already told this House that it is not. Is he not bitterly disappointed that his own Government have not got a plan to change it? If he does not like the system that existed before July 2024, why are his Government not changing it?
The Opposition have brought forward a plan, which we are debating today. It would mean that those on plan 2 student loans will not end up paying more and more above RPI, so the Government will not be making money out of them having a loan. That is a meaningful change. The Government can go further because they are in power. I hope that our party, by the time of the next election, will be able to offer more, but we have already announced that we would abolish stamp duty, helping young people. We have already announced that we would scrap bad courses that offer no real additional employment prospects for people who do them, other than leaving them saddled with debt.
It would seem that most Labour Members have history degrees, given the amount of time they have spent speaking about the last decade, but we are talking about the system that exists now. When I went to university, I accepted the principle that young people who went to university did not contribute enough to the education that they received. Under the Blair Government, undergraduates were asked to contribute more. Clearly there is a benefit for society in having an educated and graduate workforce to take up jobs as teachers and doctors, for instance, but there is also a great benefit for those who take up those jobs, because of the higher earnings involved. That is a principle I supported. It is a principle most people supported, and I still support it. However, we have plainly reached a tipping point for too many students. The personal debt is so high that they have no real prospect of ever paying it back. Some have degrees that give them no real opportunity ever to earn more than they would have earned had they been in a good apprenticeship—a good apprenticeship that the last Government gave them the opportunity to enter into.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My son is studying for a degree in musical theatre performance, and is due to graduate in a few weeks’ time. That may be something that the hon. Member thinks has no value. My son will probably spend a certain amount of time working tables and trying to make a living while he progresses in his career. He would not be able to be of use to people as a future teacher, a future councillor, a future communications officer or, perhaps, a future politician without that degree. Is the hon. Member suggesting that his degree has no value?
Joe Robertson
I am sure that the hon. Lady’s son’s degree is an excellent degree and that, hopefully, he will gain an excellent job, but that is not the case for every student. Too many students in this country are saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. They do not know their repayment terms because they change, and some of them have degrees that will give them no additional prospect of a job to allow them to repay their debt. I hope that most of us can agree on that principle. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to ask this question: should we be putting an end to some of these institutions and courses when they are doing nothing for the young people involved?
This is not a deregulated market. In order to be able to offer a degree, an institution has to be licensed. There is no groundbreaking idea behind saying that certain courses are not of degree quality, and that the public should not be subsidising those courses. Governments already make decisions about that. It is the Conservative party that is proposing—for some reason the Labour Government do not want to do it—that young people who are sold a future that simply does not exist should not be saddled with debt, and the taxpayer should not subsidise them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am now imposing an immediate four-minute time limit.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the student loans system. I took out a student loan under the plan 1 system. I am, fortunately, not young enough to have benefited from a plan 2, or, now, a plan 5 loan. However, despite having graduated with about £40,000 of student debt, I did consider myself fortunate—fortunate that I went to university under a Labour Government who had widened participation in higher education and created a fees, grants and loans system that enabled me to go to university and pay my living costs, which my single-parent family would not have been able to do without the grants that were, unfortunately, then cut by the Conservatives. I was happy to contribute towards my university education on the basis that most people at my school would not go to university, but a system that was one of contribution and fairness has become an aggressive system, and I believe it is time to review the plan 2, and now plan 5, loans systems.
I have heard from many of my constituents about the system as it is operating, including those at Brunel University. Recently, a teacher told me about the challenges of repaying her loan and how she is considering going part-time as a result of high interest rates. There are clearly a number of options that could be taken, such as changing the RPI basis to a CPI basis, capping lifetime interest costs and uprating the thresholds once again. Suggestions have also been made by the Good Growth Foundation.
It is important that, rather than going for any one of those changes, we properly analyse the options and the distributional impacts—work which the Conservative party clearly did not do given the half-baked proposals before us. It is quite baffling that the Conservatives moved this motion. Having been the architects of this regressive student loans system, having maintained the system for a decade, having continually frozen the repayment thresholds, and having trebled the fees when in coalition with the Lib Dems and cut maintenance grants for the poorest, they now pretend to be the party of students.
However, the mask has slipped in the last section of the Conservatives’ motion. They plan to pay for their minor change by reducing the number of people going to university. When they say that fewer young people should go to uni, they almost never mean that they should not, or that their children should not, and they do not mean that the universities in their constituencies should close. They are talking about other people, including those at universities such as Brunel in my constituency. They look down on the arts or “ology” courses that they feel have less benefit, and to be frank, that is elitism.
Alex McIntyre
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about how, when the Opposition say they are going to cut funding for certain courses, they really mean that those courses will be available for wealthier students who can afford to pay for them without a Government subsidy. Does he agree that that will lead to a decrease in students from working-class backgrounds being able to access arts degrees?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Members are being very generous with their time, but I remind them that I will be starting the Front-Bench speeches at about 6.40 pm, and we still have four more Back Benchers left to speak.
Danny Beales
I completely agree that everyone who would and could benefit from a university education should be able to go. We do not widen opportunities by cutting them.
John Burn-Murdoch’s analysis in the Financial Times has shown that other developed countries have increased participation in higher education and not seen the impact on graduate wages that we have seen. That is not inevitable as part of wider higher education participation. We have seen it because of the stagnation in the economy and of productivity caused by the last Conservative Government, not because of higher education participation.
There is a range of cost of living pressures on younger people. Yes, there are student loan costs, but there are also rising housing costs, the stagnation of wages more generally, childcare costs and renting costs, many of which need urgent action. I hear from young people in my constituency about the impact of starting a family or getting on the housing ladder. There was a generational compact that if people worked hard and got on, they would do better than their parents’ generation, but things we had come to take for granted were broken under the 14 years of Conservative Government.
Action was needed, and I am pleased that this Government are reforming and scrapping the broken leasehold system, capping ground rents and taking action on service charges. They have introduced the Renters Rights Act, which the Conservative party opposed. They are taking action on childcare with the 30 hours free childcare, and bringing down inflation and interest rates. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor and the Minister with responsibility for higher education have acknowledged that action is needed on student loans and are actively reviewing the student loans system. I hope that the Treasury Committee’s full inquiry, which is under way, will be fully and promptly responded to by the Government.
Let us be clear: the proposals before us would not solve the student loans system. They are a gimmick that would close participation and close doors of opportunity, which is exactly the opposite of what people and young people in this country need.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. Graduates were promised a fair deal, and we have heard all the promises that were made from when the current Prime Minister stood to be Leader of the Opposition to the announcements that were made afterwards. People were told to work hard, go to university and have a shot at a better life, and that their efforts would pay off. On those principles, Labour Members entirely agree with those of us in the Opposition.
The Education Secretary knows that those things should be in place, because in 2023 she wrote that graduates will pay less under a Labour Government. She, the actual Education Secretary, said that graduates would pay less under a Labour Government. Now in office, she says:
“We are where we are.”
The Chancellor knows it, too. In January, she said the student loan system was fair and reasonable—in January, this year. Yesterday, suddenly, she admitted it was broken, but, importantly, not a priority.
And the Leader of the Opposition knows it. Last month, she said the current system created an unfair debt trap for graduates. But what is the difference? The difference is that the Leader of the Opposition has a plan—a plan to cut interest rates that no one would accept on a normal loan. The moment a graduate throws their cap in the air, unfortunately the Labour party sees a target to tax. We Conservatives see a dream to back—dreams like Sammi’s. Sammi, from Keyingham in my constituency, is one of the first in her family to go to university. She borrowed £40,000. She works in the medical field and makes a payment every month, but she now owes £46,000 because of interest rates that no one would accept on a normal loan. Graduates such as Sammi need to earn £66,000 before they even start to reduce their loans. By refusing to cap interest at the rate of inflation to help people like Sammi, as the Conservatives are proposing today, the Chancellor, who admits that the system is broken, is making them pay more for longer.
For too many, the degree that was meant to help them get on is now holding them back. That is why, in a tough situation, we are making tough proposals about finding courses that are not adding value. They exist. We have had Liberal Democrat and Labour Members suggesting that there is not a single course at a single institution in this country that should not be put under question. That is not the right attitude.
Under our plans, interest rates on plan 2 student loans will be capped at inflation, saving graduates tens of thousands of pounds. A doctor from Hedon, graduating in 2029 with £80,000 of student debt, will save £58,000 in lifetime repayments. An engineer from Roos with £40,000 of student debt earning £50,000 would clear their loan five years faster. So, when these young people enter the workforce or start a business of their own, they will have the space to build a future of their own: saving for a home, starting a family, creating something of value—fairness, a future, freedom.
People like Sammi are the risk-takers, the innovators and the builders of what is to come and they are being let down by this Government. That is the choice before this House tonight: vote for our plan to make effort pay again or do nothing, because it turns out that graduates are at the back of the queue. Colleagues on the Government Benches know the right thing to do. Deep down, the Education Secretary knows it and the Chancellor knows it. What they need now is the courage to do something about it.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Student finance is complicated. With thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who has been in and out of his seat all afternoon, I was able to produce a biscuit explainer today, which is available on all good social media channels.
Reforming the student finance system is not straightforward. It is a complex challenge—it is made much more difficult by the need to stabilise the economy, which is something that I obviously strongly support—but we must be clear that the task is harder because of the economic mess left behind by our predecessors: years of short-termism and under-investment that have constrained what can now be done.
Yet even within those constraints, the direction proposed by the Opposition is a bit flawed. The suggestion to scrap degrees, particularly in the arts and cultural sectors, is culturally dismissive, plainly disrespectful and insulting. It reflects a narrow view of value and ignores the real contribution of the creative industries to our economy and our national life.
Turning to the system itself, student finance is not neutral. It perpetuates an inequality. Those from less well-off backgrounds must take on larger maintenance loans simply to afford the cost of living, graduating with significantly higher debts than their peers. That undermines social mobility. Instead of higher education acting as a ladder of opportunity, the system has reinforced disadvantage. Those who start with less, leave with more to repay.
In reality, we all know that what we have is a form of a graduate tax—long-term, income-contingent and unavoidable for many—but without the clarity or fairness such a system should have. So we do need reform, but not through the Opposition’s plan; we must make a better plan. The Labour party is and will remain the party of working people, grounded in the principles of fairness, which means confronting systems that entrench inequality and replacing them with ones that expand opportunity. If we are serious about fairness, we must act—and act we will, for we will use the levers of the state to ensure fairness.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am going to talk about hope and fairness, to which many Members across the House have referred in their speeches. It is important that everyone has hope for the future, but particularly the next generation.
There are many challenges facing younger people at the moment, from youth unemployment, with the graduate jobs market unfortunately in decline, to the uncertain world we live in. The people who will inherit this world from us are concerned about conflict in the middle east, the position of our defence, and the direction in which our country and society are going. It is younger people who have borne the brunt of the decisions made during covid, and it is younger people who will have to deal with and find solutions for the changing demographics in our society, particularly the ageing population. It is important now more than ever that the next generation—the younger generation—has hope for the future, and we Conservatives have a plan to bring that back. The key to that plan is fairness.
Our motion today goes to the heart of fairness. It is fair to say that the repayment system for the people paying back plan 2 loans, with the thresholds and the interest at 3% above RPI, has essentially turned into some form of Ponzi scheme. The Conservatives have a plan to start resolving that. As has been said, it would not be possible to get these loans on a commercial basis; they are fundamentally unfair, and we have a plan to go about fixing it.
When we talk about education more generally, we talk about the fact that all different types of education have intrinsic value. There is no hierarchy between people who go to university or further education, people who do apprenticeships and people who go straight into work. It is about providing the right education for the individual person. Whether someone has gone to university or done an apprenticeship—whatever route they have gone down—it does not make them a better or worse person. The key is that it is the right plan for them. It is only fair that we reverse some of the historic biases against apprenticeships in particular, and that is why I am so pleased that apprenticeships and vocational training are central to the motion that we will be voting on later.
Fairness means fairness both to the taxpayer and to the people taking the courses. I intervened on both the Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), to ask whether they would at least concede that there are some courses—particular courses at institutions across the country—that are really not worth it because they are not value for money and will not help the student.
Ian Sollom
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I did not cover myself in glory when I responded to his point earlier, and I would like to take another bite of the cherry. The point I was trying to make was that simply basing it on salary value is not the only way to assess value. The right way to do it is through the regulator, the OfS, and to take that as just one element of many. The OfS should drive that. Would the hon. Gentleman make salary value the primary driver for all courses? [Interruption.]
Dr Spencer
I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), sitting behind me, will give a more extensive answer to that question in a moment. There are lots of ways to measure degrees. An example that I often give is the degree in David Beckham studies, which I think existed. I am a big fan of David Beckham, by the way, but I am not sure how many degrees in David Beckham studies we need, or how it would benefit the economy or the individual. Critically, I am not sure that taxpayers should be subsidising that. All our constituents are contributing to this system, and it is only fair that we ensure that there is value for money for taxpayers, as well as for the people taking the courses, and that there is a broader contribution.
It is absolutely right that, as part of this motion, we look at fairness in the system, particularly to make sure that degrees, which are regulated, give the value that they are purported to give, and that we do not have fake degrees or degrees with a disproportionate difference between the offering—what people think they are going to get—and the outcomes. When people are starting on a degree course, it is important for them to know where they can expect to be in five or 10 years’ time and what their status in society will be, so that they can make informed choices given the substantial cost, in terms of both time and money, of their investment.
On that basis, I wholeheartedly support the motion and look forward to voting for it later tonight. I hope Labour Members do so as well, because this motion brings back a bit more hope and a bit more fairness to the system.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is an honour to be the final Back-Bench speaker in this debate. I do not feel like I am at the back of the queue; I am just not at the front.
It is good to see some Liberal Democrats with us today. We know that student finance is a particularly important subject for debate in the Liberal Democrat party. In fairness, though, the Vince Cable plan, sometimes also known as plan 2, is not only about the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives were also in government at that time, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. We shared responsibility. The whole thing was largely based on the Browne report, which had been commissioned by the previous Government under the other Brown, who somehow managed not to mention it during the course of the 2010 general election. To be fair, the existence of a real interest rate in both the Browne plan and the Cable plan was intended to make the system more progressive. None the less, it has become clear over time that that system needs to change. It has also become clear that, with all the pressures on young people and graduates at the present time, including unemployment, now is not the time to squeeze them further on the repayment threshold.
In the short time available, I will talk primarily about apprenticeships and degrees. In particular, I want to focus on the necessity of concentrating on quality apprenticeships.
Damian Hinds
I will, but I will start by telling my hon. Friend about the lack of quality in some previous apprenticeships. I draw the House’s attention to the 2012 National Audit Office report on adult apprenticeships. I have time for only a couple of very short excerpts. The number of apprenticeships had increased dramatically in the three years up to 2012. The vast majority of apprentices were over 25. One in five apprenticeships lasted fewer than six months. Only one third of apprenticeships were at an advanced level, compared with something like 60% in France. In a separate study, there was the amazing discovery that, at that time, one in five apprentices—and this was to rise even further—did not even know that they were on an apprenticeship, so poor, thin and flaky were those courses.
So, yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, we reformed the system. First, in 2012 we introduced the minimum length of one year. We then had the substantial package of reforms in 2017 to make sure that there would be 20% of time off the job and to introduce the apprenticeship levy. It included the move from frameworks, which were sort of tick-box standards in many cases, to proper standards that would be designated and designed by employers and would have a proper end-point assessment to guarantee that that person had learned those occupational standards. And yes, of course the number of people on apprenticeships then fell.
The Government amendment says that they want to reverse the decline in apprenticeships under the previous Government. The reality is that the number of apprenticeships first grew like crazy under the previous Government as a result of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and then it came back down following our reforms to make the apprenticeships higher quality and more exacting.
In 2010, the 280,000 figure was still lower than the 340,000 that we achieved in government. Now it looks like the Government are set on restarting that rollercoaster by reducing the standard of apprenticeships.
Alistair Strathern
I will not claim that the apprenticeship system that the previous Government inherited was perfect, but he is right that at its best it was about getting hard-to-reach young people into skilled jobs that they would not otherwise be able to reach. Countless young people and employers in my constituency, as well as the fantastic charity Amazing Apprenticeships, constantly cite standards as a barrier, not an enabler.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but we need quality apprenticeships. That is why I regret the fact that the independent Institute for Apprenticeships is being dissolved to be replaced by Skills England, which is not independent, does not have guaranteed business involvement in setting standards, and has now been moved from the DFE to the Department for Work and Pensions.
I regret that the Government are watering down end-point assessments, and I regret most of all that the new minimum length of an apprenticeship is eight months, down from 12 months. By the way, a 12-month apprenticeship is already short by international standards, and it is now being reduced even further to eight months. Try telling a German captain of industry that an apprenticeship can be done in eight months. There is nothing wrong with eight-month training courses, just do not call them apprenticeships. Call them something else so that we maintain the standard, brand and integrity of an apprenticeship.
The Government say, “We are doing all these things. We are reducing the standards and making it easier to access the cash and pass the course, and we believe that we may be able to grow the numbers.” I should actually apologise to Labour Members, because I think it insults their intelligence when they are given a piece of paper and asked to read something that says: “We believe that with our plan the number of apprenticeships will grow.” Of course it is going to grow—it could not fail to grow. The point is that it is not a like-for-like increase in the number of apprenticeships.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know I am out of time. I had a load more to say—perhaps another day. Thank you for calling me.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
In January, the Chancellor was saying that the student loans system was “fair and reasonable”. She now admits —as of yesterday—that it is broken. In one sense, we have won this debate even before it started. The Government say that they are looking at these issues, but they would not be looking at them if it were not for the Opposition raising them, and I do not find the promise to “look at these issues” very reassuring, given their track record.
In the run-up to the last election, the Education Secretary promised: “Graduates, you will pay less under Labour”. Unbelievably, that is still up on her website. Instead, Labour has increased fees so that graduates are paying more, not less. On top of that, the Chancellor has cut the repayment threshold in real terms so that graduates are paying a further £250 a year. Actions speak louder than words.
To get elected as Labour leader, the Prime Minister promised to abolish tuition fees. Instead, he has increased them. He used to say, “We need to end the scandal of spiralling student debt,” but now he is letting it spiral. When the Minister says, “We will look at it,” we are not reassured. I thought the best speech of the afternoon was from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), who said in plain terms that he would not prioritise fixing this problem and would spend the money on something else. That kind of blunt honesty is better than the line from the Chancellor, who says “Graduates, your call is very important to us. Please continue to hold, and eventually perhaps we will do something about it.”
This system was set up with the best of intentions, but I have been arguing against it for as long as I have been in this House. The above-inflation interest rates have long been recognised as a problem. That is why our 2022 reforms abolished real-terms interest rates for all future students, but now we need to go back and end these unfair challenges for past students too.
There are lots of different ways to explain how unfair the current system is. Those on plan 2 are paying back far more than they ever borrowed. The typical plan 2 graduate needs to earn £66,000 a year just to keep track with the interest. The total volume of money owed by plan 2 students is increasing every year, even though no new loans are being taken out and they are paying back billions every year. Between the lower and upper interest rate threshold, for every additional £100 a graduate earns, they repay an extra £9, but their debt also accrues an additional £7.20 in interest. In fact, a plan 2 graduate who has £69,000 or more of debt—a doctor or someone like that—sees their debt increase faster as their earnings and repayments increase, because the interest effect outweighs the repayment effect. It is a totally perverse system.
Adam Thompson
The hon. Member talks about the effect of interest over time. Given that the loans are eventually written off under the current system, can he tell me what threshold a salary would have to be at for the proposed changes in interest to make any realistic difference over the course of a graduate’s entire life?
Neil O’Brien
Yes, and I am grateful for that question. Under our proposed reforms, four fifths—80%—of plan 2 graduates would benefit and pay less over their lifetime. The hon. Gentleman can look up all this stuff on the IFS website if he wants to check.
There are so many personal stories here. The other day, one doctor was recounting how she graduated with £75,000 of debt, has worked hard for years and has paid off every year, but she now owes £90,000.
Neil O’Brien
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me why he thinks that is fair.
Mr Charters
The hon. Gentleman referenced the IFS report. He will know that it has costed his proposals and that for the plan 2 cohort there would be a capital cost of £30 billion to £40 billion—I believe that could be a gaping hole. It is a seriously uncosted policy, is it not?
Neil O’Brien
If the hon. Gentleman reads to the end of the IFS report, he will see that it costs our proposal in single-digit billions, and we have explained exactly how we will pay for it—I will come to that in a moment—so there is no gaping hole whatsoever. No wonder so many despair, with more broken promises from the Government and ever-rising debt, and no promise of action at any particular time.
How we would pay for our proposal—this goes to the hon. Gentleman’s question—is equally important. Since the last Government created the longitudinal education outcomes dataset, we have had much better data on which degrees do—or do not—provide economic value for students and taxpayers. Economic value is not the only value put on higher education, or any kind of education, but rather than simply pushing more young people towards courses that the Government’s own data show us do not benefit them—they do not help them, and they leave them feeling like they have been mis-sold and betrayed, with a lot of debt and nothing much to show for it—we need to have a rethink. The current approach is not working.
Since the election, youth unemployment has risen to levels significantly above the eurozone’s for the first time in a generation. That is mainly as a result of the Government’s decision to target lower-paid people for tax increases and to increase regulation, but it is not helped by the Government’s unbalanced approach to skills, based on an endless expansion of university courses whether they are any good or not.
Neil O’Brien
Just one moment.
Analysis by the IFS found that total returns on going to university will be negative for about 30% of both men and women—and that is based on the cohort from the noughties. The problem now is probably even bigger because the graduate premium has declined further. As a result, many graduates now earn so little that they will never fully repay their student loans, leaving the taxpayer to cover about £8 billion in losses every year. That is why we would restore the number controls that existed for 70 years and use that to reduce the number of people who are on courses that are not good value for the taxpayer and not helping the young people, either.
To listen to Labour Members, anyone would think that there was not a single bad course, that every single course is totally brilliant and that there is no prospect of ever reducing spending on any single course. That is a fantasy world. We do not say about any other type of public service that every single instance of it is completely brilliant and there is no scope for improvement. We would use the savings from our proposal not just to abolish real interest rates on plan 2 loans but to double the number of apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds so that quality apprenticeships are a real choice at age 18.
Why would we do that? Recent data shows that five years after finishing a course in 2018, the average level 4 apprentice was earning £32,000; by contrast, the average graduate was earning just £26,500 and the lower quartile of graduates were earning £19,000 or less. In many cases, a high-quality apprenticeship can be a better option than a low-value university course. That is why we would make that change.
Alex McIntyre
Labour Members have asked Conservative Members repeatedly if they can name a course or an institution that they would cut. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) had to make up a course in David Beckham studies—as far as I understand, that never existed—to make the point. Does the hon. Gentleman have a real course in mind, or are his made up as well?
Neil O’Brien
We have already talked about that. If the hon. Gentleman wants a full list, he can go on my Substack and see a whole bunch of different institutions with low returns. He can also do better than that: he can look on the DFE’s website and see that many courses lead to low earnings. [Interruption.] It is not my purpose here to single out individual courses.
We have talked quite a lot about creative arts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that only 4.5% of those degrees represent a positive return to taxpayers. Some people will look at a statistic like that, say that it is only worth it for taxpayers 4% of the time and say, “That is not a problem. Let’s carry on shovelling money into something that is only working 4% of the time.” Other people would say, “We have to make choices, and we could use that money, which the Government continue to shovel into low-value courses, to fund more high-quality apprenticeships and cut repayments for betrayed plan 2 voters.”
Let me be clear: the current system is unfair. The Government admit it is unfair. Like so many other things, they say they will look at it. This is a Prime Minister who we can always rely on to do the right thing once we have dragged him by the nose to do it. As the former Deputy Prime Minister says, time is running out for this Labour Government, and it is time for them to stop moaning, grow a pair and fix this problem that they have moaned about.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Let me begin by stating the obvious: the issues with plan 2 loans are a legacy of the previous Government. Plan 2 borrowers in England are undergraduate students who began their courses between 2012 and 2023. The loans were designed, implemented and operated by the previous coalition and Conservative Governments. When we were elected, we immediately recognised the pressure. We uplifted the plan 2 repayment threshold in 2025 to £28,470 and will increase it again to £29,385 next month, ensuring that it is higher than average graduate salaries three years after a course has finished. Before we came into Government, for most of the time that plan 2 loans have existed, the repayment threshold has been frozen—for 10 years during the Tory Government.
This is a system that we would never have designed. We have heard plenty today about its flaws, the worry it causes and the pressure on graduates. We have had, as we often do on Opposition days, a spirited debate. I will begin my comments on some of the contributions that we have heard by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) for an especially powerful contribution.
I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), who continues to be a champion in this place for young people not only in her constituency but up and down this country. When I came to this place, my maiden speech was about generational inequality. Based on her description, I think that I have timed out in my ability to call myself a young person, so I am delighted that we have my hon. Friend here holding that torch and continuing to fight and to make the case for young people.
Turning to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), we have had some serious chutzpah from the Tories today, opening with the fact that this Labour Government have increased fees—fees increased for sustainability purposes but certainly not trebled, as the Conservative party did. She spoke of the threshold freeze being unfair. April’s increase is our second in two years—as many as they managed in 12 years post introducing the plan 2 scheme.
The shadow Secretary of State labelled the motion a new deal for young people, but why on earth is a new deal required? It is because the Conservatives trebled fees, scrapped maintenance grants, oversaw a 40% cut to youth apprenticeships, and drove the number of NEETs up by a quarter of a million in their last three years in government. By contrast, under this Government, young people are getting a new deal, with a new target of two thirds of young people in an apprenticeship or at university, our youth guarantee and our jobs guarantee, because we understand that young people need support to thrive, especially after 14 years of the Conservative party.
We then heard about the range of options that the Conservatives want to secure for young people, that it is a Conservative choice to be able to earn and learn through apprenticeships or to go to university, but that was not the choice that young people had. They hammered apprenticeships for young people, and that is one of the reasons why we face the challenges in the system that we do today.
We heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), in what I thought was a very considered contribution. I always think that it is incredibly brave for a Liberal Democrat to speak in any debate about fees, loans and so on.
Andrew Western
I will not because I am short on time—I am sorry.
While I do think that a Liberal Democrat should be wary, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire made an important point in his defence of degree courses with which I agree.
The hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) attacked the Government for acknowledging the problems of the system and for saying that we recognise that work is needed, there is much to do, but we will look at it. When we say there is much to do, there are messes left all over the place. What exactly are we talking about? We are talking about a legacy of starved further education funding. The Conservatives oversaw a 40% drop in youth apprenticeships. They drove up child poverty, ravaged Sure Start, scrapped Building Schools for the Future, broke the SEND system—and that is just their legacy for children and young people, before I even get to the fact that they left the NHS on its knees. Their damage, the mess they left, has a long tail, and we must never forget that that damage cannot be fixed overnight.
Dr Luke Evans
Given that the Minister has just listed a great big set of problems facing students, what does he say to students when the Chancellor has said that they are not at the front of the queue?
Andrew Western
What I say is that students, like everybody else, benefit from an improved NHS and from a range of interventions that this Government are making, but we cannot change everything overnight.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) commented that young people not in employment has rocketed under this Government, which is an interesting take given that the number of NEETs is 14,000 lower now than it was at this point last year, but it increased by 250,000 in the Conservatives’ final few years in office.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). I simply reiterate the comments made in the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) about the rubbishing of the Conservatives’ proposal already done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned youth unemployment figures, and I absolutely agree that these are a concern. We are not complacent on this issue, so he will welcome the youth guarantee, the jobs guarantee, the increase to apprenticeship funding, the shift to more apprenticeships for young people, the revised target of two thirds of young people either in an apprenticeship or at university, and the update to our approach to encourage technical learning while earning. He will also be pleased to know that, unlike him, I do have a history degree, so I have no problem looking at the Conservatives’ record of the past 10 years. I absolutely appreciate that they do not want to be held to account for the mess they left, but sadly they devastated this system, and it falls to us to resolve the problems they left.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who said that all forms of education have intrinsic value, which leaves me somewhat confused given the Conservatives have made a compelling argument today for scrapping a number of degree courses and they ran down the number of apprenticeships available to young people.
I want to briefly come to the contribution of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), because he is always considered in this area and, indeed, I consider him an expert on this subject. I cannot pretend to be familiar with the Brown and Cable plans, but it is important to pick up a point he made around the vast majority of apprenticeships being taken by people over 25. I believe that that is a problem in the system. That is why we are creating foundation apprenticeships and that is why—[Interruption.] I am not suggesting—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.
Andrew Western
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not attribute a time period to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I am simply stating that it is a fixed intention of this Government to seek to address that and to ensure that more young people under the age of 25 can access apprenticeships.
Yet again in these Opposition day debates, we see a Conservative party that continues to run away from its record and that brings forward overnight solutions that, in this case, have already been discredited. It is not fit to govern and would never solve this problem for young people.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Today I present a petition on behalf of over 500 of my constituents who call on the Government to urgently review the removal of school transport for children attending Henry Beaufort school in Winchester. Under the current changes, children as young as 11 are expected to walk up to three miles—that takes over an hour—on dangerous roads to get to school. I have walked the route with parents, and it is unacceptable.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with Hampshire County Council to ensure that the school bus service from Kings Worthy to Henry Beaufort School is continued.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Winchester,
Declares that the school bus from Kings Worthy to Henry Beaufort School is due to be withdrawn in April 2026; further declares that this would force children as young as eleven to walk over an hour on dangerous roads to get to school, which would be particularly dangerous in the winter months, or cost parents who will have to start work later or pay for expensive taxis; and further declares that the plans would mean more congestion, worse air quality and higher costs for parents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with Hampshire County Council to ensure that the school bus service from Kings Worthy to Henry Beaufort School is continued.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003170]
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I present this petition on behalf of the 9,915 people who have supported my campaign calling on the water companies to end the use of plastic beads in wastewater treatment. A few months ago, I had no idea that plastic beads were used in wastewater treatment, and then 300 million of them washed up on our coastline at Camber Sands and along the Sussex coast, causing an environmental catastrophe. I have since been working with the Sussex Wildlife Trust because the use of plastic beads in wastewater treatment is an outdated technology and better, modern methods exist. Why are the water companies still using them, especially in coastal areas where they can do so much damage?
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the use of plastic “biobeads” in wastewater treatment should be phased out.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ask the Government to work with the water companies and the Environment Agency to end the use of plastic “biobeads” in wastewater treatment.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003173]
Flooding: Rural Communities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. Water has no respect for property. It has no regard for a family’s memories or for a business’s survival. It rises where it will, and for too many in our communities across Rutland, Harborough and the South Kesteven villages, it rises again and again. In Whissendine, the White Lion pub flooded four times in 2024 alone. The water was so deep in the village that people water-skied, although of course I cannot condone that. The pub’s damage was so severe and so repeated that the insurers, the very people paid to be there when it matters most, walked away. Yolanda and Chris Stevenson, who have spent years running the pub, were left to face the consequences alone. A home, a livelihood and a community hub were all under threat.
Sometimes the barriers to getting things done leave me quite bereft. In Whissendine, the simple installation of a depth gauge would make a big difference to preventing cars from driving through when the roads are flooded and yet, for the life of me, I cannot get anyone to fund it or agree to it. In Langham, the same homes have flooded every single year since 2024, and properties that barely saw a drop of water in the years before now face a deluge, which often comes through their doors as lorries drive belligerently through our flooded streets when they should know better. However, no one stops them because the council repeatedly fails to put up signs shutting the road. I believe that residents should be empowered to put up signs themselves, in co-ordination with local flood response leads. Residents are spending thousands of pounds on flood defences, and not because they want to but because they have to.
In Tallington, a storm left the sewage system and residents without working toilets or showers. Thankfully, by supporting Philip Sagar and Tallington parish council, we have secured and completed works on the culvert under the railway, which was incredibly difficult to negotiate, and more is planned. We also have Thurnby brook, which flooded in 2024 and 2025 following the storms, and the impact is still felt today. There is the beautiful Braceborough, which suffered horrendously.
There is Greatford, where I was left at 9 o’clock at night ringing the circus—the real circus; it was Pinder’s circus from Rutland, which was in Hungary at the time—and begging it to help me find portaloos for the village. When Storm Henk struck, the village did not flood; it was engulfed. Some people had to be rescued by boats, and people spent nights in rescue centres. When the waters finally receded, a third of all homes had been severely damaged, and many people could not return home for well over a year.
These residents can easily be statistics, but we all know that each of them is a family with their own story. These are the same communities that are about to have a 1,300-acre solar plant imposed on flood plains right next to their homes. Flooding is not unique to my patch, and I am not trying to claim a monopoly on hardship, but I am here to advocate for solutions.
Alicia Kearns
I will gently say to Members that, as much as I love to have an audience for my Adjournment debate, we must recognise that I need to get through everything. I will give way quickly to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and then to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Constituents of mine in Moorland and Fordgate live under the constant threat of flooding. This winter they have been very grateful to the frontline workers from the internal drainage board, the council and the Environment Agency for helping them out. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those frontline workers?
Alicia Kearns
I will happily pay tribute. In fact, that gives me a great opportunity to mention Ben Thornely, who is our local Environment Agency officer. It does not matter when I call him or whether it is an emergency or proactively trying to make our communities safer, he always takes the call, and he has been out to see our communities whenever I ask. There are people in the system who work incredibly hard, and this is a great opportunity to thank them.
Every year I hold flooding summits across the three counties I serve, and every year the story is the same.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady; she is an assiduous MP and constituency worker, and we all recognise her efforts in this Chamber. Does she agree that the smaller numbers of people living in rural areas can sometimes skew the cost-benefit analysis? The Department must take each request based not on how many people live in an area and are affected, but on the bigger schemes to help the householders. I gently say that it should also enable farmland to carry out agricultural purposes that are essential for food security for this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman is at risk of stealing my sandwiches, but I will get there shortly. He is right, particularly when it comes to farmers; too often they are overlooked and they need support.
The issues that I hear about at my flooding summits are that local authorities are too often silent when asked for help, and that riparian owners are not taking their duties as seriously as they should—dredging goes undone and drains go uncleared—and when people from Rutland ask the Government for support, we are told that we do not qualify. The reason for that is a simple number: 50. To access the flooding recovery framework, 50 houses must flood. Below that line, there is no support; above that line, here comes the cavalry.
For Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, which I also serve, 50 flooded houses is sadly an achievable and often exceeded threshold, but because Rutland is the smallest county—we have just 41,000 residents—we almost never hit 50 flooded homes, thankfully. We must remember the 30 houses that were badly damaged in Greatford in Lincolnshire, which I serve. If it had been the only village in Lincolnshire to flood, it would have had no support, despite people having to be evacuated by boat and being besieged. There is something deeply wrong with a framework so rigid that those in need of help do not or might not receive support.
I raised this objection in the last Parliament, and my Government then listened. The Conservative Government made sure that in 2024, for the first time ever, Rutland could access the flood recovery grant. I ask the Government to make those changes permanent ahead of the next big floods this year. Surely support should be based on the percentage of the population affected or just those who are the most affected, and accessing this funding would make an enormous difference.
I also ask the Minister to ensure that she provides support for farmers. In the village of Tixover in my community, for example, farmers have had to spend up to £80,000 this year buying food for their sheep, which would otherwise just graze off the grass, because they cannot access their land because it is so flooded.
We talk about flood risk in terms of physical damage, infrastructure and recovery time, but there is a financial dimension to this issue that is devastating households. That is the insurance market. For families in flood-risk areas, insurance premiums are eye-watering where they are available at all, so families have to cover the risk themselves; they hope that this year, the storm will pass, the river will hold or the drain will cope, but it never quite does. A family living in fear of flooding is living in fear, not just of water, but of the bill that comes in the post. Flood Re was a vital reinsurance scheme established by the last Government, but homes built since 2009 are not covered, and that scheme’s remit will end in 2030, leaving people stuck. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on the Government’s thinking on this matter.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the point of insurance, I have just come from chairing a meeting with Aviva—a great Norfolk insurer, the biggest insurer of houses in the country. It made the point to me that this is the tip of a major iceberg of uninsureability, unmortgageability and then unsaleability, and that the Treasury should be looking at this as a major problem on the balance sheet of this country. It is a Horizon Post Office-sized scandal in its scale, risking serious economic damage to our economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that elevates this issue to one of national importance?
Alicia Kearns
I was not aware of just how drastic insurers see the situation, but it does not surprise me, based on what I see in my communities. I know that my hon. Friend has worked consistently on the issue of flooding, so I take him at his word that we need to be looking at that problem more seriously.
Turning to dredging, the Environment Agency consistently argues that we should not be dredging its man-made assets, but that position is not supported by landowners and farmers, who are the custodians of our land and understand it. It can restore natural water flow, support better drainage and remove debris. It should be an option, as should removing vegetation from EA assets.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that in many cases this is about removing vegetation, but it might also be about removing debris, such as old shopping trollies and other things that could block a much-loved waterway and cause flooding and further accumulation of debris? That is part of the problem. Does she also agree that landowners have a responsibility? There is great variation in the way they manage their land next to rivers.
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—riparian ownership is a repeated issue in my community. It is also devastating to hear that he has things like shopping trollies in his waterways; we are very fortunate, in that we have so many local groups who go out and drag anything like that out of our waterways, although it is very rare. We need action to get those issues resolved.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I also commend my hon. Friend for raising this hugely important topic, and she is right to highlight the importance of local voices. Local voices know best where the flood risks are. They are most at risk and have real skin in the game, but they often feel that bodies such as Natural England and some parts of the Environment Agency are not responding. There are also the internal drainage boards, particularly in the east of England—in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see more from the current Government about how they are going to work proactively with the drainage boards, particularly on some of the capital funding requirements that they face?
Alicia Kearns
I am in quite an unenviable position, in that only some of my constituency is covered by an internal drainage board, but that capital is absolutely fundamental. I am sure the Minister has heard my right hon. Friend’s intervention and will be able to reflect that in her speech—I was going to ask about that issue, but I no longer need to do that, so I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
I want to touch briefly on flood alleviation schemes. We need strategies to store water better, because we are moving from droughts to floods and back to droughts. Water resilience and water security should be treated with equal importance to food security.
Turning to planning and development, the Government plan significantly—and, in my view, disproportionately—to increase the number of homes built in rural areas. All the cities around me have seen significant reductions in how many houses they have to build, while each of my areas has seen an increase in what is expected of over 100%, despite our consistently over-delivering on the targets previously set. Planning and development have to be done responsibly, and I fear that so much of the building is going to be on floodplains, or on the outskirts of small villages whose drainage has only just kept up with modern-day life and modern times. Those villages will find their infrastructure overrun by these additional housing pressures.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech and has taken a huge number of interventions, for which I thank her. When it comes to development, flood management strategies are not taking into account the run-off that additional development will cause; for example, the upper Severn catchment management scheme is looking at opportunities to store water, but not at risks from additional development. We know that the drainage arrangements that are put in place, such as attenuation ponds, are often not maintained into the future. Does the hon. Member agree that we need a better plan for making sure that when development happens, the run-off does not affect the existing residents?
Alicia Kearns
Run-off has unfortunately been a real problem. I have only three towns in my constituency. They are not substantial, but Oakham in particular has seen a real issue with run-off, and that is all from new properties. It needs to be dealt with, and it speaks to the need for incentives and sticks. New fiduciary financial liabilities would make clear to developers that if they build new homes and in the short term—between the following five to 15 years—there is a significant increase in flooding that was not previously occurring, they should be liable for action to build additional flood prevention aids or to upgrade the flood defences or drains they originally built. That brings me to the planning process, where it would be sensible if water companies became statutory consultees.
Turning to local councils, a couple of years ago we Conservatives had to force the first ever special meeting in the history of Rutland county council, because the council was not responding on flooding and was insisting that those who had to move out of their homes would have to pay council tax on both their original property and the one they were renting. The council’s long overdue section 19 flooding report has finally been published, but it had little about what the council would do to protect us in the future. Instead, it focused on telling us all what the problems are. First, we already knew that, and secondly, it took the council pretty much 18 months from the first flood to report, and we had already had a second flood in the meantime. We all know our communities and we know what the issues are.
A statutory limit on how long section 19 reports can take is necessary, but councils should also have to go beyond just setting out the problem and lay out the solutions that are needed. Will the Government do that, and will they mandate that those who have had to move out of their homes due to flooding should be protected from the cost of covering council tax on two properties? Frankly, I am tired of having that fight with my local councils every time we have significant flooding.
I will touch on some of the flooding heroes in our communities. Phil Britton and the entire Greatford parish council and flood warden team rebuilt and recovered in the most extraordinary way. They have gone on to be determined to help other communities to protect themselves better. It is so beautiful to see them wanting to share their expertise and plans with others. Richard Besant, chair of Langham parish council, has advocated and pushed relentlessly on behalf of his village. I mentioned Philip Sagar, the chair of Tallington parish council, who has been a persistent and principled voice for residents who have been facing avoidable misery. I also touched on Yolanda and Chris Stevenson, who fought not only for their own pub in Whissendine, but for the entire community when others frankly would have given up and hidden in a hole.
Those are just some of the people who have held our communities together, and they are remarkable, and I am so proud to represent them. There are more who I wish I could name who have stepped up. It should not be left to those who care passionately to improve our flood defences or respond in an emergency. It should not be councillors, such as Kiloran Heckels or Karen Payne, who find themselves out in the dark trying to get to the bottom of things. In Whitwell, we literally had people putting on scuba gear, diving down to the bottom of the water—that is how deep it was—to try to get things out of the drains to get the water moving. It also should not be left to farmers, who are often our first responders and flood wardens, to stand in the breach because the authorities simply have not responded.
Let me be clear about what I am asking. I am disappointed that our communities have been excluded from the flood funds that were announced overnight, and I would be grateful if the Government revisited that decision. I cannot believe that we are not some of the worst affected communities in the country, not least from the conversations I have had with the Environment Agency. The Government should do more to support local flood resilience groups because, as we discussed earlier, our communities know what is best for them. We know where the flooding has happened, for how long and when there are new patterns.
On insurance, the Flood Re scheme must be updated. Can section 19 reports please have far more of a focus on action and a time limit? We need to end double council tax for victims of flooding and challenge the existing orthodoxy on dredging that is letting our communities down. On developers, we need financial liabilities to ensure that developers who build new homes tackle flooding pre-emptively or are held to account when they have not done so sufficiently. We need water companies to become statutory consultees in the planning process. Finally, as I have touched on, I want the Government to review the flooding recovery framework and in particular the 50-house threshold. As it stands, it systematically excludes my communities that are incredibly vulnerable.
In conclusion, the heavy rains will come again, and I fear they will come far too soon, and our communities cannot face this challenge alone. I have touched on some of the villages that have suffered flooding, but we have had it in Whitwell, Whissendine, Careby, including Careby’s beautiful church, Creeton, Edenham, Braceborough, Ashwell, Stretton, Glooston, Lyddington, Stonton Wyvill, Langham, Tugby, Tallington, Greatford and Barleythorpe Brooke. Those are all in the last two years, and there are far more who have suffered.
Rural communities deserve protection and recovery should not depend on population density and protections for those who can afford the premium. I suspect that these are principles that command support throughout the Chamber, regardless of political alliance, but principles unmatched by policy are just words, and I believe that we in our villages deserve much more than words. This really is one of our foremost concerns and priorities.
I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the points that I have raised, and she is very welcome to come to my next flooding summit. I will bring three counties together if necessary, which may be a shock to their systems, but we would do it if she were willing to come and have those discussions. I look forward very much to hearing her response this evening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for initiating it, and for giving me an opportunity to outline the steps that the Government are taking to reduce flood risk and strengthen resilience in rural communities.
We began 2026 with record levels of rainfall in some parts of the country. Following Storm Chandra, I visited Somerset on 10 February with a Conservative Member, and witnessed the devastating impacts of flooding at first hand when one of the farmers took me in his tractor to see what had happened. What I saw could be described as flooding, but his farmland was basically under a lake. We had a good and helpful conversation about it, and I was particularly struck by what he said about the extra things that he did to support his community, in the way that the hon. Lady described. The farmers were there, helping people to go to the shops or to pick up their post. They were providing that additional service because they care about the communities of which they are part.
Sir Ashley Fox
I was grateful for the Minister’s visit to Somerset, but does she accept that when the Environment Agency announces that it is withdrawing from main river maintenance and will stop dredging the River Parrett, that is exactly the sort of action that contributes to the devastating flooding that she witnessed?
Emma Hardy
I will not make this about Somerset, I promise, but we had a very good conversation with the Environment Agency, the internal drainage boards and members of the council during that visit. We talked about the use of temporary pumps when a threshold is met, and discussed whether the threshold needs to be re-evaluated. Some really positive work is being done, with people looking into what has happened and what needs to be done. I hope that we shall be able to say a bit more about that in the coming weeks, but it was a very useful conversation. There was a willingness around the table to think about how we could get it right in an area that is very difficult and challenging to deal with because it is so flat, and relies so much on the use of pumps to move water around. The question of maintenance was discussed as well.
I want to acknowledge the vital work of local authorities, emergency services, members of the internal drainage boards, the voluntary community, the faith sector, and others who responded to the floods in Somerset, Dorset and other locations. The good news is that 24,500 properties were protected by the Environment Agency, but that, of course, is little consolation for the people whose properties were flooded. I also want to express my personal sympathies to all those who have been affected.
On Monday we held our sixth meeting of floods resilience taskforce, which is a fantastic group that brings everyone together. It includes the internal drainage boards, but also the Association of British Insurers, Flood Re and the flood action groups, which bring lived experience of flooding to the conversations. We bring everyone together for the flood action groups, and then there are task groups who go off and do work between the big meetings, such as looking at the experience of people from the point at which their properties have been flooded to the point at which they return to their properties. One of the questions that I want to ask is, “Where are the pain points along the way, and where are the difficulties?”
Once this is all set up and official, I should like all Members to feed in their experiences so we can identify the difficult points. I had a great conversation with Aviva last Thursday when I went to visit a house that had been improved through Build Back Better. Those people had had a wonderful experience, following the devastating thing that had happened, but we know that that is not universal.
George Freeman
The Minister has mentioned Aviva, one of Norfolk’s great companies and the biggest insurer of houses in the country. Has she seen its recent report, in which it calculates that about 4.78 million houses are at serious risk of flooding over the next 10 years? I congratulate he on securing the funding in the autumn, which I think was going to protect 60,000 houses, but does she agree that the Treasury should be thinking very deeply about the scale of this challenge in the context of national resilience?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Member prompts me to mention the biggest ever, greatest, most fantastic and largest investment in flood defences that this Government have just announced. On a more serious note, yes, Aviva did talk to me about that report, as he would imagine. We had a conversation about it and, without straying too much out of my remit and into planning, I believe that such conversations are ongoing with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Steve Barclay
The Minister invited hon. Members to present pain points, so perhaps I can share one from my time in her Department. Natural England’s gold-plating of some of its statutory objectives often seemed at odds with the ministerial steers that were given. Does she feel she has sufficient control over the direction of Natural England in delivering the sort of actions that I am sure she discussed at the taskforce?
Emma Hardy
I would not want to advise the right hon. Gentleman, but I think hearts and minds is always a good way to win things in the Department. I do feel confident. There is a conversation about dredging, and the question of whether it is appropriate often comes up. When I have conversations with those from the Environment Agency, their response to me is, “It depends.” It depends on the river, it depends on where the flooding is, and it depends whether we want to move something quickly. Certainly, from everything they have told me, there is not a set policy against something; they just want to do what is best in the area. Of course, if hon. Members have examples that they want me to follow up, I am happy to hear them.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We are still waiting for delivery of the River Thames scheme in my area. While that is happening, we would be very grateful for some dredging, because at the moment there is no River Thames flood alleviation scheme. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reconfirm the Government’s commitment to delivering the River Thames scheme, which affects my constituency but also the neighbouring constituency of Spelthorne?
Emma Hardy
Actually, I had a conversation about the hon. Gentleman earlier on. In my meeting with him, we spoke about the local response to the flooding, and about how we can bring things together when it does not meet the level of the local resilience forum. I acknowledge that he had really interesting ideas about how recovery can operate at a local level, so I might invite him to send those in to me when we look at those pain points.
Earlier today, from 5.30 to 6.30 pm—I am losing track of time—the Environment Agency had a drop-in session in the House. It invited all Members to go in and have conversations about what is happening with their schemes this year. There is a record amount of money, which is fantastic news, so this is a massive build year. There is so much capital spend and so many things being built this year. Quite a bit of money is also going into the development of future projects. I apologise that I do not have the hon. Gentleman’s scheme in front of me, but he should ask the Environment Agency where it is with the scheme. No projects have been cancelled; they are either in development or are being built, so it is probably best to have that conversation with the EA.
I will get back to the questions that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford asked.
Matt Rodda
The Minister is making an excellent speech, but perhaps she would like to say a little bit about the importance of measures further upstream to protect my residents, and indeed those of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), in the River Thames catchment. It is obviously a huge catchment, and there are significant tributaries such as the Kennet, the Loddon and many others. In the past, she has referred to her interest in rewilding to manage the flood waters as they come down through the Thames, and in particular considering vegetation near rivers and various other measures to try to slow the flow of water.
Emma Hardy
It would not be a flooding debate without my hon. Friend’s contributions. I know how much he cares about both restoring nature and doing what he can to alleviate flooding. The new formula, which kicks in on 1 April, puts greater emphasis on natural flood management and how we can increase the number of nature-based solutions to flooding, where appropriate. That is absolutely something that I want to achieve, because not only is it more affordable and good for nature, but it can help alleviate flooding. That is of course part of the wider picture, and I thank him.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
As in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), one of the impacts in Leicestershire has been the sheer volume of water, and the villages in rural parts of Leicestershire have just felt left behind when it comes to money. I am grateful that Diseworth was selected this time round, but I would be really grateful to hear the Minister’s view about the impact on rural communities and how work can be done to make sure that rural communities do not feel left behind by flood works.
Emma Hardy
That is absolutely at the forefront of my mind. Having been to see some of the farmers this year and before the election, and having had those conversations, I am actively looking at what would be a good solution to support our rural communities, bearing in mind the comment that although there may be fewer properties, that does not lessen the impact.
For the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, the EA is developing a new hydraulic model and hydrology for the catchment to provide further information and a foundation for future flood risk management in the area. It would probably be helpful if the EA reached out to have a conversation with her to explain that in detail.
Just yesterday, we announced a £1.4 billion investment in flooding in 2026-27, which will help to protect tens of thousands of homes and businesses, and funding for more than 600 flood schemes across the country, including upgraded barriers, embankments and natural flood management projects that slow the flow, of which I am a huge fan. It includes £5.5 million for the lower risk debris screens project that will increase flood resilience in the hon. Member’s constituency and other Members’ constituencies, as part of wider investment across the east midlands. More than £260 million will be spent managing, maintaining and repairing EA assets, including those damaged by Storm Goretti and Storm Chandra, ensuring that vital protections remain strong when communities need them most. The investment forms part of the largest flood defence programme in English history, with at least £10.5 billion invested between 2024 and 2036 to protect homes, businesses and critical infrastructure in every corner of the country from the growing threat of flooding.
I am very happy to take away the question on how quickly section 19 reports are done. I am always mindful of how hard-working our local councillors are. They need to do something well and in a timely way, and there can be a tension between the two, but is important that section 19 reports are completed as quickly as possible, so that we can really understand what has happened and hopefully do something to mitigate it in future.
On the point the hon. Lady made about council tax, I will have to take that to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Alicia Kearns
The Minister has been very generous with interventions. We are about to run out the clock. There were a few more questions and I would be very grateful if she would write to me on them. I know how diligently she fulfils her brief and I am really grateful to her for that, but it would be great to have answers to all the wider points I raised as well.
Emma Hardy
I am very happy to do that. Apologies; I normally listen out for the coughing that comes—[Interruption.] And there we have it!
In conclusion, the Government are committed to strengthening resilience to flooding. That not only keeps people safe, but supports economic growth in our rural and local communities across the country. By protecting businesses, reducing disruption and safeguarding jobs, these measures contribute to stability and growth in the face of increasing climate change and flood risk. The Government’s record investment in flood defences will benefit communities across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
Draft Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I beg to move,
That the draft Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026 be approved.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I should say to hon. Members that I have a terrible cold and I can barely hear at the moment, so if I do not answer any questions, it is not because I am avoiding them. The warm home discount scheme has been a key policy in the Government’s approach to tackling fuel poverty and reducing the energy costs of low-income and vulnerable households ever since its inception in 2011.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
At a recent coffee morning that I held in the village of Holbrook, constituents raised their worries about energy bills. In 2024-25, 6,219 people, or 14.5% of all households in Amber Valley, received the warm home discount. Particularly in the light of ongoing uncertainty on household energy costs due to international events, I am really pleased that the Government are continuing to support the scheme and that I am a member of this Committee. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be focused on this issue absolutely?
Martin McCluskey
I know that my hon. Friend is a champion for her constituents in Holbrook and across her constituency. Like many hon. Members, she will have seen the increase in the numbers of people this year who are eligible for the warm home discount because of the decision made by the Government to expand the scheme to 6 million households. Her constituents and the constituents of all hon. Members will benefit from that this year.
Last year, the Government expanded the warm home discount scheme, removing the high cost-to-heat threshold to ensure that an additional 2.7 million of the poorest households across Great Britain received the £150 rebate off their energy bills this winter, with nearly 6 million households now eligible overall. The current scheme period ends on 31 March 2026, and new regulations are therefore required to continue the scheme beyond that date. In September, we consulted on continuing the warm home discount scheme up to and including the winter of 2030-31. The consultation respondents, including consumer advocacy groups, charities and industry, strongly supported proposals to continue the scheme and to continue providing rebates to vulnerable households via automatic data matching.
Today, we are discussing these regulations, as well as some additional changes to the scheme that will allow eligible households across England and Wales in or at risk of fuel poverty to continue to receive the rebate for the rest of this decade. Members will note that the regulations relate only to the scheme in England and Wales. The warm home discount scheme will also continue in Scotland to winter 2030-31 with £92 million a year of funding allocated. Fuel poverty is devolved in Scotland and, under these arrangements, the Scottish Government have determined eligibility for the next scheme period in Scotland within the funding envelope. Separate regulations have been laid in this Parliament to continue the scheme in Scotland, and I look forward to discussing these regulations with the House in due course.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
What provision do these measures make for the disproportionate impact of fuel poverty in rural areas? Treasury figures show that cost of energy increases have disproportionately hit rural households, rural public services, rural charities and rural businesses, including in my Norfolk constituency. The risk of fuel poverty is 15% higher in rural areas. Do these regulations include any provision that tackles this traditionally overlooked injustice?
Martin McCluskey
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about fuel poverty having a disproportionate impact in rural areas. The warm home discount applies equally, regardless of whether someone is in a rural area or an urban area, but the Government are taking other actions including through our warm homes plan, which has a particular focus on rural households, and rural retrofit to ensure that everyone is able to take advantage of it. Other areas of the Department’s work are focused on rural homes.
Turning to the detail of today’s statutory instrument, it will introduce the Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026. These regulations will extend the scheme in England and Wales for five more years from 2026 until they expire in 2031. The regulations will continue to oblige energy suppliers with more than 1,000 domestic accounts to participate in the scheme. The regulations will ensure that, as is the case currently, energy suppliers with fewer than 1,000 domestic accounts can choose to participate voluntarily in the scheme.
Under the scheme, participating energy suppliers are obliged to provide support to eligible households through a rebate provided directly to their energy bill, valued at £150. Eligibility for the rebate will continue to be set out by the Secretary of State in an eligibility statement, which is published for each scheme year. Following the removal of the “high cost to heat” threshold and the expansion of the scheme in 2025-26, the Government are committed to maintaining the current eligibility for the rebate in England and Wales, based on receipt of means-tested benefits, for a further five years. Eligibility for the scheme remains unchanged, but the regulations introduce a more streamlined approach to administration, without impacting eligibility.
The existing core group 1 and core group 2 will be merged into one core group in England and Wales, with a view to enabling clearer communication and messaging to potentially eligible households. That change was broadly supported by consultation respondents. We put out a range of communications ahead of and during each scheme year to eligible households, and will continue to do so for the next scheme period. The automatic data matching process for the core group in England and Wales will continue, using data held and processed by the Department for Work and Pensions, with the majority of eligible households—typically around 96%—expected to be automatically data matched, meaning that they will receive the rebate without taking any action.
In addition, the regulations will continue to oblige scheme-supported energy suppliers to participate in the industry initiatives element of the scheme. Industry and consumer advocacy groups strongly supported its continuation in the consultation ahead of these regulations. The regulations set out a range of permitted activities overseen by Ofgem, through which energy suppliers can deliver towards their non-core obligations, supporting eligible households in fuel poverty or that are in a group at risk of fuel poverty. Permitted activities include benefit entitlement checks, energy efficiency measures, energy advice, debt relief and financial assistance payments of £150.
Scheme energy suppliers can also choose to dedicate non-core spend towards the park homes scheme, which I know is of interest to a number of Members, who have corresponded with me on the topic. It provides eligible households with £150 of support towards their energy bill. Industry initiatives provide vital support and are often delivered by the third-party partners of energy suppliers, including charities. The value of support available for industry initiatives will continue to be updated as under the current scheme period. The regulations will also introduce changes to the administration of the scheme and enhance consumer protections for eligible households.
The regulations also include a new provision that can enable the Secretary of State to direct suppliers to communicate directly with our own successfully data-matched customers to provide further information about the scheme, including information related to automated decision making. Where that provision is used, the Government would continue to notify households that are known as unmatched households, following the automatic data matching process, where additional information or evidence is required to determine their eligibility. Where a household is deemed unmatched, the Government will continue to notify them to contact the warm home discount helpline to determine their eligibility for that scheme year.
The regulations make provisions for a late rebate of £150 to be paid by a scheme supplier if the Secretary of State is satisfied that an eligible household did not receive a rebate in the preceding scheme year due to an administrative error by a scheme electricity supplier, the Secretary of State or Ofgem. In addition, the regulations will replace fixed spending targets with annual estimates based on the number of eligible households expected to benefit from a rebate each winter to predict more accurately scheme costs.
Tackling fuel poverty is a priority for the Government. We recognise that too many households cannot afford to heat their homes at a reasonable cost. That is why, in January, we published our new fuel poverty strategy alongside our warm homes plan, to ensure that many more fuel-poor households are protected by 2030. The continuation of the warm home discount scheme through these regulations will provide vital support for eligible households each winter, at the coldest time of year when support is most needed. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The regulations set out provisions for the continuation of the warm home discount scheme—fine. Last winter, 10 million British pensioners lost out on their winter fuel allowance as a direct result of decisions taken by this Labour Government. The only reason that number is not higher is that, as is now customary for this Government, they U-turned. The Government did so after pressure from the Conservative party and the general public, who made it clear in no uncertain terms that they were furious with the original decision to strip the payment from millions more. However, that U-turn came too late for many as over winter 2024-25 many pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating. The original decision was not only unnecessary but not mentioned once by the Labour party during the general election campaign—and Labour Members have the gall to say that they worry about the cost of heating.
However, let us not forget the promise that was made during the general election—to reduce household energy bills by £300 per year. As it stands, those bills are £73 higher than when the Secretary of State took office after that election. The Labour party and the Government were warned multiple times by industry, academia, trade unions and us that the course they were charting would deliver not cheaper but dearer energy bills for British families and businesses. Energy generation in Great Britain is already some of the cleanest but, crucially, it is also the most expensive in the western world. The problem is that instead of taking unnecessary cost out of the system and making electricity cheap at source, the Government continue to pile cost after cost on to people’s bills, largely to pay for the Secretary of State’s net zero targets and his drive towards clean power 2030. Then they raise tax on everyone to cover the cost. That is exactly what the regulations do. The warm home discount is not paid for by energy suppliers or with free money; it is paid by everyone—all our constituents—through an extra tax on their energy bills.
Rather than cutting bills for everyone, as our cheap power plan would do, the Government are raising bills for everyone through higher taxes only to give a small proportion of households on benefits a discount. Our cheap power plan would cut everyone’s electricity bills by 20% immediately. We will not seek to divide the Committee, and will not stand in the way of the regulations moving forward, but we believe that the Government must take the steps necessary to meaningfully bring bills down, and not push them up further.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We agree that bringing down energy bills is a priority. It is especially necessary given the crisis in the middle east, which exposes families and small businesses once again to soaring fossil fuel prices, as seen in the spike in price for those who must use oil for heating, including in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire. The Liberal Democrats therefore agree with the extension of support through the warm home discount until 2031 to support those in fuel poverty. The Government should also consider other measures, such as tackling the growing energy debt, which is a spiralling crisis in this country, and creating a social energy tariff, for which the Liberal Democrats have long called. It is crucial to ensure that such support, including support from energy suppliers, is targeted to reach those who need it most.
Although the legislation before us updates some important data sharing provisions for the warm home discount, I urge the Minister to learn the lessons of the covid pandemic and the 2022 energy bill crisis and immediately enact a data sharing scheme between more Government Departments—not only DWP but the NHS and others—to determine eligibility. I also urge the Minister to devolve that scheme, where necessary, to local authorities to enable them to deliver targeted support to those who need it most. Meanwhile, we need to urgently decouple gas and electricity prices so that families and businesses feel the benefits of the clean energy transition and are not on the rollercoaster of volatile global energy prices.
We also call for a swifter roll-out of the warm homes plan. The cheapest form of energy is that which we do not use, and an effective insulation programme for struggling families across the country would bring down bills and lift households out of fuel poverty. The Government’s changes to the energy company obligation programme have meant that we have an effective delay of about 18 months to insulation programmes, which has put hundreds of small and medium-sized upgrade and retrofit companies at risk. The changes also potentially mean that this winter a Labour Government does not have an operational national fuel poverty strategy.
Martin McCluskey
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. On the points raised by the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson, in Q2 of this year energy bills will be lower than they were in 2024. He does not need to take that from me; he can see that in the research of the Resolution Foundation. He talks about expensive costs of energy. I agree that, in this country, we have some of the most expensive energy. That did not happen in the 18 months of a Labour Government, that has been building for a number of years, including during the period that he was in this role in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
The only thing that seems to have changed with the hon. Gentleman over the last 18 months is that he has abandoned his commitment to clean power and net zero, which was well documented, not just in Hansard, but on his own website. We discussed that in the Chamber just a few months ago. His policy, which would see us turn away from clean power, is, bluntly, a road to ruin. We would expose people to further volatility in fuel prices and to the fact that we are already over-exposed to the price of gas. We would also continue to make ourselves reliant on energy supplies that are coming from petrostates. Over the last few weeks, we have seen the impact of being overly reliant on oil and gas supplies coming from overseas.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
If the Minister issued new oil and gas licences for the North sea we could produce more of our oil and gas here at home. That would mitigate some of the problems that he has just raised about being over-reliant on oil states.
Martin McCluskey
I am happy to be barracked under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Turning to the point that the hon. Member for Broxbourne raised, he knows that it would not matter if additional oil were extracted from the North Sea—it would not reduce the price of domestic energy in this country. It would not have any impact. If he has evidence to the contrary, I will be more than happy to take another intervention for him to demonstrate that energy prices would reduce if we extracted more oil from the North sea. No? Okay.
Moving on to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I thank her for the constructive tone of her speech. On the point around debt, Ofgem have consulted on a debt relief scheme, and more will be coming on that in the near future. On data sharing, I share her desire to ensure that there is far more data sharing. That is something that I have had discussions about, not just with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—and she may be aware of the kickstarter programme that is looking at how we can better share household income data—but with the Department for Health and Social Care too, specifically, around how we share data on vulnerability and health.
There are some really great examples at a local level. For example, Beat the Cold is an organisation in Stoke that is already sharing data between local NHS organisations and third sector organisations in order to reach the right people with vulnerability. The point for me is, if that can be achieved on a local level, we should be able to achieve something similar on a national level. The hon. Lady talks about cold, leaky homes, and that is obviously a focus of the Government’s £15 billion warm homes plan, which is investing in that area. I will gently say to her that, while we did cancel the ECO programme, that was because it failed and did not provide good value for money.
We have put an additional £1.5 billion into capital schemes through DESNZ, which will reach low-income people across the country. I point towards the announcement that was made by the Secretary of State on Sunday about the additional funding that will go into mayoral combined authorities, and elsewhere, for low-income schemes. That is from that £1.5 billion that resulted from the cancellation of ECO. On ECO, there were instances where, for example, about half of the cost was going into finding people to apply measures to, rather than actually applying measures, so from a value for money point of view, we needed to make sure that that worked far more effectively.
To sum up, we are committed to delivering the £150 warm home discount for at least another five years to support the households in England and Wales who need our help most. The regulations will deliver a warm home discount scheme that is more transparent and provides stronger consumer protection and greater clarity around eligibility. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026.
The draft order flows from the legislation agreed by the House yesterday afternoon, and is a necessary and technical measure to address a historical misapplication of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which sets ministerial and other office holders’ pay. The office holders within scope are the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Speakers in both Houses, the Chief Opposition Whips in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the Commons. The context for the order is that in 1997 a formula was introduced to link pay increases for Ministers and certain office holders to senior civil service pay bands. That formula set out that ministerial salaries should be increased by the average annual change in the mid-point of senior civil service pay bands.
During the financial year ’23-24, the Cabinet Office identified that the formula had been misapplied. Since the introduction of the formula in ’97, the salaries of permanent secretaries have often been excluded from the calculation despite the 1975 Act not permitting such an exclusion. That technical misapplication has happened under successive Administrations over several decades. The formula was originally proposed by the Senior Salaries Review Body, which recommended that permanent secretary pay should not be included in the calculation for ministerial pay. This Government believe that the policy that has been applied since 1997 in line with the SSRB recommendation is the correct approach. This Order in Council is being introduced to ensure that the law aligns with long-standing policy.
The order performs two primary functions. First, it resets the statutory salary levels for all Ministers and specified office holders. Given the historical misapplication, resetting the salaries in law will give legal clarity and a baseline for any future uplift. Secondly, the order amends the formula to exclude permanent secretary pay bands from any future calculations. That change simply formalises the policy approach that has already been applied in practice for several decades on a clear legal footing.
For the initial financial year beginning 1 April, the order sets out transitional measures where the higher of the old or new formula will be applied to ensure that no individual is disadvantaged by the retrospective effect of this order. The order’s impact is therefore minimal: it only affects ministerial office holders and a small number of office holders in Westminster.
For Ministers, this order will result in no change to their take-home pay—a point I emphasise with no little disappointment! The Prime Minister has maintained that the policy of freezing ministerial salaries for all Ministers will continue; it has been in place since 2008. The order therefore does not affect individuals who choose to take their entitled salaries. The Government have been unable to calculate annual pay increases while work on the order was ongoing, so we will provide back payments to current and former office holders dating back to 1 April 2023, which is when the mistake was identified. This legislation is also linked to the salaries of Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means, which increase through the same formula. They will also receive back payments dating from 1 April 2023.
The Government are bringing forward this order to address a historical misapplication of the 1975 Act, which sets ministerial and certain office holders’ pay. It is a necessary, technical and minimal measure to address a misapplication of the law, and it ensures that the law aligns with long-standing policy under successive Governments. I look forward to hearing from other Members of the Committee.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I am in the rather fortunate position of being able to stand here as an Opposition Whip and shadow Minister who does not receive a ministerial salary, so I cannot be accused of having any conflict of interest in supporting the Government in what appears to be a sensible and, as the Minister said, technical measure that brings the de jure rules into line with practice over the past few years.
It makes sense to exclude the salaries of permanent secretaries, as the previous review concluded, not least because permanent secretary salary bands are so broad as to make a mid-point measurement largely meaningless anyway. As the Minister says, we understand that the pay freeze that has been in place, certainly for the 15 years since the reduction at the start of the coalition Government in 2010, will continue.
If I may just speak very personally—this might be a word for the hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley—perhaps, in the longer term, the Government may wish to consider whether it is still appropriate that Members of the Whips Office should continue to be paid at a rather lower rate than Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. That is obviously a discussion for a different day and not one on which I think my party, nor the Minister’s, has a collective view.
I have only one question. As the entitled salaries are increasing while the claimed salaries continue to be frozen, will the Minister tell the Committee how that affects pension entitlements? Are they calculated according to the salary to which Ministers are entitled or the salaries that are actually paid?
Chris Ward
I thank the Opposition for their broad support. I will not be drawn too far on Whips’ salaries, if that is okay, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which that point was raised.
As I said, although it is technical in nature, the order helps to iron out a discrepancy in application, and makes sure that the law has an accurate effect. As I have outlined, it is not about creating new policy or changing ministerial pay. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about pension entitlements, but I will get back to him shortly.
As I say, the order addresses a historical discrepancy that was entirely accidental and that it is important now to rectify. With that, I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026.
Thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this Committee. Teacher training quality is critical across all phases of education, from early years through to adult education. In October 2025, the skills White Paper set out the vision for England’s skills system. The further education sector is central to that vision and requires high-quality teacher training to drive progress. The Government are acting to secure and improve the quality of FE teacher training; a high-quality, accessible and attractive teacher training offer will improve recruitment and retention in further education, support the commitment to recruit an additional 6,500 teachers and demonstrate a commitment to raising teaching standards across schools and colleges.
These regulations introduce a system across all types of providers of FE teacher training: universities, colleges, training providers and any other organisation offering specified FE teacher training courses. The regulations are based on clear expectations and quality standards and align with Ofsted’s initial teacher training education framework, which has been extended to encompass all publicly funded FE ITT.
Historically, the Government have regulated primary and secondary teacher training, but that has not applied to further education. Excellence does exist in parts of the system, but provision is inconsistent and some poor practice has been identified in recent years. Trainees in further education teaching have not always had the high-quality preparation that they require and employers cannot always be confident that their new teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their role.
Providers of FE teacher training courses specified by Government in this statutory instrument will be required to have regard to guidance on curriculum content and on delivery standards, to register with the Department for Education and to submit regular information and data to the DFE. We want the standards to be proportionate, but meaningful in terms of the shift they deliver. For the first time, Government, employers and prospective teachers will have transparency over what training is offered, where it is offered and who is offering it—transparency that supports a quality focus in the further education ITT system.
We want evidence-based standards that will help to drive consistency and improvement. Regulation will not constrain innovation and providers will retain flexibility to exercise professional judgment and expertise, as they do in initial teacher training in the schools space. The Department has engaged extensively with further education colleges and teacher training sector stakeholders; public consultations, a call for evidence and ongoing engagement have shaped the measures and there is broad consensus that the approach will drive up standards and maintain necessary flexibility. I give special thanks to the expert advisory group chaired by Anna Dawe OBE, principal of Wigan & Leigh college, a technical excellence college, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
These regulations introduce four key obligations for institutions delivering specified initial teacher training for further educational courses. First, providers must register with the Secretary of State, who will maintain and publish an official list of approved institutions, ensuring transparency and accountability across the sector. Secondly, institutions are required to follow delivery guidance—in other words, they must have regard to Government recommendations on how these courses are taught, helping to maintain consistent standards in teaching practice.
Thirdly, there is a requirement to follow curriculum guidance. Providers must consider Government advice on course content, ensuring that what is taught aligns with national expectations and priorities. Finally, institutions must meet data reporting requirements, which include supplying information on both current and completed students, supporting oversight, evaluation and continuous improvement.
These regulations come from the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, brought forward under the previous Conservative Government. Those reforms created more routes into skilled employment in sectors the economy needs, such as engineering, digital, clean energy and manufacturing, meaning that more young people can secure well-paid jobs in their local areas and support their local communities to thrive. Employers have been embedded at the heart of the skills system and colleges were given support to ensure that they could offer training places for all those 16 to 19-year-olds who wanted them.
The Conservative record on education is perhaps our proudest achievement. We left the country not only with the best-educated children in the western world, but with an increasing number able to go into technical education. We will not oppose these measures, though we do wish the Government did more to uphold the significantly higher standards that we left them.
Josh MacAlister
There is an opportunity here for a brief respite from what might be happening in the rest of the building and to share some cross-party agreement, so let me say that we were delighted that the previous Conservative Government, and before them the coalition Government, continued many of the reforms that the former Labour Government initiated in the academies programme and the focus on evidence. Across the House, there has been some solid progress in the education system, which has benefited many young people. I hope this is an area where we can continue to work on a constructive, cross-party basis.
The focus on what is perhaps a less exciting political debate, the content of teaching for those who teach, is so important; it is probably one of the biggest single drivers of performance in our education system, whether in primary school, secondary school or colleges. It is right and timely that we are now making those changes in the further education system that have led to positive progress and made a difference in our schools system. I thank members of the Committee for their consideration and you, Dr Huq, for chairing the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
A5036 Park Lane footbridge
Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow the Committee to deliberate in private about questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally—without debate. Time Witness Until no later than 10.05 am Association of Electoral Administrators; Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (Solace); Local Government Association Until no later than 10.25 am Electoral Commission Until no later than 10.45 am Electoral Reform Society Until no later than 11.25 am Electoral Management Board of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru; Electoral Management Board for Scotland; Scottish Assessors’ Association Until no later than 2.25 pm Electoral Office for Northern Ireland; Electoral Commission Until no later than 2.50 pm The Politics Project; Yorkshire & Humber Policy Engagement and Research Network (Y-PERN) Until no later than 3.15 pm Professor Toby James, University of East Anglia; Professor Paul Bernal, University of East Anglia Until no later than 3.55 pm Democracy Volunteers; Councillor Peter Golds, Tower Hamlets Council; Richard Mawrey KC Until no later than 4.10 pm Henry Jackson Society Until no later than 4.40 pm Conservatives Abroad; Labour International; Liberal Democrats Abroad Until no later than 5.05 pm Full Fact; Demos Until no later than 5.35 pm Transparency International (UK); Dr Sam Power, School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies, University of Bristol; Spotlight on Corruption Until no later than 5.55 pm Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Wednesday 18 March) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 18 March;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 March;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 March;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 March;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 April;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 April;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 April;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 April;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Wednesday 18 March in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 6; Schedule 1; Clauses 7 to 19; Schedule 2; Clauses 20 to 48; Schedule 3; Clauses 49 to 52; Schedule 4; Clause 53; Schedule 5; Clauses 54 and 55; Schedule 6; Clause 56; Schedule 7; Clauses 57 and 58; Schedule 8; Clauses 59 to 62; Schedule 9; Clauses 63 to 65; Schedule 10; Clause 66; Schedule 11; Clauses 67 to 74; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 75 to 81; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 23 April.—(Samantha Dixon.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Samantha Dixon.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Samantha Dixon.)
The Chair
Before we start, do any Members wish to declare any interests in connection with the Bill?
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I know some of the witnesses through non-parliamentary activity. When they sit down, I will explain to the Committee my connection to them.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which has supplied one of the witnesses for this panel.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
In the interests of transparency, I have met various witnesses in other settings in my official capacity as shadow Minister.
The Chair
We now hear oral evidence from the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, and the Local Government Association. As I have said, we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.05 am. As I have indicated, Ms Yule is on her way and will join us as soon as she is here, but we are very pleased that Councillor Bentley and Mr Stanyon have been able to join us at this point. Would you both please introduce yourselves? I will then open the meeting to questions from the Committee.
Councillor Bentley: I am Councillor Kevin Bentley. I am the senior vice-chairman of the Local Government Association.
Peter Stanyon: I am Peter Stanyon, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators.
Paul Holmes
Q
My first question is a very broad one for both of you. Have the Government given you enough time to prepare for the changes proposed in the legislation? Secondly, the Government propose bringing in automatic registration. Can you outline some of the challenges or problems that might result from that? Thirdly—to get my questions out of the way—there are proposals to allow, for example, bank cards and non-photographic identification as voter ID at the polling station. As the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, do you have a concern about that? Do you perceive that the secure ballot process could be harmed as a result of those changes?
Peter Stanyon: I shall take those in order. There is never enough time to introduce significant change, albeit that the very fact we are into the parliamentary process now is really important so we can look towards getting the Act in place. It is clear that, in lots of places, the Bill is setting a framework for what will come, and we are pleased that the officials who we are working with are already working on the secondary legislation to go alongside it. The devil is very much in the detail when it comes to how that will be delivered. Much depends on how we can deliver the policy intent behind the Bill, so that the polling stations and administrators can deliver it in time.
I think that the significant change will be noted. Friction is the wrong word, but there may be some clunkiness in certain areas where we are not quite clear where we are going with the overall detail at this stage. That is being worked up. We would always echo—we are pleased to hear the Government echo it as well—the Gould principle of trying to make any legislative changes six months ahead of any major poll. If we can get that to nine months or 12 months, it will make registration even easier.
We do have some concerns about the timescales around the introduction of voting for 16 and 17-year-olds. Those timescales do not mirror what happened in Scotland and Wales, where, in broadbrush terms, there was a year’s lead-in for 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote at elections. In this Bill, it becomes almost automatic, and that could mean that the preparatory time for getting everybody on that we want to is not there in quite the same way as it was for Scotland and Wales. We hope that that can be looked at, so we get it in a more measured way and do not miss individuals out simply because of the timetable—although we fully appreciate the reasons why.
On automatic voter registration, we have looked at what happened in the pilots in Wales. There is some learning, but it is a very broad area at this stage. What are the data sources that we are looking at? What is the process to be followed? How does that interrelate with the current individual electoral registration system? A lot of communication will be needed to understand these parts of the principles.
Interestingly, one of the things that came out of the pilots in Wales was the lack of understanding of the need to be involved in the electoral process. It becomes a much wider communication process about, “These are the benefits of doing so.” We cannot solve all problems with the introduction of that sort of system; there are a lot of things needed alongside that. I do not know if Councillor Bentley wants to come in before I come on to the voter ID pilot.
Councillor Bentley: I am happy for you to continue, and then I can answer all three questions.
Paul Holmes
Q
Peter Stanyon: We have severe reservations about bank cards being added to the available lists. The simple reason is that when voter ID came in in the first place, it set the bar by being very clear that photographic ID is required in polling stations. We are unsure about what can come through, because our understanding at this stage—again, this will become clear as the secondary legislation rolls through—is that it will not be a full name on a bank card. For example, it can be an initial. How can you guarantee that it is the right person before you? If you have a photograph—regardless of whether that is the right or wrong policy—at the end of the day you have something to hang that on going forward.
The other challenge is the range of bank cards that are available. What is a bank card? We all know the major institutions, but there are lots more out there now. That adds a degree of confusion for the staff in polling stations. There could be a tension there, which we see already. Someone might bring in their passport, for example, and the staff do not deem that to be of a satisfactory level. Then they produce a bank card, and it is accepted. There is a counterintuitive nature to that side of things, so we do have significant concerns with regard to that part of the system.
We may be opening up the ID possibilities for 16 and 17-year-olds, but we would much rather see us take more of a digital ID-type approach—for example, by having a digital VAC, or voter authority certificate. Most of the time, I bank using my phone rather than my bank cards. Will it have the effect that we are looking for? We have significant concerns about adding additional confusion, despite the fact that we understand the reasons why the policy was put forward in the first place.
Paul Holmes
Q
Councillor Bentley: I do agree with that. Of course, bank cards can be cloned and other people can get hold of them. There is no photographic evidence, as we know, and I agree with everything my colleague has just said about that. Another element that we have not considered is: if someone should use a bank card fraudulently to vote, whose fault is that? Let me be clear that there should be no blame whatsoever on polling staff, should that take place. If this goes ahead, that needs to be made very clear.
Anyone can obtain a bank card. You can have “K Bentley”, “Kevin Bentley” or “Kevin Paul Bentley” on those bank cards. For all I know, there may be other Kevin Paul Bentleys—there probably are—and they could use those cards. You have heard why I think that is not a great system. With voter ID, you need photographic evidence to be able to prove someone’s identity, and people can register via their local authorities.
May I tackle some of the other questions as well? I think you have heard a very good answer about there being enough time. There is a cost element to it as well, and, being from the LGA, you would expect me to say that any extra burden put on local government should be funded properly. We require extra staff to be able to do that, and the extra responsibility for 16-year-olds adds extra pressure to staff—that is not a comment on whether 16-year-olds should vote, but staff would need to be brought in to do that above and beyond their normal duties to run elections, so it needs to be thought about.
On automatic registration, all I would say, and this is just an observation, is that in this country we have the right not to vote, and therefore we need to be very careful about people being put on there automatically. I think that needs to be tested with the public more; we need the public’s opinion on whether they want to be registered automatically. That is a comment, rather than me saying whether we are for or against it, but we need to ask the public what they think about it further.
Paul Holmes
Q
“bank cards that are issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in the way set out in the amendment”
could be used as voter ID, as we do with loans and the like. We understand that it is not a brilliant amendment, because we do not believe that that part of the legislation should be included at all, but do you think that having a bank card with a hard credit check would make any difference to the process, or—this is probably for you, Mr Stanyon—would it be better if that was not included in the legislation?
Peter Stanyon: I think the latter in terms of the uncertainty. The difficulty in putting that in place is that the individuals dealing with this at the polling stations are effectively volunteers. We already have a list of 23 versions of voter ID available, and it is quite a complicated process. Ultimately, if a bank card is presented and it is to the standard that the staff have been trained to receive, they will accept it, so the hard credit check thing will be more for the central control of the election than it would be for the staff at the station.
Councillor Bentley: I agree. I think that it is difficult to have that included, but I would re-emphasise that if it is, you must be very clear that it is not local government staff who will be at fault if someone commits an offence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
Q
Peter Stanyon: The first thing to say is that, as an association, we are pleased that the vast majority of the Bill echoes what we put in our blueprint following the last general election; there were lots of issues with the actual mechanics of the election. There are the more high-profile things such as votes at 16 or automatic registration, but if you ask an administrator, we are more concerned about the mechanics of delivering the election.
It is accepted that the timetable will not extend beyond 25 days, and there are lots of reasons for that. However, we feel that the moves to alter the deadlines for nominations to be received and to move the deadline for the receipt of postal vote applications go a long way to providing that wiggle room within the elections timetable. That will allow administrators to work with their suppliers to get postal votes out and to ensure that there are no issues on that side of the process.
There are lots of things in the Bill regarding the status of the returning officer in the local authority, and we echo the view that it should be a senior officer of the local authority. How that will be policed is another matter, but it gives the local authority the ability to assist the returning officer, because they will have that punching power within the local authority itself.
There are also lots of things about the postal vote replacements that were learned at the last general election. We are very reliant on third parties; once a postal vote leaves the control of the returning officer, Royal Mail will do all it can to deliver that, but there will be breakdowns in the system. The fact that the Bill gives the ability to put the elector back first in those situations is really important, because it is not their fault if they have not been able to receive a postal vote.
There are lots of really good bits in the Bill. The only areas where we have concerns relate to things I have mentioned already: bank cards, some things around the nominations process and the identity checks being proposed, and the lead-in time for the 16 and 17-year-olds. Those are the three big areas that we have concerns about. The rest of it makes absolute sense in terms of the mechanics of delivering the election and should address some of the issues that were quite high profile at the last general election.
Councillor Bentley: Anything that encourages people and makes voting easier has to be welcomed. That is very important.
I will pull out two things in addition to what my colleague said. One thing that we are learning about now —it has started to happen for the first time—is re-registering for a postal vote. That needs to be much better co-ordinated and to have much better communications. We are seeing already people who have not re-registered because they did not realise that they needed to. It depends on the local authority and how and when they communicate, but more of a national campaign would be helpful in all that.
The other piece is around harassment during elections. It is a specific part of the Bill, but I think it is very important. While freedom of speech is very important in our country, freedom to harass certainly is not. That needs to be emphasised to people. What is being proposed is right, but we need to emphasise that more. People should be encouraged to stand for public, elected office, but we hear anecdotally that many are put off by the harassment they receive on social media and so on. Freedom of speech is very important; freedom to harass certainly is not. I would like to really see that emphasised within the Bill. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Q
Emily Yule: Yes. Thank you, and apologies; transport got the better of me this morning. I am Emily Yule and I am representing Solace, which is a membership organisation representing returning officers and senior officers within local authorities.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Emily Yule: There are a number of things that we are really pleased to see within the Bill, particularly the extension of protections around abuse and intimidation to returning officers and their staff. That is an increasing area of concern; we are having more and more reports of that kind of behaviour at quite significant levels.
The Chair
Mr Holmes, did you want to ask Ms Yule anything? I will then come to Ms Smart.
Paul Holmes
Q
Welcome, Ms Yule. The other witnesses would argue that the Government’s intention is to make voting easier and extend the franchise. I put to you the question I asked them earlier: do you consider that local authorities and chief executives have been consulted enough at this stage—notwithstanding the fact that the Bill has to go through its passage—about the proposals in the legislation? Are there burdens that you are not quite sure you can meet yet on behalf of your members?
Emily Yule: On behalf of Solace, I have been involved in lots of conversations around the development of the strategy and the Bill. We have really appreciated that collaboration and that ability to influence the design of the provisions. I always say that the devil is in the detail, so implementation is going to be really important. Chief executives, returning officers and electoral registration officers need to have a clear understanding of the timelines for implementation and the guidance, so that we can ensure consistent application of those new provisions.
In my view, consistency is what builds credibility and trust in the democratic process. At the moment, I do not think that there is huge concern among the sector that any of the items are undeliverable, but we would, of course, always ask for resourcing to be considered and any new burdens funded to put those implementation plans in place.
Lisa Smart
Q
I have two strands of questioning; one is around timing. The Bill proposes some changes around postal votes and bringing forward the dates for postal votes. We have seen too many people miss out on their opportunity to vote because of some of the issues relating to Royal Mail that you talked about, Mr Stanyon. That is particularly acute with those living overseas for a time, whether they are serving in the armed forces or otherwise.
We all welcome the bringing forward of the dates, but can you say a little more about how many of those issues will be addressed by changing the dates for postal votes? Are there other measures—for example, allowing people to print their own ballot papers or to submit their vote at overseas embassies or consulates—that you would see as useful in enabling more people to vote?
Peter Stanyon: In terms of the practicalities of the proposed time changes, the best evidence I can give is from the last general election—the parliamentary election a couple of years ago—when you saw significant spikes in applications towards the end of the period. The date is currently 11 working days before the poll; it is proposed to move that to 14. That has meant that there is a big pinch point—not just for the electoral registration officer, who has to process the applications, but because the Elections Act has brought in additional identity checks that now need to be done for postal voters.
Currently, there is almost a perfect storm 12 and 11 days before the election with registration applications and applications for postal votes. Moving that deadline slightly further back allows the same work to be done—checking identities and physically getting the data to the printers—so that the packs can be produced and got out three days earlier than they can now. That will not go every step of the way to solving the overseas issue, because you are still talking about 12 or 11 days for ballots to go out and back; you are relying not just on Royal Mail but on overseas postal services as well. To answer the first question, this is a positive step, but it must be seen in that light—it is moving in the right direction, but it will not solve every issue that has been identified.
As far as overseas electors are concerned, this has been an age-old issue. I was thinking the other day that I have been in the industry for over 40 years—that is scary—and I have seen significant change in that time. Overseas electors have always been an issue because you are physically getting the ballot paper to them and back. It is an area that can be investigated, but we need to be careful about it. Could you have things such as printing your own ballot papers? Could you have an overseas electors constituency, which would make things slightly different? Could you have online voting, for example? I am not proposing any of those. It is an area that needs to be really thought through: what is beneficial to the elector or the voter, but also what is suitable for the system we are trying to maintain?
At the moment, the system is very paper-based and secure, but we already know it has those issues. This is not a new thing; it is just that there are far more postal voters than there used to be. The issue has been here for the whole of my career.
Councillor Bentley: All I would add to that is timetabling and making sure there is enough time for local authorities to do the printing. I am reminded that the cancellation of a whole slew of elections was proposed and then suddenly they were not, and everyone is on catch-up to make sure it all happens. They will do it, because we have brilliant staff in local government, but it is not always about them—it is about the suppliers for the printing, the paper and all the rest of it.
Provided that time is built in to make that happen, then this is a good thing. Anything that makes it easier for people to vote and participate in elections has to be a good thing. Postal voting is increasing, but we must build in the correct timetable so that authorities can get the printing done.
Lisa Smart
Q
From my experience of being involved in elections, there is sometimes a lack of clarity on who to go to with problems—is it the RO or the police? Is there a uniformity in how the law is enforced? Different police forces have different experiences or resourcing levels when it comes to pursuing somebody breaking election law. Can you talk about how you see the Bill addressing any of those issues or about areas where you think it could have gone further or been clearer?
Emily Yule: Some of that is already being addressed in practical terms. There has been a lot of joint working between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the police and local returning officers to make sure that those contacts within police forces are very visible, and that you know how to get in touch and report issues.
Our members still experience a disparity in the level of engagement in different force areas, but we see a commitment coming forward to try to balance that out. There is a critical part around communication with candidates, agents and others involved in the electoral process, so that they really understand. There is a guidance element about when it is a returning officer issue, when it is a police issue and when it is an Electoral Commission issue. The Bill has an opportunity to consolidate that good practice, but it is emerging and we have started to see it coming through in recent elections. As the specific, dedicated officers within police forces build up knowledge of electoral process, offences and issues, that will only increase.
Councillor Bentley: I pointed out the issue of harassment in my first answer, by which I meant harassment of both candidates and officers. Clarity of the law is very important, as is people understanding what is an offence. It is important for the police to have that clarity as well. You do not have police officers here, at least not in this session, but they have a difficult job in working out what is just a disagreement and what is harassment. That happens in elections.
We must not forget that a lot of this will take place and has taken place on social media. We need to make sure that the law is very clear. I am in favour of the harassment bit being in the Bill—it needs to be highlighted. However, we need greater clarity about what is an offence and what is not.
David Simmonds
Q
Secondly, new clause 37 is about the provision and use of election materials in non-UK languages. We heard a great deal about that in the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, when cross-party concern was expressed. What should the Bill say? Should that new clause be part of it? Do you have an alternative body of evidence suggesting that a different approach is required?
Councillor Bentley: I would put in a plea for village halls, because they are vastly used and other organisations cannot use them for that entire day. If you are going to make changes to the electoral system, there needs to be clarity around that in advance. We do not want knee-jerk reactions so that suddenly all plans are off, then on, then off, then on again. We cannot have that. We need to be clear if elections are going to change.
We are going through a great period of local government reorganisation, which may happen on other occasions. We need early indications so that we can prepare properly—not only the people organising the elections and the candidates, but people who may think that they can use their village hall or school and suddenly cannot. We need to have clarity in advance. It cannot be left to the last minute.
On languages, from an LGA point of view all I would say is that it is important that everyone entitled to vote has the ability to understand what is actually happening. I think that is a fair way of putting it.
Peter Stanyon: I echo the comments on timing. The word I often use around elections is “certainty”. For scheduled polls, you usually plan six months in advance. In reality, I think a lot of the authorities carried on during the on-off period when the local government polls were rescheduled recently. Parliamentary elections have six or eight weeks’ notice; you are doing six months’ work in eight weeks. It puts on pressure. Going back to the earlier point on the timing of postal votes, for example, anything that gives two or three days in a timetable is a huge benefit—not just for administrators, but for the suppliers who deliver those things.
Going back to the earlier point on harassment, intimidation, translation into different languages and things like that, there needs to be a wider understanding of what elections are all about. We are living in a modern age, but elections are very much based on paper and pencil. They are trusted, in the main, but at the end of the day it is about making clear what the electoral process actually is. Some of the feedback we received about recent by-elections was simply about a misunderstanding of what the process is. There is an obligation on returning officers, the Electoral Commission and local authorities to do what they can to explain it, but there is also an obligation on candidates and parties to understand the changes coming in.
We almost need a reset, to say, “What is the best way of engaging with voters to give them what they need?” I am sure Emily will echo this point, but the one thing that an RO will not want to get dragged into is any debate about whether something is crossing a line that they do not have control over. There are very, very strict boundaries at the moment. I will not say it is a safe place for returning officers to be, but it means we have the certainty to say, “That is a police matter,” or “That is a commission matter,” or “That may be a planning control matter,” for example. It is about taking a step back and learning about how we deliver elections, and that goes right from young people all the way through the system. It is also about having a reset, to say, “Where are we now?” because there is lots of misinformation flying around from various sources.
Emily Yule: I echo Mr Stanyon’s points about the different sources of information. The Electoral Commission and the returning officer must be the trusted source of information for the democratic process for electors. We would, of course, welcome any provisions that improve accessibility and engagement, but it has to be within those boundaries of trusted and credible information.
In terms of changes in electoral law, we always seek a six-month implementation window. Any change to this system will bring an element of risk, but our very skilled administrators and leaders across elections know how to deal with change and address it, and they will deliver safe elections. But having a six-month lead-in provides that security. I will repeat a comment that Solace often makes on behalf of its members: we would ask for indemnity for returning officers when any changes are brought in very close to an election, which may result in issues that are not any fault of the returning officer.
The Chair
Ms Chowns, we only have three minutes left, so I may not be able to come to others. Please be brief.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Q
Peter Stanyon: Within the bounds of making sure the system is trusted, which goes back to the points that Emily made. Yes, it should be as easy as possible, but that cannot be at the cost of the integrity of the system.
Dr Chowns
Q
Councillor Bentley: Yes, it does, but don’t forget that we have the right not to vote in this country. I make the same point again: we should test that with the public. It is their information we are talking about, and we should test that with them. It does make it easier, yes, but I think it is a question for the public to be consulted on.
Dr Chowns
Q
Councillor Bentley: It is not, but you are automatically taking their data, and I think you need to ask permission for that.
Dr Chowns
Q
Councillor Bentley: Perhaps I should answer that first. It should be no problem to prove who you are—if you want to vote and take part in the democratic process, why shouldn’t you? I happen to vote by post, but if I did not, I constantly carry a driving licence, or I could find my passport. If you do not have either of those, what should you have? You can apply for a voter authority certificate from your local authority. I do not see harm in doing that, and I think it keeps everyone safe when they go to the ballot station and makes sure that the person voting is the person entitled to vote.
Dr Chowns
Q
Peter Stanyon: Yes, but I think the system in place has been developed to allow voter authority certificates and the like to be there to provide a safety net for those individuals. This is a difficult one for me to answer, because it comes into a policy area and involves personal views. The crucial bit from an administrative perspective is that whatever system is there for voter ID provision has to be smooth for the voter, and that could definitely be improved with the introduction of digital ID, for example.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of these witnesses. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence and for their efforts in getting here this morning.
Examination of Witness
Vijay Rangarajan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Electoral Commission. Again, we must stick to the timings in the sittings motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.25 am. If anyone wants to ask our witness a question, it would be helpful if they indicated that early, because then I am more likely to be able to come to you and keep things moving. Could the witness identify himself for the Committee?
Vijay Rangarajan: Thank you, Chair. I am Vijay Rangarajan, chief executive of the Electoral Commission.
Paul Holmes
Q
What is your view, as far as you are able to give it, on the fact that the Government have gone forward with landmark and quite detailed legislation, but at the same time have asked Philip Rycroft to conduct a review of campaign finance and foreign interference, which bears no resemblance to what the Government are proposing during this legislative process? Have you made representations to the Government that this legislation should be paused until we have the conclusions of Dr Rycroft’s review?
Vijay Rangarajan: Thank you for the question. No, we do not think the legislation should be paused, partly because of the timing issues that you covered with the previous witnesses. Unless this legislation goes through fairly swiftly, there is little chance of the crucial changes it makes being in place in time for the next general election or beyond.
There are a number of really quite urgent changes, particularly in the political finance area. We have been making recommendations since, I think, 2013 to tighten up on unincorporated associations, for example, and to look at the company donation provisions and at “know your donor” checks. We really welcome the fact that they are in the Bill, and we would like to go further in some areas. However, for those provisions to be in place—this is probably the tightest of the timing issues for the Bill—there will need to be the primary legislation, then secondary legislation, then guidance and then, crucially, quite a period of training and guidance for parties themselves so that they are able to get their systems in place and implement this in the financial year of a general election. That is a lot of steps to go through, so we would like to see this done fairly soon to alleviate, quite rightly, what the AEA and others just said on timing.
We also really welcome the Rycroft review. It looks as if it is going further than just finance. It may make changes; I think the Government have said that they will take that on board in the Bill. It is very helpful to have a look at the broader issues of foreign interference—for example, through online media and many other areas than just money. We see a whole range of threats, which the Committee may want to get into further.
Paul Holmes
Q
Could you give us your thoughts, if you have any, on the idea of a digital repository and whether there would be a role for the Electoral Commission, as the regulator, in ensuring that that information is passed on and the provisions are enforced?
Vijay Rangarajan: I think that the digital imprints parts of the Bill are very helpful indeed. We would also like to add the party—saying on the digital imprint which party had actually financed that area.
The transparency of the digital imprints regime has really helped. We run an imprints portal, and we had a lot of references to it, all of which were sorted out at the time. That was mostly small parties or candidates who just had not followed the guidance and not done what was required. I know that that comes as a real annoyance for other candidates and larger parties as well, but fast action through the imprints portal was actually more effective than a longer-running investigation or using criminal sanctions.
We also think that having some kind of a repository, for both imprints and a lot of wider digital material—for example, political advertising—is a real help for voters to see what is being said across the political spectrum. We are seeing a segmentation of elements of the political debate into closed online groups, and that can be quite corrosive of trust.
Paul Holmes
You will have noticed some scepticism from the previous panel—I do not think it is ungenerous to say that—about the proposals for using bank cards as a form of identification. In your role, do you have concerns about the Government’s proposals to water down photo voter ID?
Vijay Rangarajan: We are also concerned about the bank cards proposal; that is largely for the administrative reasons the previous witnesses set out, so I will not repeat those. We do see growing public support for voter ID—73% of the British public are now in favour of it, up from 65% in 2024—and the way we have implemented it has broadly worked. About 0.1% of people in Great Britain were unable to vote, because of voter ID, and it definitely put off some voters, so there is a slight cost to this. However, in Northern Ireland, after 25 years of voter ID, it has become part of the fabric of how people vote.
Rather than continually changing the system, it would be helpful to allow a broad range of voter IDs—which should probably stay with the existing security standard to maintain public trust—and give some stability to the system. In time, people will get used to it; we are already well above 90% of people knowing that they have to bring voter ID. Again, before this May’s elections, and before every election, we will run, in areas where voter ID is needed, a campaign to remind people to bring voter ID.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Vijay Rangarajan: Thank you, Minister. Broadly, we very much welcome the Bill. If I might go into a little detail about which areas, it picks up some of the crucial changes after the 2024 general election. For example, the change from 11 days to 14 days on postal voting will make a real difference, particularly in Scotland. We saw real issues about that in our post-poll report; I will not run through all of those, but the changes in the strategic review part are very important.
As I said, we very much welcome the changes on campaign finance. We would like to see that go further in the company donations area; our proposal is to use profit, not turnover, as the metric for what a company should be able to donate, and it should be able to donate that profit only once every year.
We strongly welcome the provisions on automatic voter registration, because up to 8 million eligible British voters are not on the register. That is even more important with the other part of the Bill—votes at 16—coming in. Being able to add attainers at 14 and 15, and then letting 16 and 17-year-olds be on the register, will remove a very clear barrier. Last week, we had “Welcome to Your Vote Week”, and that issue was raised quite broadly by youth organisations as yet another barrier for 16-year-olds. We also strongly welcome the elements on candidate safety, and they should all help.
Overall, it is a very strong welcome: the Bill is necessary, and it picks up some long-standing recommendations, as I have said. We also warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to repeal the SPS—the strategy and policy statement—for exactly the reasons you have mentioned. The Bill will never completely fix everything. I think this will be the 27th Representation of the People Act, so there is a never-ending process of trying to keep this going. A lot of work needs to be done outside the Bill—for example, with the police or on social media—but it will distinctly help with many of the processes involved.
Lisa Smart
Q
The Electoral Commission’s press release in response to the publication of the Bill said—I cannot remember the exact phrasing—that the Bill was welcome but that it did not go quite far enough, and that the commission would like to see more measures to tackle issues with where we are in our democracy. Trust in politics is at a very low level, and trust in our democracy is an important element in our democracy remaining legitimate and in our having the trust and faith of the electorate. What more would you like to see the Bill do to rebuild trust in politics?
Vijay Rangarajan: There are a couple of areas where we would like to see further work. I have already mentioned company donations—that is crucial. To be clear, our polling shows that while trust in politics in general is quite low, trust in the electoral system is very high, as two of your previous witnesses said. That is important.
We would like the “know your donor” provisions to be strengthened. At the moment, to pass them, a political party accepting a donation would need to produce a risk assessment, but it would be good if that had to be public, sent to us or used in such a way that others could judge whether there was a reasonable risk of a party accepting impermissible donations. We know that that is one of the areas the public have least faith in: somewhere between 14% and 17% of the public think the political finance system works for them.
The second area is automatic registration, where it is less about the change in the Bill and more about implementing it before the next general election. Most countries have systems like this, and they work well. We know the data sources quite well. We recently evaluated four pilots in Welsh local authorities, and showed that they were very successful at boosting not only the completeness of the register but, crucially, the accuracy. There is not a tension between completeness and accuracy when you are using good data sources. We can now do that.
Another area to flag is overseas voters, which I think your previous witnesses mentioned. In many cases around the world, we think they have a hard deal in actually being able to vote. We would like to see further work to help them.
Finally, if the Committee does not mind, I will just ride my hobby horse. This will be the 27th Representation of the People Act, and some consolidation and simplification of electoral law is necessary, not least for electoral administrators, parties and candidates. We would very much like to see a broad-ranging, cross-party and Government commitment to do some consolidation over the next few years.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Q
Vijay Rangarajan: We think that it is a very useful change but that it does not go far enough. We see a range of threats—I must admit that this is drawn from our experience of looking at other elections in other countries and working with partner electoral commissions —and that includes online. In the financial space, there is a distinct attempt by people to channel money into other people’s politics. It would be perfectly possible, even with the provisions you mentioned, for people in other countries, or impermissible donors in general, to channel money through a company, even if it had that linkage. That is why some kind of a cap on how much a company can donate, based on profit, coupled with the other tests the Government have in the Bill—for example, on persons of significant control—would be really helpful.
That will not completely eliminate the risk, and we look forward to what Philip Rycroft says about any other measures that may be needed, but we think it will help not only to reassure parties that they are at lower risk of accepting impermissible donations, which is a criminal act, but to reassure voters that the system is being kept under close review.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Q
Vijay Rangarajan: You are absolutely right. One of the risks we have with automatic voter registration across the UK is a significant divergence of systems. The Welsh Government have already carried out successful pilots and done a lot of work on this. As I understand it, they intend to proceed with automatic voter registration in Wales relatively soon—over the next year or so. The Scottish Government are also beginning to think about it.
Obviously, the provisions are here in the Bill, but there is quite a long timescale for them. It is possible that we will end up with several different systems of automatic voter registration, and that they will act at different times. That would have real problems, and it does not feel to us like a good use of money. It would also be very complex indeed for an electoral registration officer to try to handle different registration systems in one area for different elections. Take, for example, a Welsh officer dealing with automatic voter registration for Welsh elections but not for UK-wide ones. We would welcome some rapid work to establish a UK-wide system of automatic voter registration soon.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Vijay Rangarajan: Yes; there should be some uniformity of registration across the UK and for other elections, or else a voter will be automatically registered for one election and have to manually register for another, which is a recipe for confusion and some nugatory work on their part. We would therefore like to see this in place soon. That does not mean that every voter will be on the register; they have the perfect right to refuse to be on it, and there are systems in place for that.
In some countries, officers will write to a voter, mostly to check the address is correct and to ensure accuracy. If a voter says, “I don’t want to be registered,” or, “I have good reasons”—say, domestic violence reasons—“for not wanting to be on the open register,” they can make that clear. So there are a number of checks built into this; it is not quite as simple as everyone automatically being on the register. This would remove a major barrier to eligible voters being able to exercise their democratic rights.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Q
I have a slight concern that that might leave the door ajar to the likes of Elon Musk making a donation to a British political party legitimately via a UK subsidiary company, for example. In the light of that, the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested that the limit on donations from companies should be tied to their profit rather than their revenue. Which of the two would be a more effective way to stop the international financing of our political parties and democratic process?
Vijay Rangarajan: As I said, I think that profit drawn from the last couple of years of public accounts would be a better metric. It would very much help, because it would show that the company had generated enough taxable profit in the UK to be able to make a political donation. It would also give parties themselves more certainty that the money they are accepting is clearly permissible and above board. Again, it is quite easy to explain to people why that is the case.
As I said, some of the administration of this will need significant time to train party treasurers and all the associations in how to implement it, but we think that using profit as a metric would help.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid we have reached the end of this panel. To be clear, I did not set the timings. We thank the witness for his evidence. We have to move on to our next witness.
Examination of Witness
Dr Jess Garland gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dr Garland: Good morning. I am Jess Garland, director of policy and research at the Electoral Reform Society.
Paul Holmes
Q
Dr Garland, you identified in your evidence that you are in favour of relaxing voter ID from requiring photographic identification, and you cited a Cabinet Office report, “Securing the ballot”, which suggested including bank cards, signatures and date of birth checks. Could you elaborate on what, in your opinion, date of birth checks would look like for a person volunteering at a polling station? Could you explain to the Committee why you do not think that going from photographic ID to bank cards would relax security around someone being able to vote?
Dr Garland: Taking that first question, I think it is important that we go back to the origins of the policy. The report said clearly that we need to have something that is proportionate, which is where I think we need to start. What is the problem that we are trying to solve? I worry that we have moved very quickly to a very, very tight scheme that does not give voters other options. For instance, none of the currently accepted IDs are the sort of thing that people ordinarily carry, except for the over-60s bus pass. Most people are not carrying their passport around, so we have this problem of disenfranchising not just those who do not have access to those IDs, but also people who might have forgotten them on the day. That is why I think the suggestion of including bank cards has a lot of value, and digital ID is the same—the sort of thing you might have on your phone, as we heard earlier.
Under the scheme, we do not have any option for people in the polling station, which sets the current policy even further away from some of the strictest voter ID schemes around the world. We have a very strict scheme with very few options for voters, yet we see in the evidence that it has not really made any difference to claims of personation, which remain the same as before the scheme was introduced, and it is inconclusive as to whether it has enabled people to identify personation happening. I worry that we have walked into a position where the cure is something of a curse. We have seen many more people disenfranchised by the limitations of the scheme than have ever had their vote stolen through personation. You used the word “relaxing”, and I think it is rebalancing—it is bringing it back into proportion with the risk of personation that might exist.
Paul Holmes
Q
Dr Garland: I think we would need to know what exactly is happening. We have to be very clear on what we think the problem is in the first place, and of course we know where personation has been a problem. In Northern Ireland, for instance, many, many people were turning up to find that someone else had cast their vote. We do not have that evidence base across the whole UK.
There is no evidence in the first place of widespread personation, so we need to think about the impact of the scheme, and that impact has been at least 42,000 people losing their vote. I urge people to think about what it must feel like for a voter who has turned up to cast their vote in our democracy and been turned away, despite being eligible to vote. I think that is incredibly damaging for our democracy, and I urge the Committee to think about the wider picture on voter ID.
Paul Holmes
Q
Dr Garland: Three sets of elections have used voter ID. If we add up the voters who were turned away and failed to return with ID across the three sets of elections where we had voter ID—that includes two local and one general election—that is where the 42,000 comes from. It is Electoral Commission data on people who have got to the polling station and been registered, but then registered as not returning. Another percentage of voters just did not turn out in the first place, because of voter ID.
Paul Holmes
Q
Dr Garland: No. It was 16,000 at the general election—although I would say that even one voter is one too many.
Paul Holmes
I agree, but that is 0.1% of the total electorate. Briefly, Chair, may I ask about bank cards?
Paul Holmes
Q
Dr Garland: I go back to my point about needing something that people carry on them, which has their name on it and provides the base level of knowing who that person is, as the policy initially set out. We could achieve that in a number of ways. In the voter ID pilots poll cards were used, and those pilots with poll cards as an option saw the fewest number of people turned away, so we know that those more accessible forms of ID are going to be better for the scheme altogether.
For most people, however, bank cards have really good coverage. We also have to think about what newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to access. That is part of the whole question of what we should be looking at—what will cause the least damage when it comes to people turning up to vote?
Samantha Dixon
Q
Dr Garland: Many of the changes feel to me that they have been a long time coming: we heard from the Electoral Commission, which made a lot of these recommendations, about tightening political finance many years ago. There have been the large gaps in the completeness of our electoral register since at least 2011, and the Electoral Commission’s feasibility study was back in 2019. A lot of the changes are therefore catching up, rather than keeping pace.
One area where it is challenging to keep pace is in the digital sphere and online campaigning, but also in political finance. The Bill currently does not address cryptocurrency, which is a fast-changing area, so there are certainly areas where it is difficult to keep pace. “Keeping pace” is an important way to think about it, because of course in a democracy, unless we are moving forwards, we are necessarily sliding backwards. That is a challenge. We have to keep changing in order to protect what we have.
The one area that has changed the most in the past two years has been the electoral landscape. We are seeing things that we have never seen before—massive party system fragmentation and huge amounts of voter volatility—and that is having an effect on the operation of our electoral system. I appreciate that that is not covered in the Bill, but that does feel like one area where the Bill might find itself a bit out of step with what is happening in the wider electoral landscape.
Lisa Smart
Q
In page 7 of your written evidence, Dr Garland, you talk about new clause 1, tabled in my name, on the voting system. That is something that affects a number of people, in the context of the changing landscape that you just laid out. We had the most disproportionate election ever in 2024, with a party that got a third of the votes getting two thirds of the seats and pretty much 100% of the power. Will you say a little more and expand on the comments you made about why a voting system change would better reflect the situation in which we find ourselves in 2026 and beyond?
Dr Garland: It comes down to the fact that first past the post, as a voting system, is designed for a two-party system. We have moved hugely towards a multi-party system, particularly in the last two years. In that circumstance, when you have many parties in contention, you end up with representatives elected on less than 30% of the vote. Whether you see that as acceptable or not, that is not what a majoritarian system is supposed to do, and it makes it incredibly confusing for voters.
If we think to the next general election, people will find it very difficult to know how to make their vote effect the outcome that they want. When you are in a multi-party system, but you are using a two-party voting system, you end up with very chaotic and unpredictable results. That is very bad for voters. We might also see Parliaments that really do not reflect how voters have voted, and that could do a huge amount of damage to trust in democracy, which is already on a life support machine.
Lisa Smart
Q
Dr Garland: And give more stability and predictability to our electoral outcomes.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Q
Dr Garland: As we heard earlier, timing is absolutely key. We need to get a move on and implement these things. In terms of the pilots, it would be really good to have a broad range of areas and datasets to look at. Ultimately, the goal has to be, “Can we find those missing millions?” We know that the 8 million missing off the register are not evenly distributed, and that certain groups are much less likely to be registered. Those are young people and people who move home more frequently—renters, for instance. I would like to see that looked at carefully, so with whatever data we get from pilots, we should ask, “Are we getting those people on the register?” Ultimately, that has to be the goal.
There are other benefits, such as making things easier for electoral registration officers. Cost savings are likely to come out of it as well, but the core has to be, “What is going to have the most coverage?” That could be a combination of automatic voter registration and assisted forms of registration, which is your motor voter-type thing, where you are prompted to vote with other services. I know that the Government are looking at that, and I welcome that very strongly. Whatever we can do to find those 8 million missing people and get them on the register in time for the next general election will do wonders.
Dr Chowns
Q
Perhaps you could comment on proposals for an advert repository and for a ban on deepfakes. Do you think that a ban on deepfakes needs to operate not just during the regulated period, but also outside it?
Dr Garland: I will address those questions in that order. On crypto, yes, we would support a ban, or at least a moratorium, because there are many risks with crypto. They mirror the same risks in political finance across the board, but crypto is moving quicker than our regulations are keeping up, so we would very much support that being looked at.
On a donations cap, we are very out of step with most other European democracies, and comparable democracies, in having no ceiling at all on donations. That is a huge risk area and speaks to the risk around foreign donations as well. There is also a huge risk in how the public view our political finance regime. We heard earlier that confidence is pretty low. People see that millionaires have more influence in their democracy than they do, because we have moved so swiftly to an era where there are many multi-million pound donations. Having no ceiling at all is a risk, so I would very much support a donations cap. That can be supported by spending limits all year round, because quite often, the campaign does not limit itself to the regulated period. I would support that.
I would say that deepfakes are probably something for the other people you will be hearing from this afternoon; we have not looked at that area in detail. We have looked a lot at the imprints regime, and although I am very supportive of extending the imprints regime, it does not tell voters everything. An ad library would mean that we can increase transparency for voters, and enable them to see things such as who is paying for the ads and who they are targeted at. Often, that can highlight misinformation as well, so I would strongly support the amendment about an ad library.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Q
Dr Garland: I think so. I would encourage continued monitoring of it. I think that bank cards and digital IDs are very promising for making it more accessible for voters. I think that there should be something on the day as well, such as vouching or a station, to give one further option. What is in the Bill is very promising, but we need to find out if it has the effect we want it to have by continuing to monitor who is being turned away. The next general election will be the last time that that is required under current law, so that is something to be looked at. We will only know if it is working if we get the data.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Q
Dr Garland: It is really important, and the more we can do to encourage people, the better. We also have to think about the pipeline, in terms of encouraging people into representative politics. Of course, many of the things that the Bill deals with around harassment once people are here are really important as well.
We are still waiting on the enactment of section 106 on candidate diversity data, which would allow us to understand more about who is coming forward and how they are being supported to do that. I would really encourage that. It is not in the Bill, but I encourage people to have a look at that—it is a really important bit. We have to know the situation through the data before we can improve things.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Dr Garland: It is really important to be able to read across different data sets and see the picture overall. That also means that we need the data to be in a standardised format, coming from each political party. There are ways of doing it that enable parties to retain control of their own data, which is also important, so we need to get that balance right. Of course, anonymity and appropriate levels of disclosure are all really important in that respect.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Q
Dr Garland: Automatic voter registration is hugely important. We know that 16 and 17-year-olds and younger people are less likely to be registered, so that is absolutely crucial. As we heard earlier, that lead-in time —the timetable—can make sure that there is enough time to inform young people, educate them, give them the tools they need, and ensure that they understand the process of how to go about voting as well. The more we build things around the Bill to make that a success, the better.
Lloyd Hatton
Q
Dr Garland: That is quite a big question to squeeze into our remaining time. I go back to my point about there being no ceiling on donations from any entity, which is a major risk with corporation and individual donations. The size of donations is growing exponentially, and that has a damaging impact on voter confidence and trust.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank you, Dr Garland, on behalf of the Committee for your evidence.
Examination of witnesses
Karen Jones, Malcolm Burr and Robert Nicol gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Karen Jones: Bore da. Good morning, everyone. My name is Karen Jones. I am the chair of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru and the chair of the Electoral Management Board. We are a statutory body that was set up by the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Act 2024. We have a general function of co-ordinating the administration of elections and referendums in Wales. We do not have a statutory role in relation to reserved elections, but are very pleased to be able to contribute to the development of the Bill.
Malcolm Burr: Good morning. I am Malcolm Burr, the convenor of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and the returning officer for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, or the Western Isles. Like my colleague from Wales, I represent the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, which likewise has a general function of co-ordinating the administration of local government and Scottish Parliament elections. We have no statutory role for UK Parliament elections. We offer recommendations, rather than directions, and support the returning officers in that way. Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today.
Robert Nicol: I am Robert Nicol, the electoral registration officer for the Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and East Renfrewshire council areas and the chair of the Scottish Assessors Association electoral registration committee, which represents all the electoral registration officers in Scotland.
The Chair
Before I call Mr Holmes, it would be helpful if everyone asking questions indicated whether the question is for all the witnesses or an individual witness.
Paul Holmes
Q
My second question is a general question on votes at 16. The Government made a manifesto commitment to reduce the voting age to 16. Can our Scottish colleagues give an overview of the experience of advertising that and making sure to get maximum efficiency and registration before the first crucial elections at 16? What advice would you give the UK Government to make sure we get maximum registration and participation from a section of voters that has not had the vote for many years in England? Malcolm and Robert, maybe you can divide that question between you.
Karen Jones: Thank you very much for the question. As you say, we have had four pilots of automatic voter registration in Wales. Very recently—in December—the Electoral Commission produced a report setting out the evaluation of those four pilots. The main conclusion was that automatic registration should be rolled out in Wales; it added somewhere in the region of 14,500 names to the register, so it had a significant impact on its completeness. However, the report made some recommendations to the Welsh Government to consider before wider roll-out. A lot of those relate to making sure administrators have the time and resources to put the systems in place to support the new arrangements—for example, ensuring adequate data-matching expertise in councils to meet the task. There were also lessons around the optimal timings to undertake the various duties.
In terms of the proposals in this Bill, our major concern is the implementation timetable. If we had two different timetables for rolling in the AVR arrangements, that would place a great deal of burden on electoral teams. We would need to give that careful consideration, as well as ensuring that we do not introduce voter confusion, particularly if there were any differences in the franchises.
There are a number of things around the introduction of the UK Government’s proposals on AVR, set alongside what the Welsh Government intend to do, that we need to consider from an implementation point of view. I am sure this will be a theme throughout this evidence session, but we would welcome more alignment in policy terms between the UK Government and the devolved elections, because that makes it easier for voters and simpler for administrators, and probably also reduces the cost to the public purse. You will understand that I am not commenting on the policy position, but from the perspective of what is involved in implementing these changes.
Paul Holmes
Q
Karen Jones: Just to confirm, in the evaluation report I referred to—and I will send the details to the Clerk of the Committee after this evidence session, if you do not have that to hand—the addition of names to the register did not impact accuracy. Very few people chose to take their names off the register, so there was support from the general public for the exercise.
Paul Holmes
Q
Karen Jones: That is right. It is a small number, but as I say, the evaluation report sets out a lot of the detail.
Paul Holmes
Q
Malcolm Burr: Yes, happy to do that. We have had a successful experience in Scotland over many years of implementing voting for 16 and 17-year-olds and of course that means implementing voting preparation for 14 and 15-year-olds. I will let my colleague Mr Nicol speak to the practicalities of that.
I am very pleased to see the proposal in the Bill, as an electoral administrator, that there would be automatic additions to the UK parliamentary register of those already registered to vote. Consistency is always welcome, as is alignment at an administrative level. It helps the voter, the administrator and the process.
Your question also focused on engagement with young people, and I think that has been generally very successful. Across Scotland, there is Welcome to Your Vote Week activity in schools—in early March, for obvious reasons. That is universal. It is well received. It is updated to take account of feedback as well as changes. The independence referendum in 2014 saw a high level of voting across all age groups, and such academic research as there is shows that young people who have voted at the ages of 16 and 17 are highly likely to continue their participation in the future. All those are important points for consideration. It certainly has not caused significant issues. There are practical issues that we have to look at, of course. With voter ID for UK elections, we have to make sure that there is appropriate ID for young people of that age. There are also issues of data protection, but I will let my colleague, Mr Nicol, speak about those.
Paul Holmes
Mr Nicol, do you want to say anything?
Robert Nicol: Thank you. Malcolm covered an awful lot of what I had noted down, but you say, “How do we ensure that it becomes successful?” This is not a measure that I would necessarily recommend, but having a high-profile electoral event shortly after you introduce it— as happened with the young persons register in Scotland in 2013 and ’14 coinciding with the independence referendum—certainly embeds it in the minds of the population.
In terms of the practicalities—this cross-cuts a wee bit into automatic registration as well—we need to be aware that how data is held in different parts of the country can vary. I hate calling it data, because it is about individuals—individual electors and so on. For example, education data is held by local authorities in Scotland, so we utilise education lists from local authorities and from private schools to invite electors, young people, directly to register. That is from the age of 14 upwards. I think that it is also a welcome aspect of the Bill that there is clarity about it being from age 14 onwards, rather than the quite convoluted definition that was previously in place for 18-year-olds.
Clarity of messaging is really important. Malcolm rightly said that there is Welcome to Your Vote Week. There are also various outreach things. A number of years ago, when I was a lot younger, I went into schools myself and helped to try to enthuse young electors to get registered and suchlike. Various participation activities happen. I know that some people might think that this is a prime area for automatic registration, but I wonder whether an elector’s first experience of registering to vote being something that is done “to” them is necessarily the positive way to look forward.
Hopefully that explanation has helped a wee bit, inasmuch as we do try to engage with young people. One other really important thing, which I think Malcolm touched on, is that this is not just about getting people registered; it is about ensuring that they are enabled to exercise their vote. That relates to things like voter ID at polling stations, but also the ID checks that happen for postal votes. Making sure that that is appropriate for this age group as well and how it is administered will be important parts of this as we go forward.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Karen Jones: Thank you for the question, and thank you again, Minister, for the opportunity to contribute to the early stages of this Bill. We are really pleased to see a number of the long-standing proposals from administrators to make life a lot easier for voters and also administrators reflected in the Bill. We are very much supportive of that.
In terms of alignment, the devil will be in the detail, as we look at the rules for implementing the policies that the Bill contains. As I was saying about automatic voter registration, it will come down to the franchise and the timing elements. It may well be that we have to live with some disruption in the short term while we pursue greater alignment in the medium to long term. I think it is a step in the right direction, but more work will need to be done as we look at the detail of the Bill’s implementation.
Similarly, if there is a UK-wide approach to votes at 16 and 17, it will make it easier to engage with young people. We have found with votes at 16 and 17 in Senedd elections that, because we have years in between when young people are not casting their vote, the engagement can be a bit stop-start. But a consistent policy across the UK will make it much easier for us to work collectively to make sure that young people and others are educated as to why they need to participate in the democratic process and understand how to go about exercising the franchise they have been given.
Malcolm Burr: I do not have a lot to add, but alignment should be there unless there is a good policy reason for it not being there. Policy divergence is inherent in devolution—that is what devolution is about: there can be different policy choices in different areas—but administrative divergence should be avoided wherever possible.
This is the occasion to mention the Law Commission’s welcome recommendation that there should be a consolidation of electoral law as far as possible, because it is a highly complex set of legislation and regulation, and it is more than time for a consistent legislative framework governing all elections, recognising the policy divergences across the various nations. Unnecessary divergence leads to confusion for voters, as well as inconvenience to electoral staff, so alignment should be a very clear aim, except where there is a good principle or policy reason for not aligning.
Robert Nicol: Administrators can and do make difficult things work in the background. We absolutely recognise each Parliament’s right to legislate as it sees fit. The difficulty we have is when electors are asked to do something different for what they perceive to be the same thing. If an elector wants to register to vote, for example, and we say to them, “It’s okay, I’ve automatically registered you for this register, but you need to fill in that other form,” that not only makes me look daft as an electoral registration officer but causes confusion for the elector and does not help with overall confidence in the system. We have seen that recently with the postal vote divergence that happened, which has proven difficult and probably costly to stitch back together.
The Bill will enable people to register at 14. That does not align with Wales, but it aligns with Scotland, which is very welcome. There are other areas that are very welcome, but the Bill also has the potential to create different kinds of divergence if it is not implemented carefully. Administrators will do what they need to do, but think very, very carefully when asking an elector to do something different for what they perceive to be the same thing.
Lisa Smart
Q
Malcolm Burr: That is a big question because we have so many different voting systems in Scotland. We have single transferable vote for local government elections, the mixed system for the Scottish Parliament—the regional lists and constituency MSPs—and, of course, we have the traditional Westminster one Member, one constituency system. I would probably be verging into policy matters if I commented on the various merits of those systems. Suffice it to say, voter confusion—if there has been any—has lessened over the years. That is because there is a great deal more material—mostly from the Electoral Commission but also from returning officers directly—about how to vote and how the system works. Voter education is particularly important when you have divergent systems.
As an electoral administrator, I always look to rejected papers as a good guide to confusion. Those have remained consistent in some areas, but not in others—I am thinking of the local government elections, which use a numerical voting system, obviously, as it is single transferable vote. Despite all the guidance, there are still a significant number of rejections of papers of that are marked with more than one cross: the message that you are voting for up to three or four candidates but that you must do so numerically has not gotten through. It is less so for the other systems. From our perspective, it is about voter education in advance of the election, during the electoral period, and particularly at polling places. That is the place. A good presiding officer makes all the difference by saying, “Are you clear on how you cast your vote competently in this election?”
The Chair
Mr Nicol, do you want to say anything?
Robert Nicol: This is really outwith my sphere of expertise, so I will bow to Malcolm’s—
The Chair
Q
Karen Jones: Thank you. I do not have very different views to those that Malcolm has expressed, other than to say that we are about to see a very different voting arrangement in Wales for the Senedd election in May. That underlines the point of the importance of education, good public information and making it as easy as possible for voters to register and cast their votes.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Q
Another aspect I want to pick up on is returning officer guidance, which has moved on the issue around the divergence of voting systems. Mr Burr, would you consider that the decoupling of the local government elections from the Scottish Parliament elections has had an impact on trying to make sure that voters understand what electoral system is being used at the same time?
Malcolm Burr: Thank you for those questions. My view is that decoupling the elections has been beneficial —I do not say that as an administrator trying to run elections over a few days, because it is not about that. I referred earlier to the different voting systems for local government elections. Inevitably, if elections are together, the potential for confusion is increased, but I think that as voter education deepens, that will lessen. Electoral administrators are certainly content with the decoupling of elections. The old presumption that having a parliamentary election increased the turnout for local government elections was never consistent across Scotland. In my own constituency, the turnout for local government elections would be equal to—if not more than, sometimes —the turnout for parliamentary elections, so it all depends on locality. Those are largely matters of policy.
In terms of voter ID, it is fair to say that it did not cause any significant issues for us as electoral administrators. The reports from polling places were that very few people were turned away; the evidence has shown that. If they were turned away, they could often return, time allowing, later in the day with appropriate ID. I do not know if you wish me to talk about the expansion of the list of accepted voter ID at this stage; that was not a specific question, so I will not, Chair, unless you want me to address it now.
The Chair
I do not think that that was part of Ms Murray’s question. Ms Jones, would you like to add anything?
Karen Jones: The experience in Wales is, I think, similar to what Malcolm just outlined for Scotland. We had small numbers—I am talking about very small numbers indeed—of people who turned up at polling stations without the correct ID, but with the passage of time, people will become more familiar with what is required. In devolved elections, we are seeing that people think they need to bring ID, so it does not present a problem in the devolved elections because people are over-providing rather than under-providing information.
Dr Chowns
Q
Robert Nicol: Registration at 14 and votes at 16 have been embedded for quite some time, but I view this Bill—if it was to pass—as an opportunity to promote registration further. We are proud of the registration levels that we have been able to achieve, but there are still gaps and we want to make sure that we can narrow them as much as possible. I would welcome any involvement in trying to re-promote that across the franchise when the legislation does come into place.
The question of wider political literacy is quite interesting. We have heard much about the missing millions and so on in the Electoral Commission’s reports. No doubt, every single electoral registration officer wants to make sure that, for everybody who is eligible and wants to be registered, that facility is available to them in the format and means that best suit their needs.
The answer to political engagement and literacy will probably not come from a middle-aged guy. It will come from within our communities; that is where the engagement really has to happen. I think I am right in saying that there are particular funding streams available for some community groups around this. That has to be the appropriate way; the message that we are getting out there has to be delivered by trusted voices—people who are trusted in their communities to give accurate information. Some of the stuff that we give out is complex and difficult to understand. There is no single message or delivery method that will get that to everybody who needs it, so it is wider than just administrators in terms of enthusing the electorate, both to be registered and to actually take part in the process.
Malcolm Burr: It much depends on how much effort is made by everyone in the system. It is one thing having the right to vote, but our rights are arid without the feeling that participation makes a significant difference. It is always a work in progress. As an electoral administrator, it is a work in progress largely with our schools, and with the Electoral Commission, which does good work producing materials, generally. But of course, not all young people are in schools; you have to use other local media to encourage participation and show what the exercise of your right means practically.
As an anecdote, I always try to invite as many young people as the rules will allow to election counts. You see then where the process goes; you see what is done with your vote and how it makes a difference—along with other votes, obviously—and what candidates then say when they are elected or not elected, and what they talk about. It is very important to show that system and the difference that voting makes. In Scotland, we have the experience of the independence referendum in 2014. That showed, in respect of all groups, that when the electorate feel there is an issue at stake, they turn out in huge numbers to vote. That is the example of that.
As Robert Nicol said, accessibility is also important. We tend to think of accessibility in terms of voters with disabilities, but accessibility is beyond that; we have to look equally at how we reach hard-to-reach groups in the younger franchise. It is a combination of good publicity, good education and good appreciation, as much as possible, of how the voting system and casting your vote affects and changes things. It is a whole process. Sorry for the long answer.
Karen Jones: I have two points, if I may. I do not disagree with my Scottish colleagues. Young people helping to co-design some of the communications and engagement methods is important. I think Robert made the point about people of our generation maybe not being the obvious people to go and engage with young people, so there is an opportunity there to involve young people in how we go about those exercises. An evaluation report about the experience in Wales referred to the timing of some of these activities. Young people have periods when they are very busy sitting examinations and so on, so there are periods within a year when it is possible to get better levels of engagement. That was a practical lesson that we drew from the experience in Wales.
Sam Rushworth
Q
The Chair
Mr Burr, are you best placed to answer that question?
Malcolm Burr: I fear I am, but in preparation for this meeting I have not analysed the turnout figures and their trends. I would say that it has not affected turnout overall, but I am afraid that I will have to provide the Committee with that information in written form—my apologies.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Karen Jones: Just to clarify, they were not for an election event. They were exercises looking at the ability to add names accurately to the electoral registers. They were in Cardiff, Ceredigion, Wrexham and Powys.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Karen Jones: My understanding is that that is the plan in Wales. We will be working to a common timetable and will have a common approach to the way that automatic registration will be rolled out across the 22 local authority areas.
The Chair
Mr Burr, I think the Minister wants to say something in response to your response to the previous question.
Samantha Dixon
I had the privilege of attending the interministerial Government meeting late last year, and we had a presentation from the University of Glasgow about the effect of voting on the 16-year-olds who first voted in the referendum in 2014. Interestingly, the evidence shows that, compared with previous cohorts, they continued to vote in greater numbers. That evidence was presented at that conference.
Sojan Joseph
Q
Karen Jones: Chair, is it possible to write to the Committee with a detailed response to that? There is an evaluation report that goes into some detail about the challenges that were faced in the four authorities. They took very different approaches, so I am afraid that there is not a simple answer that I will be able to cover in the time available.
The Chair
I think that would be acceptable to the Committee, Ms Jones. I thank our witnesses for their evidence and for managing the technology so ably. That brings us to the end of our morning session.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)
Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission Northern Ireland. We have until 2.25 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
David Marshall: Thank you very much for the invitation to brief the Committee. I am Dr David Marshall, the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland. I am responsible in law for all returning officers for all elections and referendums in Northern Ireland, and I am also the registration officer for all of Northern Ireland.
Cahir Hughes: Good afternoon. My name is Cahir Hughes. I am head of the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland, and I am responsible for ensuring the delivery of the commission’s work in Northern Ireland.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Q
I have two general questions. You obviously have a unique set of experiences in running elections in Northern Ireland. In some ways, in Northern Ireland you have had, for a long time, some regulatory changes that the Government would say we are only just catching up with, and I think that is a fair assessment. Starting with Mr Hughes, given your experience of running elections with voter identification in Northern Ireland, what is your view of the proposal to add bank cards to the list of accepted identification in the rest of the United Kingdom? Are you concerned that it will create a divergence from the elections that you run and your current guidelines?
Cahir Hughes: It is fair to say that the system of photographic ID at polling stations in Northern Ireland is very well established. It has been running for almost 25 years, and voters are very well aware of the need to bring photographic ID with them to the polling station. Research that we have done shows that the percentage of people who know they need to do so is in the high 90s, and they also know what form of ID—most commonly driving licence and passport. It is an established part of polling day at our elections that people know to bring ID with them.
The bank card proposal has not been introduced in Northern Ireland. There is the issue that there is no date of birth on a bank card, which is what you need for photographic ID in Northern Ireland. With divergence there is always an element of risk. We experienced it in 2024 at the UK parliamentary election, when there were different forms of ID used in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Through our public awareness campaigns and partnership work, we put a lot of focus on ensuring that the right messaging gets to voters in Northern Ireland. As I say, that did not materialise as an issue in 2024. It is something that we will consider as part of our campaigns at future elections from 2029, if the Bill follows the path it is set out to do.
David Marshall: I will say at the start that I have a large enough job as returning officer and registration officer for elections in Northern Ireland before I try to comment on policy matters in Great Britain, but I will give just a wee bit of background. Northern Ireland has had official photo ID for well over 20 years. It came in after widespread public concern about the safety and challenges of running elections back in the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, as Cahir has said, it has by and large worked and been accepted, and there are high levels of public support and confidence in elections here. That is not to say that our system is perfect. We could absolutely include other forms of ID that are currently available in Great Britain. I know the Government are on record as saying the UK veteran card could be included, and there may well be other forms of ID as well. All of this needs to be future-proofed into what digital ID might bring.
In conclusion, only time will tell whether the Government’s plans for bank cards in Great Britain will work. If I was asked in Northern Ireland, I would say, “Expand the list of photo ID rather than go to bank cards at this stage.”
Paul Holmes
Q
I also want to ask about your experiences. There is a contention among many parties in the UK House of Commons that photographic ID means many people turned away from polling stations and being stopped voting, and that it is, as they would say, anti-democratic. Could you give a brief outline of the experience of you guys in Northern Ireland and the speed at which people got used to having to show photo ID? I think you mentioned, Mr Hughes, that over 90% of people are aware that they need to carry photo ID, but can you briefly talk about your experience of the numbers in recent elections who are turned away from voting in Northern Ireland, and do you think it is a large-scale issue?
Cahir Hughes: At the onset of today, it is not a large-scale issue. It is not something that voters or candidates express concerns about to us. Again, I will say that it has been in for 25 years. After the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 was introduced, photographic ID came into effect in 2003. We ran a lot of public awareness campaigns to highlight the need for photographic ID and the correct forms of ID. We did a lot of post-poll research over the years and the percentage was in those high 80s and 90s. We do not ask that question any more because it is just part and parcel of the electoral process on polling day. We know that voters are very familiar with it.
In the last research that we did, somewhere in the region of 97% or 98% of people were aware that they needed to bring an accepted form of photographic ID. In my experience of observing at polling stations on polling day, when voters do show up without a form of ID, it is just because they genuinely forgot it. There have been no statements of feeling disenfranchised or not being able to participate on polling day, and presiding officers tend to report back to us that voters do come back with a form of ID, be it by returning home or nipping out to the car.
Paul Holmes
Q
David Marshall: Nothing substantial—just that I think the younger community here in Northern Ireland get it and accept it. The older community have been through that transition and that change, as Cahir said, 20 or 25 years ago and they accept it as well. That is not to say there is not the occasional issue in polling stations, but nothing substantial.
Paul Holmes
Q
Cahir Hughes: The list of forms of ID that are available to voters in Northern Ireland is significantly shorter than the list in Great Britain. Again, it is so well established here that people are familiar with it. Nevertheless, we need to move with the times; David touched on the impact of digital ID, and the veteran card is included in the Bill. It is right that it is kept under review, but if it was continually added to over and over again in Northern Ireland, that would risk further divergence from Great Britain and the confusion that we touched on previously.
It is right that it is kept under review, but as I say, there are high levels of public awareness of the need for photographic ID. David will correct me if I am wrong, but I think most voters are very familiar with the fact that they need to bring their driving licence or passport with them, and if they cannot get that, they can get an electoral identity card from the Electoral Office.
Paul Holmes
Mr Marshall, don’t feel you need to, but if you want to add something, you are more than entitled to.
David Marshall: I have nothing further to add.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
Q
David Marshall: I manage a relatively small team in Belfast who run elections here. It is not the equivalent of Great Britain, where there are teams in local councils. There is an Electoral Office that covers all 11 councils here in Northern Ireland. We are tasked with running two sets of elections in May 2027—both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the local council elections—so most of my work and thinking is around that.
The Bill has a commitment to review the canvass law in Northern Ireland, which is very welcome indeed. The canvass law in Northern Ireland has not kept pace with changes in Great Britain, and it really needs to. That is an important step forward. In terms of the nomination process, the requirement for candidates to show a form of ID is a really sensible step forward, given the problems in Great Britain in 2024, and it would be relatively straightforward to implement. We think that is a great idea, as well as the timelines. As I understand it, the Bill brings forward a 12 noon timeline for the last day of nominations, which will help in terms of ballot paper proofing and then getting postal votes out to voters that bit earlier, which will obviously make it easier for them to take part in the election.
There are a whole host of other changes to postal vote deadlines for Great Britain, which in this instance aligns Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I am all for alignment if it changes Great Britain to be the same as Northern Ireland. That is really helpful. Lastly, from an electoral administrator’s perspective, the new penalties for intimidatory behaviour towards staff are critical, and it is really important that those are brought in. It is a really good step forward.
Samantha Dixon
Q
David Marshall: They are very welcome indeed.
Cahir Hughes: To echo what David said, canvass reform is essential in Northern Ireland, so that measure is welcome. Automatic registration will also play a significant part in improving access to electoral services in Northern Ireland, and we are working closely with David on the practicalities of that.
David touched on the electoral administrative side of the Bill, as you would expect, but I want to highlight something in relation to the political finance side. The rules on political donations for registered political parties are slightly different in Northern Ireland, in that parties can accept donations from permissible Irish sources. The Bill says that that will continue, and that principle was enshrined in an agreement between the British and Irish Governments back in 2006, to allow Irish donors to give to parties here, in line with the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. Obviously, the secondary legislation will provide the detail on how this will operate in practice, but we can already see some difficulties in checking the permissibility of donations. For example, with company donations from a UK company, we can go on to Companies House and check the donation, as can the treasurer of a political party or the elected representative who is taking the donation.
Company registration in Ireland is very different, and it would therefore not be as straightforward to verify the true nature of a donation, if it comes from a company. Not only would that put the treasurer of a party in a difficult situation, but we as the regulator are also required to check 50% of the donations that are reported to us in Northern Ireland, so that will make compliance tricky for us. We wait to see the secondary legislation, but that is a concern for us in relation to the political finance aspects of the Bill.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Q
David Marshall: This is one of those changes that should probably have been brought in when photographic voter ID was introduced in Northern Ireland in 2002 But frankly, whenever it was brought in, calling out in polling stations was removed in Great Britain as part of the introduction of voter ID there. The Government have seen fit to make it equivalent across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which I very much welcome. We have a system for personation called “photographic ID”, and we do not need another secondary system. If necessary, we can manage any issues or concerns in polling stations by talking to polling agents at that point.
Cahir Hughes: Historically, the link was made with polling agents. When photographic ID was introduced, polling agents thought that it was very important that they still had a role to identify personation. I suspect that the legacy issues in Northern Ireland and distrust between parties and communities may have played a part in that. However, as we have discussed, photographic ID is very well established in Northern Ireland, so people are familiar with it. It provides the level of security that you would expect in polling stations. Of course, polling agents will continue to be allowed in the polling station.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Q
Cahir Hughes: We made the need for canvass reform very clear to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, as it is essential. We think that a significant amount of money is spent removing 1.4 million electors off the electoral register, only for them to ask to be put back on again. Canvass reform is essential for that not to happen in 2030, and we welcome that being addressed in the Bill, including by the provisions on automatic registration, which should make things easier for voters as well. I am sure that David will touch on this, but he has a rich source of data available to him to manage the electoral register and to get people on the register, which is very welcome.
The one thing not in the Bill—frankly, I was not expecting it to be—is the issue of co-option, which we flagged to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. That is where elected Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly or those in a local council can be replaced through the co-option system when a vacancy arises. The Bill does not address that issue, but it is something that we will monitor ahead of the combined polls next year. If need be, we will report on it, as we statutorily have to after every election.
David Marshall: On canvass reform, one important step will be that we take cognisance of the possibility of automatic registration in the context of how it is implemented. As Cahir indicated, we have a rich source of data, and every year we write to all 16 and 17-year-olds who are not currently on the register but could come on to it, but only about 30% then go ahead and register to vote.
When we hold that high-quality public sector data—national insurance data, health registration data—we would like the ability to write to those people, turn it the other way and say, “We are going to register you to vote unless you tell us otherwise.” That ought to be part of the reform of the canvass in Northern Ireland: including some element of automatic registration.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Q
David Marshall: We take that extremely seriously in our current work, where we identify people who are on the register and ask them to come forward to register to vote. For example, when we write out to a household, we tend to write out to the householder rather than to the child and say, “A 16, 17 or 18-year-old lives this household. You may wish to register them to vote”—the idea being that we are not disclosing anything specific to that individual. We absolutely take that extremely seriously, and it is something that you will have to consider. I know that pilots were run in Wales to look at this, and they did not raise too significant a concern or issue at that point, but it is obviously important that we keep that issue in mind when we implement these proposals.
Cahir Hughes: All I would add is that in Northern Ireland David has the benefit of a centralised register, so all the data for all of Northern Ireland is coming to him. That reduces the risks. The data is rich as well, particularly in terms of the business support organisation, which is all the health data. That is reliable data on people who are accessing public services, and that is being passed on to him. I suppose it is a simpler process in Northern Ireland than in GB, where so many local authorities are involved.
The Chair
There seem to be no further questions, so I thank both witnesses for their evidence, and we will move on to our next panel. Thank you, gentlemen.
Examination of Witnesses
Harriet Andrews and Andy Mycock gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from The Politics Project and the Yorkshire and Humber Policy Engagement and Research Network. We have until 2.50 pm for this panel. Can the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Harriet Andrews: Hi, I am Harriet Andrews, and I am the director of The Politics Project, which is a democratic education and engagement organisation that specialises in working with young people on elections and democracy.
Andy Mycock: I am Dr Andy Mycock, and I am a public policy specialist. I sat on the UK Government’s Youth Citizenship Commission in 2008 and 2009, and was a witness at the House of Lords Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement.
Paul Holmes
Q
My question is on votes at 16 and your daily experiences of engaging with young people on it. I have had some experience of this in my constituency on Fridays. Granted, I am probably not the best person to sell the argument for votes at 16, although I still like to think that I can be at one with the kids in the schools—just the fact I said that shows I am not. Without giving my view, I have asked young people at my secondary schools to put their hands up to show whether they are for or against votes at 16, and the overwhelming majority are against. I found that really interesting, and I wonder whether it is in line with the general perception or engagement feedback you have seen?
Aside from votes at 16, could you outline to the Committee what methods, if this proposal goes through, the Government, mainstream political parties and, indeed, all parties should take on board, because we all have a stake in this and need to go further to engage younger people?
Harriet Andrews: There are different polls on what young people think about votes at 16, and the results are mixed—it often depends on how you ask the question. Young people are split on whether they want votes at 16, which suggests that they are not a monolith and that we should not talk about them as a single blob, because they have different views and opinions.
When you dig down into that polling, a lot of young people are saying, “I am not sure I have the skills and confidence to be voting and engaging.” To me, that suggests they are in a really good place to be thinking about voting, because they are taking the responsibility incredibly seriously. When you ask whether they could be supported by schools or adults to learn about this, or on their first vote, they are much keener to engage and take part in democracy from 16. So we do engage with that question a lot and talk to a lot of young people about it, and when we dig down, the reason is normally that they want a bit more support.
I love the question about what parties can do, because I think it is missing a bit from the debate at the moment. A really important thing for parties to think about is the voter information space. If I ask a young person right now, “What does X party think on Y issue?”, the absolute mess they have to wade through to work out what parties think and what their views are on particular issues is really difficult. It is difficult for any voter, and we could take votes at 16 as an opportunity to do a bit better on it.
We will talk a lot about misinformation and disinformation—it is a big topic—but the other side of it is where the good sources of information are that young people can go to for up-to-date factual information about the different political parties. That is one of my pleas: what are you doing to communicate that information to young people more effectively?
Paul Holmes
I am sure many of us around the table will be looking daily at how to do that if the Bill goes through.
Andy Mycock: May I correct the record? I am not an advocate for votes at 16; I am an academic researcher who has been looking at the evidence around the debates for more than 20 years.
We have tracked public opinion, both for young people under the age of 18 and for those over 18, and Hattie is absolutely correct: it is probably about 50/50 among young people. There are those who are very enthusiastic and those who are somewhat nervous. There are lots of reasons why some are more sceptical and nervous. It is often down to family background, the culture of their family and the communities they live in in terms of political engagement.
On the broader issue of public opinion, there has been no evidence of a majority of the general public supporting the measure. That is very different to when the voting age was lowered in 1969 to 18, when you had both political and public consensus over the age of enfranchisement and the age of majority.
In terms of the way political parties might engage better with young people, the research we have done suggests there are a number of issues. First, political parties rarely design policies with or for young people that attract them to vote, so regardless of whether the voting age is 16 or 18, most young people do not vote. Often, the representatives who are selected to represent them are over the age of 50. In all the Parliaments across the United Kingdom, the average age remains over 50, so young people do not see themselves in those people.
On the issues Hattie raised about political communication and the way electoral campaigning is undertaken, those are still clearly problematic; we have a very much 20th-century approach to a 21st-century electorate. People do not feel that politicians speak their language, come to the places where they aggregate or engage with them in ways that fit their lifestyle.
The question you ask is really important, because there is a supply and demand aspect to votes at 16, whether you support or oppose it. UK democracy is in some form of crisis. If you look at the evidence, there is huge distrust of political parties and politicians. More recently we are picking up that there is a systems fatalism: a sense that the electorate, particularly young people who are growing up at this point, feel that whoever is in power—the institutions that shape their lives and govern them—is not going to have a positive effect on them.
Whether you support or oppose votes at 16, this is a once-in-a-generation moment to reflect on not just the composition of the franchise but how you, as parties and politicians, think about the health of our democracy. This is a critical question of democratic resilience. I am doing work in Australia at the moment with the Australian federal Government, and this is a common challenge across western democracies. The UK has an opportunity to take leadership and address these challenges honestly, without getting lost in debates over votes at 16.
Paul Holmes
Q
So my question to you, in connection to that point, is whether you believe there is a missed opportunity in the Bill, in that somebody can vote in elections at 16 but not participate as a candidate, or do the Government have the right balance?
Andy Mycock: Again, I would go back to 1969. There has been very little policy learning about what happened there. It is interesting that the age of enfranchisement and the age of majority were brought together, but the age of candidature was not; in fact, it was not until 2006 that the Electoral Commission finally lowered it. At this point, there is no need to say that that is a barrier to or a support for lowering the voting age; it is an issue to think about.
I do feel there is a need for this House to review the age of majority; that is not to change it, but the conditions of the 20th and 21st centuries are very different. In the law, adulthood is now shaped at the age of 18, which is the legal age of citizenship, and yet you can get a national insurance number or a passport or undertake elective surgery—you can do a huge number of things—under the age of 18. At the same time, those traditional indicators of adulthood, such as owning a house, getting married, having children and having a full-time job, are being realised much later in life.
Our research indicates strongly that young people do not see 18 as a particularly significant once-in-a-lifetime moment when they become adults. Adulthood is much more complex, as is maturity and the sense of how young people fit into society. Our research indicates strongly that young people, if they are enfranchised universally across the UK at the age of 16, want to be treated as young people in the electorate and not to be seen as adults.
Paul Holmes
Q
Harriet Andrews: The main opportunity we see from votes at 16 is that it provides an opportunity to effectively support people to vote while they are still in education, or in work or training; 18 is actually a terrible time of your life to suddenly take on this new opportunity.
It allows us to deal with things like inequalities caused by the way your parents vote and engage determining how you vote and engage. The opportunity for schools to play much more of a role, and for there to be a more systematic approach to supporting young people, is the real opportunity with votes at 16.
Our main interest is also about what we are putting around votes at 16: where is the education, engagement and support for young people so that they can engage in democracy really effectively?
Samantha Dixon
Q
Harriet Andrews: We have a really great split screen on this because we work in England and in Wales, in particular. At the moment, we are preparing loads of young people for the Senedd election. We are running 16 youth hustings for young people at the moment in Wales, so we have a lot of on-the-ground experience of this. I would say that supporting young people at 16 and supporting young people at 18 are not particularly different; it is the same process of preparing them to engage and vote.
From our experience in Wales, I can say that young people are taking it really seriously. They are thinking about the responsibility and are really excited to vote. The work that we are doing with young people is a positive experience, and they are engaging really well. If there are any worries about harm being done to young people aged 16, our on-the-ground experience suggests that that is absolutely not the case.
The one thing that we see in Wales is that votes at 16 needs to come alongside support—particularly democratic education and engagement in schools—so that young people know how to vote. Just changing the voting age in itself will not lead to a mass change in the way young people engage with politics and democracy. The lack of support in Wales has meant that there is not loads and loads of engagement at 16, so the surrounding support is really important, regardless of the voting age.
Andy Mycock: I have been involved in the evaluations of both the Scottish and the Welsh lowering of the voting age, and I have advised both Governments on that work. The first thing is that the lessons from 1969 were not learned in either of those cases. Simply lowering the voting age on its own does not have a mercurial effect in encouraging young people to engage and vote. The big problem is that there is a need to have a significant framework of support for young people as they grow up, before they vote, whatever the voting age is.
At present, in Scotland, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, there is a disconnection between the different stages of school—between primary, secondary, and further and higher education. The 50% of young people who do not go to university are dropped completely in terms of their support. It is a huge issue, and I urge you to look at it. What happens in schools and outside schools is very poorly connected, and what happens online is almost unregulated. There is a huge opportunity to think about media, information and political literacy at this point.
I urge you to think about what the House of Lords called a civic journey—the ability to connect all those different interventions and policies from Governments at different levels to a set of clear policy ambitions. At the moment, votes at 16 has very little in terms of a clear agenda for success, beyond the idea that young people might vote a little more over their lifetime. In Scotland and Wales, that has not happened.
In the independence referendum of 2014, 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds voted. It was seen as a huge success, until you look at the average turnout, which was 85%. Young people aged 16 and 17 in Scotland, although they vote more than their 18 to 24-year-old peers, continue to vote at considerably lower rates than the average turnout. That is because neither Government thought at the time they lowered the voting age about significant, consistent support for every young person as they grow up. They need to be heard, listened to and engaged with, not just in their lessons but in their communities. They need to meet you and local and other elected representatives regularly so that they feel they are part of the democracy, regardless of whether they are enfranchised or not.
The other thing that did not happen in 1969 was any evidence-based approach to finding out what the effect of lowering the voting age was. Lowering the voting age to 18 in 1969 was a policy failure. In every election after that until the late 1990s, turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds fell. This is likely to be a similar situation. Votes at 16 needs to learn to adopt an evidence-informed approach. We need a longitudinal study of the effects of what is happening. It is remarkable that this country does not have a centre for research around democracy. We have one on electoral studies, but we do not aggregate what is happening out there in the democracy.
As I said at the start, we are in a moment of huge precarity in terms of the future strength of British democratic resilience. I urge this Committee to think about how Government, Parliament, academia, and wonderful organisations such as the one Hattie represents and the Electoral Commission can come together and think about how we start to build an evidence base that starts to learn from the policy interventions that we invest in. We must start to think about the future health of British democracy.
Samantha Dixon
What you are saying is very interesting, and I will reflect on it. As we go through the Bill process, I think it will become clear that the Government have considered some of the points that you have raised, but thank you for raising them.
Lisa Smart
Q
I strongly agree that we are in a moment of crisis for our democracy. An awful lot of things that I would have liked to see in the Bill are not there. You talked about the opportunity that this presents. Particularly looking through the lens of trust in politics and participation in our elections, what does your organisation, or you as an academic, believe could have been in the Bill that would have had a positive impact on trust in politics?
Harriet Andrews: The biggest thing in terms of trust in democratic institutions is the way that democratic institutions engage with the public, and with young people specifically. We specialise in connecting young people and politicians. We have evidence that we can systematically improve democratic trust, which is a fantastic thing to be able to do—not many people can do that—but that is done through loads and loads of conversations between young people and politicians, and there is not really a substitute for that kind of work. I do not know whether that is the role of this Bill, but it is definitely the role of every Member of Parliament. We also need to think about investment in places such as schools and youth groups, and ask whether they are being supported to engage with democratic institutions.
The other thing to mention is that a lot of people are really uncertain at the moment about whether they are allowed to engage with democratic institutions as part of their youth work or as schools, because they are worried about issues around impartiality. I would focus on really clear guidance on impartiality, partly so that people feel a lot more comfortable about what they can do. They can do a lot, but lots of people are scared about engaging with their local council or councillor on a local issue because they are worried about political bias. More training and support around that is needed.
Andy Mycock: I fully agree with everything that Hattie said. Contact—building a relationship at a very early age—is a critical part of this. By the time you get to secondary school, a lot of that good work is already past its time of efficacy. Primary school, when young people are socialising and their brains are growing, is proving to be, in all different aspects of growing up, the most important time. There is a stark lack of focus on primary school interventions. Much of what happens focuses on secondary school, when young people are overloaded; they are going through significant change in their lives—biologically, socially and educationally. Stretch the civic journey. Give it time to mature over time. Think about how you support young people after the age of enfranchisement, whether it is 16 or 18.
To go back to the Minister’s question, our work in Wales highlighted another thing—the voter journey. In Wales we found a lot of focus, in Government and other programmes, on getting young people to get on the electoral register and to know how to vote, but that did not get them to the ballot box. The principal reason was that they were not educated about political parties—what those parties stood for. This is not to open up the old debate about indoctrination, but young people simply did not know what the political parties stood for—they did not know how to read the manifestos, so they stayed at home.
I urge all the parties to move beyond this idea of the fears of indoctrination. The internet age has changed things. You cannot protect young people from political discourse on the internet. Our survey data is already starting to pick up that young people, particularly young men, are increasingly prone to misinformation and to populist ideas. If you do not socialise young people, so that they understand politics before they become enfranchised—whatever the age—it is likely that they will socialise themselves, or will socialise themselves in peer groups that may not be the healthiest in terms of democracy.
I would think strongly about the idea of the voter journey, and about things like automatic voter registration, or giving young people voter authority certificates at the age of 16. If they have a national insurance number, why not give them that certificate so that they have the document and do not have to look for it? Walk them through polling booths: get them used to the idea that these are not alien places. For those who come from middle-class families, it is likely that their parents will take them there the first time to vote. For those coming from maybe disadvantaged or disengaged families, it is highly likely that they will not.
Lastly, learn from other places. Australia has a wonderful celebration around elections where they have a democracy sausage, which you will have heard of now increasingly. We might not be a nation of sausages, but we are a nation of cakes. Why not think about the democracy bake? Have civil society organisations outside polling stations—turn voting into a celebratory act, so that young people feel that that first experience is positive, and that it is not a threatening environment for them to go to again.
Warinder Juss
Q
My assessment from all this has been that if those young people were allowed to vote at 16 they would be very competent in contributing to democracy, and that it would be a great idea for them to be engaged earlier in politics, and to have had those conversations earlier. A witness in the previous panel said that the earlier somebody votes, the more likely they are to carry on voting. I have two questions. First, do you think my assessment is correct? Secondly, do you think that the ability to vote early is one important step we can take to make sure that we have that engagement, and bring democracy into play?
Harriet Andrews: Yes, I do think your assessment is correct. I think young people are really keen to engage in all sorts of social and political issues. They want to have a voice—they want to be heard, right? They are just like everybody else, and they have lots to say. They are exploring the world; they have not heard something for the fifth or sixth time, they have heard it for the first time, so it is more exciting. That is something that we find a lot.
There are some hopeful reforms potentially coming in the curriculum assessment review. They have talked about making citizenship compulsory in primary schools, which really plays into that idea of starting early. The more that you do earlier, and the more you can build these skills over time and make them part of what is happening, the less of a mad rush you have to get everybody ready at a certain point. That is really positive.
One of the things missing in that education reform is, particularly, teacher training. This stuff is complicated, and teachers need support. When they have been surveyed, teachers have said that they feel really underprepared to do this work; they really want to do the work, but they want that support. That is one thing that really needs some attention. The other is the role of Ofsted—asking, “Is Ofsted taking this work seriously? Does it have a home, and does it have a place?” I know that that is not the role of this Committee, but some of the levers to make votes at 16 a real success sit with both DCMS and the DfE.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Q
Harriet Andrews: For me, part of that democratic education piece would include support for young people to engage with disinformation. A really important part of preparing them is preparing them to engage with that work on disinformation. Also, as I said at the very beginning, we need to think about where the sources of information for young people are. I worry that if we focus too much on just, “We need young people to be educated about how to engage with disinformation,” and we do not try to create places they can go to that are trusted sources of information, we are putting a huge amount of pressure on young people to deal with a really complicated information landscape.
The Chair
You have 20 seconds, Dr Mycock.
Andy Mycock: I would think very strongly about how political parties can play their role in terms of connecting with young people. Young people’s membership of political parties is at an all-time low, as it is in trade unions and other organisations. The fact that you are engaging is commendable, but political parties need to do much more.
Those who are opposed to votes at 16 need to think about the unequal situation where young people in Scotland and Wales now have voting rights that young people in England and Northern Ireland do not. If the argument is about citizenship, there is an inequality with the voting age being 18 for the majority, but not for others. Moreover, there is a need for—
The Chair
Order. I have to cut you off there, I am afraid, because of the requirements of the procedure motion that has been passed. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you both for your evidence this afternoon.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Toby James and Professor Paul Bernal gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 3.15 pm for this panel. Could both professors briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Professor James: My name is Toby James. I am a professor of politics and public policy at the University of East Anglia. I am also the co-director of the Electoral Integrity Project.
Professor Bernal: Hello, I am Professor Paul Bernal. I am professor of information technology law at the UEA law school. I am a specialist in data and in privacy, and I have been working with Toby on electoral data since around 2020.
Paul Holmes
Q
You suggested that an amendment could be introduced to establish statutory requirements for electoral registration officers to publish data on parliamentary and local elections in England and Northern Ireland. I thought it was general practice and already a statutory requirement for returning officers to publish things such as the names of candidates, polling stations and the results of elections. Could you explain where you have come from on that, and what the difference is with the current system?
Professor James: This maybe reflects the different ages in which electoral laws were first designed, many of which were designed in the Victorian age. We have a very decentralised system, whereby electoral registration officers and returning officers publish data on candidates, results and so on, but not necessarily in an electronic format—to qualify that—and not in a uniform fashion. Many electoral authorities around the world, for example, would receive results and names of candidates at a local level, and therefore it would be really easy to publish all that in one central data source. That is not the case for UK parliamentary elections or for local elections. Not so much myself but other colleagues—colleagues at the University of Exeter, for example—collect this data and publish it instead. I think that it should be a central function of the state to provide electors with data on who the candidates are and what the results are.
Paul Holmes
Q
This may be slightly out of the scope of both of your expertise, but there is an amendment tabled to the Bill about a digital election leaflet repository for digital communications. It would introduce a duty for, after 72 hours, paid-for digital election campaigning materials to be stored in a central repository. It is not our amendment, but I think the argument is that people would then be able to see—and hold to account—the promises made by various parties in the United Kingdom. Do you have a view on whether that would be a good thing? Is that something that you support?
Professor James: My areas of expertise are probably elsewhere in the Bill, but I would generally be in favour of greater transparency. Collecting in a central location information about the promises that are being made to the electorate by parties only enhances transparency.
Professor Bernal: There is another side to it, which is whether such a requirement would mean that the electoral communications had to be in some kind of standardised form. For this sort of depository to be useful, it would have to be sortable, searchable and so on, and that would require some kind of standardised form. Would that be a good thing? I think it probably would, because we want as coherent a set of information as possible. Would parties like it, given that it would constrict which bits of information they gave and did not give? I am rather cynical about that possibility.
Paul Holmes
Q
Professor James: The Bill covers many of the foundations that you would need to have to enable electoral registration to be increasingly automated. As many other witnesses have said, the devil is in the detail, and the detail is due to come in secondary legislation. That is what is really important: which data sources will be used and which are the best data sources to be used?
In many ways, it makes sense to refer to secondary legislation for that, because obviously the best data sources for improving the quality and accuracy of the electoral register will change as data changes over time, so some flexibility for Ministers is relevant and important. At the same time, that is a lot of detail in secondary legislation. Obviously we are here and you are scrutinising the Bill. It will be important that the secondary legislation is scrutinised by parliamentarians, and that there is an opportunity for civil society groups, and those groups representing individuals who are less likely to be on the electoral register, to be included in those discussions.
The decisions that are being made at the moment—important decisions—by Government Departments, electoral officials and the Electoral Commission have a lot of detail in them. Making those discussions as inclusive, open and transparent as possible is something that Parliament might want to consider promoting.
Paul Holmes
Q
Professor Bernal: I have one thing to add, and it is a very simple one: I would like the open register to be abolished—straightforwardly abolished. As a privacy expert, it seems to me that it creates more risks. In the age that we are in at the moment, we need to reduce the risks as much as possible.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Professor James: You can think of two basic, broad clusters of countries that have automatic voter registration in one form or the other. In one set of countries, you have a central single record for every single citizen: what might be called a civil population register. Those are countries such as Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands or Germany. That is where automatic voter registration is simpler to implement because, in practice, what happens is that, in short, there is a copy and paste of that register ahead of election day.
In other countries, including in Canada and Australia, there is not a single record for every single individual. What those countries have done recently—I say “recently”; it has been over the course of the last 20 years—is move towards automatic voter registration by automatically enrolling groups of people using specific pieces of data at points when they know the data is accurate and reliable. In the UK context, Canada and Australia are probably the most relevant examples.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Professor Bernal: No, I have nothing to add to that.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Professor Bernal: I would like to scrap it. Going from opt-out to opt-in is great for the new people coming in, particularly with automatic voter registration and the votes at 16. However, there are millions of people who did not realise what they were opting in to—or what they would have opted out of—who are still on the register. If this is going to be retrospective, and you are going to say to everybody, “Do you want to be in after all?”, maybe that would help, but it would be simpler and better just to get rid of it.
We have to think very carefully about why the open register exists in the first place, and what use it is actually being put to. The uses are primarily commercial. In the current era, so many other forms of data are available to anyone wanting commercial use of data—we should leave it to them. What we need is as clear and simple a database as possible, with a single function to support our elections. That way, we get more security and privacy, and people will be more likely to trust it.
Lisa Smart
Q
My question is about automatic voter registration and some of the civil liberties and privacy issues that we should considering as we look at this legislation. Can you help us think through some of the really important questions we should be asking, bearing in mind that, as you rightly say, a lot of the detail will be worked through in secondary legislation? What things should we be thinking about to make sure that we protect the population’s civil liberties and keep privacy where it should be?
Professor Bernal: I should outline my perspective from the beginning. When Toby asked me to come into this project, my initial thought was, “I don’t want this, because of the privacy things—I’m a data privacy specialist and that’s what I work on.” However, when I was talking to him, I began to be persuaded by thinking about this as a way to get greater integrity in the database. Privacy is not about hiding information but making sure that the right people get the right information at the right time, and with appropriate permissions and consents.
As a result, the first thing we should think about is: what will the database on which people are registered be used for? What functions will it be put to? Who is going to have access to it? What are they going to be able to do with that data? That is something that we should be doing anyway, regardless of whether we are bringing in automatic voter registration. We should be thinking about those things, particularly in an era when electoral interference is a known factor and happens in lots of different ways, and we should be working out the way to make things secure. As I see it, automatic voter registration actually gives us an opportunity to do that, because it means that we need to think about having a properly coherent and secured database. As we do so, we will think, “Who’s going to have access to this? What are they going to be able to do with it?”
One issue is that political parties will want access to this data, but they should have to produce a report on what they have done with this data and how, including who they have given it to. We need only think back to Peter Mandelson and what he was doing with his data—giving it to people who he perhaps should not have—to see that we really need to keep a proper grip on what is happening to the data. That would solve most of the civil liberties questions about this. If we make sure that we know exactly what is happening to the data, and if we have a good set of controls over who manages and runs it, and who has access to it, you do not have the problem.
The only civil liberties question left is a rather separate one: should people be able to not be registered to vote? However, that is a rather different question beyond the scope of what we are talking about here, because we have decided in this country generally that people should reply to electoral requests and so on. That is the only one, and I do not think that is a question that automatic voter registration is a problem for.
Professor James: I would draw the Committee’s attention to what happens to the electoral register at the moment in terms of, as Paul has set out, the issue of the open register potentially being a security risk, but also who has access to the marked and full registers. There is currently no requirement, as I understand it, for electoral registration officers to keep a record of who requests and uses those records. That could be introduced. The Electoral Commission could then provide a report on exactly who is accessing those registers and for what purposes.
Political parties, for example, are entitled—and this is correct—to have access to electoral registers so they can reach out to voters, but how parties themselves use the registers is an important question.
The Chair
If Members have no further questions, I thank both witnesses for their evidence and we will prepare for the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Harry Busz, Councillor Peter Golds and Richard Mawrey KC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Harry Busz: My name is Harry Busz. I am the deputy director of policy at Democracy Volunteers. We are the UK’s largest non-partisan election observation group. We have been assessing election integrity across the UK since 2016, as well as in a number of other countries across Europe and north America.
Councillor Golds: My name is Peter Golds. I am a councillor in the London borough of Tower Hamlets; I have also served as a councillor in the London borough of Brent. I am a member of the Local Government Association safer and stronger communities board, and have had a lot of experience in trying to protect people and integrity in elections, safety in elections, and addressing the intimidation of councillors. I have been involved in elections for many years as a candidate, agent and Lord knows what, and have a long-standing interest in electoral malpractice.
The Chair
I am sure we will be exploring the “Lord knows what” as we go along.
Richard Mawrey: My name is Richard Mawrey. I am a King’s counsel and a practising barrister, and have acted as election judge—or election commissioner, technically—in most of the serious electoral fraud cases of the last 20-plus years, so I have considerable judicial experience of electoral fraud and other malpractice in all its guises.
Paul Holmes
Q
Given that in 2015 a Tower Hamlets election court judgment found that personation was one of the interlinked types of “corrupt and illegal practices” that took place, where people’s votes were literally stolen, are the proposals within the legislation good or bad for voter security?
Councillor Golds: I think the list produced by the Electoral Commission was somewhat restrictive; it should have been expanded. We had the situation where service personnel, nurses and so on were arriving with their photocards, but could not be permitted to vote. I am not sure that a bank card is a good idea, because anybody can hand a bank card to somebody else. Voter ID is popular with the public and causes very few problems. People believe it adds security to the electoral process.
Paul Holmes
Q
Richard Mawrey: Yes. As a means of identification at polling stations, I am easy either way on bank cards. Clearly, anyone can obtain a bank card and create an account in a particular name, so fraud would be very easy. The reason why I am relaxed about it at polling stations is that personation at polling stations is a very rare bird indeed, these days.
Most personation occurs with postal voting simply because personation at polling stations is difficult and extremely labour intensive. You have to find bodies prepared to go there and do the personating, and they are personally running the risk that somebody says, “You’re not Mr Jones”—and along comes a large constable and there is big trouble; normally, with personation, you are looking at a spell inside. It is an extremely risky business and you can do it only in penny packets: half a dozen here and half a dozen there.
If you want to influence an election, even a local election, personation at a polling station is a waste of time and effort, so on that issue I am fine. However, I would counsel very strongly against using bank cards as a means of identification for registering voters or for postal votes, because the possibilities for fraud are obvious.
Paul Holmes
Q
Harry Busz: I would add that, as an organisation, we have collected data on the number of turn-aways at the polling-station level, since the policy of photographic identification came in a few years ago. We tend to find significantly higher numbers of people being turned away at the polling-station level than we see in some of the data that has been collected by the Electoral Commission, primarily because of the different stages at which people can be turned away in the process, whether that is signage, party political tellers who are overextending their role or meeters and greeters.
It is an issue because there are particular groups who struggle to either have the ID or to bring the ID with them on the day. From our perspective, looking at different ways to bring in other forms of photo identification, whether that is the digitisation of the voter authority certificate or other forms of digital ID, is welcome. I agree to a large extent with the councillor about reducing the existing level of security when bringing in non-photographic identification.
Paul Holmes
Q
There is nothing in the Bill about family voting, but do you believe it should be amended in that regard? Do you or Democracy Volunteers perceive that family voting is a serious enough issue, and such a prevalent issue, that we need legislation to strengthen the security of that element, Harry?
Harry Busz: Let me be clear about the data that we have collected. With family voting, we collect instances of somebody’s right to a secret ballot being denied to them because of oversight, direction or collusion inside polling booths. As an organisation, we have collected and published data on that for 10 years now. At the latest general election, we saw it in 116 of the 204 constituencies that we observed in. It is a widespread problem all across the country.
Family voting can take different forms. When ballot secrecy is broken, we do not know the relationships between the people who are involved, or whether there is coercive control, so we very much believe that it should not be allowed in any democracy. Everybody’s vote should be theirs and theirs alone. The data that we collected led to the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023, which is an important piece of legislation that specifies that trying to influence somebody in the polling booth is an offence. We think that there are ways in which that could go even further.
To clarify, oversight should not be allowed. A lot of the legislation is in place. One of the challenges is election administrators on the ground, with the infrastructure they have, being able to prevent that from taking place.
Paul Holmes
Q
Harry Busz: Yes. For example, the types of polling booths we use here in the UK are a sort of cross-section. The selling points of those polling booths are that they are easy to store and quick to put up, but there is no reference to ballot security, whereas lots of other countries have individual polling booths that can aid staff in preventing family voting before it has started. By the time it has started, it tends to be too late.
Paul Holmes
Q
Councillor Golds: My experience goes well beyond Tower Hamlets. I have been an election agent for parliamentary elections in five different London boroughs and in Hertfordshire, and I have been an election agent in seven different London boroughs for local elections. I have campaigned. I have seen this far too often, in far too many places. It crosses communities. Let us be absolutely clear that we are not talking of any individual community here. It is a situation we could possibly call patriarchal, in which groups of men believe they can tell women what to do. In many places, that will include aggressive, angry white men. Let us put that on the record. I have seen it, and I have tried to stop it.
When we first got involved in this campaign, Lord Hayward, who I believe is here today, steered the Ballot Secrecy Bill through the House of Lords. That strengthened the protections. When we were campaigning against family voting, some bizarre instructions were going around, including one sent by a former official of the Electoral Commission to the police. I mention this because I shall relate it to Gorton and Denton. The police said:
“We have checked with the Electoral Commission and have been informed that just because the voter process was not followed, in terms of secrecy…it might not necessarily relate…to an offence.”
Here it comes:
“The onus is on the individual who casts their vote to claim that secrecy has been breached or that they have been unduly influenced.”
We got the Bill through, and the Act sits there. It is illegal to interfere with somebody. I seriously wonder whether that email is still sitting in an inbox somewhere in a police station or council office.
The Chair
Q
Councillor Golds: I am sorry Chair, but it concerns family voting, doesn’t it? This is the secrecy of the ballot I am talking about, where somebody is interfering with it. The onus is on the individual who casts their vote. This is what it is. That is why the Ballot Secrecy Act, which Lord Hayward and former MP Paul Bristow brought through the House of Commons, was passed with support across the Floor; every party supported it. It went through, as I think colleagues would say, on the nod. It absolutely clarified the law that, if you vote, you vote in secrecy. My concern has always been that it is not being enforced. The law is the law, but where is the spirit?
Paul Holmes
I agree.
Richard Mawrey: The problem—which I have found in all the cases I have tried, and not simply those to do with family voting, but almost any electoral offence—is that there is no point in having rules or statutes, however good and however well drafted, if nobody is prepared to enforce them.
That was particularly the case in Tower Hamlets, where there were multiple breaches of almost every prohibition in the Representation of the People Act 1983. I have never seen that many different offences, most of which were proved to the hilt. What happened there was that they were drawn to the attention of the Electoral Commission, which said, “No problem there; nothing to look at”, and to the police, who said, “Oh, we’re not interfering”, knowing the type of allegations that would be made against them if they did interfere.
Exactly the same happened about 20 years before in Birmingham. The evidence of widespread postal fraud was put in the hands of West Midlands police, and they got a nice little folder, wrote on the outside “Operation Gripe”, put it in a bottom drawer and forgot about it. That was their own evidence in the matter; they were simply unwilling to act.
It is not a question of resources. In many cases, the police were presented with what might be termed an oven-ready case, and they said, “Oh, no, we’re not touching this with a bargepole.” I am afraid that is the problem. Another problem, I am sorry to say, is that the Electoral Commission’s view is that electoral fraud is not happening. Indeed, that has been its view since I delivered Birmingham, hence my comment at the time about banana republics. Therefore, there is no impetus for the people who should be enforcing it actually to enforce the law.
I would say that, on family voting, or indeed any of the matters that are proposed, the law at the moment is fine but, if you do not enforce it, you might just as well put the thing in a bottom drawer marked “Operation Gripe”.
Paul Holmes
Q
Do you think that is a good thing for democracy? Do you think it is needed, given some of the campaigning tactics we have seen? Or do you not think it would not make a difference in general to some of the problems we have seen in by-elections—but also in local and national elections—in the country?
Harry Busz: As an organisation, we do not necessarily have a viewpoint on the issue you are referring to. As well as ballot secrecy and a lot of the other issues that we look at in polling stations, we are very aware of the accessibility of elections and understanding the campaigns going on being important to increasing turnout and getting more people involved in democracy. We do not have a specific policy towards the new clause.
Councillor Golds: I have been an agent for many years. Many years ago, in Brent, I remember issuing leaflets in Gujarati. I think that this is something that needs balance. We need to understand—I sent this back to the regulators—that it is one thing to have a leaflet on both sides having, “Do come and vote for party X, my party. I am a great candidate and my party is wonderful”, if what is printed in another language that might be familiar to people also says, “Please vote for me. I am a great candidate. My party is wonderful.” However, if in English the leaflet says, “Please vote for me. I am a great candidate. My party is wonderful”, but we turn it over and the other language says, “The other people are”—lord knows what—or this, that and everything else, then that is when we get to the problem.
In my view, this has to go back to the regulators. I am sorry to say that. In a country such as ours, with a multiplicity of languages, I want people to get involved. In my current borough, the big thing is Sylheti. If people understand Sylheti and we can put stuff out in Sylheti, all well and good, as long as when something is put in Sylheti, it says the same as for an English-speaking voter. If an English-speaking voter says, “I do not understand this”, and someone can turn around to say, “It is exactly the same”, all well and good, but if it is different, we have trouble.
Richard Mawrey: It would be perfectly acceptable if there were some sort of insistence, as Peter Golds says, for the texts to be comparable, but that is unfortunately not the case—or certainly was not the case in Tower Hamlets, as I discovered. Quite anodyne stuff in English—“Vote for me. I am a good chap”—came out much longer in Sylheti, couched in really quite extreme religious terms. The two sides of the document did not match.
It would clearly be desirable for the two sides of the document to match, so that, in a sense, you could monitor it, particularly if the one that was in a non-English language contained material that ought not to be there in the first place. That can occur, not simply with Asian languages, but with all other languages. You could say something that, you hope, no one outside your language group will understand. It is essential, I think, to monitor that so there is some equality between the obverse and reverse of the same coin.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate that. We will go away to look at how that new clause can be tailored to your feedback, all three of you. The new clause came out of some of the campaigning in the Gorton by-election, so we will go away and look at it again.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Councillor Golds: I am a great believer in election law needing more. At some point, there needs to be a stop and a proper consolidated Bill that brings UK election law into the 21st century. When we did the ballot Bill, we suddenly discovered it needed umpteen pages of amendments, because to deal with the ballot for everything—from a Member of Parliament to a parish council representative in East Grinstead—every single one needed a separate statutory instrument. That is one of the problems.
In 1950, 82% of the electorate voted. At a time when people could not use petrol, there was no social media and postal voting was incredibly restricted, 82% of the people voted, because they wanted to vote. I have the view that you are trying to lead a horse to water and not make them drink. I believe that it is up to the politicians in Government to make sure that people wish to vote for and against Government. That is what will increase the turnout.
I am slightly concerned about many things that I have looked at here, and some things that are missing. For example, in the London borough of Tower Hamlets in May, we will go into the polling stations and the electoral papers will be computerised—I give my name, it goes, “boop doop doop”, and out comes the ballot paper. There are three polling districts in my ward, so why on earth could you not go into any one of the three—now that they are computerised—give your name and vote? Why could you not do that in a parliamentary election? That is what they do in Australia: you go into any polling station in the constituency and they will issue the ballot paper.
Richard Mawrey indicated dissent.
Councillor Golds: Commissioner Mawrey says otherwise.
Richard Mawrey: In answer to that, fraud is absolutely rife in Australia, and it is undetectable because they do not have numbered ballot papers. They can tell that fraud has taken place, but they do not know who the fraudulent votes are for, and those votes count. Quite frankly, an intelligent 10-year-old could game an election in Australia—and they probably do! That is a road down which I would invite the Committee not even to take the first step.
The Chair
Obviously, you are expressing your own view there.
Richard Mawrey: I have investigated the Australians, at their invitation. I am with Peter Golds on the point that modernising the law ought to take a consolidating statute. We do that with a lot of things, like the companies Acts and so on. It would be a new consolidating statute, as the last one was in 1983 and we are now 43 years on. That opportunity should be taken, first, to rationalise all forms of malpractice that are offences and corrupt practices; and secondly, to set up a coherent system for trying electoral disputes, because the present system is hopeless. Various proposals on how to do that have been put forward.
This is not the Bill in which to do it, but this Bill should not be saying, “Well, we have done that. We can park that for the next 10 years.” It ought to be a staging post in thinking, “Right, let us sit down and produce a coherent statute that modernises not simply electoral offences, but how we deal with them.” That is what I would counter. I agree that this Bill is not the one in which to do it, but it should not be treated as the end of the road for 10 years.
Harry Busz: As an organisation, we believe there are lots of positive steps forward in the Bill. Certain aspects around automatic voter registration, and improving the performance and accuracy of the register, are really important. For administrators, such like the extension of the postal vote deadlines will enable people to return their postal votes in a timely fashion. We also think that the issue of protecting staff and including them, as well as campaigners, is really important. Since the voter ID regulations came in, there has been a bit of a shift in the way the public views presiding officers and poll clerks in polling stations, as they now have the role of gatekeeper, having to essentially turn someone away from voting if they do not believe there is a likeness with their ID or similar.
There are areas that could go further, particularly around voter ID. At this moment in time, there is an issue where if somebody does not have a form of ID on the day, unlike in other countries, we have no off-ramp, whether through attestation or vouching, so that the person is still able to participate in the election on the day. The question we see as the most challenging is how these procedures will be done on the ground, particularly inside polling stations and for administrators. As long as there is the ability to increase funding and support for the council departments running the elections on the ground, there are lots of positive steps.
Lisa Smart
Q
I have a question for all three of our witnesses. It pulls on a thread all of you have raised: the inconsistency around enforcement—whether that is local authorities, returning officers, presiding officers or different police forces enforcing things in different ways, or election law finally making it through to court should something need to be tried. I accept that this might not be the piece of legislation to address those inconsistencies, but can you say more about measures you think would be helpful to ensure that election law is applied fairly to all elections across the whole country?
Harry Busz: I would start by taking the family voting point that you specifically addressed. As I mentioned at the beginning, this is something that we saw across more than 100 constituencies at the last general election, and it is something which, as Councillor Golds said, affects all communities. It is a really important issue for lots of different people that we ensure they have the right to a secret ballot.
In terms of those inconsistencies, the areas in which we see a really positive response when family voting might be going on are those where presiding officers and poll clerks can actively step in and prevent it if they are in a less busy polling station— which obviously becomes a bit of a postcode lottery. It also depends on whether the council has the funding and the staff to have a meet-and-greet or a third person in the polling station whose job is specifically to do that work.
Different pieces of election infrastructure are used from council to council, and where polling stations can be set up so that polling booths are separate, that is very helpful in preventing some of these issues. Whether it is that or around accessibility, with all of these aspects, the really important thing we have found is that when the council feels supported—both financially and with the infrastructure they need to run elections inside polling stations—you get much better outcomes.
All staff really want to do their job well and want to step in and prevent these kinds of things, but if they do not have the funding to have a third member in there, or if they do not have the correct equipment, it becomes a lot more difficult.
Councillor Golds: I have a big thing about protecting people, safety and security—and that is everybody. That includes candidates, election staff and the voters themselves. First, I am interested in the nomination process. My belief is that if you are nominated as a candidate, you are nominated as a candidate. The address issue is something from 50 years ago—the 1973 Act, which requires your address to be public.
I spoke about this on the security of councillors, and had an email exchange with a delightful lady in Leicestershire who had heard me on Leicestershire radio. She had expressed concern for years that she gets a bus to go to work, and at her bus stop were her three local councillors’ names, addresses and phone numbers. She thought this was wrong. This is still part of the Act. When we tried to get security for councillors to protect our addresses, we were told it was very difficult. It should not be that, if you are standing for election, your address has to be public. I think it would be terribly easy to change.
I am intrigued by the issue of candidates standing and withdrawing a nomination. One of my ideas—and I think about this very carefully—is that if a candidate is standing for a political party and they withdraw their nomination, then on nomination day the proposer and seconder, or the registered political party, should have the right to substitute another candidate, so that you do not have somebody trying anything ridiculous. We also have to look at expenditure. There are too many stories that live on the internet of extraordinary issues. You are quite right to look at it, and it needs to be tightened. We have spoken about the secrecy of the ballot.
We then come to enforcement and intimidation. I do not know how we protect people. Eighteen months ago, I had an extraordinary day at the Home Office where a group of councillors went. I was the only male councillor there. We were promised an hour and a half to discuss problems. Three and a half hours later, Home Office officials asked, “Do you want to continue?” because of what women of all political parties were saying to them. This included a female councillor whose husband had given her a purple coat, and she had appeared on television wearing it. A local nutcase said that her husband was a member of the Illuminati and a paedophile, and had gone through her address on Companies House, and published his company address and the fact that he was a school governor. This is a fact of life that can be found. If you look, every council cycle I have ever been involved in—Rallings and Thrasher always talk about this—we get women elected who serve one term, not lots. This persecution must stop.
Finally, you have to do something about the intimidation of people going to vote and crowds at polling stations—that is growing and growing. Everybody has the right to walk quietly down a street and into a polling street, and then to pass their vote as they do. I have seen observers from the European Union and the Commonwealth look at British elections, and they are staggered to see mobs of people standing outside polling stations, pushing and shoving. Those are simple things that you could look at, and I believe you would help voters, candidates and, ultimately, yourselves.
Richard Mawrey: We are back to the problem of enforcement. In quite a lot of countries, every polling station is attended by at least one burly constable who keeps an eye on things and acts as a sort of enforcer, and the great thing is that they do not have any connection with the local authority.
The problem with staff at polling stations is that they are all necessarily connected with the local authority, and it is very easy for people to convince themselves that the ruling group—so to speak—on the local authority is conniving so that voters are likely to vote for them. In most cases, it is complete and utter nonsense, but it would greatly strengthen confidence in the voting process to have somebody independent—it does not matter whether it is a policeman or anyone else—at a polling station who is prepared to call out intimidation, family voting or whatever it is.
At the moment, people are not confident because they perceive—rightly or wrongly—that the rules exist, but that the rules are being broken and nobody cares. As Peter Golds said, it does not require much imagination to see how any of that can be blown up in social media to a result that is very unfortunate for the electoral process.
Interestingly, most of the arguments being put forward today are the same as those that would have been put forward in the Public Bill Committee on the Ballot Act 1872, when the secret ballot was introduced. It was introduced to stop all the sort of abuses of the electoral process that had been occurring up to that time. Some 150 years on, we are still trying to deal with it.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Q
Mr Mawrey, I am wondering about the degree to which personation takes place, and how much of that is a problem. We are hearing other people express doubts about the use of ID and whether this is robust enough. To what extent is that a real issue?
Harry Busz: On the data that we have collected, we will always have two observers inside polling stations who are observing together, because they will have more time to see whether people come in, see a sign, turn around and go out, or whether somebody is stopped by a teller or an extra member of staff who might be directing them to the polling desk. We see a number of people who are turned away from voting initially, but we do not collect data on whether those people come back in the same way that the Electoral Commission does.
At the general election in 2024, we saw that 1.37% of all voters were initially turned away, compared with the Electoral Commission’s figure of 0.25%. We believe the main reason for that difference is that we are seeing other voters who do not get to the actual presiding officer’s desk. The Electoral Commission’s data was collected from the ballot paper refusal list, which the presiding officer has to sit down and sign when a voter has that situation.
Sam Rushworth
Q
Richard Mawrey: At polling stations, it is very little, and it has historically been very little. If you look back over the election cases, there are very few successful challenges arising out of personation at polling booths. I cannot speak on Northern Ireland, because historically it has always been more of a problem in Ireland—both before and after partition 100 years ago. In England and Wales, and possibly in Scotland, it is not a noticeable problem.
The problem of personation is with postal voting, because that is where it can be done on a level that will affect the result of the election. Unless you can guarantee a knife edge, where three votes either way is going to ensure that “X” is elected as councillor—which none of us can guarantee—then telling people to risk, in effect, their freedom by going along and casting one vote is penny packet stuff. You would not bother. If you wanted to rig an election, you would not go down that route.
Sam Rushworth
Q
Richard Mawrey: Yes, that is a different problem. People being turned away is a different problem. It does not involve an electoral offence, but it is none the less serious.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Q
Richard Mawrey: You bowled this one at me somewhat outside the wicket. There is provision in the 1983 Act for assisting people with certain levels of disability—for example, helping those who are blind. I think that there are provisions—this is entirely off the top of my head, because I was not expecting this—for people with learning difficulties.
There are certainly provisions for people who are physically incapable. If you require someone to push a wheelchair into the polling booth, you can do that. That is perfectly above board. The rules might be looked at there, but they exist. We have never said, “You are a blind man. You have to work out how to vote. You’re on your own.” You would never actually say that. That is provided for by the Act and has been, basically, for 100 years.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Councillor Golds: I have witnessed this several times in my life. I remember, after ’83, taking a blind woman to vote and watching the presiding officer do the process. He said, “I am clearing this area,” and he took the lady over and discussed it with her. He said, “Mr Jones, the Labour party candidate. Mr Smith, the Conservative party candidate. Mr Brown, the Liberal Democrat party candidate.” Then he asked, “Who do you wish to vote for?” She said so quietly and he marked the ballot paper. It was done incredibly professionally. I have seen it done with people with disabilities, where sometimes they are taken into a side room. What we are talking about goes straight back to where we began—it is the case that people do not know. The facility is there, you just need to get people to know.
Harry Busz: From our observations back in 2024, we found that there are two separate issues. One is the polling station building and whether that is accessible—importantly, independently accessible—for somebody to get to the presiding officer’s desk and a polling booth. Second is the type of aids that are there for them to be able to vote independently. It is very difficult to find the correct buildings and buildings that are accessible. Councils struggle, election to election, to go, “We have this much time. We need to find these spaces.” Over the last few years, we have seen a real improvement in the type of aids that are given to people. We have gone from just having a tactile voting device and maybe a pencil grip to a lot more councils having things like lighting and QR codes with audio lists of candidates on, which is really encouraging.
There are lots of countries around the world where we observe far greater levels of accessibility aids. I remember once seeing somebody in the USA, who was paralysed from the neck down, being able to vote independently by blowing through a straw—I did not really understand how that worked.
There are ways that we can improve. Obviously, it all costs a lot of money. Some of the opportunities to make elections more accessible for people could be through advanced voting, and having voting hubs and specialised pieces of equipment in a single polling station, which anybody could use if they were voting in advance of the election.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Q
Harry, earlier you mentioned a percentage of people in your data who get turned away at polling stations. Was that all because they did not have the appropriate ID? I have seen people get turned away from polling stations simply because they have turned up to the wrong one. Do those people get included in your data, or is it just people who fail to bring the appropriate ID?
Harry Busz: That figure is just for people who fail to bring ID. We do see people who are turned away because they may not be registered or they may be at the wrong polling station, but they are not included in those statistics.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Richard Mawrey: We have not really touched on automatic registration. I can see the thinking behind it. My view is that it is going to be almost impossible to achieve in practice, because you can only register people automatically if you are satisfied that they are entitled to vote.
By the time that you have ascertained that they are entitled to vote, you have had to have carried out some form of inquiry—possibly even a house-to-house inquiry —on who is living where and whether they are entitled to vote. Assuming you have people living in a house, you go and knock on the door and say, “Do you live here? Are you entitled to vote?” If they say yes, do you then go further and say, “On what basis can you show that you are a relevant Commonwealth citizen?”, or whatever it happens to be.
It may be a marvellous idea, but in practice, it will turn out to be unworkable. I suspect that it will also turn out to be an opportunity for gaming the system. People will be automatically registered who have no right to be, because the registration office has been in good faith, so to speak, set up by fraudsters to do that.
By all means enact it, but I suspect that when push comes to shove, registration officers are going to start saying, “How do we do this?”, and they do not have the money, staff and resources. I think that it will turn out to be rather a damp squib. I am not saying it is a bad idea; I am just saying it is an idea that ain’t going to work.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel, and hear oral evidence from the Henry Jackson Society. We have until 4.10 pm for that panel. There will be a vote called during it, and I will suspend the Committee for 15 minutes at that point.
Examination of Witness
Alexander Browder gave evidence.
The Chair
Mr Browder, can you introduce yourself? I do not know if you heard me say that there is likely to be a vote during the course of your evidence. I will suspend the Committee for 15 minutes. The MPs present will vote, but we will come back to hear the remainder of your evidence.
Alexander Browder: Good afternoon, I am Alexander Browder. I am the founder of the global cryptocurrency laundering database—the first and largest open-source database on cryptocurrency laundering. I am the author of the report, “Confronting the Illicit Finance Hydra in the Crypto Markets: Protecting Retail Investors and Disrupting Hostile Government Exploitation”. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you have regarding how the UK could see cryptocurrency interfering in our elections. I have seen a number of bad actors using cryptocurrency to influence politics elsewhere, so I am happy to provide some examples.
Paul Holmes
Q
Alexander Browder: You cannot have crypto donations without a proper regulatory framework, and there is not going to be a whole regulatory framework for all of cryptocurrency until at least late 2027. You cannot have the wild west of cryptocurrency without proper guardrails. You need to be able to establish that those guardrails are effective in stopping foreign and criminal interference in our elections. If cryptocurrency is deemed to be permissible, we need, firstly, to be able to disclose the wallet addresses of the political donations.
There should not be any limit to the reporting requirements for cryptocurrency donations; at present, it is above £500. All cryptocurrency should be stored in institutions that are registered with the UK Financial Conduct Authority. Furthermore, the Electoral Commission needs more power to be able to investigate cryptocurrency donations. At present, they cannot access cryptocurrency wallets or investigate cryptocurrency exchanges, which leaves a whole gap open to foreign interference.
Paul Holmes
Q
Alexander Browder: Bad actors are continually evolving, and within cryptocurrency there are a number of different tactics that they use to conceal their funds. One that is particularly relevant to this issue is something called smurfing. That is where donations are split across cryptocurrency wallets to stay under the £500 reporting threshold.
There is also something called a mixer, which allows a user to send funds in and receive a whole different address. That means it is impossible to trace for an investigator who wants to try and see if a criminal has donated. At present, the Electoral Commission does not have any power to investigate. Political parties are not proper investigative bodies and do not have the skills to investigate this complex situation. More power needs to be established for this.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Alexander Browder: It has been used throughout the west by bad actors to interfere in political elections, particularly by Russia. I want to highlight three notable examples. The first is a European political scandal linked to a bitcoin donation that almost toppled the Czech Government in the summer of 2025. The Czech Justice Minister, Pavel Blažek, accepted a Bitcoin donation worth $45 million. It turned out to come from Tomáš Jiřikovský, a convicted drugs and arms trafficker who spent three years in prison for operating a dark net drug marketplace.
It was particularly interesting that the donation and the connection to the drug trafficker was discovered by the public only after the Czech had auctioned it off. Blažek’s successor at the Ministry of Justice commissioned an external audit that concluded that the donation should have been refused due to the significant risk that it came from the proceeds of crime. In that case, it was discovered only with a significant delay from when the donation was made.
The second example took place during the Moldovan parliamentary elections, where authorities found that illegal funds from Russia were moved through crypto-currency accounts, laundered through illicit cryptocurrency exchanges and then distributed by couriers to buy votes for pro-Russian political groups and to make donations in cryptocurrency. Moldovan investigators blocked $107 million that was destined for pro-Russian political groups. There were also reports that connected crypto flows directly to interference campaigns that used apps to pay activists, conduct illicit polling and directly pay people. That was paid for with the largest stablecoin in the world, USDT, which is operated by Tether.
Finally, in the 2016 US elections Russian hackers used cryptocurrency to buy infrastructure that targeted US individuals involved in the presidential election. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I reconvene the sitting. You had completed a sentence, Mr Browder, but had you completed your full answer?
Alexander Browder: I have one more thing to say. There have been reports of Russian state actors engaging in malign activity targeting the UK. One such example is an arson case, where Russians paid individuals here in the UK to set fire to warehouses supplying Ukrainian aid. How were they paid? Through cryptocurrency. More recently, in another case, just last year, Russians paid a Lithuanian national to deliver bombs using DHL packages destined for London. The payment was through cryptocurrency. This is an existential threat to the UK and the democratic process. Something must be done.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Alexander Browder: Overall, there should be more strict and rigorous requirements for crypto donations, if those are permissible. Specifically, political parties should be required to release the cryptocurrency wallets they receive donations from; they should be required to store the cryptocurrency in UK Financial Conduct Authority-registered companies; and any amount should be reportable.
Not only that, but donations involving something called privacy coins should be stopped. A privacy coin is a recent development within the cryptocurrency space and is completely untrackable. One such example is Monero. Privacy coins should not be in the democratic process, because you are not able to verify the donor. Furthermore, laundering services like some I mentioned before—mixers—should not be allowed to be used for political donations, because they make it much harder for the Electoral Commission and political parties to investigate.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Alexander Browder: I saw that report, which was very good. As I mentioned, cryptocurrency as a whole may only be properly regulated, at best, by the end of 2027. It needs to be established that cryptocurrency can be regulated, and that that can be enforced properly, to stop bad actors like Russia from entering our elections. What also needs to be established is that the people who are donating are not foreign entities like Russia, but are UK citizens. This is a big issue; due to the inherent nature of cryptocurrency, you are not able to verify properly the source of funds.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Q
Alexander Browder: There need to be stricter “know your donor” requirements. Not only that, but the enforcement on parties should be greater. If they do not respect the political process, there should be higher fines and stricter policies.
On your last point, through my investigations I have found that Companies House has been abused by cryptocurrency exchanges. In one particularly egregious case, two IRGC-linked companies managed to register here in the UK under false names. They were operating for four years, while registered here in the UK, processing billions for the IRGC. That raises the question whether some foreign actor or criminal could set up a UK-registered company and donate through that? That definitely has to be looked at.
The Chair
I am afraid we are out of time for this witness panel, but thank you, Mr Browder, for your evidence this afternoon.
Examination of witnesses
Colin Blackwell, Imogen Tyreman, Richard Williams, Jenny Shorten and Tom McAdam gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Jenny Shorten: Good afternoon. My name is Jenny Shorten, and I am the chair of Liberal Democrats Abroad, living in France. I was an election agent and campaign organiser for 40-plus years in Wiltshire.
Tom McAdam: Hi, I am Tom McAdam. I am a member of the Liberal Democrats Abroad steering committee, and I live in Zurich, in Switzerland.
The Chair
Excellent. We also have three witnesses in the room. There is always a bit of choreography when we are rotating between online and in-situ witnesses. Could the witnesses in the Committee Room introduce themselves too, please?
Colin Blackwell: I am Colin Blackwell, and I am deputy chairman of Conservatives Abroad.
Imogen Tyreman: I am Imogen Tyreman, and I am the chair of the Labour International constituency Labour party.
Richard Williams: My name is Richard Williams, and I am Labour International’s representative on Labour’s national policy forum.
Paul Holmes
Q
Colin Blackwell: Thank you, Paul. The simple answer is no, it does not. A survey about voter participation among overseas electors in the OECD has shown that the UK is a significant statistical outlier, with the lowest effective participation rate. Only around 1.3% of the more than 5 million people in that potential electorate are thought to have successfully cast a ballot at the last UK election. This Bill, of course, does not overtly address overseas electors, but one of its objectives is to increase voter participation.
In line with the Electoral Commission’s recommendations, Conservatives Abroad believes that technological advances now make it possible for a secure and verifiable online facility to be introduced to allow overseas electors to download and self-print their ballot paper and return envelope for one-way return posting. New Zealand and Singapore are two English-speaking Westminster democracies that have implemented downloadable ballot papers, and they use a biometric identification app to verify overseas electors downloading ballot papers against the voter registration ID credentials that were provided at the time of voter registration.
Unlike at the time of the Elections Act 2022, when Conservatives Abroad first recommended this approach, the UK now has this technology. In the last few weeks, we have seen the launch of the Government Digital Service’s One Login app for gov.uk services, and it is now available. That was previously not a technological possibility, but now it absolutely is. New Zealand and Singapore are the gold standards for downloadable ballots for their diaspora.
Paul Holmes
Q
Imogen Tyreman: In the proposal itself, there are some elements that will help overseas voters to get on the register and exercise their vote and that go further than the current situation, such as the extension of the postal vote and requiring earlier registration. There are also things such as automatic registration, looking at passports and some of the pilot projects. However, I think that more can still be done, particularly on postal votes. That is often what people use, because there is not really enough information about proxy voting, and electoral registration officers do not know how it can operate. That feels like a barrier.
To take the example of postal voting, there is a return rate of 70% or so if ballots are sent out early. But of the postal ballots that were sent out later during the last election—around 27 June—only 2% were returned. Looking at specific countries, there was only a 6% return rate for Australia. There was a higher return rate for France, at 75%. In Spain, which is also a European country, only 32% of ballots were returned. Royal Mail itself has said that it takes six to seven days for standard letters to reach the rest of the world, so if the postal vote deadline is 14 days, I do not know how we are expecting ballots to reach voters and get returned in time. For us, having downloadable ballots is one option, as well as looking at the potential for online voting, and at the use of embassies and consulates as voting hubs or places where we can return ballots. They could potentially go back by diplomatic mail, which is much quicker.
Paul Holmes
Q
Imogen Tyreman: Yes.
Paul Holmes
I was just checking—I was not trying to catch you out.
Richard Williams: Perhaps I can just add to that last point while it is top of mind. Something that came up in discussions among members of Labour International was what could be viable alternatives to the current system. Of course, we are not the first country to talk about electronic voting.
Other European nations have successfully introduced electronic voting, with Estonia probably being the best example. In its last election, over 51% of votes were cast via an electronic system. A number of measures are built into that system to avoid things like voting coercion, whereby multiple votes can be cast and only the very last one is actually counted, and physical voting always takes precedence when both electronic votes and physical votes are received.
Having said that, to come back to the original point on whether Britons abroad are adequately addressed as a voter group, I think the numbers that Colin rightly spoke about are telling. Of the 5 million Britons living abroad, only just under 200,000 are on the electoral register, which speaks for itself.
There are really three main reasons for that. One, beyond looking at processes, is simply awareness: many Britons are not aware that they have the right to vote if they are not living in the country. There is no proactive communication on the side of the Government. It is very much left to the individual themselves to find out what their rights are and then to go through the process of contacting the local authority where they used to live in the UK—I did it in Ashford, Mr Joseph’s constituency. It is relatively easy, but there is then the additional process of having to register for a postal vote, which happens afterwards. Those things are all addressed in the Bill, and I think there are some improvements there, but the awareness is the first hurdle.
Then there are the processes themselves. And the third point, in some cases, is probably apathy: if you do not have an MP representing your interests as somebody living abroad, you do not care about the potholes in the local high street as much.
Paul Holmes
Q
Jenny Shorten: We don’t disagree with any of what has been said, but I will pick up on a couple of points. On the last point you made, about contact with MPs, I conducted a survey across all parties to look into exactly that. The answer to the question, “Do overseas voters think they are represented?” is no, because things like the automated replies say, “I can only help you if you live in the constituency.” It is no wonder they feel invisible, and that is a word that has regularly cropped up in our surveys with people who get in touch with us; they say, “I feel like I’m not there and not being taken notice of.”
The other thing I wanted to direct our thinking towards is whether the processes and systems set us up to fail or to succeed. As a former election agent, I would say that the election timetable is not fit for purpose; it does not make sense. It went wrong for UK electors last time round, but particularly for those overseas. As I think Imogen remarked, you cannot get it done. With the current options, you have to wait until 19 days before polling day to know who the candidates are, so that is the earliest you can prepare ballot papers. People can still register up to 11 working days before. It is not going to work, however hard and however assiduously the people who administer it actually try.
On behalf of all of us, I think, I would like to say thank you to the Electoral Commission for finally collating the figures on how many postal votes got back in time; it is the first time we have seen them. I am sure the Committee is shocked by the fact that it is less than half. We need to look at the process, but it is also a significant matter of culture.
Paul Holmes
Q
Tom McAdam: I would just like to touch on the opportunity here. When we look at France, at the last legislative elections, it had a 37% turnout of overseas citizens. We can compare that with the turnout of British citizens overseas at the last general election, which was 5%. There is a huge opportunity. It is not one measure that will help that, but a package of measures.
The apathy point is really important. Without a dedicated overseas Member of Parliament talking about the interests of overseas citizens, it is easy to feel that we do not have representation in Parliament. Given the problems with actual voting, people do not feel incentivised to attempt to vote. I do not think that any one measure will really move the needle but, if we take everything as a whole, we might be able to move towards the numbers seen in France.
Paul Holmes
If the Minister decides to make me the MP for overseas voters, I am more than happy to do surgeries across the world.
Samantha Dixon
Q
As an aside to Paul’s point, I do receive correspondence from constituents who live overseas, usually in respect of their pension arrangements. However, to tackle the point about apathy or disengagement, the Bill includes powers to pilot automatic voter registration. Do you think that that would be a valuable tool for overseas voters?
Colin Blackwell: As others have touched on, awareness is everything. Conservatives Abroad believes that what is vital above all else is raising awareness of the right to vote and encouraging overseas citizens to register, which is now done online.
Historically, the civil service has always said, “Oh, we can’t contact Brits overseas because we don’t keep a register. We don’t know where they live. We don’t know who they are.” That raises the question of how this part of the electorate would be suitable for automatic registration.
Today’s Government services are delivered digitally and electronically in a way that was not done before. Many Departments now interact digitally with millions of British citizens living overseas. The most obvious one is the Passport Office: half a million passports from overseas are renewed every year—over 10 years, that is 5 million. The international pension centre at the Department for Work and Pensions deals with more than a million overseas pensions. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office keeps registers of Brits in individual countries. Lastly, the first place people go when they move overseas is His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to change their address. Millions of British people living overseas still pay British taxes in one form or another or make voluntary NI contributions.
What I am saying is that, if all these digital interactions between Government and overseas Brits were brought together, and a link to the online voter registration page were automatically provided in those interactions, you would overnight reach potentially millions of this invisible electorate with the exact place they need to go to register to vote. That is the approach that Conservatives Abroad would suggest you look at.
Imogen Tyreman: Automatic voter registration pilots are a great thing to look into, especially for overseas voters. I agree that we should look at how registering for a passport could link to registering to vote. Yes, it might miss some Brits, but unfortunately we do not keep a record of emigration, so it is the best opportunity we have. However, there needs to be a package of other measures or that will not necessarily affect turnout.
We see lower turnout in countries that have passive registration, so there must be accompanying measures, even if it is through the Electoral Commission, to help us to contact voters abroad to inform them. That could be something like a free post or an opt-in registration. Such options need to be explored, and the timeline for renewal also needs to be considered to make sure that people stay on the register.
Richard Williams: I agree with all the points that have just been made. There is one group of people who have emigrated who might fall through the cracks if you look just at the HMRC records of people who have emigrated: those born to British parents overseas. These people may have a right to citizenship but have never lived in the country. They have specific difficulties even getting on to the electoral register. In many cases, they need to provide evidence of their parents’ birth certificate and their own birth certificate, and then there is a question of where their vote should be assigned. This topic came up in discussions with other Labour International members.
Beyond that, if we speak about the choice architecture, we certainly echo the sentiment that we are in favour of trialling automatic and automated voter registration. One topic that came up in discussion with our members, which is perhaps a way to look at doing this, was the idea of automatic reminders upon passport renewal, which is an interaction that many Brits abroad will have. If you structured that in such a way that people would then have the choice—ticking a box to say, “Yes, I want to be on the register,” or “No, I do not want to be on the register”—it would simplify and consolidate the process for many people.
There is then the question of whether there is an opt-in or opt-out approach. In the notes accompanying the Bill from the House of Commons Library, there was a reference to the Sheffield University case study in which 75% of students were enrolled on the electoral register through a process whereby they were prompted upon their annual enrolment for university. That figure compares with 13% for other universities. If that system were explored in a pilot for voters abroad, we might expect to see similar results just by structuring the choice in such a way that people have this prompt, and we could then ask whether it should be an opt-in or an opt-out choice.
The Chair
We will come to you, Ms Shorten.
Jenny Shorten: May I cede the floor to Tom?
Tom McAdam: We are in favour of AVR. A YouGov poll at the last election showed that only 26% of Brits abroad understood their rights, so automatic registration, using the touch points that were previously mentioned, is something that we would support. On Imogen’s point about the free post, voters abroad should be making informed decisions and receiving literature from candidates in the same way as domestic voters, so we would support anything that enables, say, one free post or an electronic communication from candidates to citizens abroad so that they are able to make an informed decision.
Jenny Shorten: May I just add one other thing to the last point about the free post? If you look at the Select Committee report, it suggested a review of the general election process. It suggested that a good first step would be to centralise the records of overseas electors and have them all on one register. You could then start to have the target group effectively in one place. Informally, I chatted with electoral registration officers in the run up to the last elections Bill, and they were saying that we deal with pretty much everybody overseas—though not entirely everybody—by email, so our records hold that data. If you put together a centralised register and the fact that the councils already know where to find these people, you have the means by which to inform them.
It must be right that you can have the basic data flowing about who the candidates are. It is not about their vote, which is their choice—I am sure we will discuss digital in a moment—but about what their choice is. In this day and age, I do not think there is any excuse for why I am expected to vote for people I have never even heard of and who have not approached me.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Colin Blackwell: Yes, in one word. That is really precisely what I was trying to say in my previous answer. I renewed a passport from overseas. I provided a local mobile phone number and an email, and there is a healthy two-way interaction: they tell me that my passport has been printed, that it is on its way and so on. There are plenty of opportunities within that interaction to mention it to the overseas citizen. They are already sending me something to ask whether I want to donate my organs, so why can’t they also send something that says, “Do you want to be on the electoral register? This is the link to do it”? Other Government Departments can also follow that.
Whether to register or not is ultimately someone’s choice, but they should have the facts, they should have the link, and they should have the knowledge that they have the right to vote.
Imogen Tyreman: I also agree. I think being prompted is very important generally, even in conversations with us. Everyone here is giving oral evidence as a member of a political party. We are aware that our right to vote came back, but speaking to our communities of Brits abroad and reaching out to friends and family, not everyone was aware. Some people were not aware that they had regained the right to vote. Renewing your passport is a basic starting point. I would not say it is the end goal, but it is the starting point for getting people back on the electoral register and able to exercise their democratic right in this country that they were given.
Richard Williams: I echo all that. The only thing I would say is: why not take things a step further and design an automatic opt-in? There have been studies of automatic opt-ins for organ donation, and you get a much higher acceptance rate if the default is set to opt-in and people are manually asked whether they do not want to let their organs be donated. Why not do the same thing for being on the electoral register? Assume people do want to be on it, unless they do not. Of course, you can then differentiate between the limited and open register and the full register, but I think, at least for the limited one that stays confidential, this could be looked at to make things even easier.
Jenny Shorten: Can I echo the point that was just made? If it is right that eligible voters in the UK automatically go on the register, why is it not right for British citizens eligible overseas to be treated in the same way? I think it is a very straightforward answer. It might have to be done by a different method, but the principle should be exactly the same.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Q
Colin Blackwell: Each constituency has a separate overseas register, and we political parties get this. We get all the overseas register data. I am not exactly sure what benefit a central register brings, other than maybe convenience, but I do think it is potentially a slippery slope for then saying, “Oh, well, let’s have overseas constituencies just for overseas Brits,” which we do not think is a good idea. We think it is counterintuitive and has the potential to severely reduce overseas electors’ representation, not enhance it.
At the last election, in our manifesto, the Conservative party saw the solution as appointing a Minister for Brits abroad—a representative in government battling for Brits abroad, and effectively, with civil service support, answering the questions that MPs get from their overseas electors. I do not necessarily see the benefit of unifying the existing separate overseas registers into a single one.
The Chair
You have had the last word of this panel, Mr Blackwell. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses in the Boothroyd Room and online for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Azzurra Moores and Chris Morris gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Demos and Full Fact. We have until 5.20 pm for this panel in our revised timescale. Will our witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Azzurra Moores: Hi, my name is Azzurra Moores. I am the associate director of information ecosystems at Demos, the UK’s cross-party think tank.
Chris Morris: Hello, I am Chris Morris, the chief executive of Full Fact. We are a charity and we do fact-checking. We also have a technology team and a policy team to try to tackle issues of misinformation.
Paul Holmes
Q
Clearly, in the election strategy announced before Christmas, the Government said that our
“democracy is being threatened by misinformation”.
Both your organisations have come up with fairly similar recommendations, including, in the Demos report on electoral online harms, the recommendation for a political digital repository. I think that is quite a good idea. Can you outline to the Committee, on behalf of your organisations, where you think that the Bill is deficient in tackling such threats, particularly those from digital communications?
Azzurra Moores: I should clarify that our recommendations are so similar because Demos, Full Fact and other civil society partners have been working together.
Paul Holmes
I would never have guessed.
Azzurra Moores: We are working together partly because there is a real feeling among civil society that the Bill is much too narrow in scope and does not go far enough to tackle some of the major threats to elections that we are seeing. Part of the reason we came together is the quote that you referenced, Paul: the Prime Minister himself said that misinformation is a huge problem, and actually we are seeing such threats to elections.
We have come together to think about some of the recommendations. We have come up with a number of recommendations on a range of issues, including online harassment of candidates, given that the Bill focuses a lot on in-person harassment of candidates. We have also looked at deepfakes, and at how digital advertising needs to be modernised. We really feel that the Bill is, at the moment, a bit of a missed opportunity to tackle something that is—this is the consensus among civil society—a huge threat to democracy.
If we do not tackle some of these issues now, we do not know when we are going to tackle them to prepare ourselves for the next election. We were quite lucky in the last election that we did not see major threats to democracy or huge amounts of interference. But we have seen examples globally, including across Europe and in Canada, and we have seen examples outside election periods. We feel that that is why the Bill needs to be amended to provide for some of the bigger threats that elections face.
Chris Morris: To back that up, part of our fear is that a lot of what is in the Bill has been locked in for so long that these really important aspects of misinformation and disinformation are missing. As you suggested, we are in a situation where technology is moving at warp speed.
We recognise that legislating at a fixed point when the technology is moving so quickly is not easy, yet the Bill falls significantly short of its original aims, which included restoring trust and strengthening the integrity of our democracy. If you are going to hold an election, the information environment in which it is held is absolutely central to the public perception—I think I am going to use the word “transparency” a lot during this session—that the system is working in their favour and can be trusted.
People are sceptical—we like scepticism; scepticism is good. The danger is that it tips over into outright cynicism. The more transparent the measures in the Bill can be, and the clearer it is that people understand they can trust the system—and that they can trust that political parties and candidates, when standing for office, are held to high standards—the better it will be. The concern is that the technology is outweighing the ability of Committees like this one and legislation like this Bill to do the job they set out to do.
Paul Holmes
Q
These quotes are from your briefing, Chris, if I may plagiarise and read them out. A former Minister said that more needs to be done to deal with hostile actors. My boss, James Cleverly, has said that the Conservatives would support
“sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 635.]
Zöe Franklin, who serves on this Committee, said that section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 needs to be updated to
“explicitly criminalise the use of AI and deepfakes”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 651.]
Your briefing also mentions what Martin Wrigley and Alex Barros-Curtis said. Emily Darlington, with her two excellent amendments, has tried to tackle this issue.
What interactions have you both had with officials in the Department to see how far you can get in probing and trying to get these issues included in the Bill in the first place? What would you say to the Committee about Emily Darlington’s new clauses 22 and 24?
Chris Morris: Overall, both our organisations are talking to officials all the time, so the doors are open, which is good. Part of the problem with the debate about deepfakes is that, in my opinion, some people want to go too far. It is worth exploring the idea of criminalising deepfakes as essentially identity theft, but I would have a lot of caution around that.
It is good to explore those policy options, but we are much more in favour of transparency of labelling. We have suggested an amendment that is very specific about the way that political deepfakes can be labelled. If you go down the road of criminalisation, you come to a very difficult line about where satire suddenly becomes criminal. Nobody wants to factcheck satire, and nobody wants to make satire illegal.
Again, we have to start looking at some of these things in a slightly different way to take account of the way that technology has made it incredibly easy for anyone to create new information just like that. That is the world in which we are living. Trying to criminalise some of those things would be a dangerous path to go down, but clear labelling—transparency of source—is absolutely key.
Azzurra Moores: I would echo Chris’s point. We are incredibly grateful to the officials we have spent many months talking to. They have been incredibly constructive and open to hearing these recommendations. We are sitting in front of you because all those recommendations have not made it into the Bill.
Part of the reason Emily has put forward so many amendments is because these issues deserve to be debated by parliamentarians, but they also deserve to be debated by the people they are impacting. A lot of the things we are looking at here will impact every Member around this table, and it is for you to decide how you tackle them.
You have mentioned a couple of Emily Darlington’s amendments, and I want to turn to new clause 10. You mentioned section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and I thought it might be worth clarifying that, while this measure is something she has put forward, with Demos and Full Fact support, it is actually a recommendation that came long before. It came out of the Speaker’s Conference, which I know many members of the Committee were part of, and it is something to which the Government have now responded by saying, “We understand that this is important.”
New clause 10, if anything, is just a vehicle for the Government to action something they have already said could be really valuable. It would not create new law or new bounds to discuss free speech; all it would do is say that deepfakes exist as a medium through which you must not make false statements about another candidate. It is a very simple amendment that asks the Government to publish legal guidance, so that there is no uncertainty among officials, regulators or the police. It is quite a simple approach, and that is what we have felt is the most important way forward. These things have been discussed for a long time, and the amendments are allowing them to be discussed within the scope of the Bill.
Paul Holmes
Q
Very quickly, as I know other people want to ask questions, I can see why people would want to support new clause 24’s repository of digital political advertising. One of the drawbacks that I think we can see in the new clause, which I want to strengthen, is that the Electoral Commission obviously will have responsibility for establishing a repository of paid-for digital political advertising within the 72-hour window. Where do you both think is the ideal location for that repository? Where would it sit? Would it sit with a Government Department or in a Government agency? Who would be the regulator, and who would be the manager and data controller of that repository? Do you have a preference for how that might be legislated for, such as in a new amendment?
Azzurra Moores: Our original preference was for this to sit with Ofcom. To be frank with the Committee, when this amendment was tabled, there was pushback on including any new powers for Ofcom in the Bill. At the moment, new clause 24 puts those powers on the Electoral Commission, and I personally do not mind who holds that power. I do not think it particularly matters, and it is really for Members to decide themselves.
What matters are the principles that we are trying to discuss here. We want to give voters the ability to verify whether a political ad is real, and we want to allow them to do that in real time. We have given scope for 72 hours, but we would obviously hope that it would be sooner. We also want those adverts to be transferred to the National Archives so that, in years to come, we understand how elections were fought.
Who holds or pays for that? I think that is really a matter for the Committee. We can discuss in detail whether it should be Ofcom or the Electoral Commission, but I think we need to make sure that we agree on the principle that elections are no longer fought just in person; they are fought online, and we therefore need really stringent measures to understand how elections were fought in years to come.
Chris Morris: But I would argue that it should not be a Government Department, which you suggested as a possibility. I think it should be Ofcom or the Electoral Commission, and I think the Electoral Commission would be happy to take on that responsibility. Again, it comes back to the issue of transparency, as people deserve to be able to see what is there. It is important not only for researchers but for ordinary voters, because they are bombarded from so many angles with advertising of various kinds. Creating a repository would be a big democratic step forward.
Paul Holmes
I would be one of the people sad enough to go to the National Archives to look at them, so I am fully in favour of it.
Azzurra Moores: Me too.
Chris Morris: See you there.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Chris Morris: It is not all doom and gloom. If we take the example of digital imprints, measures have been taken to extend the digital imprint regime. Our argument is simply that it does not go far enough, and it should go further. For example, it should cover things like fake newspapers or websites, which can be set up in seconds, that do not include their political party affiliation. The digital imprint regime is being slightly improved by the Bill, but it is simply not ambitious enough.
We also have to think not just of 2026, but of 2029. If you look at how technology has changed since the last general election in 2024, it is almost in a different league. I regularly ask my head of AI, “Where are we going to be in three years’ time?”, and he usually says, “I’m not sure where we are going to be in three months’ time.” We need to have the flexibility to make sure that the measures are as wide as possible, because even if we broaden them in the way that we suggest to include a wider variety of things, by 2029 we may be looking back and saying that it probably was not enough.
Azzurra Moores: It is very hard to disagree with Chris. The imprints work is huge progress. Obviously, it could go further, but I appreciate that a lot of the things we are asking for were not in scope when the Bill was being drafted. Does it cover the issues we are talking about? No, because it never intended to. That is where we are saying there is a real opportunity for the Bill to go further and be wider.
While it may have started with a narrow scope, perhaps once you hear what Philip Rycroft says through his review—and read our amendments slightly further—it will be appreciated that there is an opportunity to say, “How else can we make the Bill safeguard elections for the future?”
Chris Morris: To add to that, on a slightly different part of the legislation, it is good that the Electoral Commission will have greater powers on information sharing and enforcement, but we would like to see it have greater powers on information gathering.
There is a bit of a gap on who is responsible for regulating in that area. We would have liked to see that covered in the Online Safety Act 2023 and given to Ofcom. That did not happen, but one thing that could and should happen in this legislation is giving the Electoral Commission the power to compel people to hand over information or documents really quickly, such as in the heat of an election campaign, without having to turn it into a formal investigation, which as you probably know is laborious and takes time. A lot of this is about agility as well as transparency.
Zöe Franklin
Q
I want to talk about doxing, and my understanding is that it is not currently within the scope of the Bill. For anyone who is not on top of doxing, it is where information is gathered about you and then dropped online so that people can find out where you live and other information. Given that the Speaker’s Conference and the Crown Prosecution Service have both spoken out about how important it is to address this, do you feel that it is a problem that doxing is not currently in or addressed by the Bill?
Azzurra Moores: What you are trying to address is the issue of online harassment. Doxing is one part of it, but online harassment takes many shapes. I certainly do not need to describe that to members of the Committee, who will have experienced it themselves.
We definitely feel that tackling online harassment is a massive missed opportunity in the Bill. For those of you who might have followed the work of the Online Safety Act Network, it has proposed a new code to tackle online abuse and harassment during elections. Again, that has not been tabled as an amendment to the Bill, partly because it was felt to be out of scope.
When looking at in-person harassment, we also need to understand that those in-person threats happen digitally as well. Certainly, the issues you are raising, such as doxing, could fall under that code. As I said, it is not something that has been tabled, partly because of the narrow scope of the Bill, but I encourage Members to look to that and perhaps have representatives from the Online Safety Act Network come in to give evidence.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Chris Morris: My one-word answer is yes, but let me explain it in various ways.
Broadly speaking, it is not unreasonable for us to ask the most powerful companies in the world—who have enormous power over our information environment and, therefore, increasingly over how everyone in this country gets information—to take on a more responsible attitude, some of which we believe should be made statutory.
As part of media and political literacy campaigns, for example, there could be education about why harassing candidates is not a good thing to do. Some of that behaviour comes from ignorance, and from people seeing how others behave on social media.
One of the recommendations we have made, and it is in our written statement, is that there should be a statutory obligation for the big tech companies, the online platforms, to make sure they are fully involved in media and political literacy campaigns. They do some good things, but we have to recognise, and we have to be realistic, that in the end their bottom line is their share price. Regulating how information flows is difficult. At the moment, we are essentially allowing them to regulate themselves, and I think sensible regulation of these companies—we know there will be howls of protest—is exactly what the Members of this House should be doing.
Azzurra Moores: Maybe I can quickly explain why we have gone for such a narrow scope in our recommendation on deepfakes. We recognise that deepfakes are a really complicated topic to regulate, and they need something far bigger than an elections Bill to regulate. Really, wholesale AI regulation is needed.
While the section 106 recommendation does not put new requirements on platforms, it starts to test the bounds on how you would regulate political deepfakes, which we appreciate is a really complicated topic. It is a slow and steady approach to amending legislation, rather than coming in and making big mistakes straightaway. This would be a first step, but obviously there need to be conversations within Government about how we could go further on that as well.
Dr Chowns
Q
Secondly, do you agree that we need to regulate not just during the regulated period but all year round, because disinformation has corrosive effects all year round? Thirdly, do you have any comments on the need for better enforcement of existing imprint laws? Finally, you referenced the Rycroft review, which of course covers only foreign interference. Are we paying enough attention to domestic disinformation?
Azzurra Moores: There were lots of good questions there. You ask what more could be done on bots. Chris raised a proposal to increase the Electoral Commission’s investigative powers. For those of you looking at the amendment paper, that is new clause 25 tabled by Emily Darlington.
Tackling bots is going to be really complicated, but we think a really important first step is to give the Electoral Commission investigative powers on the back end of platform data, to try to understand the scale and scope of the problem. Part of the reason we cannot do much more at the moment is that we have a real evidence gap—a real evidence deficit. We need to start giving our regulators, which are on the frontline, more ability to understand the scale of the problem. For us, that would be a first step.
I am intrigued to see what the Rycroft review publishes. Demos gave evidence to Rycroft, and we highlighted that foreign misinformation is obviously impacting our democracy, but so is domestic misinformation. We are waiting to see what he publishes before going further on that.
On international counterparts, we have recommended that this Government establish a critical election incident protocol, modelling what happens in Canada. It is quite a complicated protocol, and it is proposed in new clause 26, but essentially, if there was any interference with an election—if there was an information crisis that impacted the integrity of the election—there would be a published protocol on what officials would do to react to that.
We are a real outlier here in the UK, compared with the other Five Eyes nations, in not having a public protocol. We think this elections Bill is another really important opportunity to say, “We know there are vulnerabilities. We know there are risks. We need to establish transparent public protocols so that, should any of these interferences happen, we have a set of measures that mean we know how to react in that instance.”
The Chair
You have 10 seconds.
Chris Morris: To add to that, Full Fact first put forward the idea of a critical election incident protocol in 2022, and really nothing has been done. The problem we have is that there are plenty of people working on this behind the scenes—the joint election security preparedness unit and the defending democracy taskforce—but it is all very much being done in the shadows. This is not always a case of democracy dying in darkness; this is about democracy under threat in the bright blue backlit light of a million scrolling phones.
That is the scale of the challenge we are facing now. It is not just about making sure we have an electoral framework that is fit for purpose; it is about making sure that there is a public perception that it is fit for purpose. That is why the issue of transparency is so important. If there were to be a major information incident—by that, we mean in the last days of the campaign, clear evidence emerging of a concerted attempt to alter the course of the outcome of an election in some way or another—the more transparent and public the process is for revealing that, the better.
The Chair
That brings us to the conclusion of this evidence session. I thank both witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Duncan Hames, Dr Sam Power and Dr Susan Hawley gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Transparency International, Dr Sam Power and Spotlight on Corruption. We have until 5.50 pm for this panel. Could I ask each of you to introduce yourselves and say a little about your organisations?
Duncan Hames: Hello, I am Duncan Hames. I am the director of policy and programmes at Transparency International UK, which is the British chapter of a worldwide anti-corruption movement in more than 100 countries.
Dr Power: Hi, I am Dr Sam Power. I am a lecturer in politics at the University of Bristol. I should also say, for transparency, that for about the past 18 months I have been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and internal University of Bristol funds to work as a parliamentary academic fellow in the House of Commons Library. Based on my area of expertise, I have written various impartial briefings on matters relevant to this Bill, but I am, of course, speaking in my capacity as an independent academic from the University of Bristol today.
Dr Susan Hawley: Hi, I am Dr Susan Hawley. I am executive director of Spotlight on Corruption. We are an anti-corruption charity that focuses on the enforcement of the UK’s anti-corruption laws, including on political integrity and political finance.
Paul Holmes
Q
I have taken great pleasure in reading all the evidence that has come in today. There are some bits I agree with—particularly from Dr Hawley and Dr Power—but there are some recommendations that I would be concerned about if we started to implement. Sorry, Mr Hames, but I am going to focus on the other two witnesses first. First, where do you see the balance between the freedom to practise democracy and overburdensome restrictions that could harm transparency and restrict voter interaction with the party political process?
We have heard this morning that there is a perception that overseas voters are finding it incredibly hard to engage with voting and have many obstacles to voting. You have a proposal that any overseas voter wishing to be considered a permissible donor should also be a UK-registered taxpayer and have submitted at least one non-zero tax return in the two years prior to making the donation. Does that not risk creating two tiers of voter—well, we already have that, but exacerbating it? For example, someone in receipt of benefits or who falls underneath the tax threshold in this country is allowed to vote. Why should they be allowed to vote, if an overseas voter who does not pay tax should not be allowed to vote? That is to Dr Power, then I will come back with another question.
Dr Power: There is a two-tier system, effectively, if you have overseas voters and overseas taxpayers, and UK-based taxpayers. It is pretty easy to draw a distinction between where the level of threat is and where the level of overburdensome regulation is, if you will.
I sometimes get concerned when I hear about how this approach can be overly burdensome. It is often used as a crutch to prevent genuine weaknesses in the system being dealt with. I do not think it is too much to ask of people who live overseas, who might well be slightly more politically exposed, to show that they are also engaging with the British system and paying tax in that respect. I do not necessarily have concerns that that creates a two-tier system—people are allowed to donate in the UK, of course, and people are allowed to donate overseas. Of course, if they lived overseas and did not pay tax, they could donate under the £500 limit.
Paul Holmes
Q
“Parties are increasingly building up their war chests well before the run-up to elections and engaging in permanent campaigning. This can have an impact on subsequent elections; as the Committee for Standards on Public Life…noted in its 2021 report”.
It is always going to be the case that political parties have to fundraise to communicate with the electorate. Where is the balance? What I could not quite work out from that submission is where you see the balance between restricting fundraising and keeping communications with the electorate going over that 18 months, rather than seeing it as campaigning? I might not be clear, but I am trying to see where you see that balance coming through.
Dr Susan Hawley: This is not about stopping it; it is about having limits apply across the annual period. An amendment that relates to the digital campaigning side has already been tabled. That is a recognition that we are in an age of permanent campaigning and to make sure that the public know what is being spent to influence them. It is about transparency and fairness, because if some parties are able to keep a lot of money in those pre-regulated periods and others are not, an imbalance is created when it comes to the election. It is about transparency and fairness.
Paul Holmes
Q
“Prohibit crypto donations until/unless…crypto currency becomes much more widely used by a greater cross-section of the population”.
That is something that needs to be seriously explored, because of evidence given to us earlier in Committee about the lack of regulation that has caught up with something that is to me completely not understandable. You support that proposal, Dr Hawley, because it is your proposal, but do the other two witnesses support an interim ban on cryptocurrency donations until the regulatory framework has caught up? Also, if we get a suitable regulatory framework, do you think such donations should be re-established or do you think that they should just be banned permanently?
Duncan Hames: We do support a moratorium for the purposes you describe. How temporary it should be depends on whether it is possible to address the risks. At such point as Parliament is confident that other forms of payment carry no additional risk to sterling or even cash, then the case for the moratorium would not be as strong. Right now, it is an absolute minefield to try to work out exactly where this money originates, which drives a coach and horses through the existing rules we have on political finance.
Paul Holmes
Thank you. Dr Power?
Dr Power: We are short on time, so I will say yes, and you can refer to my evidence. The only thing I would add is that one of the concerns we have about crypto-currency generally is its ability to supercharge donations below £500, which is underneath the check for permissibility. If that is a particular concern with cryptocurrency, there is a case for not only banning it, but bringing down the level of the permissibility requirement. In my submission, I suggest £50, which aligns with the candidate regime, because that would create a further barrier to that particular concern.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Dr Susan Hawley: We welcome the introduction of the “know your donor” regime, and the clarifications that it will have robust penalties for parties and candidates who do not undertake proper risk assessments. I am afraid that it currently needs some tweaks to be strengthened.
Obviously, we do not want to impose too much of a burden on parties but, if we are addressing foreign interference, it is very odd that the current “know your donor” policy does not say anything about addressing the potential source of wealth from high-risk jurisdictions or politically exposed persons. That is our first point. Any other regulated sector would and does need to address those risks.
Secondly, as the policy is currently framed, we think there is far too much discretion for political parties to decide what the risks are. That is unhelpful, because there will be inconsistent application of risk assessments across parties. That discretion should be reduced.
Finally, we have concerns that the fact that the Electoral Commission’s guidance can essentially be changed by the Secretary of State could lead to it being completely overridden, and that would be really problematic. We would like to see safeguards to ensure that cannot happen if there is to be a power for the Secretary of State to amend the Electoral Commission’s guidance.
The Chair
Q
Dr Power: I would only add that I concur. The one slight concern I have with the “know your donor” requirements is overly burdensome regulation. The thresholds for conducting those requirements should align with the thresholds for the person having to undertake them, because you could end up with a situation where a regulated entity is looking at three different thresholds. I would want the Bill to be clear that these align, and I know that the Electoral Commission shares that concern.
Lisa Smart
Q
You talked about reducing discretion, and there are proposed amendments that would clarify who is no longer a permissible donor. I agree that clarifying some of that would be helpful for political parties. However, may I invite all the witnesses to talk about what is currently in the Bill on money coming in from overseas? The Government have been very clear that they want to take steps to tackle foreign interference, and we are looking at the recommendations from Philip Rycroft’s review. Could you say whether the provisions in the Bill are robust enough to stop foreign money being funnelled through UK entities? If not, what steps would you recommend to tackle that?
Duncan Hames: We certainly welcome the valiant efforts that officials in the Minister’s Department have been making to address this issue, and there are some welcome steps, particularly on unincorporated associations, to ensure that they are not used as a back door. However, we do not have any prohibitions in this country on people who are not entitled to vote in this country owning companies that trade here. Therefore, it would be entirely possible for someone who you all agree should not be allowed to donate money in British politics to none the less acquire a company that does that job for them, which would comply with the provisions as currently set out in the Bill.
Our view is that, hard as we might try, so long as people are determined to find a way, it is very hard to be absolutely confident that you have shut this door. That is why we think the lack of any kind of cap whatsoever on how much any one person can put into British politics means that the risk of money entering British politics and getting round these controls is uncontained. We would argue that these measures need to be accompanied by some kind of donations cap.
Dr Susan Hawley: It is absolutely a risk. I believe the Rycroft review is looking at whether you make sure that the regulated sector and financial institutions in the UK are playing their role. There would definitely be scope for a joint intelligence unit where they could share transactions that appear suspicious with law enforcement. Obviously, that relates to whether the enforcement set-up is sufficient and whether the laws are sufficient. In relation to enforcement, this also comes down to having proper donor declarations and beefing up the section 54A donor declaration to address some of those risks and make sure that the money is not coming via permissible donors in the UK, but from abroad.
Dr Power: We also have regulated and unregulated periods at which different levels of scrutiny apply to donations to different regulated entities. Of course, some of those entities are less regulated or unregulated during unregulated periods.
As a thought experiment, if I were a malign foreign actor, I would probably focus on the unregulated periods as the times when I could use my money wisely, as it were. There is a good case for considering, within reason, how we can move towards a system with year-round regulations, taking into account the importance of a vibrant democracy, such that we do not end up with money being spent and donated during relatively unregulated times.
Lisa Smart
I am working with the Public Bill Office on an amendment that extends the regulated period. Given the narrow scope of the Bill, that is a way of thinking about that.
Lloyd Hatton
Q
Dr Susan Hawley: The Electoral Commission needs to come up with robust guidance on that. It needs to look at industry standards from the regulated sector to tackle money laundering. I want to come back to the donor declaration, because that is also critical to this. We have heard from law enforcement that it is not clear to them that the proceeds of crime are not allowed as donations, for instance. If you have a situation where proceeds of crime can be donated, that is pretty extraordinary. We need a robust section 54A that puts some onus on the donor and makes a false declaration a criminal offence.
I do not know whether that answers your question, Lloyd, or whether you wanted me to talk more about “know your donor”, but I think they complement each other. You have “know your donor”, which is about what parties do, but also the donor declaration, so that you are putting some onus on the donor to actually be honest about where that money comes from.
Lloyd Hatton
Q
Dr Susan Hawley: No. I think it has done a valiant job in introducing the beneficial owner test and a UK connection test, but we know that the Electoral Commission has flagged the revenue test for corporations as a real risk for foreign interference. The way that is laid out in the Bill also does not provide a cap at all; it allows money to be donated to a host of different people.
The revenue test really needs to be looked at again, because we have the Electoral Commission saying very clearly, “There is an increased risk of foreign interference if you keep the revenue test.” You also have tax experts saying that it is actually fairly easy to generate significant UK turnover while having no genuine UK operations. This is the moment to look at that again. It is also not quite clear why a company that owes a lot of tax, or that is making a loss, should feel it needs—or should be able—to donate.
Lloyd Hatton
Q
Dr Susan Hawley: It is very much an improvement on what we have at the moment; I think everyone would agree that, if you have a multimillion-pound campaign budget, a £20,000 fine is frankly laughable. We would, however, like to see it strengthened in two ways.
First, we would like this to be on the face of the Bill. We have a report coming out next week in which we compare the Electoral Commission’s powers to the Information Commissioner’s Office and Ofcom. Those bodies have this in the legislation, and they also have not just a maximum fine level but a percentage; the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that it should be £500,000 or 4%, whichever is higher. Again, you could argue that, if you have a multimillion-pound campaign budget, £500 k could become a potential cost of doing business, so we need that percentage option to give the Electoral Commission the flexibility to impose penalties in egregious cases.
Secondly, the Electoral Commission has a very high threshold, compared with other regulators, for when it can actually impose penalties. Ideally, we would like to see that looked at again, because no other regulator is hampered by that high threshold.
Duncan Hames: If I may, the problem with enforcement is that it takes a long time, and we are talking about democratic events here; by the time enforcement takes place, the consequences have already happened. People saw Elon Musk giving out cheques to make millionaires of people taking part in an election campaign in the States; they all thought that the rules were being broken and that something should be done about it, but nothing was, and he was at the right hand of the President within weeks of that moment. We ought to be looking at measures that we can take that prevent problems from happening, rather than just chasing things after the event.
Nathan Gill is serving a 10-year prison sentence for bribery offences, which he admitted to in court, that happened nearly 10 years before he was convicted. There is a long lag if you rely on that kind of enforcement to address offending, and the problem that you are trying to stop.
Lloyd Hatton
Q
Dr Susan Hawley: We really welcome the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy—published today—that there should be a specific unit. I think that there is growing recognition within law enforcement bodies that that is required. Up to now, the problem has been that those law enforcement bodies will argue that they do not have the laws or the sentences that would empower them to use the serious investigative tools that they have at their disposal to get to the bottom of some of this behaviour. That is why the criminal offence in section 54 and section 54A really needs to be looked at. We welcome the amendment recently tabled by Matt Western to address the knowledge test so that it is not set too high.
We also need to look at sentences because we hear again and again from law enforcement that if you do not have a serious crime-level sentence, you cannot use the skills that you can deploy for serious crime for this kind of offending. If we are talking about foreign interference, those are the tools that need to be deployed against impermissible donations.
Dr Chowns
Q
Duncan Hames: We propose that a cap of £50,000 annually from any one donor is reached by 2030. That would still be much higher than in a number of other jurisdictions that have introduced donation caps, such as Canada, France, Italy and—from July—Australia. If it were phased in, with a cap reducing year by year between now and then, that would provide time for political parties to adapt.
We have done our own modelling, which I would be happy to share with the Committee, in which we look at the effect of that cap on overall party fundraising. I think you will find that, although we have recently had an arms race in campaign spending—not least because the spending limits were raised so dramatically just before the last general election—political parties fought all sorts of elections and referendums in the previous decade without needing anything near the kind of money that was available in the last general election, when nearly £100 million was spent.
Dr Power: I agree that we absolutely need a cap on donations. I am less wedded to a level as much as to the idea that there needs to be a cap that people can get around the table and agree to, and which seems fair. To not have a cap on donations risks much more than to have one. It is absolutely essential. We have seen the effect that can have in countries that do not have caps on donations, particularly the USA, and the effect that the very rich can then have.
What I mean by that is not an effect on the outcome of politics but an effect on the process of politics. You end up with about 400 individuals accounting for 75% of total party donations. Given that we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill, that is not a situation in which people are represented. It is essential that we find some way—in a Bill called “Representation of the People”—to fix the system properly such that the people feel represented. A cap on donations is essential and well within the remit of the Bill.
On a cap on spending, I align with the 1998 CSPL review, as well as Jack Straw when he introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. He said that there has been an “arms race” in spending and that we should always set a spending limit below the extent to which we expect to spend at an election. Until 2023, that limit was set at £19.5 million, if you stood a candidate in every constituency, which does not happen. If we say that the limit was £19.5 million, that should have been the baseline, and there was no good justification for it to be uprated in 2023—in fact, I think there is a good case for bringing the limit down further still. It would not have an effect on the good that money does in a system, which is to enrich debate and to allow political parties to get their positions across.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of witness
Samantha Dixon MBE MP gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now going to hear oral evidence from the Minister. We all appreciate that the Minister has been struggling with her voice today, and I am sure we will bear with her during this evidence session, which is scheduled to last until 6.10 pm.
Samantha Dixon: Thank you, Chair—you are really kind. I hope Members will indulge me, and I will do my best to answer their questions today.
Paul Holmes
Q
Part of my concern about this Government’s approach to legislation is that we very often see a jumping to legislate before the evidence is there, and then a backtracking on a number of things. For example, we had a planning and infrastructure Bill being implemented before a devolution Bill, and that devolution Bill cancelled elections to enable things to be delivered, but the elections were then forced back on. It seems that this Government do not think through public policy properly, and I think the Bill is no exception.
It seems odd to me that the Government asked Philip Rycroft to conduct a review into election interference, but they have then introduced a Bill that is bringing forward a number of measures in the same field. As a result, the Bill may go through the vast majority of its parliamentary stages and then rely on secondary legislation, which is a concern that many professors outlined earlier.
Have you made any representations to other Ministers in the Department or to No. 10 for a delay in this legislation, so that the Rycroft review can report and develop recommendations? You could then come back to the House and form a cross-party Committee to see whether those recommendations can be implemented, rather than following this hotchpotch approach that will see the Bill passed, only for a review to then make a number of recommendations on the same subject matter. Does that not seem odd to you?
Samantha Dixon: Last July, the statement of policy was set out in Parliament, so there was quite a considerable amount of time before the introduction of the Bill. You have seen policy developing over that time.
The conviction of Nathan Gill, which is why the Secretary of State asked Philip Rycroft to undertake the review, was a pivotal moment that highlighted and brought together a number of the issues that the witnesses have talked about today. The Secretary of State set the terms of reference for that review very carefully, but I think that Philip Rycroft indicated that he would act with speed. While I have not met him to date, I know that many people have, including members of this Committee, because his door has been very open to those who want to talk to him. I anticipate that his recommendations will come forward soon, and it is the Government’s intention to listen closely and carefully to what he brings forward.
The Bill, as you will know from Second Reading, is a carry-over Bill, which gives us an opportunity, as we go forward, to consider the recommendations. It is likely that our Committee will finish around the time that we are prorogued, and that Report will come in the second Session of this Parliament. That pause is being provided to us by parliamentary time.
Paul Holmes
Q
I have one more question, which is about digital ID. Since this Government were elected, fairly and resoundingly, it has been clear that they have a problem with the previous Government’s measures on digital ID. Almost every witness today has outlined that the Government’s proposals on bank cards as a potential form of ID are not a good idea; they said that that would not increase security at polling stations or people’s security over their vote, but actually reduce it.
Will you listen to those witnesses and give a commitment to the Committee to go back to the Department and remove bank cards as an acceptable form of ID? Can you outline to the Committee how showing a card with a name on guarantees that the person who is turning up at the polling station is the named person, and how that is fundamentally different to the old system, where a polling card could be taken to a polling station and a vote be given out?
Samantha Dixon: I think that the integrity of the UK banking system is such that the possession of a bank card requires a degree of ID that is necessary and appropriate. We have to remember that prior to the 2022 Act, there was no ID requirement at all. We have also heard evidence that instances of fraud were extremely low. The introduction of the bank card ID is important because it is widely held by the population, in particular by under-represented groups including 16 and 17-year-olds. I have heard the evidence that the Committee has heard; none the less, I think the inclusion of UK-issued bank cards is an important addition to voter ID, and one that we should continue.
Paul Holmes
Q
One of the witnesses today suggested that you could have automatic enrolment to voter identification paperwork or digital ID; that is something we would support. What problem are you trying to solve in trying to bring in a bank card as a possible type of identification, when that does not prove your identity? A very minor number of people are affected by this. How much do you anticipate that a bank card will make a difference to the numbers we have heard about today?
Samantha Dixon: We are talking about people who have the right to vote, but are excluded from voting because they do not have the appropriate ID. Although I accept that many people have passports and driving licences, not all do, and many more people have bank cards. The legitimacy of the banking system in the UK means that those cards should be used by younger people in particular, but could be used by any person who wants to vote in person at a polling station.
Paul Holmes
I find it interesting that most of the people who we consider to be academics, and have made their life’s profession the integrity of the election system, are not in favour of it, but the Government are choosing to go ahead with it anyway. We will look at that further in line-by-line scrutiny. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon.
Lisa Smart
Q
It is clear from all the evidence we have heard today that all the witnesses welcome a number of the steps in the Bill, but a number of them expressed disappointment that the scope had been written so narrowly and that it does not stand up to the moment of crisis and peril that our democracy faces. If the Government think that first past the post is the right system, why not have a national commission on the voting system to test that thesis?
Samantha Dixon: The Government believe that the voting systems that we use to elect our representatives are really at the heart of our democracy; they are of fundamental importance. We welcome views and feedback on how democracy can be improved. I am grateful for the interest that you have shown in this particular area, but I can confirm that we are content with the voting system that we currently use in general elections, and we have no plans to establish such a commission.
For UK parliamentary elections, we believe that the first-past-the-post system establishes a really strong link between the constituency and the representative. Although it may not be perfect, we believe it is well understood by the electorate and the communities that we represent. When a seat needs to be filled in Parliament or a council, for example, that link between the representative and those they represent is important. First past the post is appropriate for that system.
There are occasions for other voting systems for wider electorates, and this Bill will make provision for them. For example, for a mayoral election, we are in the process of bringing forward legislation to revert that system back to supplementary voting. When it is a broader constituency—a mayoral area that may cover many constituencies—we accept that that voting system is more appropriate. But at this stage, for council wards and parliamentary constituencies, we remain of the view that first past the post is the best system.
Lisa Smart
Q
Samantha Dixon: The view of the Government is that companies that pass all of the other tests and want to donate to a political party may on occasion be in a position where they are not making profit. For example, if they are taking investment decisions across a particular year, which mean that they are in a non-profit situation but their revenue is still working, they should not be excluded from donating to the political system. That is why the Government’s view is that the test should be revenue, as well as the other tests in place, which we feel are very robust, around UK residency of the persons of particular interest but also the UK headquarters rules and the “know your donor” rules.
The raft of measures that we are introducing make it far more difficult, notwithstanding the evidence and views of those we have heard today. We feel that it brings in protections that currently are not there and will protect our electoral system. It may be that Philip Rycroft comes forward with measures around this, which we will listen to as well as the evidence that we have heard today.
Lisa Smart
Q
Samantha Dixon: We have not designed these measures around specific individuals. I am not sure that the hypothetical illustration that you have given would pass the “know your donor” test, but I am happy to come back to you on that point.
David Simmonds
Q
Clause 47 is also silent on the use of virtual cards. We know many banks issue payment cards that are online, so quite a lot of people have their payment card on a mobile phone and do not have any physical item with them that would meet that standard. Are the Government open to amendments to clause 47 to try to address that and at least bring clarity to what is meant by a bank card, so that polling staff, who may have to have that conversation with people, know exactly where they stand?
Samantha Dixon: You mentioned digital ID. For example, we have introduced the digital veterans card as a form of ID. It has the holographic clock in it, which means that it cannot be screenshotted or used fraudulently.
David Simmonds
Q
Samantha Dixon: Right. My point is that, where a digital ID has that holographic clock, it is possible that the Government would consider that measure. But I do not believe that digital bank cards currently do.
Katrina Murray
No, I will put the Minister out of her misery; hopefully, she can get to bed.
The Chair
On that basis, I call proceedings to a halt. Thank you, Minister, for your efforts. That brings us to the end of today’s session. I understand that the Government intend to amend the programme order.
Ordered,
That in paragraph (1) of the Sittings Motion agreed by the Committee on 18 March 2026, leave out line (b). —(Deirdre Costigan.)
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Royal Mail: Performance
(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
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to ask everyone to go along with me for a few seconds by closing their eyes and visualising what the Royal Mail means to them. I picture the intrepid and hardy postie battling through snow, hills, rain and fog to ensure that our post is delivered. I picture the regular encounters with my postie wherever I have lived, and the kind, warm and friendly conversations we have had on the doorstep. Members will be happy to know that I am not going to go round the room asking what they visualised, but I imagine it was fairly similar to what I just described.
If there was one word to sum it all up, it would be “trust”—trust in the Royal Mail service and in an institution that has been a constant in British life for over 500 years. But we all know that that trust is waning. We feel it ourselves, and we hear it from our constituents, families and friends. The institution that so many of us have known, valued and trusted is changing, and something must be done by us in this House to stop the decline.
Before I turn to some of the issues and recommendations, I want to address the elephant in the room: Royal Mail is facing significant external pressures—we all know that. Modern technology such as email and online messaging has gradually sidelined traditional letter mail. Royal Mail itself often says that it used to be a letters organisation that delivered parcels, and now it is a parcels organisation that still delivers letters. This challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom. Our friends in Denmark, for example, saw their state postal operator, PostNord, deliver its final traditional letter in December 2025, ending more than 400 years of national letter delivery. From 2026 onwards, PostNord will focus solely on parcel delivery, after letter volumes fell by around 90% since 2000. We have faced a similar trend here in the UK.
For all of us here, that raises a broader question for our country: in this increasingly digital world, do we still value physical letters? My answer—I imagine it is the same as that of everyone else here today—is a resounding yes. There is something secure about a letter passing through trusted hands on its journey to its destination. As we all know, digital systems can fail or be hacked or manipulated. At a time of growing international uncertainty and environmental disruption, it is imperative that we maintain a strong and resilient network of physical mail delivery. In this new era, with Royal Mail now operating as a privately owned company with overseas ownership, we must work with the company to ensure that the universal service obligation is fit for purpose and, crucially—this is the key point—understood by the British public.
I am sure this will come up in many Members’ speeches, but the failure to meet delivery targets is a significant problem. Under the current USO, Royal Mail is required to deliver 93% of first-class letters the next working day and 98.5% of second-class letters within three working days.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. The timelines he is outlining have not been met, but that has coincided with a remarkable increase in the cost, particularly of first-class stamps, in the past five years. Does he agree that that is what drives the downward trend in the community’s trust in Royal Mail to deliver, and it needs to modernise and be more efficient?
David Reed
I have been looking at the numbers over the last few years, and Royal Mail has gone from significant losses of about £400 million three years ago, to £200 million losses, to making a £14 million profit last year. Because it is a privately owned company—we will come on to that—it has cut a lot of fat away, but it has also cut away muscle. Prices have increased, but the service has gone down. That is completely unacceptable, and it is probably the reason why we are all here today.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. A recent Gallup meta-analysis of about 1.8 million employers found that a meaningful increase in employees’ wellbeing leads on average to a 10% increase in productivity. In the light of that evidence, does he agree that it would be beneficial for the chief executive of Royal Mail to meet urgently with the Communication Workers Union to ensure that existing agreements are honoured and that the wellbeing of the workforce is genuinely prioritised?
David Reed
That is a serious point. We can talk about the Royal Mail service for our constituents, but the posties themselves are experiencing significant trouble at the moment. I am sure we have all heard about it in our inboxes recently. I will come to the issue later in my speech, and I am sure other Members will raise it, but I do agree with the hon. Member.
Royal Mail has failed to meet both those delivery targets for three consecutive years, and I have very little confidence in when a letter would arrive if I sent one today. If anyone could give me an insight into that, I would be very happy to hear it. Furthermore, Royal Mail offers economy access mail, a non-priority service for bulk non-time-critical letters that provides savings compared with first and second-class services. It typically delivers within four working days, often arriving alongside other post, but it can take up to five days or more. The fact that companies or organisations such as banks and the NHS use that product helps to explain the correspondence in our inboxes and the conversations we have in our constituencies, in which people ask why their post seems to disappear for weeks only to arrive all at once. That crucial point has not been communicated to the public in any meaningful way.
Set against the backdrop that competitors can offer reliable same-day or next-day parcel delivery, it is easy to understand why public confidence in Royal Mail has declined. At the same time, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) alluded to, our local posties are under significant pressure, working in an increasingly demanding environment in what I am sure can feel to them like a thankless job. Members will, like me, have received emails from local postal workers asking for support and for their concerns to be heard. It is right that we give them a voice in this conversation.
I have no doubt that Members will set out a wide range of issues that they and their constituents have experienced. I want to leave ample time for those contributions, but I do want to share one example of poor delivery service that I have experienced with Royal Mail. It reflects what many of my constituents have been dealing with for some time; it is clear that the problems are not isolated, but getting a straight answer about them is far harder than it should be. In my case, public money was involved: every Member knows that they can produce a non-partisan, publicly funded annual report to communicate with constituents, yet in parts of my constituency that report simply was not delivered. I pressed Royal Mail on what went wrong and did not receive a proper answer. I am still waiting to receive one. When public money is used, there should be clear accountability, but that has not happened here.
The same applies to those paying out of their own pockets. Our constituents are paying increasing amounts for stamps and not getting the service they have paid for. Again, there is little accountability. I am sure we will hear similar experiences from colleagues today. If Royal Mail cannot provide an answer to a Member of Parliament about delivery failures—I gave it ample opportunity to do so, on many occasions—it raises serious questions about what an ordinary member of the public can expect to experience when they ask the same questions.
This is the United Kingdom, not Russia or North Korea. When people pay for a service, they rightly expect it to be delivered well. When it is not, they expect, at the very least, a clear explanation and reassurance that the problem will not happen again.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I send my commiserations to the hon. Member’s constituents for not receiving his newsletter. On a wider point, I have visited the hard-working postal workers at the Garforth and Seacroft delivery offices in in my constituency and, as he says, they work hard and take pride in their work. Does he agree that the fault does not lie with them? There is a toxic culture at the top of Royal Mail. It needs to work with the Communication Workers Union and the Government to sort things out and protect the universal service obligation.
David Reed
At no point have I laid any blame at the posties’ feet; this is a structural issue. The point that I am making—this is important, because it is affects all of us in this House—is that Royal Mail underpins a large part of our democracy. At the time of elections, we all expect election leaflets to be delivered. That is part of our democracy; it is an obligation that Royal Mail has to us, and we expect it to be upheld. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are structural problems. I want Royal Mail to meet the union and have those conversations. It is no fault of the posties, who work very hard—as does everyone in this House.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. We have been talking about this issue for many months, and yet there has been no improvement. There are still delays. In one office in my constituency, there is a staffing shortage of 10, so there is a fundamental problem with motivation and staff feeling valued. Does he agree that this cannot go on? People are missing hospital appointments and essential mail. The Government need to fix it sooner rather than later.
David Reed
The hon. Lady makes a serious point, and I hope the Minister will address it. Bear in mind that Royal Mail is a private company. Many organisations choose the deferred mail option—the economy of economies option—because it is the cheapest. Why would they not? But because they choose that option, people do not receive their post for a long time. Many of my constituents are fairly elderly and rely on letters for NHS appointments or bank statements. If they receive nothing for two weeks and then get it all at once, they find that difficult to understand. It has not been communicated meaningfully, so Royal Mail needs to do that very quickly.
I was grateful to sit down with the Royal Mail leadership last week. We broke bread and discussed the serious challenges that the organisation faces, as well as the shortcomings in the services that many of our constituents experience. From my conversations, I believe there is a genuine desire to improve and an acknowledgement of the scale of the challenge ahead. However, given the volume of correspondence that flows into Members’ offices on this issue, it is vital that we convey our constituents’ strength of feeling. The message must be heard loud and clear: people are not satisfied, and they expect the service to improve quickly.
My message to Royal Mail is this. You are not just a company; you are a British national institution. Do not wait to be criticised in the press, complained about by customers across the country or summoned before Select Committees or the Secretary of State. Be proactive. Communicate clearly what you are doing to improve the service. Most importantly, begin an honest national conversation with the British public about what they can expect. Only then can trust begin to be rebuilt.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Members can see that the debate is heavily subscribed, so it will be difficult to get every Member in. I am going to impose a two-minute limit to start. It is not in my gift to stop this, but if Members take interventions, that may further restrict the time that people have to speak. That is in your gift.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to the posties in my patch. The Blyth and Ashington sorting offices have been absolutely brilliant.
This issue has been raised before, and we are raising it again today. The people at the pick point—the people on the factory floor and the people in the sorting offices—have a different story to tell from the directors of Royal Mail, and it is up to us to decide who is telling the truth here. We have seen horrendous issues, certainly in my constituency. If the Minister takes one thing away from this debate, I plead with him to have a look at the allegations by people in the sorting offices about management receiving bonuses to ensure that the universal service obligation is not adhered to and to prioritise parcels over letters. Please, Minister, investigate that allegation, because if it is true, it needs to be dealt with.
We have lots of issues in my constituency, including to do with the democratic process. We had an election in which 73 votes came after the close of poll. We have disabled people suffering and potentially being evicted from their properties. We have people with speeding fines who normally would get their wrist slapped facing court judgments. We have medical appointments being cancelled. We have a whole array of difficulties.
This is deliberate sabotage by Royal Mail—that is my view. The answer is to ensure that the Government renationalise Royal Mail. It is a treasured service in this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I reiterate that there is a strict two-minute time limit on speeches.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate.
The debate is particularly timely because, just yesterday, my office received three separate phone calls about three separate addresses in Fell Lane in Keighley, none of which have received their post for the last two weeks, despite those residents specifically expecting letters. I do, however, commend the work of postal workers across the country, without whom we could not function. Let me be clear that my contribution today is aimed not at them, but at the management structures that sit within Royal Mail.
I have had various correspondence and meetings with Royal Mail—one in September last year, and two following on from that—specifically raising the cases of my constituents. One pensioner, for example, waited more than two weeks for a new bank card to arrive. In that time, she could not access her pension and do the basics of her weekly food shop. Another constituent waited 10 days for a hospital letter to arrive. He is undergoing chemotherapy, so ended up missing a vital appointment. Distrust of the postal service has become so bad that one of my constituents hand-delivers documents to the court herself, unable to trust the system after receiving papers late in the post.
Royal Mail’s website still says that if someone buys a second-class stamp, they can expect that post to be delivered within two to three working days, or indeed on a Saturday, yet in my meetings with Royal Mail staff, they tell me that that is not internally the expectation of the delivery of their service. There is therefore a discontinuity between what they are telling the public and Members of Parliament and how they are operating internally. That must change, and I expect the Minister to hold Royal Mail to account on behalf of my constituents and those of all Members of Parliament here.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Unfortunately, in Oxford East, we have had a series of problems with the reliability of Royal Mail deliveries. Initially, there was an unwillingness to acknowledge those problems. I undertook one visit to a sorting office that had apparently been cleaned up in advance of my visit, with all the mail put out of the racks and into boxes. I was told about that, so I then did an unannounced visit and saw the real state of play, which was very different.
Following those unfortunate events, the management engaged more with me and local residents, and a number of changes were instituted following a public meeting. The east Oxford sorting office counter is now open for longer. There is a special system for NHS letters in Oxford, pioneered by Oxford posties, and measures have been introduced to improve retention of staff. Both my local residents and I have been advertising recruitment events for the local Royal Mail. I underline to the Minister that the one thing that worked in Oxford, even though we still have big problems, was engaging with the local posties and residents. We should listen to them, because they know how to improve the service. We really need to see that from the management of Royal Mail, as was rightly underlined by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).
Secondly, we need to stop the unfair competition with delivery cowboys. We have all seen this, unfortunately, in our constituencies. I have heard some appalling tales from people who are employed under really dreadful terms and conditions. They do not even have time to go to the toilet. They cannot eat, apart from when they are driving. They are paid a pittance. They have completely impossibly expectations placed on their shoulders. Ultimately, they are undercutting the Royal Mail model. We need to deal with it. We need the Employment Rights Act 2025 enacted in full and we need more action to stop that unfair playing field.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Just last week, a resident in Bramhall told me that his sister in Scotland sent two letters—one to himself in Greater Manchester and another to Australia. I am pretty sure that everyone can guess what happened. The letter to Australia arrived not one, not two, but 10 days earlier than the letter to Manchester. Joan from Heald Green had a similar issue, with no post being delivered to her in about three weeks, although her parcels were being delivered. When she asked the postal worker about the letter delivery, she was told that no staff were available to deliver the letters, and that parcels were being prioritised as they were a more lucrative side of the business.
Ironically, one of my constituents almost missed lifesaving surgery, with the letter arriving on the same day that the surgery was supposed to take place. This issue disproportionately impacts older and more vulnerable people. As Cheadle has one of the oldest populations in Greater Manchester, this causes particular concern for me.
Time and again, I have raised this issue with Royal Mail, and time and again I get the same response back, highlighting how terrible it is for my constituents and assuring me that they will look into it, but nothing changes. I have asked for meetings, but they never get arranged. The utter contempt that Royal Mail has shown Members of Parliament raising this issue is absolutely staggering.
It is about more than post; it is about people’s lives—their hospital appointments, bank statements, birthdays and christenings. It is a service that so many people rely on and trust. Without an effective and timely mail service, many people in my constituency will be cut adrift and isolated, which is why this is so important.
Mismanagement should have consequences, and the Government must take urgent steps to ensure that Royal Mail is held to account. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will do to ensure that my constituents get the postal service that they deserve and that bosses get their act in gear and start doing the job they are paid handsomely to do.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) on securing this vital debate. I want to make three points about Royal Mail performance that are of particular concern to my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife, and particularly in the town of Glenrothes.
Despite the fantastic efforts of our local postal workers, there have been significant delays in my constituents receiving mail, particularly over the Christmas period. A major factor in this is the understaffing of our delivery offices. Royal Mail is recruiting additional staff to address local pressures, but it is vital that there is action on recruitment and retention in the service for the longer term. Royal Mail must work with CWU to address the issue of its contracts creating a two-tier workforce.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Two-tier contracts have been raised in my constituency, with new employees being brought in on poorer terms and conditions. Moreover, the backlog has increased because, when people come back from sick leave, their overtime is cut, which causes real issues in building the backlog and causing staff members to come back to increased workloads. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot fix Royal Mail’s problems without fixing these two-tier contracts?
Richard Baker
My hon. Friend is completely correct, and as always makes the point eloquently. It is vital that Royal Mail management listen to her and CWU.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) was absolutely right about hospital appointments. Appointments letters arriving on the day of the appointment or after the appointment has taken place causes huge distress, as well as inefficiency for our local health services. Unfortunately, in Scotland, we do not have the NHS app enjoyed by colleagues in England, so these deliveries are all the more important, particularly for older people. They are not being prioritised—they are not being sent first or second class, but via an economy method. Royal Mail provides a barcode to prioritise deliveries, but it is not clear that has always been used; I am pursuing that with NHS Fife.
Finally, tougher targets are being set for Royal Mail in the years ahead, and I want to seek reassurance from the Minister that he will work with the Royal Mail and, crucially, the CWU to improve the vital service that the Royal Mail provides—not least with the forthcoming elections in Scotland, in which we will look to Royal Mail to deliver postal votes and electoral communications on time—so that our constituents can have confidence in this vital public service in the coming years.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) on securing this important debate. Like all Members here, I have received a significant amount of correspondence from constituents—by email, I hasten to add—who are concerned about the performance of Royal Mail.
To be clear, I do not lay the blame at the feet of the posties; their hard work, day in and day out, is vital. However, delivery delays are having a huge impact on my constituents’ lives, and I will raise some of their concerns today. I have had numerous reports of areas in Bromley and Biggin Hill that my constituents receive only one delivery of letters a week, while parcels seem to be delivered with no delays. When letters do arrive, they are bundled together—sometimes a week’s worth in one go. One constituent even described a Christmas card being delivered three months late.
I appreciate that not all letters are time sensitive, but an issue of particular concern that has been raised by other hon. Members is whether NHS appointment letters are lost or delayed. One lady preparing for an ophthalmology appointment expected to receive a letter in advance to explain what she needed to do to prepare, but it arrived after the appointment.
Another of my constituents explained that her husband was recently referred for a CT scan, and subsequently heard nothing about when the appointment was scheduled for. When they phoned the hospital, they discovered that a letter with an appointment date was sent to them four months previously. They never received that letter, so they naturally did not keep the appointment.
Bromley and Biggin Hill is not in the middle of nowhere. It simply should not be the case that my constituents are waiting for weeks for letters to be delivered. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on what can be done to ensure my constituents receive the service they deserve and need from the Royal Mail.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
I think that we would be hard pressed to find an MP or member of the public who does not support their local postie. We know their value, and they were considered the fourth emergency service during the pandemic. What a shame that we did not hold on to that mantle for them as, if we had, I suspect that the service would be much better today.
We have heard a lot about two-tier delivery in Parliament and across the media in the past week. Prioritisation of parcels means that days and days of urgent mail is often left in the sorting office. Despite dedicated posties requesting overtime to clear backlogs, the message from Royal Mail management is clear: they want the service to fail. They are making the job harder for staff on the ground by freezing overtime and forcing unsustainable workloads, and we are seeing a managed decline of a treasured British institution. Since 2022, worse pay and drastic watering down of terms and conditions have seen 27,000 new employees leave in the first year. The Royal Mail used to be a job for life.
I have an excellent relationship with the posties in the CWU east London postal branch and in my own constituency in Dagenham and Rainham. That is due to the late Lee Waker, a councillor who was a dedicated postie and a CWU political officer—a legend.
Last year, Ofcom concluded their assessment of postal service reforms. It announced that the specification for the universal service obligation will change, and referenced letter decline as a key driver. Tell that to the millions of people waiting for medical appointments or facing late fees, which hon. Members have mentioned. If things do not change, we might be telling people that their postal vote was not counted because Royal Mail bosses have delayed people’s votes—their democratic right.
Royal Mail need to listen to the CWU and to Government. I want to say in the strongest possible terms that this is not the fault of our posties; they pride themselves—
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I am really worried that we will get to a point where people in Yeovil will lose their money, damage their health or worse because of the failings of Royal Mail.
Residents such as George from Chard have missed vital hospital appointments because confirmation letters arrived after the scheduled date. They are now on a waiting list and hoping for a cancellation. Mary and too many others have reported that bank cards and financial documents have been delayed or lost entirely, which has led to additional interest being added to unpaid bills. One constituent has had prescriptions sent to the wrong address repeatedly for months; meanwhile, another has been receiving someone else’s important legal documents. Another Yeovil resident, Bernice, told me that the situation got so bad last year that she did not receive mail for four weeks, and was then delivered it all on the same day and could not get in her front door. Of course, this is not a reflection on the hard-working posties and Royal Mail staff in Yeovil; I will keep saying that. The poor pay and conditions for Royal Mail staff are not good enough.
I appreciate that the Minister understands and shares the concern of our constituents, but this powerlessness has to change. Can he set out what discussions he has had with Ofcom on holding Royal Mail to account for failing to uphold the universal obligation and its improvement plan, and clearly operating a parcel-first policy? Can he also set out what assessment he has made of the impact on the wellbeing, health and finances of rural residents as a result of delivery failures by Royal Mail? Finally, can he tell us what his Department is doing now to empower the Government to better hold Royal Mail and its bosses to account?
Government powerlessness has to end. Residents and Royal Mail staff in Yeovil deserve much better.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the dedicated postal workers in Sheffield Central, who work tirelessly to ensure that people receive their letters and deliveries throughout the year.
I have also been contacted by constituents in the Nether Edge area of Sheffield who have complained of delays and missing post. Some residents have missed important work papers, legal documents and hospital appointments, while others have found themselves waiting endlessly for their gas or electric cards. One constituent in particular is responsible for planning decisions in the Peak district, and is still waiting for official committee papers posted first class nearly a month ago. That has directly impacted his ability to do his job.
Many described receiving nothing for weeks on end, and then finally receiving a bundle of post on one day. Missing vital mail has become a danger to people’s health, wellbeing and financial security. Despite contacting Royal Mail, it has not responded to a single one of my emails; it is just not good enough. What will the Minister do to ensure that there is no discrepancy between what Royal Mail is telling us and what their workers are saying is happening on the ground, particularly about the deliberate strategy within the company to devalue those who are doing their jobs in the sorting offices?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for providing the opportunity to speak about this issue.
We are seeing the breakdown of vital services in my Strangford constituency and in Ards. We are hearing stories of cancer screening invitations arriving a week after the appointment date. We are seeing small business owners—the backbone of our local economy—having to apologise to customers for parcels that are sitting in the sorting office. We are seeing elderly neighbours waiting for pension letters or bank cards that never come.
The staff on the ground are working hard but they are being asked to do the impossible. A system designed for letters has been choked by the sheer volume of parcels and, in the race for profit, it is the humble first-class letter—the one containing peoples’ hospital results or bills—that is being left on the floor. We are told it is a recruitment issue. We are told it is the weather. For the people of Northern Ireland it feels like a postcode lottery. A letter could be a contract or a connection. We are not asking for the world; we are simply asking for a postal service that works for everyone, regardless of their address.
I have a quick example of how things are going wrong. I am currently dealing with a child with diabetes who has been accepted for a personal independence payment, but due to Royal Mail delays—it is not the child’s fault, but someone else’s—his form is late and his parents are missing out on more than a month’s worth of payments that they should be entitled to. It is clear that Royal Mail needs to buck up its ideas. Ofcom recently fined Royal Mail £21 million for missing national delivery targets, but that will not get my constituent the backdated PIP money that they are due.
Email is beyond many of our older people, and they depend on the so-called snail mail, which must return to being dependable once more. The staff are phenomenal, but root-and-branch changes must take place. The Minister is a good man and I spoke to him about this issue yesterday. We need it sorted Minister; the ball is at your toe.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I refer Members to my registered interests. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing the debate.
“Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water”—
I could not agree more with that quote, which was leadership pledge No. 5 from the now Prime Minister, then simply the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, when he was bidding to become the leader of the Labour party.
Public ownership really does offer the best solution for ending the managed decline of Royal Mail. It would put an end to the reductions in service provision; to the cuts to resources, including recruitment and retention issues; to the prioritisation of parcels over letters; and to the disgraceful imposition of low wages and inferior conditions for new starters in 2022.
Postal workers across Alloa and Grangemouth are sick of their working conditions. Every day, they see a national institution being ravaged by private capital. No wonder morale is at an all-time low. We, as Back-Bench or Front-Bench Labour MPs, are here as trade unionists. What is happening to our postal workers is against everything we believe in. Our postal workers need us to be in this place for them. It is not too late for us to step in to stop the asset-stripping of Royal Mail and nationalise it. What would a Labour party in opposition say about the situation? I would put everything I own on that Labour party agreeing with leadership pledge No. 5.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
In 1884, parts of London would receive up to seven deliveries per day. By 1879, that had increased to 12 daily deliveries—can Members imagine? Today, in some parts of Sutton and Cheam or Worcester Park, we are lucky to see one delivery a week. That is 150 years of progress.
Luke Taylor
I agree primarily with the point made by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who listed promises made by the Prime Minister. I would like to see the Prime Minister held to account a little more for his promises, which are undelivered—just like the mail in Sutton and Cheam.
Sutton residents in SM1, SM2 and SM3 cannot rely on the post any more. When Royal Mail fails to do its job properly, everyday people are left dealing with the fallout: prescriptions do not turn up, hospital letters land after the appointment has passed, Mother’s day cards arrive when the moment has gone and parking fines arrive after the grace period has expired.
However, the plural of anecdote is not data, so when I saw that this debate had been scheduled, I decided to get my own. Last Wednesday I sent out a batch of first-class letters from my constituency. In the letter I asked people to tell me when their delivery turned up and how long it had taken. The results: out of 23 replies so far, only 15 arrived the next working day, five took two days, and three took three days or more to arrive, with the latest arriving this morning. Yes, that is a small sample size—my credentials as an engineer will not let me fail to mention that—but Royal Mail’s target to have 93% of first-class mail arrive the next day was failed catastrophically, with my experiment placing its success rate closer to 65%.
When someone pays for first class, they are not making a complicated request: next-day delivery—that is the promise. Royal Mail may be a private company, but it delivers a public service, which is supposed to be overseen by Ofcom. A private company failing to deliver the public services it is mandated to do and getting away with it because of rubbish regulators—that covers at least 50% of the speeches delivered in this Chamber. It feels so familiar to me, having done it over and over. The Government are further eroding the confidence of our public by not showing improvements in any of these services.
Let me conclude with some questions for the Minister. Local elections are approaching in May, and the Government know that many people rely on postal votes to express their democratic right. The Minister has only to look across the Atlantic for recent experience of the undermining of faith in the electoral system when there is a lack of confidence that ballots will arrive on time and be counted. What assessment has been made of the impact of delays on local elections? What plans do the Government have to require Royal Mail to remove the shackles on local delivery offices to help them to clear rounds at this critical time? Will the Minister give a read-out of what firm actions and conclusions were agreed in his meeting with Ofcom last Wednesday, after his statement in the Chamber last week?
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Over the past week, the delivery offices that serve Middlesbrough and Hartlepool have both been ranked in the top five in their regional area for delivery failure. This matters for customers waiting for vital posts and for staff under immense pressure. It is not the fault of the posties; the responsibility lies with the owners. Poor decisions have created a weakened system, chaotic revisions and a recruitment crisis driven by low pay and worse conditions for new starters. The result is a workforce that is overstretched and a service that is letting customers down.
As for the USO, the six-day delivery remains a vital national guarantee, but changing specifications alone will not fix a service that is being run down. Ofcom has allowed an uneven playing field when it comes to competitors, such as Amazon, that benefit from the universal network without contributing to its cost. Royal Mail carries the burden of serving over 30 million addresses while others extract profit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made a good point about bogus self-employment among competitors. If we do not get this right, we will undermine the impact of the Employment Rights Act. That is why the CWU is right to call for a universal service fund so that all operators contribute fairly to the network they rely on.
Ofcom’s broader approach risks a race to the bottom—it is not pursuing efficiency. If we are serious about improving performance, we have to have a fundamental rethink. I have raised this with the Minister on previous occasions, and I raise it again today. This is a mess and it is collapsing. An obvious solution is staring us in the face: take Royal Mail back into public ownership, and do it quickly.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
My constituents in Hartlepool report letters arriving late, entire streets going days without deliveries and, in some cases, post turning up only once every 13 days—this is not once or twice, but a pattern lasting for months. Let me be absolutely clear, as other Members have been, that this is not the fault of our posties. I have met them and they are hard-working, committed and deeply proud of the job they do. They are just as frustrated as anyone else because they know the service is not what it should be.
The failure lies not with the workforce but with the system. The Royal Mail as an organisation is simply not delivering the service that the public are entitled to expect. We should be honest about why. The privatisation of Royal Mail has gone the same way as rail and water: a public service turned into a private asset, focused no longer on delivery—quite literally in this case—but on what can be extracted. Profit first, service second, and the public and our hard-working posties left to pick up the pieces.
The consequences for my constituents are not abstract but real and serious. Bills arrive late triggering penalties, appointments are missed, and important correspondence simply does not turn up on time or at all. Financial penalties, missed healthcare and the real anxiety caused by a service that is not functioning are not minor inconveniences. Yet these issues are raised with Royal Mail, we are told that they are not long-term problems, but just down to short-term staff absences. With respect, that does not pass the most basic credibility test.
Who gets it in the neck at the end of the day? Our posties on the doorstep. This is profoundly unfair. Royal Mail is failing the public and its workforce. It is a pattern: privatise a public service and it fails the public. So I urge the Minister, who I know is deeply committed, to take on the Royal Mail, and if it does not improve, take it back.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Royal Mail leadership is failing our hard-working posties and failing Eastbourne. Eastbournians are missing vital medical appointments because letters from doctors have arrived late. Others are being forced to reschedule legal hearings because of to delayed documents, and some are missing important deadlines for paying fines and bills.
Time and again, the Royal Mail has unacceptably attempted to pile the blame on our hard-working posties by citing long-term sickness and absence as the primary cause of the failures. That is not true. The problem is a toxic culture at the top—a culture in which staff feel unable to take well-deserved annual leave, and when they do, they return to weeks of backlog and are left playing catch-up because cover is not taken seriously. This is pushing our posties to breaking point: amazing posties like Manuel, my postie, and others across town, in particular Barry, who covers King’s Drive too.
I make one short and simple request of the Minister in order to support us in Eastbourne to stand up and be heard. Will he meet with me and hard-working local posties, as well as representatives of the CWU, to hear directly from those on the frontline about what is going on in Eastbourne, the challenges they face, and the upstream changes that are urgently needed to make Royal Mail great again?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you Mr Twigg, for chairing today’s debate.
What started with a pension deficit led to corporate excess, and then of course, the Lib Dem-Tory coalition escalating the risk to the Post Office with their Postal Services Act 2011. And now we see business failure with obscene consequences: a two-tier workforce, with wages below the real living wage, conditions falling, and the price of stamps increasing to the point of unaffordability. We know that the billionaire leader of the company is now striving to cut the universal service obligation. This is a failed business that the Government must pick up and drive forward.
I commend York’s posties for the incredible work that they do. I met with them recently to hear their stories. One said to me:
“I’m bringing to your attention the dire state we find ourselves in due to the business not caring about customers’ mail. Mail gets left every day in our office, birthday cards, hospital letters, everything. The staff here are exhausted as we keep getting unachievable work loads.”
We know from the workforce that they have got the solutions in their hands. They know how to drive the business forward. The CWU and Unite, as their unions, will be able to work with the business and help the Minister to ensure that it thrives again. Recruitment challenges because of the unmanageable workloads have resulted in 27,000 staff leaving since 2022.
As with rail, we know that the best efficiency and value would come from the Government bringing Royal Mail back into public hands for the public good, and keeping its public commitment. Let us be bold and brave, and let’s have it back.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The performance of Royal Mail is an issue of significant concern across North Somerset. Issues with deliveries are having real consequences for residents and businesses alike. In the light of concerns highlighted to me, I launched a survey in mid-February to ask constituents about their experiences with Royal Mail. I have also been working constructively with local CWU representatives and meeting staff in sorting offices to understand the challenges Royal Mail is facing and to find practical solutions. I am grateful for the engagement and look forward to continuing those conversations.
The issue was brought into sharp focus for me in January when I hosted a town hall for constituents. Many residents unfortunately received their event invitations after the town hall had already happened. One property business in Clevedon shared its experience. The business deals with house and flat sales, where deadlines carry real legal weight. The business went nearly two weeks without a single delivery. Royal Mail said it is either a staffing issue or that other delivery routes are taking priority. The property business asked whether it might be able to collect its post directly from the local sorting office, but it was told that that would not be possible.
According to my survey, 87% of respondents in North Somerset are experiencing delays, and 53% said that delayed deliveries had caused them to miss appointments and deadlines. Those figures reflect a level of disruption that goes beyond what most North Somerset residents would consider acceptable, and it is a concern shared by staff. One of my survey respondents has stage 4 cancer. They manage over 50 medical appointments alongside work and caring for a four-year-old child. They depend on NHS letters to manage care and plan their life around it, and one key appointment letter sent in December has still not arrived. As a pharmacist, I see that risk as unacceptable.
Our posties are a pillar of our community, working tirelessly in all weathers to deliver a vital postal service. I want to be clear: my concerns are with systemic issues in our postal system. Perhaps, as the CWU asks, Royal Mail should be back—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Unfortunately, we are now going to have to move to a time limit of a minute and a half. I am still trying to get everybody in.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
As the proud son of a Blackpool postie, I declare my interest in this debate and refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I start by thanking all our posties in Blackpool and across the country for their vital service. Despite the privatisation of Royal Mail, they maintain a sense of pride as public servants, knowing better than anyone their role in our communities as a recognisable face, a trusted person and a point of contact. It is vital that we protect them and the service they deliver.
Posties in Blackpool South have told me they are forced to prioritise parcels over letters—allegations that are echoed across the country and in Westminster Hall today—but every undelivered letter abandoned at a sorting office until tomorrow represents a real-world consequence: a missed medical appointment for an elderly constituent, a missed benefit notification for a single parent or an important notice for local business. Those communications are a national priority for local residents—something no other courier can compete with. That is why we need to ensure that Royal Mail delivers its national service.
Rather than setting itself apart, Royal Mail appears to be intent on joining the race and becoming just another parcel courier with gig economy terms and conditions for its workforce. We have a responsibility to ensure that that is not allowed to happen. Improvements to service quality are impossible unless the company agrees to an urgent pathway to equalising workers’ terms and conditions. We must ensure that the new owners stick to their agreements with the CWU and the Government, and for the sake of preserving this 500-year-old institution—
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to put on the record my thanks to the posties across the Hexham constituency. They traverse extremely rural areas to deliver post in some pretty challenging circumstances. It is a pleasure to represent them and their families.
Unfortunately, like some of the post in my experience, most of my speech will go undelivered, but I do want to speak a little bit about the impact of Royal Mail’s management, particularly its neglect of rural communities. A constituent recently arrived at the local sorting office to collect 15 items of important undelivered mail, including a cancer test result with a postmark dated two months earlier. My constituents and I find that there is a serious lack of accountability at Royal Mail, and that includes a failure to recognise the scale of the problem in my constituency and the scale of the issues affecting the rural constituencies who rely on the postal service as a lifeline.
There is much I would like to go into, but I want to focus particularly on the case of a constituent who I have been supporting. They requested for legal documents to be sent between two solicitors’ offices via recorded delivery, with proof of postage, at the beginning of December 2025. The documents never made it to the intended recipient. My constituent contacted Royal Mail customer service on numerous occasions, and spent 60 minutes on hold—they also got in contact via email, online and in person at the sorting office. All Royal Mail could say was that the documents are now considered lost.
I am sure we all want to hear assurances that Royal Mail will take action to improve its service and make full use of the Government’s commitment to support that. I urge the Government to press Royal Mail to ensure that future plans explicitly consider the needs of our most rural and sparsely populated communities.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The service provided by Royal Mail in my constituency is simply not good enough. Hundreds of residents have written to me over the past year with shocking, but unfortunately almost identical, stories. In the worst-affected areas of Abbeymead and Abbeydale, most residents I speak to do not get post for three to four weeks, only for a pile of letters to arrive at once. I know that to be true because I live there, and my post arrives monthly as well.
In Tuffley, Matson and Hempsted, they are experiencing similar issues: people are waiting on hospital appointments, new debit cards and other important post. I hope that most of the Mother’s Day cards have now arrived—I pray that all the Christmas cards have been delivered. Something has to change.
I want to be absolutely clear that this poor service is not down to our hard-working posties in Gloucester. I visited the Gloucester North delivery office last week and spoke with them, and they are working really hard in difficult conditions. The post arrives late from the Bristol sorting office; the posties are waiting later and later in the morning for that delivery from Bristol, which impacts how many hours they can deliver for. Parcels are being prioritised over post—that is what the posties tell me, but management are still denying it. The posties also told me in detail about the two-tier workforce system, which means that most staff now leave in six months.
To make matters worse, they are being undercut by other companies that pay their staff more. Amazon recently opened a large depot in Gloucester, and is paying £4 an hour more than Royal Mail offers. The Minister knows that I have been raising this repeatedly with the Department for Business and Trade. I have written to Ofcom, which still says that it is fining those companies and that will improve things. It will not; they are baking those fines into their business cases. Can we please give the regulator more teeth so that we can actually improve the service?
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The situation at Royal Mail is a systemic failure, from imposed revisions to delivery offices, to a toxic managerial culture and a recruitment model built on low pay and insecure conditions. The optimised delivery model has failed but Royal Mail is pressing ahead with it regardless, despite the workforce’s suggestions that offer a more viable way forward. There is the underlying resource crisis; since 2022, new entrants have been offered wages barely above the legal minimum, with fewer hours and diminished terms and conditions. The results are stark: thousands are leaving the job.
There is regulatory imbalance in the sector, as we have heard, and it cannot be right that companies like Amazon can benefit from national delivery infrastructure without paying a single penny towards it. The proposal for a USO network fund, requiring all operators to contribute, needs to be taken forward. That is not only fair but essential. Finally, I must address the conduct of the new owner, EP Group. Commitments made to workers have not been honoured. That breach of trust undermines confidence and raises serious questions about the company’s long-term intentions.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for introducing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), who has turned private investigator. I was very impressed by his efforts.
There is no doubt that there is a real crisis in the postal service. I have just read “Precipice” by Robert Harris; it tells the story of a love affair between Prime Minister Asquith and a young socialite. It is recorded in the many, many letters delivered between them each day. The book is about the letters between them, half of which survive. The letters to the Prime Minister, I believe, were destroyed, but the letters to the socialite survive and form the basis of the book. Mr Harris invented the other letters—love letters to the Prime Minister: imagine that. Now we have email and texts, and no doubt future writers will look at political emails.
Times have changed, and we must acknowledge that. In Denmark, the letter post has, unbelievably, completely stopped. Here, the universal service remains an obligation, not an option. Our people expect that. I urge the Government to get a grip on this. If the solution is indeed public ownership, let us simply do that.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
As the proud daughter of a postie, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The performance of Royal Mail in parts of Sherwood Forest has been poor. Constituents in Clipstone have had no reliable postal service for over five months. At first, the Mansfield sorting office said that it was due to demand over the holiday period, but we are now in March. I have reached out nationally to Royal Mail, but had no response.
As I said, this issue is deeply personal to me. My dad was a postie for over 30 years; I lost him on 6 September last year. It is clear that Royal Mail used to represent something more than it does now. It provided good, secure jobs; the jobs were tough, yes, but Royal Mail workers were respected, supported and had strong terms and conditions. Over the years, those terms and conditions have been eroded. Posties in my constituency tell me that the job has become near impossible, with chronic understaffing, ever-changing regulations, different terms and conditions for people doing the same job, and top-down ideas that simply do not work on the ground. These posties are not people who want to see Royal Mail fail; in fact, they are quite the opposite. However, in my recent meetings with the Communication Workers Union, I was told that 50% of new Royal Mail staff leave within their first year, which amounts to 27,000 workers leaving since 2022.
Royal Mail is not just another company; it is a proud British institution, part of the fabric of our communities. There is something fundamentally British about the idea that, six days a week, someone in a red and blue uniform walks our streets to deliver mail. For constituents in Clipstone, for my communities across Nottinghamshire and for Royal Mail workers across the country, I urge the Minister to act, and act now.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Many people in Worcester are very frustrated by the delays in the Royal Mail service, which are impacting their healthcare and their access to money. However, having spoken to Citizens Advice, I know that this is not an issue of the moment, nor one restricted to Worcester; it is much bigger than that.
I thank the Minister for his action on this issue. However, having met Royal Mail representatives myself, what is even more concerning than everything else is how hard it is to get acceptance from the company about the issues that exist, a straight story and openness. That makes us question the character as well as the competence of Royal Mail’s management. We need meaningful discussions, and truthful and realistic dialogue.
We also need to reflect on reality and to consider our part in this situation. Royal Mail is under obligations that are not commercially sustainable and it does not receive the money to meet them. It is now in a doom loop of increasing prices and declining demand.
We all deeply value Royal Mail. We want it to be healthy, thriving and serving us well. We need to tackle this issue head-on, so I urge the Minister to help us to get everything on the table, get everyone around the table, and fix this situation.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate.
I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for highlighting all the impacts on their constituents, in the form of missed medical appointments, financial appointments or legal appointments. Exactly the same is true in my Witney constituency. Obviously, I speak for the whole Chamber; we are all getting correspondence about this issue in our mailbox, because it is causing so much trouble. The other thing that has come out so strongly in this debate is the stress, the distrust and the unfairness that the posties themselves have to live with. That situation causes a huge amount of unhappiness, but there seems to be no end to it in sight, which is a real problem.
The turnover rate of new Royal Mail employees is extremely high and the work practices are harsh. Yet we rely on our local posties, and almost without exception they take their responsibilities extremely seriously. I will give a particular shout out to my postie, Tony, who on Christmas eve worked way beyond his scheduled hours. He should not have had to do that and should have been paid for it. However, he is representative of everybody working for Royal Mail around the country, and that situation does not just happen on Christmas eve; it happens week in, week out.
The work practices are just getting tougher and tougher. That comes out in the latest quarterly report, which makes for miserable reading. For example, delivery targets were not met in a single postcode across the first three quarters of 2025-26. In Oxfordshire, just 67.2% of first-class mail arrived, against the target of 93%.
In October 2025, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million, saying that it urgently needed an improvement plan. However, five months later Royal Mail is still saying that it cannot publish that plan until talks with the postal workers union—the CWU—conclude. All the while, our constituents and our posties are left paying more and suffering more for an inadequate and wholly unreliable service.
Charlie Maynard
I have been here for 17 months. We could rehash things from 14 or 17 years ago. I believe that in 2009 the Labour Government sought to take a 30% stake out of the Royal Mail, but I am not interested in going back through that because we are where we are. Let me try to finish my speech, and I will talk about where I think we should be heading now.
The Government and Ofcom need to urgently make it clear to Royal Mail executives that they must get a grip on the situation. Although letter numbers have fallen, there is still plenty of demand for Royal Mail’s delivery services. Crucially, everyone across the country and all of us here in Parliament place huge value on retaining the universal service obligation. What seems clear is that the incentives are wrong.
The new owner of Royal Mail is a commercial operator that bought International Distribution Services, the holding company of Royal Mail, in June 2025 with a full understanding of the Royal Mail’s USO requirement. The business seems to be prioritising its profitable parcel business, General Logistics Systems. The owner also has a clear commercial incentive to cut costs on the Royal Mail side of the business and to keep lobbying Ofcom to continue to loosen the USO requirements even further. Such a strategy serves the owner of Royal Mail very nicely, but is a terrible outcome for the many millions of people up and down the country who depend on the USO, and for the posties.
I am sure the Minister and Ofcom recognise that predicament and also recognise that the USO is a key public good. I am interested in the extent to which the Minister considers the situation similar to or different from the telecoms industry levy, which is used to fund the broadband universal service obligation. Does the Minister agree that insisting on much clearer operational transparency from the Royal Mail would be good to establish more detail on whether parcels are being prioritised over letters and the impact of that? It could be managed by Ofcom requiring root-level data on delivery performance and clear reporting on parcels versus letters prioritisation to make it harder for USO traffic to be quietly deprioritised. What steps is the Minister considering taking to stop a situation where Royal Mail keeps trying to bounce Ofcom into cutting the USO further?
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This has been an incredibly powerful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for their contributions. I also thank Members from across the House for their contributions. There has been a consistent theme and a consistent message, but I will try not to repeat all the powerful speeches that we have had. I will try to focus my speech on the questions for the Minister.
I have had a lot of casework in West Worcestershire on this issue, and it seems to have happened post Ofcom’s decision in July 2025 to allow a change to the universal service obligation. That seems to be the point at which I observed a huge increase in casework. We have heard about really serious consequences on our constituents’ lives. It is incredibly important that the Minister gets to grips in terms of his responsibilities vis-à-vis particularly the regulator. I want to focus on the meeting that the Minister had last week with Ofcom, and I want to add my appreciation for the amazing work that our posties do in West Worcestershire.
The meeting with Ofcom came about on the afternoon after last week’s urgent question, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to update us on the action that he is taking. Ofcom agreed that the new Czech owner of Royal Mail could change the universal service obligation, and that change started last July. The new delivery model means that first class should continue to be delivered on a daily basis, and second class should be every other day. But what we have heard loud and clear in this debate today is that that does not seem to be happening. We buy a first-class stamp for a reason—because we want a delivery the next day. How is Ofcom justifying its decision to allow Royal Mail to have higher costs for a service that is clearly getting worse? What did it tell the Minister at the meeting that he had? Did he secure any commitments from Ofcom about its powers vis-à-vis Royal Mail?
I know that the Minister also sits down regularly with Royal Mail. What discussions has he had with Royal Mail about the issues that have been so well articulated across the House this morning? Staffing cuts, delivery revisions and operational changes have clearly contributed to this collapse in performance. Does the Minister believe that the current regulatory framework for this precious part of our critical national infrastructure is fit for purpose? Is he considering any reforms to the regulatory framework for Royal Mail?
Royal Mail continues to say—I think we have heard it illustrated by the contributions this morning—that the universal service obligation, as currently defined, is impossible to deliver. When the company was bought, the new owner must have done due diligence on what the obligations were. Does the Minister accept the premise that the current universal service obligation is impossible to deliver, or does he think that, with the right regulatory interventions, the owner can meet it?
The recent letter that Royal Mail sent to the Business and Trade Committee refers to its contingency plans to prioritise parcels to prevent unsafe build-ups, but I think all of us believe and have heard anecdotally that the prioritisation of parcels is a deliberate business decision, because that is where the margin is seen to be. Can the Minister explain the conversations that he has had with Royal Mail about the threshold for that contingency—Royal Mail claims that it holds it in reserve—for addressing parcels with a higher priority than letters? At what point does a temporary decision to implement that contingency become a permanent de facto policy of deprioritising letters—the very heart of our universal service obligation?
Robbie Moore
On Royal Mail’s website today, it says that if a customer buys a second-class stamp, they can expect delivery within two or three days, including Saturdays, but since 28 July last year, delivery has not taken place on a Saturday. There seems to be an inconsistency between what Royal Mail is saying publicly and what it is actually delivering. What does my hon. Friend feel that the Minister should do to address this clear anomaly?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I look forward to the Minister responding to that, but I think we have heard today that even that weaker delivery obligation is not being met.
We also need to consider the wider business context that we are living in. Many businesses like Royal Mail have had to pay this additional jobs tax. The Employment Rights Act is having an impact on hiring across the economy. Does the Minister acknowledge that his own Government’s decisions have affected the situation? What assessment has he made of the impact of Government tax policies on Royal Mail’s financial resilience?
In conclusion, this debate is about ensuring that a service relied upon by millions is restored to the standards that the law requires. What steps immediately can the Minister take to restore a reliable six-day service? What action will he take to hold Royal Mail to its legal obligations? What reforms will he pursue to ensure that Ofcom is an active, effective regulator rather than a passive observer? When will the public finally see improvements to the service in the way that they have been promised for years?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing today’s important debate. He spoke about falling confidence in Royal Mail. I think the debate has shown that there is growing anger about failures of service. My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Tom Collins), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and others spoke about how, when raising those concerns on behalf of constituents, they heard a completely different version of events in response. That has added to the sense of the frustration, particularly when hon. Members are so connected to their local posties, who understand what is happening on the ground.
I join others in paying tribute to our hard-working posties across the country. The hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and others rightly said that any criticism of Royal Mail service is not a criticism of the posties themselves.
The Government remain absolutely committed to the universal postal service, which is an essential part of our economic infrastructure. It can and should be delivered. Hon. Members have raised concerns about the impact of service failures on the work of democracy. They have talked about bank cards not arriving and the isolation that causes. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) spoke about the human impact of missed hospital appointments, and there are also consequences for legal hearings and business deals.
I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) that I am also not getting love letters through the post—
Blair McDougall
Seriously, though, it is galling that Royal Mail is increasing the price of its services but is not meeting delivery targets. Our constituents rightly expect that, if they are paying more, they should get the service and deliveries on time. It is simply not good enough.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is always very responsive; I appreciate his responses today and in the past. I spoke about a person who applied for PIP and found that there was a delay in the post. That young boy, a type 1 diabetic, was denied one month of his benefit as a result. Will the Minister please look at that?
Blair McDougall
I will happily look at that. It is another example of a service that is simply not good enough.
As was mentioned, I recently met Royal Mail’s chief executive to press these issues directly. He was left in no doubt about the level of anger and concern across the House, and he was clear that the service is not where he wants it to be. He gave me a firm commitment that he will work towards restoring confidence in the service.
Where service has fallen short locally, whether due to staffing pressures, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned, operational challenges or external disruption, customers need to see sustained and structural improvement, not just short-term fixes. I understand that the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East has met Royal Mail to discuss these issues. I have been advised that there are currently three vacancies in the Exmouth office, and I expect that Royal Mail will fill them to ensure there is an improvement in service locally.
Across the country, our constituents deserve visible improvements in reliability, and that expectation underpins every discussion that I and other Ministers have with Royal Mail. That is why, before the takeover of Royal Mail, we secured significant commitments from the new owners of the business, including a commitment to prevent dividend payments until quality of service improves.
As many hon. Members said, service improvement is also intimately linked to workers’ terms and conditions and the reform of Royal Mail’s operation. It is critical that the Royal Mail workers are on board with the operational changes, and that their experience informs that work. The Government continue to engage with EP Group on that; that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State convened a joint meeting with the owners of EP Group and the CWU last month to help to unblock the outstanding issues. That engagement continues.
Hon. Members also referred to my detailed discussion with Ofcom last week about its expectations of Royal Mail and the steps it is taking to protect consumers. I highlighted hon. Members’ significant concerns about the delivery performance and the negative real-world impact that that is having on our constituents. It is fair to say that Ofcom has heard the strength of concerns, particularly those expressed in the Chamber last week. One outcome of that meeting is that Ofcom is clear, as it has been for some time, that Royal Mail is required to publish a detailed improvement plan that results in significant and continuous progress, and that it expects that one should appear within days of an agreement with the union. Where failures continue, Ofcom will not hesitate to act again, and last year’s £21 million fine was a clear signal.
We are in a context where, as has been said, the performance of many other parcel providers makes Royal Mail’s performance look positively glowing, and Ofcom is also looking at that wider context. None of us is blind to the wider context and the structural pressures. Letter volumes have halved over the past decade. As hon. Members have said, to ensure that the USO is sustainable, Ofcom has made changes to Royal Mail’s obligations.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) made clear, those changes and reforms cannot be imposed from the top down. Royal Mail must work constructively with its workforce and unions to ensure that operational changes translate into better services for customers across the country—a point also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker).
There is wisdom in every sorting office; staff there understand how the business works. We have taken a close interest in the negotiations, the new operating model and workers’ conditions. I mentioned that the Secretary of State recently met with EP Group and the CWU; a further meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. I am hopeful that Royal Mail’s owners and the union will work together in the interests of Royal Mail’s employees, its customers and the business.
Several hon. Members raised concerns about the impact on postal votes. We have sought strong reassurances from Royal Mail on that issue. There have been meetings with the chief executive of the Electoral Commission to discuss plans for the upcoming elections, and a similar meeting is taking place in Scotland with Ministers there. My hon. Friend the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy is having a further meeting with Royal Mail to discuss postal votes, and we are leaving Royal Mail in no doubt about our expectations in that space.
Luke Taylor
It is encouraging to hear that the Government have sought reassurances, but nothing short of a fundamental revolution in my local delivery office will see postal votes delivered even within the weekend on which they are expected to arrive. Can the Minister detail what those reassurances involve? Do they require additional resource to be provided to the delivery offices so that they can pay for the inevitable overtime or additional staff on those dates? Similarly, when the postal votes need to get back to our town halls, what will be done to make sure that that end of the process also happens over a period of three or four weeks?
Blair McDougall
Obviously, part of ensuring that the obligations around postal votes are maintained is making sure that the resource is there on the ground to do that. Another part of it is also the prioritisation of postal votes within the service. There are existing structures for that, such as doing sweeps of boxes. I reiterate that the Government will continue to hold Royal Mail to account, will support strong and independent regulation by Ofcom and will press urgently for the improvements that customers rightly expect to see.
Andy McDonald
Just before the Minister sits down, can he help me with a couple of things? The reduction in terms and conditions for new entrants into our sorting offices is causing great problems. People are leaving within days and weeks, so there is an issue there. Similarly, in this competitive landscape, we have other providers working on the basis of bogus self-employment. Given that we approach this issue on a whole-of-Government basis, rather than just in silos, I wonder whether we are looking closely at the damage that this situation is causing. I think particularly of the £10 billion that goes uncollected through bogus self-employment, which could enhance the coffers of the Treasury, among other things, and provide people with secure and solid work. As it stands, we have insecure and fragile work, both in Royal Mail and in the private sector that competes with it. Surely this is the worst of all worlds. A thorough approach is needed. I am yet to hear the Minister tackle the key issue raised by many hon. Members from the Government Benches: that we should be looking at the option of public ownership. Will the Minister please address that?
Blair McDougall
Our focus at the moment is on getting the business on to a sustainable footing. That is about the negotiations on the very terms and conditions that my hon. Friend raises. As I mentioned, Ofcom has put on notice those other parcel providers. That is primarily about the poor quality of service that we see from many of them, but when we talk to Royal Mail and the union—as I am sure my hon. Friend has done—they will point out that sense of better employers being undermined by those working practices. He has been a constant campaigner in that respect.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I reassure them that the specific localised issues that they have raised will be covered in ongoing engagement with Royal Mail and Ofcom, along with the bigger structural conversation with the union and owners. I close by again paying tribute to the posties who do an extraordinary job across the country, and stress again that none of the criticisms today are laid at their door.
David Reed
I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this important and timely debate. Most importantly, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for turning up this morning and making their constituent’s voices heard.
A number of wide-ranging issues have been brought forward. It has been a productive debate, and it is clear that we all want to retain a letter postal delivery service in the UK. However, as many Members have said, there are structural issues across the service, and we are going through a period of unprecedented technological change. Those changes are affecting people up and down the country. People are not receiving post such as NHS letters or important legal documents. These issues are affecting posties’ morale, they are affecting recruitment and retention, and they are affecting our democracy and the use of public money.
I thank the Minister for his speech and the points that he raised. I know that he and his team are working very hard with the Secretary of State to make Royal Mail accountable for a lot of those issues. I hope that the Business and Trade Committee can bring forward an inquiry to look into this issue in a granular way and report those findings back to the House. Looking across Westminster Hall today, it is clear that there is cross-party support to improve the situation, and this has been a productive conversation.
I say to Royal Mail, “We are getting on the job; we are going to improve this service, and we will enforce the USO and make sure that it is fit for purpose, because we all deserve this service that we are paying for.” I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to make sure that that happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.
Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support
(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
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for domestic abuse survivors.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members for attending the debate and standing up for survivors of domestic abuse in their constituencies. I also thank the excellent women’s rights campaigners, some of whom have joined us today. Without their relentless research, activism and day-to-day support for victims, we would be unable to fully represent domestic abuse survivors.
I must open today’s debate with a sad reality: according to Refuge, an estimated 2.2 million women and 1.5 million men have experienced domestic abuse in this country in the last year alone, and according to a 2025 report by the Office for National Statistics, this issue is far from niche. Refuge also found that, on average, one woman is killed by an abusive partner or ex-partner every five days in England and Wales. The fact that we use words like “on average”, “approximately”, and “estimated” on such a serious topic beckons us to acknowledge that those numbers still suffer from severe under-reporting, highlighting just how much more work we have to do.
In the light of International Women’s Day having just passed, and with the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy still fresh in our minds, I want to take this opportunity to assess how Government support for domestic abuse survivors holds up in practice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; he was absolutely right to do so. I am also very happy to see the Minister in her place and I look forward to hearing her response. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about children in emergency refuge accommodation? I bring that to his attention simply because, in Northern Ireland, some 45% of children in emergency refuge are aged nought to five, which has a difficult impact on those formative years. More support is needed to provide a firm foundation for children during those most vulnerable years—it is not just the ladies; it is the children as well.
Ben Maguire
I thank the hon. Member for that excellent point—I will come on to accommodation issues and the impact on children.
I recognise that really important steps have been taken in recent months, on which I congratulate the Government. For instance, many people will agree that the removal of the presumption of contact puts children’s voices and experience back at the heart of contact decisions, which is a genuine step forward for their safety. The 2025 statutory reforms to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 updated the terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021—replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse”, and “financial abuse” with “economic abuse”—and recognised that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, such as their children.
However, from speaking to my North Cornwall constituents and the charity sector, I realised that the VAWG strategy does not yet place arguably the most crucial protection for victims at the centre of its aims. Of course, societal change is urgently needed to prevent so-called normal people becoming perpetrators of abuse, but what about those victims who are caught up in the cycle of abuse now? How can we help them and free them from harm?
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Abusive ex-partners can exploit loopholes in the Child Maintenance Service to get control and avoid paying. A constituent of mine is owed over £15,000 and has been left in financial hardship with disabled children. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government guidance on child maintenance payments to survivors of domestic abuse must be written into law, including a means of getting payments from those using the process as coercive control?
Ben Maguire
I completely agree; I have actually had some similar casework. I will come back to that point.
In a deeply troubling case brought to me by a wonderful Cornish advice clinic, a female client, who I will call Louise for this debate, was refused legal aid on the basis that she supposedly had too much disposable income and assets, despite the reality that, at the time, she was sofa surfing, effectively homeless and earning only minimum wage. Although she may have passed the merits test, she failed the means test, because she was not paying rent and was not on benefits, so the system deemed her ineligible for legal support.
After Louise fled her partner, who had reportedly abused her, both parties applied for residential custody of their child. Although the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service recommended that the child live with their mother, the judge awarded custody to the ex-partner, arguing that the mother had not followed the correct legal route when she fled from home. She is now permitted to see her child only by travelling hundreds of miles back to the area from which she fled, and the ex-partner refuses phone contact altogether. She is terrified of returning to a family court and knows from experience how one-sided the system can be, especially as her ex-partner has the money and the legal representation, while she would be forced to represent herself. How many women consider the reality that Louise currently faces and, as a result, end up staying with their abuser?
The legal aid Minister assured me that an eligibility waiver is available for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for urgent protections, such as non-molestation orders, yet a survey commissioned by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse found that more survivors had to represent themselves in legal proceedings than were able to access legal aid. The Ministry of Justice’s own harm report found:
“The most important and frequently mentioned form of structural disadvantage was lack of access to legal representation.”
Most cases I have reviewed end with a victim—whose abuse has not yet reached so-called dangerous levels—applying for a child protection order, anti-stalking order or non-molestation order, which means they do not qualify to skip the legal aid means test. On the contrary, victims will be assessed on their income through a test that has not been uprated with inflation since 2009.
An applicant is not eligible for legal aid if their monthly disposable income exceeds £733. That threshold is clearly blind to reality. So far, the Government have chosen to ignore rising food and energy costs, as well as the huge debts that can be caused by an abuser. Even if someone has £750 left at the end of the month including those costs, which is farcical, the fact that solicitors can cost anything from £120 an hour to £400 or £500 an hour speaks volumes about the poorly executed calculations that are applied to the legal aid means test threshold.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for my Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill, which he has backed from the start. He is making a very powerful point about the role that businesses can play in supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, who are the reason why we are all here and who we care so much about. Does he agree that we should be doing more to encourage businesses to support women fleeing from domestic abuse, such as through the roundtable that I hosted recently with Women’s Aid, Airbnb and AXA? Does he also agree that the response from Travelodge this week has been simply shameful and that, quite frankly, it has failed to tackle violence against women and girls in one of its properties?
Ben Maguire
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being such a champion on this issue, and I completely agree with his condemnation of Travelodge’s frankly despicable response. His point regarding Airbnb is interesting, and I have been making the same point recently, because it crosses over with the Travelodge issue.
I am sure that many Members have heard from survivors in their constituencies who tell them they have spent all their savings on legal fees or they have accrued tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt. We know that survivors often face crippling financial barriers when trying to protect themselves and, in many cases, their children. Would the Minister tell me why the review period for the threshold has not yet been changed and why the gap between those who are eligible for legal aid and those who can afford to pay for legal services has not received closer scrutiny during the means test review?
The previous Government completed their review in 2022 and then proposed new criteria in 2023. Implementation was later delayed and, as far as I am aware, the current Government have not yet indicated that they intend to progress the work. I would therefore appreciate an update from the Minister on the status of the legal aid means test review.
I welcome the Government’s steps to include economic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act, but claiming that if a victim can prove they are economically abused, they will become exempt from the means test is a bit like asking victims who are under a severe threat to their health—in the most vulnerable state of their life—to sift through a haystack to find a purposefully and impossibly well-hidden needle. The £100,000 capital exemption recently introduced for the means test has been powerfully rejected by Women’s Aid and domestic abuse charities, which say that it does not go nearly far enough.
Sitting on a £1 million property that is co-owned with their perpetrator, who—guess what?—will not sell, excludes someone from any legal support. Such trapped capital should not be included in the financial eligibility calculation. I would go as far as stating that such inaccessible capital should be exempt from the means test, particularly as many victims are too afraid to leave their homes with their children as they are not certain that the family courts will bring them a positive outcome, as I have highlighted in Louise’s case.
According to the Surviving Economic Abuse 2026 report, almost 1 million women in the UK who experienced economic abuse last year said that the abuse prevented them from leaving their dangerous abuser. In the worst-case scenario, that decision, which is forced on them via our systematic failure to understand the reality of domestic abuse for victims, can be fatal. Another recent study covering a 12-year period, which included 400 homicide reviews, found that one person died every 19 days in cases that involved economic abuse. In other words, every three weeks a victim dies because an abuser uses economic abuse as a tool of control.
Refuge recently evidenced how 75 women were killed as a result of domestic homicide in the year ending 2025. Those numbers should spark outrage across our society. This final act of violence could have been prevented had there been proper legal resources in place for victims, or proper housing support that meant victims could be safe. Too many victims are forced to return to their perpetrators because they do not receive the levels of legal support needed to continue with the legal process. That means that many are unable to obtain things such as protective orders against their perpetrator, or obtain safe child contact arrangements.
Victims could even end up homeless. Those brave victim survivors who do leave their homes and apply for urgent homelessness protection can receive immediate legal support, but they end up having to go through the legal aid means test. If they are seen to have an income above the threshold, they have to support their own legal representation, when it is actually their abuser who has forced them out. Victims therefore become stuck between staying in their family home and enduring their suffering, or ending up potentially homeless—due to, again, this destructive means test.
A Cornish women’s protection centre recently reached out to me, detailing the following case that it was dealing with—for which I have again changed the name. Katy’s ex-partner abused and controlled her, both during and after their relationship ended. The ex-partner controlled contact with their children and locked Katy out of their property, resulting in her sleeping on the streets. During the family court process, which lasted 18 months, Katy had no legal aid or legal advice, and minimal support throughout the court proceedings, representing herself at the family court.
Eventually, the judge granted a non-molestation order, an occupation order, a prohibited steps order, and a full care order for the children. However, after achieving that without any access to legal advice, Katy and her children have still not been given access to their home and remain homeless. Reporting by Women’s Aid reinforces this reality. Survivors frequently cannot secure a legal aid solicitor due to the combined effects of eligibility barriers and a national shortage of legal aid providers. That leaves many women unable to challenge refusals, missing deadlines and remaining in unsafe or unsuitable accommodation because they cannot navigate the process alone.
All of that continues despite official homelessness data showing that large numbers of households become homeless or are threatened with homelessness due to domestic abuse, which means they should be treated as vulnerable and properly protected, not forced through a rigid financial test that was never designed for people fleeing violence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Just to be clear, there are no legal ramifications of the homelessness test in part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act. There is a homelessness duty; in the vast majority of cases, people do not have to undertake legal action in order for the homelessness duty to apply to them.
Ben Maguire
I thank the Minister. Perhaps she can follow up on that point in her speech.
I ask the Government urgently to reform evidence requirements for economic abuse in favour of more accessible evidential criteria. The lack of clarity regarding acceptable forms of evidence causes already limited legal aid solicitors to pre-emptively refuse to take on survivors’ cases. Having discussed and highlighted countless reasons to reform the legal aid means test for victims of domestic abuse, I must ask why legal aid is barely mentioned in the VAWG strategy, despite it being such a vital tool for victims to seek justice and crucial support.
The Justice Secretary in the previous Government, Alex Chalk, is acknowledged by many in the women’s rights sector to have been open to committing to reform the legal aid barriers that victims face. I am sure, and hopeful, that the Government will be open to working with all of us to fix the legal aid means test, which, as I hope I have set out clearly, is the biggest obstacle to so many victims. I recently launched a petition to reform the means test, and I hope to widen the campaign further.
How much more loss—how many more needless deaths—do we as a country need to endure? How many more debates are needed in this place for the Government to consider the issue properly? Until they commit to removing the legal aid means test for all domestic abuse victims and survivors, including those who are not currently accessing universal credit or fleeing the abuser, I hope to see urgent implementation of the delayed legal aid reforms, as pushed for by the VAWG sector. Those include the mandatory disregarding of inaccessible capital for victims of domestic abuse; the raising of the income threshold, which needs to include an annual review of the means test; and reformed evidence requirements when trying to prove economic abuse.
I will end my speech there, in the hope that, by the time of the next Westminster Hall debate on domestic abuse, we will have seen tangible progress to show survivors that we stand with them, we fight with them and we will do everything we possibly can to change the system for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I find myself in the difficult position that the debate was tabled for response by the Home Office, but almost its entire thrust is legal aid, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. I will do my very best to answer the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), but this is one of the main cultural changes that I wish to achieve with regard to violence against women and girls across the Government and across the country. Not a single one of the matters relating to violence against women and girls that he carefully alluded to—issues faced by victims of domestic abuse such as housing and homelessness, the family court, and issues to do with benefits and child maintenance—is the responsibility of the Home Office, and yet whenever there is an issue related to domestic abuse, people look to the Home Office. It is a cultural and an institutional failing that has led to a lack of advancement in this space. I will answer the hon. Member’s questions as best I can, but he will get a much more thorough response on the specificity of legal aid from the Ministers who are responsible for legal aid.
Ben Maguire
I acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about this not being the responsibility of the Home Office. I will say, though, that I excitedly awaited the VAWG strategy to see a cross-departmental approach to this vital issue—not action by one Department or another, but a whole-of-Government approach. I hope that she might agree with me on that point.
Jess Phillips
I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that that is exactly what this is. I only make the point because there is so often a risk in this place, and in the Government, of one person who cares a huge amount about something becoming the responsible party for it, always.
I will move on to the hon. Gentleman’s broader points. As he stated, the Ministry of Justice is conducting a review of the domestic abuse evidence requirements that need to be satisfied in order to access legal aid for private family matters, to ensure that those requirements are not a barrier to accessing legal aid for victims of domestic abuse.
I intervened on the hon. Member on his point about homelessness. I speak as somebody who, this week alone, has handled more than 10 cases of homelessness relating to domestic abuse. Not a single one of those interacted with the legal aid system, because, thanks to part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act, which I fought very heavily for, there is a duty on every tier 1 and unitary local authority area, with funding provided by the Government, to provide accommodation and house people. I would not want the message to go out from here that people will end up on the streets.
Of course, there need to be massive improvements in the manner in which refuge accommodation is commissioned. That is committed to in the violence against women and girls strategy. We also need to be clear what we mean by the term “refuge”, because one man’s—well, one woman’s—refuge accommodation may not be another’s. As we heard from our friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the housing of children in refuge accommodation is patchy across the entire country. Looking at how we commission that homelessness service is a huge and fundamental part of this.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
As a recovering councillor, I remember that my council used to commission a lot of these services through the WomenCentre in Calderdale, which was very good at preventing homelessness and other shocks. I often find—this might come back to the Home Office question—that a lot of post-separation problems happen because of post-separation economic abuse. Perhaps, in the longer term, we need to look at that from a legislative angle, so that post-separation abuse is better recognised in law, and then set up services to better prevent it.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was also—I feel like I have been here for ages—part of work with Surviving Economic Abuse, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned a number of times, to amend the Domestic Abuse Act to ensure that our legislation with respect to controlling or coercive behaviour included behaviour post-separation, because of the level of risk for people post-separation, which both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member alluded to. Over the years, there has been quite a lot of investment in getting somebody out in a crisis, rather than addressing the massive issues that occur in people’s lives afterwards. It is as if we tick a box when somebody leaves their home, and do not think about all the ramifications in their lives. My hon. Friend and I have worked very closely on that issue with regard to the family court and the presumption of contact, which has also been mentioned.
Alex McIntyre
Before she moves on from the subject of housing, does the Minister agree that the partnership between Women’s Aid, Airbnb and the Mayor of London is a really exciting pilot project for those people for whom refuges might not be the right place?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. When I was running refuge accommodation, we were moving from the era of everybody living in communal refuges to a new era of people needing separate accommodation. Some of that was about the rules on safeguarding with regard to which children could and could not live together, and about boys over the age of 16—actually, I think the age threshold was 14. As somebody who has adult male children, I would not want to flee to somewhere they could not live. That is hugely important.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall made a very important case for the need for legal aid thresholds. As somebody who has managed to amend our legal aid laws to carve out victims of domestic violence, I absolutely agree with him that we need to ensure that people can access the right legal services when they need them. If we had a lawyer from the Ministry of Justice in front of us, they would almost certainly be able to give a considerably more thorough answer, but there is relevant case law. For example, if someone’s asset is a house that they co-own, it cannot be included in the means test.
There are a number of issues, and we need to look at whether the threshold is right. My threshold is that I believe somebody when they tell me that they are a victim of domestic abuse, but I understand that the burden of evidence has to be slightly higher for Government Departments or legal departments. In the strategy, we have committed to addressing tenancies and the economic abuse of those who do not own houses, but who live in either social housing or privately rented properties. We have to look at the threshold for exactly what evidence is needed, and make sure that it is fair and balanced.
Adam Dance
One of the issues that we find in rural communities is that when someone flees domestic abuse and is rehoused, they are taken further afield because there is no housing nearby. They cannot meet their family or see their friends because of the lack of rural transport links. It is great to see what is happening here in London, but does the Minister believe that rural communities need more funding to support domestic abuse victims?
Jess Phillips
I will be down in Devon and Cornwall next week for both business and pleasure—I have turned business into a bit of pleasure as the recess comes along. I would like to thank Airbnb for that. [Laughter.]
The issue of need and how we commission services in rural areas has never been properly considered. On the basis of a headcount, we provide funding from lots of different Government Departments and lots of different sources. Whether that it is through part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act or through police and crime commissioners, the Government send finances to local areas, and it is for them to decide. North Cornwall is quite different from east Birmingham, and it is for local authorities to make decisions.
On the commissioning arrangements, do I think that rurality has been understood as a specific need in the same way as poverty or police data? I am not sure that it always has been—but what do I know? We are undertaking a huge piece of work on commissioning, and in fact I have reached out to some Liberal Democrat colleagues who represent rural areas to look at what we could be doing to make sure that we are getting the commissioning right. I am sure that the services that I am visiting in Devon and Cornwall next week will have some excellent ideas for me.
Adam Dance
I am from Somerset. Will the Minister meet me to have a conversation about these issues?
Jess Phillips
Of course. I did not mean to exclude Somerset or anywhere else, rural or otherwise. I would gladly meet the hon. Gentleman—I would gladly meet anybody. I do not wish to cause him offence, but I would dance with the devil to make women and children safer, so I would happily meet him to talk about Somerset.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that we have a cross-Government strategy, and that the points that the hon. Member for North Cornwall passionately highlighted will inform how we measure our progress. I always welcome people pushing not just my Department but every Department to do the very best that it can on violence against women and girls.
Question put and agreed to.
Freedom of Religion or Belief in China
(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
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate on freedom of religion or belief in China.
I would like to open with a tragic story. On a hot August day in 2022, in Shanxi, northern China, more than 100 police officers descended on a Christian family summer camp, surrounding the gathering, forcibly searching and detaining dozens of believers—over 30 adults and 40 children. The police were breaking up not a dangerous gathering or insurgency, but a family day out. The camp was organised by an unregistered church called the Linfen Covenant House Church, and was a harmless event aimed at building church community. In the months that followed, pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were arrested and reportedly subjected to harsh interrogation, including sleep deprivation, humiliation and torture. Church member Wang Qiang was later detained and tortured for weeks after refusing to renounce his faith or fabricate testimony against the church leaders.
It took three years for the court to process that case, but justice was nowhere to be found. Prosecutors did not accuse the pastors of violence or any threat to society—they could not. Instead, they charged them with fraud, arguing that the voluntary offerings given by members of their unregistered church were somehow illegal. Pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were each sentenced to three years and eight months in prison and fined heavily, while church member Wang Qiang received a sentence of one year and 11 months. The community church insists that the three men had committed no crime, and that they had suffered simply because of their faith.
We have all come here today because we believe that freedom of religion or belief is not a secondary liberty; it goes to the heart of human dignity. It concerns the right to hold beliefs, to change beliefs, to have no belief, to worship in public and private, to teach and to live according to conscience without fear of intimidation, criminalisation, imprisonment or torture. That is why Parliament cannot look away, and why the situation in China requires ongoing and determined scrutiny.
What is taking place in China is not merely the sporadic mistreatment of a few isolated believers, nor is it the meddling of local officials. What we are seeing is the rolling out of a sophisticated system of repression, in which law, administration, surveillance, propaganda and coercion are all being weaponised to subordinate religion to the Chinese Communist party. The issue before us is not only persecution; it is the construction of an entire architecture designed to make genuine freedom of religion or belief impossible.
China’s persecution of religion comes under the broad policy initiative of Sinicisation. That term is made to sound mild, as if it refers only to making religion compatible with Chinese culture, but that is not the case; instead, it is political domestication. It means that every religious tradition must first be made subordinate to the ideology, priorities and authority of the Communist party. The goal is not merely to make religion Chinese, but to ensure that religion is stripped of its independence and made to serve the party’s political project.
Sacred texts can be reinterpreted, clergy can be screened and managed, venues can be monitored, publications can be censored, foreign links can be severed, and anything that escapes that framework can be branded illegal, extremist, fraudulent, subversive, or labelled as a cult. Religion must not simply co-exist with the party; it must be remade in the party’s image. Recent Sinicisation policies mean that all clergy must support the leadership of the Communist party, and must be evaluated and ideologically disciplined. All online or in-person religious activity requires a permit from Government. No child can be given religious education.
Furthermore, the sad story of the Linfen community church, which I referred to in my opening remarks, demonstrates that in China the law is always secondary to the will of the Chinese Communist party. China’s constitution appears to protect so-called normal religious activities, but in practice that protection is a joke. The same is true of China’s legal system. The party retains overriding authority over state institutions, including the courts and legislature. In other words, rights exist only to the extent that the party permits them to exist.
Evidence gathered by Christian Solidarity Worldwide takes us deeper. It shows how the law in China is drafted in deliberately vague terms to condemn believers, vaguely accusing them of “harming national interests”, “disrupting social order”, “resisting infiltration” or “extremism.” Such phrases are not carefully bounded legal concepts; they are instruments of selective enforcement. They create uncertainty by design and allow ordinary religious life to be reclassified as a threat.
As we saw with the Linfen community church, the vagueness of the rules means that donation to an unregistered church can be reframed as fraud. Similarly, a Bible study can become an illegal gathering; publishing or sharing religious materials can become an illegal business operation; and a sermon can become incitement to subversion. This is not neutral law enforcement; it is ideological criminalisation. Then, when the full weight of the justice system is brought down upon a believer, the defendant themselves becomes subject to serious procedural abuses. Lawyers are denied access to defendants, cases are shrouded in secrecy, and detainees can be isolated from family and counsel for prolonged periods, placed in legal black holes where torture and coercion become far more likely.
The case of the Linfen community church tells us a great deal. It tells us that family church life can be raided; it tells us that children are not shielded from the machinery of repression; it tells us that secret detention and torture remain live concerns; and it tells us that “fraud” is being used not as an honest response to dishonesty, but as a legal fiction to criminalise churches that refuse to submit to state control.
The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethno-religious persecution in China today, and as chair of the all-party group on Uyghurs, this topic is very close to my heart. Since 2016, the Xinjiang region has been transformed into one of the most heavily policed areas in the world, under a so-called counter-extremism campaign, marked by pervasive surveillance, forced interrogation and mass incarceration. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim and that non-Muslim Uyghurs are also persecuted.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. With respect to the Uyghurs, does she agree that what we are witnessing in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China is not simply a matter of restricted religious freedoms, but something far more grave? She points to the fact that the Uyghurs are subject to mass detentions and so-called re-education camps, and are used in forced labour by the Chinese Government. Does she agree that this bears all the hallmarks of crimes against humanity and, as many credible voices have argued, may well constitute a genocide?
Ms Rimmer
I do agree, and I will come to that later. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said more than I was going to say—I thought I was saying too much. Yes, he is absolutely right, and it is dangerous for us all.
The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethnoreligious persecution in China. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim, and not all Muslim Uyghurs are persecuted. Independent estimates suggest that between 1 million and 2 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been detained in camps and prisons, with many later transferred into long-term sentences. Alongside that, Uyghur imams, scholars and religious leaders have been systematically targeted, with many detained in prisons for decades or dying in custody, underscoring the deliberate dismantling of religious leadership and community life. Uyghurs have been punished for everyday religious practice, including praying, fasting during Ramadan, teaching the Quran or even using traditional greetings, while mosques and shrines have been demolished and altered, children separated into state-run schools, and homes subjected to constant monitoring.
At the same time, ordinary expressions of the Islamic faith have been criminalised, and the wider system of repression has expanded beyond detention into forced labour, cultural destruction and enforced assimilation. Coercive labour transfer programmes have expanded across multiple sectors, with significant global implications for supply chains. The trajectory is now being further entrenched through new legislation, including the 2026 ethnic unity law, which promotes a single national identity, expands ideological control over religion and culture, and introduces broad penalties for behaviour that is deemed to undermine ethnic unity, effectively formalising a system that has already devastated the Uyghurs’ religious and cultural life. Thanks to many hard-working advocates —such as Rahima Mahmut, Benedict Rodgers and Lord Alton, to name a few—the Uyghur tribunal has concluded that a genocide is taking place in China, including through the sterilisation of Uyghur women. That finding was echoed by the UK Parliament, which voted to recognise the atrocities as a genocide in April 2021.
Evidence from human rights organisations describes the regulations governing Tibetan Buddhist temples, reincarnation and monastic education, including the prohibition on allowing children of compulsory school age to study scriptures in temples. Ordinary religious expression is recast as a threat to state security. Falun Gong practitioners have also faced extreme persecution, including arrests, torture and deaths in custody, with figures suggesting that more than 2,800 were arrested in 2024 alone. A mounting body of evidence presented in 2019 at the China tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC—the same person who chaired the Uyghur tribunal—pointed to the conclusion that Falun Gong practitioners have been the victims of a state-run programme of forced organ harvesting. It is unbelievable what went on there.
It is clear now that religious persecution in China has two aspects: the careful controlling of a narrow, politicised form of religion, and the outright repression of all other expressions of that faith. We see that clearly in the systemic persecution of Chinese Christians.
First, we see the careful controlling of a narrow and highly politicised form of Christianity. The so-called Three-Self Patriotic Movement, a state-sponsored form of Chinese Christianity, is presented by the authorities as the legitimate framework for Protestant worship. This is not simply a matter of registration; it is a matter of subordination. In regulating the churches, the state claims the right to decide which churches may legally exist, which pastors may lawfully preach, which cameras are installed above the doors, what theology may be taught and what children may hear. Registration does not guarantee safety; even registered churches have still been raided. That shows that the issue is not merely whether a church is registered, but whether it remains sufficiently obedient to party priorities.
Secondly, we see the outright repression of all those who refuse to conform to that limited model. While local government officials might be able to turn a blind eye to small house church gatherings, they can crack down in a flash on congregations that risk growing too large, too noticeable or too direct in their political messaging. Unregistered churches are pressured to join the state system, and refusal can trigger raids, detention and prosecution. Even the smallest acts of worship, such as organising a bible study in a home, can be labelled as illegal gatherings, leading to detention and imprisonment.
When preaching is treated as a political crime, and when ordinary worship becomes a criminal offence, freedom of religion or belief is not merely restricted, but effectively denied. What binds all these examples together is not a single denomination or doctrine, but the party’s insistence that no independent moral, spiritual, communal or transnational authority may exist outside its control.
Why should the United Kingdom care? First, because freedom of religion or belief is universal. It is not diminished by geography, and it does not become negotiable because the offending state is economically powerful. Secondly, because the United Kingdom has long claimed a role as a defender of human rights and the international rules-based order. That claim rings hollow if, when confronted with a sophisticated system of ideological repression by a major power, we choose caution over candour. Thirdly, because the evidence before us shows that China’s repression is becoming more systematic, more legalised, more normalised and more exportable. A model in which freedom of religion or belief is hollowed out through licensing, digital surveillance, patriotic indoctrination, vague criminal law and selective prosecution is not only a domestic tragedy for China’s believers, but a profound challenge to international human rights norms.
Let me conclude with several clear points. The United Kingdom should state plainly that China’s Sinicisation programme is incompatible with genuine freedom of religion or belief. We should call for the release of prisoners of conscience who are detained on account of religion or belief, including Christian leaders, Uyghur and Hui Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and others. We should condemn the persecution of Uyghurs as what it is—a genocide. We should press for transparency in administrative and criminal detention, an end to secret detention practices, proper access to lawyers and families, and due process consistent with international standards. We should support international efforts to establish a robust, independent UN mechanism capable of investigating China’s serious human rights violations, including against freedom of religion or belief. We should work with international partners on targeted sanctions against those responsible for gross abuse. We should ensure that UK trade engagement does not proceed as though forced labour, religious persecution, cultural erasure and ideological criminalisation are somehow separate from the overall character of the state with which we are dealing.
China’s believers are not asking this House to solve every problem in one debate, but they are entitled to expect a democratic legislature to tell the truth.
Iqbal Mohamed
Given the 2021 parliamentary vote recognising the risk of genocide of the Uyghurs, does the hon. Member agree that the Government should be taking every step that they are obliged to take, under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, to prevent genocide in China?
Ms Rimmer
I have to say that I did not hear everything that the hon. Member said, but I think we should do whatever we can to bring the issue to a head, one way or another. We cannot just leave it as it is.
I urge the Government to make freedom of religion or belief in China a sustained priority in our diplomacy, multilateral engagement, sanctions policy and trade posture, because if freedom of conscience means anything, it must mean something when it is hardest to defend.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Unfortunately, if they were not here at the start, I am not sure that I will be able to get them in.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on her speech. Although I will talk primarily about the persecution of Christians in China, and particularly the intolerable position of the Catholic Church, I fully support what she and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) said about the persecution of Muslims. What is happening to the Uyghurs is absolutely intolerable.
In China, the institutionally entrenched ideological intolerance of Christianity and other religions stems back to 1949, and has continuously been perpetrated by the communist regime, often with extreme violence. An estimated 96.7 million Christians live in China; they are one of the largest Christian populations in the world. Religious groups are made to register with state-operated “patriotic associations”, and unregistered religious activity is illegal. Many Christians worship in unregistered house churches, which leaves them vulnerable to raids, fines and detention.
China currently ranks 17th on the 2026 world watch list, with a persecution score of 79 out of 100. In many regions of China, children under the age of 18 are widely prohibited from participating in religious activities. The restrictions reported include the suspension of Sunday school programmes, schools discouraging religious belief among students, and students being pressured to report religious activity within their families, which is probably the worst of all—something out of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”.
In September 2025, China introduced new regulations on the online behaviour of religious clergy. The rules require religious leaders to support the leadership of the CCP, promote socialist values and preach only on Government-approved online platforms.
Let me say a bit about the position of the Catholic Church. Catholics were hopeful that the 2018 agreement between the Vatican and the People’s Republic of China would heal wounds caused by the Communist party’s attempt to suppress Catholicism. The promise of reconciliation has, alas, not been realised. In some dioceses, the divisions between the actual Catholic Church in China and the state-backed so-called patriotic Church has actually deepened. Bishops who stood aside in the interests of unity have been marginalised and placed under surveillance for refusing to take part in state structures. State-controlled religious apparatus remains coercive. The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association exercises extensive control over Catholic life in the People’s Republic.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Between 2017 and 2020, my daughter worked as a teacher in Shanghai. We visited her at Easter 2018, and I recall walking past the Catholic cathedral while the service was taking place on Easter morning, and it was overflowing. Later in the day, I attended a service at the church that my daughter went to, and there were 200 or 300 people there. There did not appear to be any repression of the services. Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that it has got much worse over the last three or four years?
Sir Edward Leigh
The devil is in the detail. When it comes to China, everything is very complicated; there are no simple arguments or solutions. This is not an outright communist regime like North Korea. In theory, if someone is a Catholic, they are allowed to practise their faith, which is why my hon. Friend saw the church overflowing, but they have to practise in a way that is approved by the state.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The agreement the Catholic Church signed allowed the Government to approve the bishops and the structure. One of the criticisms that many have made, myself included, is that in getting that agreement the Catholic Church in a way turned its back on all the other Christians in China. It got something—not something great—but to do that, it did not then represent them. As the senior Christian Church in the world, it does bear some responsibility to see Christianity prosper, not go the other way. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Sir Edward Leigh
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. As I develop my speech, I will say that the Church and our leadership were perhaps naive in trusting the communist regime. The agreement is, frankly, proving to be worthless. That is often the case with China, as our own Government found in relation to Hong Kong.
Clergy are more or less required to align with the state body—the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association—in order to function properly in their parishes. The patriotic association has many levers of power at its disposal to use against those who refuse to conform to it, like those principled people mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) who for years were in underground churches. It is a case not of administrative oversight but of the direction of religion by the communist state. The Chinese Communist party has spent three quarters of a century attempting to effectively create an independent national church in China that will conform to the will of China’s secular rulers.
The Vatican-China agreement has resulted not in liberalisation but in stricter controls. Its full details have not been released—it is unbelievable—which prevents us from knowing its actual provisions. We do know from Chinese Catholics on the ground that institutional surveillance is continuing and increasing. State officials are now embedded into dioceses to monitor church life and report on it. In some areas, children are even banned from attending mass and other services. Seminarians are subject to political vetting, and clergy who trained abroad are often required to submit to the approval of the authorities and to retrain. Priests and religious personnel are required to surrender their passports. Surveillance, harassment and even imprisonment are normal.
The United Kingdom’s deal with China over Hong Kong gives us all cause for concern. The People’s Republic of China has continually run riot over it and made a mockery of it. Experience is showing that China is now doing the same with the Vatican’s agreement. We look to Pope Leo XIV for leadership and guidance. The agreement is up for periodic renewal. It has not been successful. We must be honest with ourselves and the world, even if that means not renewing the agreement.
Chinese Catholics and fellow Christians, as well as other persecuted minorities in China, should not have to suffer at the hands of the state. The United Kingdom must be vigorous in raising these subjects in diplomatic conversations. I say to the Minister that this must not just be an obligatory embarrassing aside, but a headline item in our interactions with the communist Chinese state.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate. This is not the first time that either of us have spoken on this topic in this place. I also pay tribute to the Father of the House for his speech. I hope that Pope Leo heeds his call and follows the example of his predecessor, John Paul II, in standing up to communism around the world.
I am delighted to see present the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has previously spoken passionately about the Uyghur Muslims in China. I am disappointed that he came in late, because I was looking forward to hearing his remarks. I hope you can fit him in at some point, Ms Jardine.
On 12 October 2020, as a member of the Petitions Committee I led a debate on China’s policy on its Uyghur population. The petition we debated asked the Government at the time to impose sanctions on China over its treatment of Uyghur Muslims, and had nearly 150,000 signatures. Many Members spoke of how Uyghur Muslims, a Turkic ethnic group native to Xinjiang, China, had been subject to mass detention, surveillance, forced labour and many other human rights abuses. It is a tragedy that, six years later, nothing has changed, and the Uyghurs still face unimaginable horrors.
Just 1.8% of China’s population is Muslim; however, the Chinese Government are making it almost impossible to practice Islam freely, thanks to strict, unlawful restrictions. Under the guise of preventing religious extremism, they target any form of expression of Islam, even if it is practised behind closed doors in someone’s home.
According to the House of Commons Library, over 1 million Uyghurs have been forced into re-education camps since 2017. These re-education camps are nothing of the sort. According to the BBC and other news sources, in these camps women were sexually assaulted, Muslims were forced to eat pork and detainees were subject to all forms of abuse. Simultaneously, in Xinjiang mosques were destroyed, halal food was hard to find and fasting during was Ramadan not allowed, making it impossible for Uyghurs to freely practice their religion and beliefs.
China views any practice associated with Islam as extremism. The Chinese Communist party wants to completely erase the Uyghur population, their culture and their way of life. The BBC has also revealed that women have experienced forced sterilisation, forced abortion, rape, assault and separation from their children and families. The Council on Foreign Relations claims that children have been sent to boarding schools without parental consent. The injustices that women and children face are nothing short of horrifying. As a democratic Government, we must continue to speak up for women and girls’ rights around the world, just as we have been doing here in the United Kingdom.
I think the same now as I thought in 2020, when I sat on the Opposition Benches. We as a country cannot be silent about China’s actions. They are not only a clear restriction on the ability to freely practice beliefs, but a threat to the existence of an entire group of people. It is nothing short of truly sickening.
The so-called re-education camps may have largely been abandoned since 2023 because the Chinese Communist party has adopted new methods, but freely practising Islam is still forbidden and punished. The methods of eradication have changed; the aim has not. The changes indicate not an easing of China’s policy, but an erasure of Uyghur culture, which has been dismantled, attacked and stamped out for years. The formal justice system is now being used to imprison people for reasons such as attending mosque services, sending texts containing verses from the Quran or contacting people from any of the 26 countries that China considers sensitive. Their crime, in China’s eyes, is simply having been born a Muslim.
Just last week, the Telegraph carried a story about a new shared identity law in China. The law, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston has touched on, was introduced to further assimilate Uyghurs by requiring pre-school children to learn Mandarin and giving Chinese characters priority over the scripts of minority languages. The Chinese Government also changed the name of 630 Uyghur villages. The end goal is the erosion of the cultural practices and rights of minority groups.
I am sure that I speak for everyone in this room when I say that I am especially appalled by reports of organ harvesting. It is horrific, repulsive and inhumane. It has no place in the 21st century. There are truly no words to describe the operation that the Chinese Communist party has been running.
China’s actions are affecting Uyghurs not only in China, but worldwide. The Thai Government deported 48 Uyghurs in February 2025, despite that Government’s incorporation of an international legal principle that bans countries from returning people to a place where they face the risk of persecution. China’s influence is evidently spreading: Beijing has pressured other Governments to repatriate Uyghurs who have fled China.
China denies to Uyghur Muslims communication with the rest of the world. That is why it is up to democratic Governments who believe in the rule of law to speak up with one voice and condemn the actions of the Chinese Communist party. Equally, we cannot stand by and let China’s influence spread. People should feel safe to freely practise their religious beliefs, and we must continue to acknowledge the human rights abuses that China has been committing for years. Human rights abuses should be called out, whoever commits them. We should not be afraid to stand up to them and speak out when we see or hear about them.
Given how difficult it is to hear from Uyghurs in China, the Government must listen to those around the world and their experiences. They provide a rare opportunity for us to hear about the brutality of their treatment. We must give them a voice and, more importantly, listen and respond to what they are saying. I therefore ask the Minister: in what ways are the Government communicating with Uyghurs around the world? I urge the Minister to continue making use of advocacy groups such as Stop Uyghur Genocide and the Muslim Association of Britain to truly listen to the horrific experience of Uyghur Muslims and understand how our Government can support them.
The freedom of religion or belief strategy, which was published in July 2025, highlights China as a focus country. Can the Minister give more details on how the strategy has helped those who face religious persecution in China, specifically Uyghurs, and on whether there are any new updates or changes to the way the strategy works? Does the Minister have any plans to introduce stronger sanctions, given that China is not improving its treatment of Uyghur Muslims? Our Government cannot refuse to impose harsher sanctions or pose harder questions because economic questions are at stake. When an entire religious group’s existence is threatened, we must stand alongside them. Not only is that in line with the Labour Government’s values, but it should be in line with humanity.
I would also like to know what the Government are doing specifically to support Uyghur women and children around the world. They, in particular, have been silenced and have faced gender-based violence. It is vital that we create new, different and tailored ways to give them a voice and support within the freedom of religion or belief strategy.
I do not want to be standing here in six years’ time with the same things happening: more abuse and more erosion of human rights. I do not want to be standing here with a Government who are afraid to stand up to China because they see it as economically powerful. I want something done, and I want it done now. It does not matter whether someone is Christian, Muslim or whatever religion they subscribe to. We are all humans, and we should stand up for the human race.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for setting the scene incredibly well in this very important debate. Her unwavering commitment ensures that the persecution of religious minorities in China, an issue that too often risks being forgotten, remains a consistent and vital part of parliamentary discourse.
I give credit to the Minister and the Government for their part in championing freedom of religion or belief as a fundamental human right. Each Thursday morning, at business questions to the Leader of the House, I ask a question about somewhere across the world where there is discrimination and where freedom of religion is found wanting. To be fair to the Leader of the House and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, they always come back with a commitment within a week or 10 days. That is to be commended, and I thank the Minister and the Government for it. Our nation has long sought to stand at the forefront of global efforts to promote religious freedom. We recognise that faith is not merely a private conviction; it is a core pillar of identity, community, conscience and human dignity.
Through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have learned how many of the freedoms that we take for granted are denied to millions around the world. Basic rights such as access to employment and the freedom to live in peace, practise one’s faith and hold one’s beliefs are routinely denied to Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong practitioners, Christians and many other minority groups in China. It is therefore vital that our Government continue to hold partners, allies and counterparts accountable for the national and international commitments that they have made.
For many of us, this is not the first time that we have discussed freedom of religion or belief in China. We are very aware of the injustices, persecution and systematic repression that many religious minorities continue to face, without respite or easement and without any sanction on the perpetrators. As the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston clearly outlined, more than a decade into President Xi Jinping’s rule, efforts to centralise control have resulted in heightened repression across the country, particularly in the years following the covid-19 pandemic.
The Chinese constitution claims to guarantee freedom of religious belief, especially under article 36, which recognises five officially sanctioned religions. On the ground, however, the opposite happens: ultimately, the authority of the Chinese Communist party supersedes those constitutional protections. Police routinely arrest, detain and harass leaders and members of so-called illegal religious groups that refuse to join state-sanctioned religious bodies. Their peaceful gatherings are disrupted. Many face imprisonment simply for practising their faith independently. There is no independent civil society. The freedoms of expression, association, assembly and religion remain severely restricted. Human rights defenders and those who are perceived as critics of the Government face persecution. I will mention some of them.
One of those individuals is the Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who is one of the APPG’s spotlight prisoners of conscience. He was first detained by the Chinese authorities in 2006. Prior to that, he was widely respected for taking on sensitive human rights cases, including defending religious minorities. Between 2006 and 2011, he was repeatedly disappeared and was subjected to severe beatings and torture. From 2011 to 2014, he served a prison sentence; he was released in August 2014. He was forcibly disappeared again from his home in Shanxi province on 13 August 2017. His disappearance is widely believed to be linked to his legal work defending human rights and religious minorities, particularly Christians and Falun Gong practitioners. His whereabouts remain unknown, but it is widely believed that he is being held in some form of detention.
I ask that the Minister ask his officials to investigate where Gao Zhisheng is. Alongside him are Pastor Ezra Jin, Renagul Gheni, Pastor Huang Yizi and Dr Wang Bingzhang. Along with countless others, they have experienced similar stories of repression, arbitrary torture, detention and forced disappearance. Those stories must not be ignored.
According to the 2024 Fund for Peace human rights and rule of law index, China ranks as the third worst country in the world for human rights. Out of approximately 175 countries, it is right up at the top in third place, chasing place No. 1. China and the Chinese Communist party want to do away with all human rights and all religious beliefs and control them in their entirety. That is deeply concerning and should not be overlooked in any of our diplomatic engagements with Chinese counterparts.
I want to acknowledge the important work of the UK-based non-governmental organisations and advocacy groups whose research and reporting continues to shed light on human rights abuses in China. Without their work and dedication, much of what we know today would remain hidden.
I recently had a conversation with a representative of the Chinese consulate in Northern Ireland. Boy, is that boy brainwashed! He was trying to tell me how things were in China, but he picked the wrong person that day. I gave him a wee bit of focus for his attention after he invited me to China. I said, “I’ll hardly be going, but I tell you what: whenever you stop persecuting the Christians, stop abusing the Falun Gong and stop massacring, killing and raping Uyghur Muslims, you and I will have a conversation.” I will also send him this speech, which will probably end up in his bin. He is the Chinese Communist party’s representative in Northern Ireland; I am watching him and he knows I am watching him. I hope he is watching us here on TV, by the way—just to let you know, I know where you are.
I have made a list of the many communities in China who are not free to practise their beliefs. More than 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other Turkic Muslim minorities have been detained without charge in so-called re-education or internment camps. Protestant and Catholic Christians face harassment, detention, imprisonment, fines and the closure of churches. Falun Gong practitioners and other independent spiritual groups have been labelled as evil cults since 1999. Many have been arrested, imprisoned and tortured. Tragically, there have been numerous reports of deaths in custody. Tibetan Buddhists face severe restrictions on religious expression, including surveillance, detention and torture for peaceful religious activities. Smaller religious groups and independent spiritual leaders are frequently targeted under broad social order laws.
Among those cases, we see a clear pattern. If you refuse to submit to state control and the Chinese Communist party, you are silenced—not you, Ms Jardine; I am referring to the generic “you”. We are given the opportunity to be a voice for the voiceless. We must ensure that those who are suffering persecution know that they are not forgotten. If the freedom of one religious community is taken away, we must send a message to the world that the freedoms of others can also be removed without consequence. Nothing is more important than human lives made vulnerable by our silence.
In everything we do, we must remember the Uyghur Muslims, the thousands of Christians worshipping in underground churches, the Falun Gong practitioners and the many other minority communities who face constant pressure to conform to the ideology of the Chinese Communist party or risk separation from their families, forced labour or even death. For me as a Christian, and for the many others here who have the same faith, this is not only a political responsibility, but an expression of spiritual solidarity. The deliberate dismantling of families and communities is especially devastating. Church leaders are removed from their homes and imprisoned simply for professing their faith in Jesus Christ. Parents are separated from their children. Congregations are dismantled.
Perhaps most troubling of all are the systematic restrictions placed on young people. Open Doors reports that those under the age of 18 are not permitted to attend even registered church services. Children are the future of any nation; we all know that. Preventing them from attending worship is not accidental. It is a deliberate attempt to shape the future by erasing faith from the next generation. I cannot imagine what it would be like to live in a society in which sharing my faith with my own children could result in punishment, surveillance or separation from them.
Faith is not simply something that we say or do. It is a fundamental part of who we are. In moments of despair and difficult headlines, we all look to hope. For Christians, that hope is found in Jesus Christ, the one who proclaims freedom for the captives and light for those in darkness.
I will draw to a close, ever mindful that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) will speak after me. I want to give him time to participate, because his words are important and we all look forward to hearing what he has to say. James 4:17 states:
“Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
As Christians, we adhere to that promise and hope that others will do likewise. As parliamentarians, we have both the opportunity and the responsibility to do good. We know what good must be done; I think, to be fair, that the Minister and our Government also know what good must be done. May these words strengthen our resolve to stand with all those who suffer. May they encourage us to act with courage and conviction, even in the face of much adversity.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I will have to call the first Front Bencher at 3.28 pm.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I owe you an apology, Ms Jardine, for arriving late to the debate. I am grateful for your chairmanship, and grateful to be allowed in, having been delayed. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate, and for being stalwart in all these issues about freedoms and rights of worship. I bow before her greater authority in this matter.
Much of what I wish to say has already been said. Therefore, in the short time available, I will try to cover the issues that are at stake. We have talked consistently about the problems in China. There are of course many other countries in the world where Christians and Muslims are persecuted, but it is in China that the collective persecution becomes an absolute, state-inspired problem.
The nature of what has been discussed already is quite remarkable. Look, for example, at the programme of Sinicisation of religion by law, and by deliberately abusive behaviour. Crosses must be removed from churches and domes, and the minarets of mosques must be demolished to make them look more like Chinese buildings. Pastors and imams are told to focus on religious teachings that reflect socialist values in line with those of China. Newly annotated versions of core religious texts, including the Bible, the Quran and others, have been issued back to places of worship, and what is left of the churches are regularly ordered to replace images of Jesus with pictures of Xi Jinping. Blatantly, boldly and in full view, China does not want to have any kind of worship beyond the worship of the communist, and in particular of Xi Jinping.
In March this year, China approved a new law that codifies ethnic assimilation, in contravention of China’s own constitution and of international law. It mandates that all children must be taught Putonghua before kindergarten and—interestingly—that they will therefore avoid all aspects of other religions as a matter of doctrine.
That brings me to two elements that I want to focus on. First, as has been said well by hon. Members in this debate, the Uyghurs are suffering a genocide. There is no question about it. The Chinese authorities find them a deeply troublesome group. They are not Han Chinese, and that is what most Chinese policy is about. At the core of the dislike of the Uyghurs lies their Muslim belief. What astounds me so often is that we know about this. We have campaigned on it. I was sanctioned because of the campaign on the Uyghurs. It is interesting how easily people have been allowed to forget the issue and not raise it. I would love all the mosques in the United Kingdom to raise the plight of the Uyghurs, because it is the right thing to do. I would love Christian churches to constantly talk of the plight of the Uyghurs. The Uyghurs have, in many respects, become forgotten.
The persecution of the Uyghurs is appalling. Many hon. Members have talked about the nature of the re-education camps. When did we last hear about the concept of re-education camps? In Nazi Germany. It is astonishing. The women are persecuted and raped, and are now no longer having babies. The population of the Uyghurs has now collapsed because they are being forcibly sterilised, and the men are going off to forced labour—it is so obvious; millions have gone.
By the way, to those who like the free market, I should underline the point that forced labour completely undermines the free market. How can anyone compete with a country that uses forced labour on a grand scale to make products and drive out competitors? There is, in every respect, an absence of tolerance to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism—we too often forget about the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, nearly a quarter of a million of whom are in forced labour camps, rather like the Uyghurs.
What is happening to the Uyghurs is a terrible travesty, but I also want to speak about Christianity and Christian churches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who I have a huge amount of time for, raised the issue of the role of the Catholic Church. I have to say to him that, since I set up the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we have tried to extract from the hierarchy in the Catholic Church—I say this, by the way, as a Catholic—the text of what it agreed with the Chinese Government, and we have never been able to. It has never been published. We have never been able to refer to it. All we are asking for is that it be laid out in the open, so that we can see, first of all, whether the Chinese stick to their arrangements and, secondly, whether there was any provision for other Christians in China.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Holy See, and therefore I go regularly to the Vatican to talk to Archbishop Gallagher, the Foreign Minister of the Vatican. He is an extremely clever, subtle and charming man, but it is very difficult to understand, despite having those personal conversations, what has actually been agreed. My view is that the Vatican is full of principled people who live in a moral dimension, and they are up against intellectual thugs, frankly. We have been sold a pup with this agreement, and we should reconsider it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree with my right hon. Friend completely. Openness sometimes is a far better disinfectant for a problem than keeping it behind closed doors. As we know, the reality, even under the agreement, is pretty appalling. The Chinese get to appoint the bishops they want. People cannot have church house meetings. All the Protestants and other free churches now suffer massive persecution; they can be closed down because the umbrella of the Catholic Church has moved away from them.
What do we know about China? China is petrified about what happened to it, to Poland and eventually to the Soviet Union: the Catholic Church eventually broke down the whole adherence to communism in Poland; that infected pretty much the rest of the Soviet Union, which then collapsed. China is petrified that it will face the same. The only reason it did a deal with the Catholic Church at all was to try to put off the idea that it would be influential, and it has succeeded in that respect. I am very sorry that the previous Pope and the current Pope did not take it upon themselves to pursue this issue and sort it out. I take no pleasure in criticising the Church that I am a member of, but we have to be honest about this. The situation in China for Christians is appalling. We could have done more, and the Catholic Church could have done more, but we forget the Buddhists, we forget the Muslims, and we forget the others whose right to practise free faith has gone as well.
Before anybody says that I am only on the attack against the Labour Government, I want to say that I am not: when my party was in government, I was as much a thorn in their side as I am now in the side of the Labour Government. It is just the reality, and we have to face up to the facts. The recent visit by the Prime Minister to China was a problem. I simply say this to the Government. When the Minister responds to the debate, he must understand what has already been said by one of his colleagues: does economics trump freedom, freedom of religion and freedom of speech? If it does, we have gone down a bad road. If it does not, then why are we doing this right now?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this important debate. Engagement without condition is not diplomacy; it is complicity. Promoting the values of democracy, respect for the rule of law and protection of religious freedoms must be the cornerstone of any serious British foreign policy, particularly foreign policy with a country that has outright rejected the values of democracy. Yes, China is a major global power, and yes, Britain must engage with it on trade, climate change and the great shared challenges of our time, but engagement cannot come at the cost of our principles, because when we trade away our values, we diminish not only ourselves but the very idea of Britain as a force for good in the world—an idea that has already taken a solid beating in recent years after the last Government’s cuts to the Department for International Development and this Government’s refusal to reverse them.
We have accepted that the people of China will not have democracy—a decision that will weaken their society from top to bottom—but turning a blind eye to the Chinese Communist party’s human rights abuses requires some mental gymnastics, because they sit in plain sight. The CCP’s actions in Hong Kong are openly intended to snuff out any remaining hope of a return to democracy, and its openly autocratic ambitions for Taiwan are clearly in breach of an international order that is grounded in sovereignty and freedom, revealing a fear of the accountability that democracy enables. Most disturbingly of all, we have seen years of coverage, research and evidence on what is clearly a genocide against the Uyghurs.
It is true to say that some degree of realism holds water in the practice of international relations, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are clear about where the red lines are. We are clear that freedom of belief should not be reclassified as a western luxury. It is a universal human right that is set out in the UN charter, and which has been established as a principle in the hearts and minds of conscientious people the world over, yet religion exists in China only at the pleasure of the state. China operates a centrally directed system of ideological control to stifle hearts as much as it stifles minds. It is clear that China operates a centrally directed, ideological and coercive policy of assimilation that is rooted in ethnic nationalism, intolerance and the regime’s demand for absolute authority.
China’s economic rise is undeniable. It has lifted millions of people out of poverty and reshaped the global economy. Under President Xi, China has become an even bolder systemic rival to the open and democratic rules-based order that we believe in, leading some in the west to argue that China’s economic success warrants a rethink of the kinds of values that we are willing to tolerate in the global order. But let me be clear: we must not follow that path to its logical and awful conclusion—a world where the liberal values that built not just strong economies, but flourishing and vibrant societies, are jettisoned in favour of nihilism and a belief that “might makes right” and that independence of thought is worth trading for raw economic output.
Britain faces a choice—not about whether to engage, as we must, but about how we engage. Silence in the face of oppression is not neutrality, but weakness at the very least and acquiescence at worst. I fear that this Labour Government risk drifting into that silence through their pursuit of closer economic ties, with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor appearing willing to turn the other cheek to abuses not just in China, but here in our own country. In my constituency of Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park, I represent many Hongkongers who came to this country because they believed that Britain would stand for their freedoms when others would not—a belief encouraged by the introduction of the British national overseas visa scheme, which is one of the few positive things that the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip ever did as Prime Minister. It is a belief that mattered urgently, following the imposition of the national security law.
We have all seen that law unfold before our eyes. Independent media have been silenced in Hong Kong, democratic voices have been imprisoned, and academic and artistic voices that speak out against the CCP have been chillingly dismantled. Thousands of people have been arrested as political prisoners, including the British national Jimmy Lai, who now faces the rest of his life in prison for daring to exercise his freedom of speech. China has banned Jimmy Lai from receiving the sacrament from the priests who occasionally visit him—a gross violation of his religious freedom.
Instead of making the case of Jimmy Lai a priority, the Prime Minister has followed a strategy of kowtowing to Beijing, which has already compromised the UK’s security. Frankly, his greenlighting of the Chinese embassy in the heart of London is his biggest national security mistake to date, and presents an open door for the ramping up of Chinese spying in our country. He has also sent the utterly shameful message to Hongkongers—many of whom have already been targeted, intimidated and coerced by the CCP on our own streets—that he prioritises trade deals over their safety.
It is time for the Prime Minister to show some backbone in his dealings with President Xi. He must call louder for the release of Jimmy Lai and challenge Xi personally on the bounties that have been raised against Hong Kong activists in the UK. He recently spoke about putting the national interest first in his foreign policy. I invite the Minister to confirm whether the Prime Minister will take that approach when he next meets the Chinese Government, because it is clearly not the case today. I would also like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister to confirm that nobody who is here through the British national overseas scheme because they wish to live freely in a democracy will be forcibly sent back into the CCP’s arms if they fail to pass something as arbitrary as an English-language test to qualify for indefinite leave to remain.
There are other critical things that the Government must not shy away from discussing with Beijing. Let us be clear that the Chinese state has constructed a system of control against the Uyghur Muslim population so intrusive and calculated that it cannot be dismissed as anything other than co-ordinated genocide. We see mass internment camps, forced labour and relentless surveillance operating at an incredible scale. At the heart of the human rights abuses in Xinjiang, we see an attempt to erase the Uyghur identity itself. Faith, language and culture are being stripped away in the name of CCP control. This is a genocide. The Labour party in opposition was willing to call it that, and Parliament voted in 2021 to recognise it as such, but the Government have yet to confirm their position.
I will ask the Minister several questions in closing, each of which I hope he will address, because my constituents, British nationals and people around the world want to hear his answers. Will he tell us candidly whether economic calculations have led the Government to reverse their position on whether a genocide has taken place? If he argues that they have not, I invite him—without compromising classified information—to present evidence to the House to support that claim. I also ask him to confirm whether sanctions are still under review for individuals and entities complicit in infringements of the freedom of speech, region or belief, or any other manner of human rights abuses. On trade and supply chains, will the Minister commit to a ban on imports from regions where there is documented evidence of forced labour? If not, why not? If so, can he confirm that these will be Magnitsky-style sanctions that make use of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018?
I really hope the Minister will answer those questions because the British public deserve to know ahead of the next China visit, whenever it may occur, which path the Government have chosen—silent acquiescence and weakness, or a Britain that has the courage of its convictions and is not afraid to call out injustice on the world stage once more.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this important debate on Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.
I thank all Members who have taken the time to participate in this debate, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). And I say this with all sincerity: no debate in Westminster Hall, particularly on freedom of religion or belief, would be complete without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated their determination to continue to raise this important matter in this place.
Freedom of religion or belief is one of the most fundamental human rights. It is the right to hold beliefs, practise them openly and live according to one’s conscience without fear of persecution. That principle lies at the very heart of the international human rights framework, and the United Kingdom has historically championed it across the world. Yet in China today, we see deeply troubling evidence that that freedom is being systematically eroded. Nowhere is that more evident than in Xinjiang, where credible reports have documented the widespread repression of the Uyghur Muslims and other minority communities, as we have heard. There is extensive evidence of mass detention, forced labour, the destruction of religious sites and the suppression of religious practices. Mosques have reportedly been demolished or repurposed, and individuals have faced punishment simply for expressing their faith. These are not isolated incidents; they form part of a wider pattern of state control over religion.
Similar concerns arise in Tibet, where, as we have heard, Tibetan Buddhists continue to face restrictions on their religious life and cultural identity. Monasteries are closely monitored, religious leaders face intense scrutiny, and the ability of communities to practise their faith freely is severely constrained. For many Tibetans, religion is inseparable from culture and identity, so these restrictions go far beyond matters of worship.
There are also growing concerns about religious freedom in Hong Kong. For many years, Hong Kong stood as a place where religious communities could operate with relative freedom. However, following the imposition of the Hong Kong national security law, civil society has come under increasing pressure, and the space for freedom, including religious freedom, has narrowed significantly.
The case of Jimmy Lai, the publisher and democracy campaigner, remains a stark example of that wider erosion of liberty. For years, Mr Lai has been imprisoned for his peaceful advocacy of democratic values. His case has become emblematic of the shrinking freedoms in Hong Kong and has rightly drawn strong concern from Members right across this House, some of whom are here today.
Freedom of religion or belief does not exist in isolation. It flourishes only where other fundamental freedoms—speech, assembly and the rule of law—are protected. That is why this debate is so important. It is not simply about one right among many, but about the wider ecosystem of freedoms that allows a society to flourish.
Historically, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in defending those freedoms. Our diplomats have worked through international institutions; our Ministers have raised concerns directly with their counterparts; and Parliament has consistently spoken with moral clarity when human rights are under threat. However, in recent months there has been discussion about a potential “reset” in the United Kingdom’s relationship with China. Engagement between nations is of course necessary—I understand that. China is a major global power and dialogue is essential on issues ranging from trade to climate change, but we should engage with China from a position of strength. That means being clear-eyed about where we have leverage and using it responsibly in defence of our values.
In that context, issues such as the decision on the proposed new Chinese embassy in London take on a wider significance. Approving such a development without securing meaningful progress on issues such as human rights risks giving up important leverage prematurely. Engagement must therefore be principled, co-ordinated and rooted in a firm commitment to the freedoms we seek to uphold, but engagement must never come at the expense of our values.
I hope that the Minister will address a number of important questions when he responds. First, as part of any diplomatic engagement with Beijing, have the Government raised the issue of freedom of religion or belief directly with the Chinese authorities, and if so, what response did they receive?
Secondly, will the Government continue to work with partners at the United Nations to highlight human rights concerns in China? Previous Governments played an important role in co-ordinating joint statements on abuses in Xinjiang and elsewhere. Do Ministers intend to continue building those coalitions internationally?
Thirdly, can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to protect individuals in the United Kingdom from transnational repression? In recent years, there have been increasing concerns about intimidation, surveillance and pressure being directed at diaspora communities here in the UK. Individuals who speak out about religious freedom or human rights abroad must be able to do so without fear of harassment or coercion on British soil.
Finally, I would welcome clarity on how human rights considerations are being weighed in the Government’s broader relationship with China. There has been considerable public debate about the proposed redevelopment of the Chinese embassy, on the Royal Mint Court site, into what would become the largest Chinese embassy complex in Europe. Many have raised concerns about the symbolic and practical implications of that project, given the wider human rights context. Planning decisions must of course follow the proper legal process, but the Government must recognise the strength of feeling that exists when questions of national security, human rights and foreign policy intersect in this way, and they must surely understand why so many people oppose the development of a new Chinese embassy in London.
The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a country that stands up for liberty and the rule of law. Those principles have shaped our history, our institutions and our place in the world. When people are persecuted for their faith, whether they are Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, Christians facing restrictions in China, or religious communities under pressure in Hong Kong, we simply cannot look the other way. The credibility of our foreign policy depends on our willingness to speak clearly and consistently about such issues. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that freedom of religion or belief remains a central pillar of the UK’s foreign policy, and that in our engagement with China, we will continue to stand firmly on the side of those whose fundamental freedoms are under threat.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, I think for the second time since you joined the Panel of Chairs. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this important debate, and I appreciate the thoughtful contributions by hon. Members from across the House. They have sent a clear signal of the deep and shared concern in this place about the challenges faced by faith and belief communities across China.
Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right that sits at the heart of the UK’s wider human rights approach. The Government strategy on this topic was published last summer. It makes it plain that this fundamental human right is an important part of our foreign policy. As part of our strategy, we are focusing on 10 priority countries where we judge that we can make the biggest difference in defending that right; China is among them. That is the right thing to do and is firmly in our national interest: we know that countries that uphold fundamental rights and the rule of law are more stable, prosperous and resilient. When freedom of religion or belief comes under pressure, it is so often the case that other rights quickly follow.
Those who wish to exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief in China face deep restrictions. Communities are limited in being able to practice their faith freely, including the Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Catholic and Protestant Christians, and Falun Gong practitioners. As I think every Member mentioned today, we continue to see extensive state control over freedom of religion or belief across different communities, including intrusive surveillance, restrictions on worship, requirements for political education and arbitrary detention.
In Xinjiang, the scale and severity of those violations affecting the Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim communities remain of deep and long-standing concern. With Ramadan underway and Eid approaching, we are especially mindful of reports of restrictions on fasting and religious observance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) mentioned, and the continued pressure that those communities face. In Tibet, sustained interference in monastic life, cultural expression and the appointment of religious leaders continues to pose a profound challenge to the perseverance of Tibetan Buddhism and identity.
We have also witnessed continued pressure on Christian communities, and the arrest of Zion church leaders in October was a stark reminder of the growing constraints on pastors and Christian worship more broadly. Many churches have endured closures, intimidation and intensified surveillance, all of which point to the shrinking space for independent Christian worship. Falun Gong practitioners continue to face intimidation, restrictions on assembly and arbitrary detention. Those who practice outside China face serious threats and harassment linked to their beliefs.
The Government have been clear that China must uphold its international obligations. As a signatory to the universal declaration of human rights, we expect China to observe the obligations that it has freely accepted. Individuals should be free to practice or not practice religion or belief according to their conscience without fear, coercion or discrimination.
I am grateful to hon. Members for the points, observations and questions they have raised in this debate. Let me specifically address the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens South and Whiston and for Caerphilly about the ethnic unity law. China’s ethnic unity law risks further tightening controls over culture, religion and language. We will continue as a Government to monitor developments, and we will not hesitate to raise our concerns with China. We urge China to respect its obligations under international and national law.
Although I cannot pre-empt specifics on future diplomatic engagements, the UK will consistently raise concerns about minority rights wherever we engage with Chinese counterparts, both bilaterally and in co-ordination with international partners; I will come to some of the questions about the United Nations shortly. We advance freedom of religion or belief in China in three ways: by raising concerns privately and publicly, by using our influence during bilateral and multilateral engagements and by supporting communities across China that are affected by violations.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have not taken part in a debate with him on this subject, either on the Floor of the House or in this Chamber in my six months as the Minister or in my 10 years in the House. He is a true champion of freedom of religion or belief. I pay tribute to his absolute steadfast dedication to not just those of Christian faith but all those who hold faith across this country and across the world. If he writes to me about the Chinese human rights lawyer—forgive me, but I could not catch the gentlemen’s name—I am more than happy to ask my officials to investigate and come back to him in writing.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked about our bilateral engagements. We are committed to challenging China where we must, and our bilateral engagement on this matter is firm and consistent. I should tell the House, particularly in response to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), that the Prime Minster has raised these concerns on human rights abuses and freedom of religion and belief. The Chancellor and Ministers have raised those abuses, as have the Foreign Secretary and the former Foreign Secretary. I understand that that was the case under the previous Government, too. We have a unity of purpose, and we will call out religious persecution where we see it in our multilateral and bilateral relationships.
The UK has continually raised concerns about violations affecting faith communities. We monitor developments closely and raise cases directly with authorities whenever that is appropriate. Those conversations are not easy, but they are essential. It is because we maintain engagement that we can raise the hardest issues directly, including on freedom of religion or belief, and we do so at the highest levels.
Many Members raised the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China. I wonder if some Members do not follow the news or statements on the Floor of the House, but the Prime Minister raised the points that many Members have raised today directly with President Xi, and he said that in his statements on the Floor of the House. Senior Ministers have raised those abuses with their counterparts and we will continue to do so, for the record. That sustained engagement at senior levels ensures that our concerns are clearly heard and understood.
The shadow Minister and a number of colleagues raised issues around our support within the multilateral space. The shadow Minister is quite right to raise that the UK not only led the charge, but was the first country to lead the UN statement on human rights abuses in China. I can confirm that we will continue to lead that work in the multilateral space. That is why we work with international partners, not just in the UN but in the G7 and in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and through coalitions such as the Media Freedoms Coalition, which is central to our approach. I am pleased that we have been able to take the chair of the Media Freedoms Coalition; that means that we can focus on another form of abuse, on media freedom, over the next two years.
We use all possible levers to hold China to account for human rights abuses against the Uyghur, Tibetans, Christians and others. Last July, the UK hosted a side event at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to reaffirm the universal right to freedom of religion or belief, including for Tibetan Buddhists. I pay tribute to, and thank, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who is the UK special envoy, for championing the UK’s commitment to that matter at the event and for reaffirming the right of Tibetans to choose their own religious leaders.
We will never shy away from calling on China to improve its record on freedom of religion or belief, and on human rights in general. To pick up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly about violence against women and girls, he may not have seen that just yesterday the Foreign Secretary announced her pillars of work for the Government within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. One of them is specifically about tackling violence against women and girls globally, not just in the UK. It will remain an absolute priority that we call out that violence, not just in conflict but also in matters of human rights abuses across the world.
Many Members have raised the question of what the Government are doing now. On 2 March, the UK’s ambassador for human rights called on China to address reports of restrictions on religious and cultural freedoms and of forced labour—mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—and urged the release of all arbitrarily detained individuals. That work goes on constantly and all the time, and will continue to do so under this Government.
The shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned Hong Kong, and specifically Jimmy Lai and the national security law imposed on Hong Kong to silence China’s critics. The Foreign Secretary could not be clearer that that is a political imposition and something that we do not support. The Foreign Secretary and other senior Ministers have also raised Mr Lai’s case, including the Prime Minister, who, during his visit, raised it directly with President Xi. That has opened up discussions of the most acute concerns directly with the Chinese Government at the highest levels. Following the sentencing fairly recently, we will rapidly engage in and continue to engage in Mr Lai’s case.
To conclude—I am conscious of time and the need to allow my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston to make her own concluding remarks—I again thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. The situation for many religious and belief communities in China remains extremely serious. The Government will continue to raise concerns at the highest levels, to press China to meet its international obligations, to work with international partners, and to support practical initiatives that defend that fundamental right. Freedom of religion or belief is and will remain a non-negotiable part of the UK’s engagement with China. We will remain steadfast in defending this right for everyone.
Ms Rimmer
There are few of us here today, but the speeches in this debate have been absolutely from the heart, sincere, and very detailed indeed. Members have not just come in and written out a speech; they are here because they have been living with this issue for years. They really believe in what they are saying, and we really want to see an outcome.
I was invited this morning to 1 Parliament Street and Room B with a group of children from a Manchester school; I think they were about seven or eight. They made me the bracelet that I am wearing. They taught me how to make it, but they had to do that because I could not thread the thread through the beads. Each bead represents a religion, and there are two of each colour all the way round. The booklet that comes with it tells us about religion.
I was thinking to myself about coming to this debate and what is going on in the world now. I was thinking about religion and belief and why people are fighting when they should not be. Every single religion is in this book and is represented with beads on this bracelet. It tells you what they are looking for and the peace message: treat others as you would like them to treat you. Everything comes down to the same thing, in different words. The children were pointing this out to me and saying, “We should all have a religion. Some people don’t, but they still believe in being kind to each other,” and I thought, “If only they could grow up and carry on through the world like that—keeping peace.” If only we could do that.
We have been focusing on the profoundly important issue of freedom of religion or belief. I thank my friends the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who put so much effort into the cause of freedom of religion or belief, and human rights. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) speaks out very often about it. I did not know of the interest in and passion for the cause of the Uyghurs that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) has, but certainly in his speech he was well involved in capturing that. He spoke about organ harvesting and about Xinjiang. It was wonderful to hear his commitment and his depth of understanding of what was going on. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) is just wonderful. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) has gone out of the Chamber. I am sorry that I could not hear all of his interventions to answer them. I thank them all very much, and the Minister for his responses. We will keep on at the Government. We are not going to go away.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.
Cheadle Train Station
(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
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I will call Tom Morrison to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention in these 30-minute debates, there will unfortunately not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Mr Morrison
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of Cheadle train station.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the Minister for being here to address my concerns and those of my constituents directly. Cheadle is a thriving and growing town in Greater Manchester with 23,000 residents. It is a vibrant place packed with great restaurants and a fantastic community culture, and it has the most beautiful green spaces in the region. Yet it has been missing a railway station for over half a century.
The original station opened 1 February 1866. It had two platforms and was located just north of Cheadle High Street. It connected Cheadle to Warrington, Stockport and Liverpool, opening up new opportunities for almost a century. At the time, the line was crucial for transporting coal between Yorkshire and the port of Liverpool, as it avoided central Manchester. The route was one of the busiest double-track lines in the country for goods services. Sadly, passenger services were withdrawn in November 1964, and Cheadle has not had a passenger rail service since.
Today, Cheadle is suffering from chronic congestion. Everyone in the area will know what I mean when I talk about the Manchester Road crawl. Between 8 am and 9am, and then between 3 pm and 6 pm, the roads between Cheadle and Manchester stand at a halt as hundreds upon hundreds of cars, buses, lorries and other vehicles try to use the route between the two areas. This happens every day of the week and has become a source of real angst for my constituents.
People are rightly encouraged to take the bus for public transport, but it takes an hour to get from Cheadle to Manchester Piccadilly, and from Cheadle to Stockport town centre, whereas it would take just 18 minutes and seven minutes respectively by train. It is clear that Cheadle train station is the antidote. The benefits of restoring Cheadle’s rail connection would be boundless, breathing extra life into the high street, connecting residents with work and family, reducing congestion and supporting clean growth, while opening up the region for my constituents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. Like him, we lost our train station many moons ago—back at a time when I had hair, which was a long time ago. We have watched the decline of public transport, and if we get rid of stations, it means a slow decline, and can easily end up with the removal of lines. While the profit margin is, and should be, a material consideration, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the obligation to provide a service is equally important?
Mr Morrison
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. Yes, the point is that this is about people. Given the rate I am losing my hair, I hope we get the train station while I have more hair than him.
Residents overwhelmingly support the new station, with 87% of people responding positively to the consultation, which was managed by Cheadle Civic Society and the Cheadle Village Partnership—two organisations that are run by local community activists who have the village at their heart. The proposal was approved for planning in 2023, but no work on site has been done. My constituents write to me almost every day to ask where the station is and why it has not been built yet.
Make no mistake: Cheadle rail station is a fully developed, shovel-ready proposal, and there is absolutely no reason it should have stalled like this. The business case was developed and approved, the land negotiations were progressed and agreed, the timetable modelling and independent analysis were all done, and never was there any sign that there could be a problem. It was a truly collaborative effort. Stockport council, Transport for Greater Manchester, Northern and Network Rail have all worked together to make Cheadle rail station a reality. Most importantly, the community stood up and pulled together to make it happen. This is truly the people’s project.
The plans have support from the leader of Stockport council, councillors and MPs across the borough, the Greater Manchester chamber of commerce, numerous local businesses, and the Greater Manchester combined authority, which included the station in the 2025 Greater Manchester strategy. The project even has the support of the Mayor of Greater Manchester. The station is designed to be inclusive, which will be especially welcome news to train station accessibility campaigner Nathaniel Yates, who works so hard to make sure that all Greater Manchester rail stations have disabled access.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a compelling case for the people of Cheadle to get the railway station they deserve. He mentioned Nathaniel Yates, who is a phenomenal campaigner in our region for accessibility at railway stations, and I visited Bredbury station and Romiley station with him. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that when we eventually do get Cheadle station, it should be accessible, so that everybody can access it and people get the rail service they deserve.
Mr Morrison
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. The one word we can use to describe Nathaniel Yates is “legend”. He has put accessibility at train stations at the very top of the agenda in Greater Manchester, and we should all follow his lead on this.
Transport for Greater Manchester says that the station would deliver significant benefits, including fast, reliable and accessible connections between Cheadle, Stockport and Manchester, meaning greater opportunities and less car dependency. Additionally, the increase in journeys would improve the commercial sustainability of the mid-Cheshire line. There would be an estimated demand for 91,000 new passenger journeys a year by the late 2020s, and approximately £400,000 per year in additional revenue.
Sadly, the project has been stalled for some time, and we await a rail industry governance decision on the future of the project. There have been concerns about timetable changes on the mid-Cheshire line, but independent modelling and an industry review show that only minor adjustments are required, with an overall neutral impact on network performance. Any interim adjustments would be temporary and manageable. Network Rail has concerns about the fragility of the Stockport-Manchester corridor, but existing modelling clearly shows that the impact is manageable. That should not outweigh the case for investing in growth, connectivity and opportunity.
It is clear that Cheadle rail station would be more than viable. The Government know this and are dragging their feet—it simply does not make sense. The station makes sense politically, economically, environmentally and socially. The delays in decision making are not only putting the future of the station at risk but undermining the confidence of the public—a public who not only backed the rail station but delivered the consultation. They lobbied politicians and raised a huge campaign in favour of the plans. They are the people who deserve this, and any decision to the contrary, especially after walking them up that hill, would be unforgivable.
The towns fund programme has already had to extend the funding deadline to March 2027 because of the delays. Additionally, costs are increasing with inflation every day, and uncertainty is building for partners and contractors. Constituents write to me week in, week out, without fail, to inquire about the progress of the station, and each week I am unable to update them further. This cannot go on.
The people of Cheadle need clear direction from the Government. Responsibility for the delay lies squarely with the Department for Transport, which has the mandate to instruct Northern to serve the new station—powers that neither Stockport council nor Transport for Greater Manchester have. The Department must confirm that the required timetable change can proceed, outline a firm pathway for construction, and constructively engage with Network Rail and Northern Rail to move the project forward.
Since this bump in the road arose, I and the Cheadle towns fund board have taken numerous steps to engage with the Department for Transport directly. I wrote to the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, in December and urged him to provide clarity, and I am still awaiting a response. Stockport council and the Cheadle towns fund board have also written to the Minister, and are awaiting a response.
I say again that Cheadle train station is fully funded, planned and widely supported, and would only enhance Cheadle further, drastically improving residents’ lives, boosting growth in the economy, tackling regional inequality and increasing sustainable transport. The Government simply need to get their act together and sign it off. With Government backing, the station would quickly become a reality, regenerating the village centre, increasing connectivity and driving economic resilience. Very few infrastructure projects reach this stage with such strong backing and unified support.
This is also a prime opportunity for the Government to walk the walk and combat the regional inequalities that they claim to prioritise. The Institute for Public Policy Research argues that the UK’s economic success relies on northern growth, and I could not agree more. Improving people’s day-to-day quality of life directly creates the growth that this country so desperately needs. Treasury officials have previously described the north as an “untapped gold reserve”, and I know that to be true, but the Government must follow that up with action.
Let me highlight the impact of regional inequalities on young people in my constituency. While facing massive challenges, they are now doubly burdened with record unemployment and fewer opportunities for starting out in life. The young people of Cheadle need a good public transport system to help them to access education and jobs. This is not a “nice to have”; they need it.
Does the Minister want Cheadle to thrive and invest in the long term? Do the Government want to leave a legacy that will improve the lives of constituents in Cheadle? Do the Government really mean it when they say they will support clean growth and investment in public transport? Will they get on the train headed towards a more equitable and prosperous country? Will the Minister confirm that the Department will provide the necessary direction so that Cheadle train station can move into delivery without further delay?
I would like to leave a picture in everyone’s minds—a vision for Cheadle. I envision a stronger, more resilient and connected Cheadle in just a few years’ time: a Cheadle where elderly residents such as Paul can easily get the train to their doctor’s appointment; a Cheadle where the high street is thriving even more, and where businesses are fighting to open; a Cheadle where Elise, a teenager at college, can be independent and travel quickly to college without buying a car; and a Cheadle where all residents can easily travel to Hazel Grove and Stockport within minutes, but also to Manchester city centre, Greater Manchester and beyond far more easily than ever before.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that we must conclude by 4.42 pm, when the next debate will begin.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate, and everyone else, including the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on their helpful interventions that stressed the fundamental importance of rail connectivity to communities in the north-west of England.
Before I turn to the substance of my speech, I want to say that I have noted the hon. Member for Cheadle’s point about the lack of response to his correspondence with the Rail Minister and the Department for Transport, and I will make sure that his correspondence receives a full response as quickly as possible.
I am grateful for the impassioned case the hon. Gentleman made for building the new station. He outlined how railways serve as a catalyst for economic growth, social connections and interconnectedness between different communities. A powerful case has been put forward on behalf of the people of Cheadle.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing the debate and pay tribute to him for the strong case he made on behalf of his residents in Cheadle. If I was in his position, I would make broadly the same arguments. However, I am the Member of Parliament for Mid Cheshire, and I have to speak for my constituents, and unfortunately there is no way to deliver a station at Cheadle that does not have a detrimental effect on the mid-Cheshire line and add to the journey time from Northwich, which is already an hour.
Transport for Greater Manchester’s modelling proposed dropping the services from Plumley, Ashley and Mobberley down to every two hours, rather than every hour, which would effectively kill rail travel to those communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the proposal is to go forward, we need to look seriously at either a half-hourly service from Northwich or wider infrastructure improvements, so that we can improve journey times for the whole line?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend pre-empts some of the matters that I will turn to shortly, including connectivity and capacity considerations for other parts of the north-west rail network. He is absolutely right that the Department for Transport has an obligation to ensure that these questions are considered in the round, and that communities are not disadvantaged. I will turn to that point in more detail in a moment.
The Government know and understand how vital good, reliable and frequent rail services are to local communities, particularly those in the north of England, which have seen years of chronic under-investment. The Government recognise the potential benefits of the proposed new station at Cheadle for the local community, including improved access to jobs, education, healthcare and economic growth, alongside the forecasted positive revenue that would help to support the railway’s financial sustainability.
In determining whether a new station is feasible, a number of considerations must be made, and relevant stakeholders must be included in the decision-making process. Network Rail, as the owner of the rail infrastructure, is responsible for assessing whether additional train stops could be accommodated, taking into account operational constraints on the network. The Department for Transport is responsible for understanding the cost to the taxpayer of additional stops and services.
Stockport council, which received funding for the planning and construction of a new station at Cheadle in 2022, is responsible for the project’s delivery, and Cheadle has been included in the Stockport local regeneration fund since September 2025. The funding landscape for local authorities has evolved, with the town deal, the levelling-up fund and the pathfinder pilots now combined into one streamlined, flexible funding stream called the local regeneration fund. This change aims to cut down on bureaucracy, and gives local authorities much more freedom to adapt schemes in response to local needs, so that they no longer require central Government approval for project adjustments. As a result, decision making is now much more devolved, empowering local authorities to act swiftly and responsibly on local priorities.
The delays to the project have unfortunately occurred due to several concerns around timetable feasibility and the potential effects on performance. The proposed location with planning permission is on a single-track section of the rail network, which leads on to the congested corridor between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly, limiting service options and presenting complex operational challenges. While services run along the mid-Cheshire line through Cheadle, the capacity of the line between Stockport and Altrincham is constrained by the single-track stretches. Parts of the mid-Cheshire line are also used by freight services, which will need to be considered when planning for any additional stops.
The interconnected nature of the rail network means that this proposal cannot be considered in isolation; it would affect the nationally significant Stockport-Piccadilly section of the west coast main line. An additional stop on the single-track section risks delays for all services at Edgeley junction No. 2, as trains approach central Manchester and interact with this critical section of the west coast main line. That could have serious knock-on impact on services across the network. The proposed timetable would also require the re-timing of long-distance passenger and freight services.
The Rail North partnership board is the decision-making board for service considerations for Northern Trains Ltd and TransPennine trains, and is one part of the process that needs to be take place to enable the service change. It is now evident that service change, including reducing the frequency of services that stop at Ashley and Plumley, is the only way that an hourly stop at a new station at Cheadle could be accommodated. Officials are developing a paper for consideration by the Rail North partnership board at its next meeting on 15 April. We need to ensure that those who are potentially impacted by such a change are given the opportunity to voice their concerns through meaningful consultation. We therefore encourage Stockport council and Transport for Greater Manchester to continue to engage with stakeholders and industry about the concerns raised and the areas potentially impacted by proposals.
This has been an opportunity to reflect on the case for a new station at Cheadle. Transport connections underpin the core missions of this Government: to kickstart economic growth, unlock housing delivery and break down barriers to opportunity to transform lives. After years of poor performance, it is more important than ever that passengers regain confidence in the rail services they rely on and that the risk to punctuality is fully understood and mitigated as far as possible. However, any timetable changes must be carefully considered to balance local benefits against wider network impacts.
I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for securing this debate and other Members for their contributions. I commit to continuing the conversation with him on a key issue for him and his constituents, as he continues to fight for improved transport connections across his constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Social Enterprises and Community Ownership
(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
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered social enterprises and community ownership.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.
When people make speeches about post-industrial towns like mine, they often begin in the same way: by listing everything that we have lost. They talk about decline, deprivation, and the industries that disappeared during the wave of UK deindustrialisation. To be clear, many of those things are true and it is important to acknowledge that. However, that story often misses something just as important, because although the mills closed and the factories fell silent, the people of towns like Leigh and Atherton did what they have always done: they got on with it. They supported each other, they built new initiatives and they kept their communities going. What I see in my constituency is not a place defined only by what has been lost, but resilience, creativity, and an extraordinary sense of community, built from the ground up.
The truth is that towns like mine have never lacked ideas, talent or determination, but we have often lacked the structures that allow communities to own and shape their local economies. That is exactly why social enterprise and community ownership matter: they give communities tools to shape the economies and the future that they have always been building themselves.
At its heart, this debate is about ownership, because ownership determines who benefits from economic activity. When businesses are owned elsewhere, profits leave, but when businesses are owned locally, wealth stays, and it circulates through the local economy, supporting jobs, suppliers and services in the places where that wealth is created. A community-owned business or co-operative is owned and controlled by local people, who collectively make decisions and share the benefits. Those businesses exist to serve the needs of the community, rather than outside investors. Social enterprises operate in a simple way. As defined by Social Enterprise UK, they are businesses that trade
“for a social or environmental purpose”
and reinvest the majority of their profits into that mission. Both models give communities real power to shape their local economies and their future.
The tradition is deeply rooted in the north. The modern co-operative movement began with the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers—a group of working people who showed that communities could come together to build businesses that served everyone.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for mentioning Rochdale’s crucial role as the birthplace of the co-operative movement—a global social justice movement. Rochdale council is currently acquiring a church with the intention of turning it into a community-owned cultural venue, and our Pride in Place project in Hurstead, Belfield and Smallbridge similarly has the potential to become a community-owned co-operative, but at the moment the legislation works against both: co-operatives cannot claim gift aid, they do not get proper business rate relief, and there are many, many other ways in which it works against them. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be removing those obstacles from co-ops so that they can thrive?
Jo Platt
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for the co-operative movement, whose birthplace is in his constituency. I absolutely agree with him—there is more the Government can do to support co-operatives in all sectors.
Today, the co-operative spirit is alive and well in my constituency. In towns like mine, such organisations are not simply community projects, but are becoming local economic anchors. Let me give the House a few examples. For Tyldesley is a community-led initiative that is revitalising the town through heritage restoration and community activities. In the same town, the Pelican Centre was one of the first swimming pools in the country to become community owned, and it is still thriving 14 years later. The Snug in Atherton, led by grassroots champion Rachael McEntee and supported by the Music Venue Trust, is helping to build a vibrant local cultural scene. Leigh Works is creating space for small businesses and digital innovation to flourish, while inspiring the next generation of local talent.
In a speech about community ownership, I could not afford to leave out Leigh Spinners Mill. I declare an interest: I used to manage that facility. It was once a disused red-brick giant of our industrial past, and it is now a thriving centre of creativity and enterprise, providing space for community organisations and local businesses. These are not isolated stories; they are part of a growing national movement.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I would like to add one further example from my constituency. The Rebuild Site, a social enterprise, has identified that in the construction industry a large amount of waste goes to landfill and contributes hugely to our carbon dioxide emissions. It offers a service to developers whereby at the end of a job, it takes the surplus waste back to its warehouse, sells it and donates the money to community projects. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more examples like the Rebuild Site across the country to engender genuine pride in our towns and cities?
Jo Platt
That is exactly what this debate is about: hearing about initiatives that are thriving all over the country, bringing them together, and creating the support that those organisations need. I will definitely take that forward to see whether there is anything that we can do in our local area.
Across the UK there are about 131,000 social enterprises—roughly one in every 42 businesses. Together, they contribute about 3.4% of GDP, employ more than 2.3 million people, and reinvest more than £1 billion each year in social and environmental causes. Community businesses alone number around 11,000, generating nearly £1 billion in income. Crucially, for every pound spent with a community business, about 56p stays in our local economies. Almost half operate in the most deprived communities—proof that this model thrives precisely where it is needed most. If we want inclusive, place-based growth, supporting social enterprises and community ownership must be part of our economic strategy.
Too often the system simply is not designed for such organisations. Right now in my constituency the Pete Shelley memorial campaign, a brilliant group organising festivals that showcase incredible local artists, is working to become a social enterprise so that it can reinvest profits into helping young people access opportunities in the creative industries. But like many groups across the country, it faces real challenges in balancing its social impact with financial sustainability, navigating complex legal structures and accessing the patient capital that such models require. Without the right support, we risk losing extraordinary local potential.
I want to recognise the progress that this Labour Government have already made. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill introduces a landmark community right to buy, giving local people the opportunity to protect and take ownership of the spaces that matter to them most. Programmes such as Pride in Place and wider investment in town regeneration are already helping communities begin to rebuild. If we want those models to move from the margins to the mainstream, we must match community ambition with political ambition. Communities need three things to make the model succeed: first, access to patient and flexible finance; secondly, procurement systems that value social impact, not simply the lowest price; and thirdly, proper business support so that local people with great ideas are not left to navigate the system alone.
We should also continue strengthening organisations such as Locality, the Co-operative Development Unit, and Social Enterprise UK, whose expertise already helps communities turn ideas into thriving enterprises. I care deeply about this because I have seen the difference that it makes. During my time managing Leigh Spinners, I saw at first hand what happens when local people are given the space and power to shape their community’s future. I have seen with my own eyes the transformational power of national investment in community ownership. Thanks to the previous Government’s community ownership fund, places like Leigh Spinners Mill were able to step in, secure valuable spaces for working people, and turn the threat of loss into a hub of thriving businesses. When people have ownership, they have hope; when people have a stake, they have a voice. Ownership changes outcomes, and towns like mine have the talent, the ideas and the community spirit to thrive.
The Government’s industrial strategy rightly talks about driving growth across the country, but too often that growth has yet to reach towns like mine, where the backbone of the economy is not large corporations but small, locally rooted businesses. That is where social enterprise and community ownership come in: keeping wealth local, creating jobs locally, and ensuring that growth is rooted in the places that need it most. The question for the Government is simple: will we back the communities that have always built their own futures? If we do, we will build not only businesses, but stronger, fairer and more resilient communities. That is the future our towns deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I see that lots of Members are bobbing. Given that I am going to call the wind-ups at 5.22 pm, Opposition spokesmen will have five minutes each and the Minister will have 10 minutes. You will appreciate that time is limited, so let us try to get everyone in. I suggest speeches of about three minutes.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir John, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this debate. When it comes to recognising what communities need, no one knows better than local folk. I am lucky that there are so many special organisations and inspirational people positively impacting all the communities across Alloa and Grangemouth, and I would like to highlight a few today.
The Newlands community hall in Grangemouth has been taken over by SeaLock Infinity, which has increased community use of the facility with various clubs, exercise classes and social activities taking place. That will improve health and wellbeing enormously. Also in Grangemouth, the local community council successfully campaigned against the cuts to Zetland Park maintenance. In the beautiful Zetland and Inchyra Parks, the Central Football Foundation has taken on the pavilions. Extensive repair works that will make the pavilions more energy-efficient are scheduled, and alongside the Young Portonian Theatre Company, they will be excellent venues for sporting and cultural community activities. Another local football club doing great things is Gairdoch United, which has taken on the Glensburgh pavilion in Carronshore and the Letham pavilion, for the advancement of public participation in the beautiful game.
Across the constituency in Clackmannan, the development trust has secured the future of the town hall, where I had a ball playing indoor bowls—badly, I must admit. The trust has also taken on the library, and it plans to expand the range of activities that it offers to local people—congratulations to everyone involved. It was great to meet Janette from the Tullibody community development trust, which promotes social inclusion and healthy living, and is instrumental in creating community spirit and a sense of tremendous local pride. I also met those involved in the Tullibody Heritage Centre. Its history group has amassed an incredible collection that celebrates life in the ancient village—a fantastic way to spend a morning. Last Saturday, I popped into the Ben Cleuch Centre in Tillicoultry for World Book Day, where some of the trustees were dressed up as famous literary characters.
Whether it is providing libraries, meeting rooms, workspaces, kids’ play areas, community gardens or warm spaces for socialising and catching up, the Tillicoultry, Coalsnaughton and Devonside development trust is doing so much good. Community asset transfers are so much more than just taking on a building: the feeling of belonging that they often provide is invaluable, and the people involved deserve every bit of credit possible.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this debate, and for her inspiring opening speech.
At a time when the Government seem to have no money and rural areas often feel overlooked, social enterprises and community-owned assets are more important than ever. I will relate that to the rural communities in my constituency, where the loss of a single pub, the village hall or another shared space is not just an inconvenience but can mean the loss of connection, support and community identity. I am constantly inspired by the amazing enterprises springing up across South Cotswolds. The Fleece Inn in Hillesley is one example. It faced closure in 2011 when the pub company went into administration, but local people stepped in to form a community enterprise. They purchased the freehold and reopened the pub in 2012 as a community-owned establishment, and today it is thriving again.
In Christian Malford, the community-owned village hall plays a vital role. It hosts events, supports local groups, and creates connection in an otherwise widely dispersed rural population. One of my favourites is in Cirencester, where the new branch of The Long Table shows how community enterprise can go even further. Tom Herbert and his team have established a “pay-as-you-can” model that is based on the premise, “What would it be like if everybody had access to good food and people to eat it with?” It tackles food insecurity and rural isolation, re-imagining what a community space can be, not as charity but as dignity, equality and shared experience.
Despite their success, many of these community enterprises are under pressure, with 32% of them only just surviving. Some are at risk of closure. The Christian Malford village hall is in urgent need of repair or upgrade, while community pubs often struggle to meet payroll. At the same time, demand is growing as rural populations age and rural transport gets worse. Will the Minister commit to boosting existing support, including the community ownership fund, which needs to be scaled up? We need a dedicated rural community ownership fund that provides the targeted, long-term support that communities need. A little goes a very long way when it is put in the hands of passionate, energetic and community-minded people who know exactly how to use the money to deliver the best return on investment, and to deliver for their communities.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. In Warrington South, I have been working closely with grassroots sports clubs like Cromwell Athletic, Crosfields and Bank Quay Bulls, and people like Ste and Bob: volunteers who give their time week in, week out, not for recognition, but because they care about their community and the sports clubs that are a part of it. They are not asking for much—just decent pitches, facilities that are fit for purpose and a fair chance to grow the game for the next generation. They want to take ownership of the very spaces that they rely on, to secure them for the long term, improve them and open up access so that more people of all ages can take part in sport.
When communities have ownership of their assets, they invest in them, protect them and make them work. In Warrington, we are now exploring a local sports co-operative, bringing clubs together and giving them confidence, structure and support to take the next step into community ownership. When clubs can take ownership of their pitches, it unlocks crucial external investment from organisations such as the Football Foundation, the Football Association and the Rugby Football League, all of which I have met alongside local clubs. They are ready to back grassroots sport and improve facilities back home in Warrington. That means better pitches, improved facilities, more games being played and more young people being involved and getting active. That is what community ownership makes possible.
Right now, too many communities are being held back. In Warrington, the will from clubs and partners is there, but the system is not keeping up. Local authorities simply do not have the capacity or resource to move quickly enough on community asset transfers. Good projects are now at risk of stalling. Momentum and good faith are being lost. Opportunities are in danger of slipping through our fingers. Access to funding remains a barrier, because the ambition is there locally but the tools to deliver it are not always in place.
If we are serious about community ownership, we need to match ambition with action. That means targeted funding to help communities to take on and improve local assets, especially in grassroots sport where the social return is so clear. It also means giving local authorities the capacity, resource and streamlined processes that they need to move at pace to support communities, not slow them down. I urge the Minister to work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to strengthen the role of the co-operative development unit in providing the practical support that communities need to take on assets and to work across Government, including with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to support governance structures that enable community and fan-led ownership to succeed.
Community ownership is not just a model. It is a great way of making sure that when places grow, our communities grow with them. If we get this right, we will not only protect and improve the green spaces that matter to our constituents, but empower the clubs and people who make them such a vital part of our towns and villages.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for highlighting the wonderful benefits of social enterprises and community ownership. She is back with a bang—well done to her for securing this debate. I wish to give a Northern Ireland perspective and set out some of the exceptional ways in which we are doing things there.
We are at a transformative moment for Northern Ireland. For too long, our economic story was told through the lens of what we lacked or what had been lost. Today, it is a joy to tell the story of the 1,200 social enterprises across our townlands. It is a story of resilience and innovation, with £933 million in annual turnover that stays in our communities. If that is not a good story to tell, I would like to know what is.
In Northern Ireland, social enterprise is not just nice to have; it is foundational. In my constituency—from the Gatelodge café at Ards hospital, which provides training and employment for young people with learning difficulties, to the Comber farmers’ market, a volunteer-led initiative that provides a platform for local producers while serving as a vital social hub for the town—we are seeing what happens when local people take the keys to their own future.
Community ownership is how we reclaim our disused barracks, our closed pubs and our historic halls and turn them into hubs of health, heritage, hope and vision. To truly unlock that potential, we must move beyond the grant reliance trap. We need a dedicated regional community ownership fund tailored to the unique needs of local community infrastructure. We also need legislative support to strengthen our right to buy, so that no community asset is lost simply because the paperwork is too complex. We need progressive procurement to ensure that the £3 billion that our Government spend every year prioritises businesses that deliver real social value back to our streets.
Our sector is mature. Over half of our social enterprises have been trading for more than a decade. They are led by women—there are plenty of women here, as an indication of that. They are led by people with lived experience. They are motivated by a shared belief that profits should serve people, not the other way round. Let us not just build back; let us build ours. Let us ensure that every pound spent in Northern Ireland works twice as hard: once for the service it provides, and once for the community it empowers. The drive and the ability are there. What is needed is the support.
I look forward to the Minister’s speech. We must invest in local communities, understanding that every pound invested will not only have its returns in tax but, more importantly, fire up a generation to make their living doing something that they are passionate about and that helps their local community. We all have that desire. Working together, we can make those dreams a reality.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) said that ownership matters. She is spot on. Ownership affects who makes decisions and who benefits from those decisions. For too long, we have had too little ownership of commercial and community assets by local people, and too much by remote organisations with no real stake in the places they operate in.
Before coming to this place, I worked for years in what is called the social enterprise sector. I have never been keen on calling it a sector. One of my old mates once said to me, “Sectors are where movements go to die.” I think social enterprise is better understood as a movement. It is defined not by business structures, but by an underlying philosophy that business should work in the interests of communities and that wealth should circulate locally rather than being extracted.
I will devote the rest of my speech to the new Office for the Impact Economy, which sits in the Cabinet Office. It is a positive development that shows that there is an understanding that tackling social and economic challenges requires taking a different approach. We already have a good example of the Office for the Impact Economy’s approach in the better futures fund, which currently sits in DCMS. That fund is bringing together public, private and social investment to support early intervention, and it pays for results rather than just for activity. Rather than having the Office for the Impact Economy reinvent the wheel, there is an opportunity to build on the success of the better futures fund. The Office for the Impact Economy would be better placed to take on responsibility for the existing fund from DCMS and further develop it as a cross-Government programme.
The approach that sits behind the better futures fund should not be limited to one programme affecting young people, because the same model can be applied to a much wider set of complex social issues, including homelessness, street drinking, library services, outreach and high street regeneration. In all those areas, we are not suffering from a lack of effort; we are suffering from over a decade of underfunding and from a system that is often too short-term and too tied to the wrong outcomes and outputs.
The better futures approach allows for longer-term investment, focuses on prevention and gives organisations the space that they need to deliver outcomes that work. If the Office for the Impact Economy can take the better futures fund model and apply it more widely to new problems, it could play a significant role in supporting social enterprises and community businesses to tackle some of the most complex problems facing our communities.
We all want economic growth. We all want growth that is felt across the country. But we need ownership of that growth. We need control and investment to be more closely connected to our communities, where people live. That is where the social enterprise movement has an important role to play.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. Members are getting two minutes each. Let us try to get everyone in.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. Many of our communities have felt left behind, with their concerns about the places where they live often going unheard, so I welcome the steps that this Government have taken since July 2024 to address that imbalance. They are giving power back to local people through programmes such as Pride in Place, which is investing £20 million in the communities of Whitburn and Blackburn in my constituency.
The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 has been in place for more than a decade, but it has not quite delivered what was hoped. Although the word “empowerment” is enshrined in the name, that has all too often stayed on paper. Ultimately, when austerity is the driver of local community ownership, that undermines the chances of success, but when it is driven by community aspiration and ambition, proactive uptake can make a real difference to a community’s renewal and can breathe new life into our high streets and town centres.
One such example is the Low Port Centre in Linlithgow. The building was declared surplus to council requirements in 2023, but by early 2024, what had started out as a project for a group from St John’s church in Linlithgow had quickly evolved into an endeavour that attracted businesses, community groups and volunteers from across the town. They secured the building and converted it into a centre for small businesses, innovators, charities, the church itself and the Linlithgow reed band. There is even accommodation there. They identified what the residents and the town needed and how their collective endeavour could deliver for everyone. That needs to change from the exception to the rule. The UK’s Government’s commitment to enshrine co-operative values in their effort to increase community ownership will support exactly that.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh—a different Leigh—and Atherton (Jo Platt) for introducing this important debate. Like her, I am low-key obsessed with towns, so it is a genuine pleasure to speak on the subject.
When we talk about ownership, what we are really talking about is power: the power that communities have over the places they live, the services they rely on and the futures that they want to build. Nowhere in my constituency is that clearer than in the story of a pub called the Oxleathers. In 2023, thanks to the efforts of Highfields and Western Downs community group, the Oxleathers was registered as an asset of community value. That is not an obscure, technical planning designation. In reality, it is an incredibly powerful tool. It means that the community stood up and said, “This place matters to us.”
Patrick Hurley
I neglected to declare an interest in my capacity as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the social, co-operative and community economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that all Members at this debate should attend the annual general meeting of the all-party group on Wednesday 25 March at 5.30 pm? Sadly, it will not be in a community pub, but in Room N in Portcullis House.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am discouraging interventions generally, but that was delightful. Carry on.
Leigh Ingham
The Oxleathers is not just a pub; it is a social hub in one of the most deprived areas of Stafford, hosting community events and bringing neighbours together. We do a great local quiz there, and it provides a space where people who might otherwise feel isolated can connect with others. That really matters, because when we talk about regeneration, growth or economic development, we can overlook the simple truth that communities are built around places where people come together. It is those assets that have disappeared over 14 years of austerity. Community enterprises are social infrastructure. They create pride in place, belonging and resilience.
Across Europe, energy security is becoming one of the defining challenges of our time. The events unfolding in the middle east show us how exposed households and businesses are to fossil fuel markets. I want to share an international example that I find interesting. Over the past decade, Spain has invested heavily in renewable energy and community-driven regeneration. That shift has helped to reduce the influence of gas prices on electricity bills and has made the country far less exposed to the volatility of international energy markets. That makes a massive difference, because when communities generate their own energy, they not only reduce emissions but gain control.
That exciting opportunity is now emerging in Highfields and Western Downs, because the Oxleathers—the same community asset that has been saved by local residents—is now likely to play a key role in a community solar energy plan for the area. That community has some of the highest levels of fuel poverty in Stafford. For us, community energy offers a different path. Imagine a local pub, already the heart of a neighbourhood, becoming part of a local energy network where solar generation helps to power community facilities and local ownership means that the benefits stay local. That is what social ownership can do.
We are talking about giving communities the tools to shape their own economic future. If we want towns and villages across the country to thrive, empowering communities through social ownership must be at the heart of our approach.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my fellow Co-operative MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), for introducing the debate. She served admirably in the social enterprise sector while she was resting from this place. Like her, I spent many years working in the social enterprise and co-operative sector, running Social Enterprise Yorkshire and the Humber. I hark back to a golden age—although we probably did not consider it one at the time—of social enterprise and co-operative support, which ended fairly abruptly in May 2010; I cannot quite pinpoint what could have happened in that month to make that change.
Prior to then, we had Business Link, an organisation run by the Government through the regional development agencies and funded by the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It provided social enterprise and co-operative support, either directly or through regional social enterprise bodies. Such support is really important. We also had co-operative support through a similar regional mechanism funded by the Co-operative Group, which ended, a bit later, due to the issues with the Co-operative bank—we probably do not need to rehearse those in this debate.
Now there is very little support available, so I am absolutely delighted that MHCLG has announced the co-operative development unit. When I was running an organisation, we would not have had community asset transfer, or the scaling-up and development of new social enterprises, without that support; it is absolutely essential. I do not mean financial support, but support with advice, legal structures, business planning and mentoring—the whole range of support that was provided regionally. I first want to make a plea for regionalisation in the co-operative development unit.
It is then really important for Departments to work together. As I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) raise, we need the DBT, MHCLG and DCMS to work together to provide that support. Let us do this—let us get the band back on the road and see that support being provided.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
In constituencies such as mine, social and community enterprises are thriving. They are practical working solutions, driven by local people who care deeply about where they live. We see that in employee ownership, such as in United Auctions, where employees now have a direct stake in the business. We see it in community energy, through organisations such as the Callandar community development trust, which generates income that is reinvested back into local priorities. We also see it in communities stepping up to protect vital assets. After a devastating fire in Gargunnock, it was the community that rebuilt the village shop, securing its future.
That same spirit continues across my constituency, from development trusts transforming local buildings into community hubs to projects such as Bannockburn House, where heritage, restoration and public benefit come together. That has now inspired further work, including the Plean House and Stables initiative, which has recently gained charitable status. I wish every one of those projects success. Those examples show a simple truth: when communities are trusted and supported, they deliver.
However, I want to be clear that community enterprise is not a substitute for Government or local authorities; it must be complementary to them and, if that partnership is to work, it must be properly supported. Too often, such organisations rely on a small number of dedicated volunteers and face real pressures around capacity, funding and long-term sustainability. If we value community ownership—and we should—we must back it. These organisations are not asking to replace the state, but to work with it, and when that happens the results are clear: stronger communities, protected local assets and people with a real stake in the places that they call home.
I will quickly mention the community-owned pubs, the Black Bull in Gartmore and the Gothenburg in Fallin, which has endured for over a century. Finally, I am wearing my Stirling Albion pin badge in this debate; Stirling Albion football club became the first community-owned team in Scotland 15 years ago. Go Binos!
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate.
Ownership matters. It shapes who makes decisions, who benefits and, ultimately, whether growth is felt in our communities or extracted from them. For too long, ownership has been weighted away from local people, and toward distant shareholders and absentee investors. That is why social enterprise, co-operatives and community-owned businesses are vital. They keep wealth circulating locally, reinvest profits into services and jobs, and give people a real stake and pride in the places they live in. We often talk about growth, but growth alone is not enough. It does not translate into stronger communities, a sense of belonging, better living standards or greater economic fairness. Social enterprises show us that there is more than one way to do business, and that there is one where success can be shared.
An example from my community that brings that to life is the once-disused bank on Cosham high street that has been transformed into the vibrant Community Kettle. That small but remarkable community-interest company is run by a diverse team, many of whom have faced personal challenges, including disabilities and medical retirement. Together, they have created something powerful. They have turned an empty space into a thriving community asset, hosting a regular “chatter caff” to tackle loneliness, quiz nights, bingo, craft sessions and educational historical talks.
The Community Kettle is a lifeline for many people in the local area and, crucially, it is rooted in the community it serves. The value that it creates does not leave; it stays in the local area. However, its journey highlights barriers that many social enterprises face. My office has supported it with casework, and with the help of Labour councillors it was eventually able to secure a grant that has helped it to continue its work—but it should not have had to fight so hard.
If we are serious about unlocking the potential of social enterprises, we must address the structural challenges they face, whether that is access to finance, clearer business and strategic support, or ensuring that the public properly recognise and promote these models. If we want truly resilient local economies, we must consider this issue. Can the Minister set out what further steps his Department and all Government Departments can take to ensure that social enterprises and community-owned businesses are not just supported, but actively prioritised as part of a growth strategy?
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The new community right-to-buy model has been transformative, and community ownership is at the heart of what we do in Stroud.
What I have noticed, and other Members have already pointed out, is that each organisation has to go through the same learning process to get funding. And the other thing I have noticed is that a lot of local people are willing to put funds into community ownership, but they need some sort of guarantee that those funds are safe. There is a role for some regional support in that regard.
Just in the last week, the Stratford Park lido in Stroud has been threatened with closure. I know that local people hope that local government will be able to step in and offer support. If that does not happen, though, community ownership will provide a guarantee for this much-loved community service.
As many hon. Members have pointed out, there are many pubs—including in the Stroud area—that are now moving towards community ownership, simply because capitalism does not work very well in rural areas, but assets such as pubs are deeply valued. I will mention the Rose and Crown in Nympsfield, which was recently bought by the community. I have a personal interest in that pub, because it is about 2 miles’ lovely walk from my house and I am really glad that it has remained open. Community energy is also crucial. We have a scheme now whereby solar panels can be put on schools; we are trying to get community energy in every school in our area.
However, I have campaigned for the environmental right to buy to be part of the community ownership model. I know that the Government have committed to issuing some statutory guidance, so I would like to hear some more from the Minister about that guidance. Strengthening our small towns and villages means giving actual powers to communities so that they can purchase crucial parts of our society.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Excellent. Thank you, everyone, for being so disciplined with your speeches.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on her work in securing this debate.
The current landscape is extremely challenging for businesses of all kinds across all sectors, including social enterprises. I am sure that colleagues from across the House have heard from countless local businesses in their constituencies, on their high streets and in the heart of their communities, about the challenges they face, which range from the Government’s national insurance rise to sky-high energy bills and uncertainty over what the Employment Rights Act 2025 might mean for them.
Social enterprises are a major part of the UK economy, with around 131,000 social enterprises operating across the country. Together, these organisations generate around £78 billion in turnover every year, which shows that they make an impact economically as well as socially. They reinvest their profits to support social and environmental missions, with around £1 billion being reinvested annually into local communities.
The sector also provides jobs for millions, with around 2.3 million people working in social enterprises across the UK. Social enterprises are often more inclusive employers, helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter the workforce and tackling barriers around gender, race, class and disability.
Community-owned organisations help to strengthen local economies by keeping wealth circulating locally and giving residents a direct stake in the services and businesses that shape their communities. However, many of these organisations face major challenges, including limited access to finance, rising operating costs and difficulty in navigating complex procurement systems. Without stronger support from the Government, many social enterprises risk being unable to scale their work, despite the enormous benefits that they bring to their communities. As we have heard from so many contributors today, community ownership also plays a growing role in protecting important local assets, such as pubs, shops, energy schemes and community centres, ensuring that they remain viable and locally accountable.
As we see unemployment at alarmingly high levels, the Government should be doing everything they can to support these organisations, which provide vital opportunities to local people. However, with employment costs rising sharply, access to a skilled workforce is an increasing issue that affects businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the industrial strategy last summer and the commitment to an increase in skills and training, but the apprenticeship levy does not work: many businesses cannot get the funding that they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds of funding go unspent. We have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy, which would give businesses more flexibility over how they spend their money to train their staff.
It is welcome that the Government are focusing resources on training young people, but it is essential that opportunities for training and reskilling are available throughout life. The decision to defund level 7 apprenticeships for the over-22s risks limiting opportunities at a moment when it is more important than ever to provide opportunities for our young people.
More broadly, social enterprises, like many other kinds of businesses across the country, are struggling under Government decisions such as the rise in employer national insurance contributions. That continues to be the No. 1 issue raised with me when I speak to stakeholders and business owners. Small businesses in particular have been left struggling under the heavy burden of this jobs tax, and the Government must take steps to support those businesses, which are at the centre of communities and local economies. Thousands of social enterprises, which often provide community services, have felt the damaging impact of those changes. That is why I and all my Liberal Democrat colleagues have repeatedly called on the Government to reverse the rise in national insurance contributions and will continue to campaign for them to scrap this damaging policy.
The Liberal Democrats have also been calling on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. In 2019, the Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of business rates, but failed to deliver it. The current Government pledged in their manifesto to replace the system, but their recent Budget did not bring forward welcome changes for business. The Chancellor announced lower business rate multipliers, but the new, higher rateable values from the Valuation Office Agency will wipe out any benefit that businesses get from the lower multipliers, so I ask the Minister how the Government now plan to meet their own commitment in the small business strategy to introduce permanently lower business rates.
Liberal Democrats have always believed in helping individuals to be involved in the decisions that affect their lives. We believe that employee participation in the workplace, together with wider employee ownership, is important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction and improving service to customers. As we see business confidence down and unemployment up, I urge the Government to consider urgent steps to ensure that those vital policies will allow these important organisations to thrive.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this important debate.
I should declare that I was once on the board of the Social Investment Bank until 2012, and that my brother-in-law is chief executive of the Oversight Trust, which looks after all the dormant asset investments. I think I speak from a position of knowledge when I say how important social enterprises and community-owned organisations are. They are indeed some of the most dynamic, resilient and socially valuable parts of our economy. It was wonderful to hear so many examples from so many contributors in this debate—I will not list them all, but they were all very well described.
Social enterprise and community ownership lead to reinvestment of profits locally. They create local jobs and deliver services that strengthen communities—services that might not exist without them. These organisations are more likely to be led by women and, as we have heard, to be located in areas of higher deprivation.
I will indulge in this opportunity to mention some great examples in West Worcestershire. I think of two community-owned and volunteer-led shops: one in Alfrick, which I had the honour of opening, and another in Lower Broadheath, where I am on the record as a founding shareholder. We have the Brewers Arms in West Malvern, which is a wonderful community interest company pub. We also have some examples of organisations that used to belong to the county council, but now belong to the community. Two examples in Malvern are the Malvern Cube and Boundless Outdoors Malvern, and they are really thriving now as community assets.
As we can see from the House of Commons Library briefing, these organisations are often very much more trusted, much more responsive and more resilient than their commercial counterparts—but they do not operate in a vacuum. They need a stable economic environment, predictable costs, and a Government who understand the pressures that they face.
His Majesty’s official Opposition have repeatedly raised concerns, which we also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), that recent Government decisions, including increases to national insurance, unresolved business rate pressures, and the impact of the Employment Rights Act on labour costs have created additional financial strain for social enterprises, which are already operating on tight margins. Many in the sector say that those pressures are forcing them to put up prices, scale back their services, delay their investment plans or abandon plans for community asset purchases altogether. What assessment have the Government made of how the recent increases in national insurance contributions are affecting the financial sustainability of social enterprises and community-owned organisations?
Business rates are one of the biggest barriers to survival for these organisations. The Government’s approach has left many organisations facing uncertainty and rising costs, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that business rates policy supports, rather than undermines, community ownership and social enterprise growth? Access to finance is also a persistent challenge, so what funding is available for social enterprises and community-owned assets, and what work is being done with the UK’s leading financial sector to address the barriers that social enterprises and community-owned organisations sometimes face?
These organisations are there, ready to deliver economic and social renewal, but they face many of the same challenges as other businesses across the UK. It is time for the Government to stop making life harder for businesses of all kinds. It is time for the Government to adopt the Conservative plans for a 100% business rate relief on retail, hospitality and leisure for the benefit of our high streets.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Minister, will you leave a couple of moments for Jo Platt to sum up?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I certainly will, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a privilege to respond to a debate with so many passionate and proud speeches on behalf of local community enterprises and charities.
I am glad to have the opportunity to congratulate Leigh Spinners on all of its success so far, to thank the Rebuild Site in Carlisle, to raise a glass to the Black Bull in Gartmore, the Fleece Inn in the Cotswolds and the Brewers Arms in Worcestershire, to tell Cosham Community Kettle to put the kettle on for me at some point when I visit, and to highlight the Low Port Centre in Linlithgow, the Oxleathers in Stafford, the Central Football Foundation in Grangemouth, and so many others that make our communities what they are. I will also abuse my position as Minister to talk about Social Blend in my constituency. It is a remarkable social enterprise that provides not just fantastic coffee and food, but employment and a sense of purpose to adults and young people with additional needs and disabilities. I recommend a visit to anyone.
What underpins this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) intimated, is a belief that everyone has something to offer. In the words, perhaps, of Robert Owen, “There are good hearts to serve men in palaces as in cottages.” The Government are passionate about the social enterprise sector and its contribution to society.
An estimated 347,000 social enterprises are helping to meet some of the toughest challenges in our society. When Governments and markets fail, and when others walk away, social enterprises step in and fulfil the needs of our communities. To support such organisations to deliver their invaluable work, and to help them to grow and to introduce even more innovation and services, the Government have introduced several measures over the past few months.
The Prime Minister wants the Government to work differently by putting partnership with civil society at the heart of everything we do. The civil society covenant embodies the ambition to recognise the value of civil society, and for every part of Government to partner and collaborate with civil society at every level, as hon. Members have asked for. At the civil society summit in July 2025, the Prime Minister said that he would give civil society
“a home at the heart of government”
and the newly established Civil Society Council will meet quarterly in Downing Street and be supported by a dedicated team in No. 10. The purpose of the Civil Society Council is to work in partnership with Government at the highest level to drive and oversee the implementation of the covenant, helping Government and civil society, including social enterprises, to design and deliver policies and services in genuine partnership.
DCMS is taking the lead on the local implementation of the covenant through the launch of the £11.6 million local covenant partnerships fund. Hon. Members asked for more support, and the fund will support local government, public service providers and civil society organisations to work collaboratively to tackle local policy priorities and better meet the needs of communities. In recognition of the need to diversify and unlock more income for the sector, the Government are delivering several strands of work that focus on ensuring that all organisations, including some of the smallest charities, are able to continue delivering impact and, where possible, to grow their operations.
Last summer, DCMS published the Government’s first-ever dormant assets strategy, which sets out our ambition to boost the reach and impact of the scheme. The strategy sets out how we will ensure the continued good governance of the scheme and, crucially, illustrates how the next £440 million tranche of funding will be distributed. That includes £132 million to benefit young people and £87 million for social investment. Part of that money will go towards providing small, flexible and affordable loans—the access to finance that hon. Members mentioned—to grassroots organisations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) spoke with evangelical zeal about the better futures fund, based on his deep experience in this area. We announced that £500 million fund in July 2025, and it is the world’s largest outcomes fund. It will support up to 200,000 children and their families over the next 10 years, and it will bring together Government, local communities, charities, social enterprises and philanthropists to give children a brighter future.
More broadly, I want to celebrate the remarkable growth of the impact economy, with recent reports estimating that it contributes a staggering £420 billion to the UK’s GVA, amounting to 15% of our GDP. The impact economy is a diverse system of purposeful organisations and capital, with the shared aim of delivering a strong economy in which everyone benefits. Social enterprises have a unique and powerful ability to innovate and to scale solutions to the big challenges that we face as a country, and the Office for the Impact Economy will continue to support closer collaboration between these organisations and Government.
I come to the second best thing to come out of Rochdale: the co-operative sector. [Interruption.] Someone just said “Lisa Stansfield”, which I think is unfair. We have an ambitious manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector, because we see co-operatives and mutuals as the key engines of inclusive and community-focused economic activity. Several hon. Members mentioned the need to increase the support and advice for co-operatives in order to meet that commitment. I work with members of our business hub network around the country, and they often tell me that as many as one in four people coming through their doors is looking for advice on co-operatives and community interest companies.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is rightly talking about people who want to set up co-operatives. I wonder whether he might talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education about the role that co-operative education should play in the curriculum through history, business studies, and personal, social, health and economic education. Young people need to understand what co-operative, social enterprise and mutual models look like, so that they instinctively think about setting up one when they go into the world of work, rather than being talked into doing so later on.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are having a wider conversation at the moment about how enterprise education in general should go through people’s experience in school, and the co-operative and social interest models should be part of that.
The co-operative development unit in MHCLG is helping to develop guidance and partnering with local authorities to see how we can improve access and advice. On community ownership, we are committed to communities and we are going further than ever to ensure that they have powers to take advantage of the assets that they value. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) asked specifically about the community ownership of power. He will be aware that the local power plan announced by colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is designed to address the barriers to community energy ownership and is backed by £1 billion to fund those local projects.
At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) asked whether the Government are willing to back local areas in taking control of the things that they value and that are important to them. I hope some of the measures that I have set out show that the Government’s answer is a resounding yes.
Jo Platt
I spoke very broadly about the value of social enterprise and community ownership, but to hear individual stories from across the country just shows the power that they have and their effect on us. I thank the Minister for his response and commitment to the sector, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered social enterprises and community ownership.
Written Statements
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Free Trade Agreement: Turkey
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The fourth round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Turkey took place in London during the week commencing 23 February 2026.
Negotiations were productive, with positive progress being made in a number of areas:
Trade in services
Constructive discussions took place across a range of technical areas, including investment, digital trade, telecommunications, cross-border trade in services, the movement of business persons, and legal services. Both sides continued to engage productively, building on progress made in previous rounds.
Trade in goods
Detailed discussions took place across trade in goods, customs and trade facilitation, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Negotiators continued to discuss proposals and relevant data with a view to unlocking commercially meaningful opportunities for UK exporters. On customs and trade facilitation, discussions focused on strengthening co-operation between customs authorities to support predictable, transparent and efficient border procedures. On sanitary and phytosanitary measures, both sides continued exchanges on practical co-operation to facilitate safe trade in agrifood products while maintaining and upholding the UK’s high standards.
Additional areas
Substantial progress was made across a number of additional chapters, including intellectual property, Government procurement, anti-corruption, labour, environment, state-owned enterprises and dispute settlement. Both sides continued constructive engagement on regulatory and institutional provisions to support the effective implementation of any future agreement.
Economic growth is our first mission in Government, and FTAs have an important role to play in achieving this. A stronger trade relationship with Turkey will support jobs and prosperity in the UK, with trade between the two totalling £28.3 billion in the 12 months ending in September 2025, representing an increase of 5.8% from the previous 12 months:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/697a37dc3c71d838df6bd406/turkey-trade-and-investment-factsheet-2026-02-02.pdf
The UK will only ever sign a trade agreement that aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors.
The fifth round of negotiations is expected to take place before the summer. Ministers will update Parliament on the progress of discussions with Turkey as negotiations continue.
[HCWS1415]
Credit Union Common Bond Reform
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
Credit unions play a vital role in promoting financial inclusion and providing affordable financial services to communities across the country. However, the current common bond framework in Great Britain presents barriers to sustainable growth, expansion and merger activity in the sector. The Government are committed to addressing these barriers while preserving the community-focused ethos that makes credit unions distinctive.
In November 2025, as part of the financial inclusion strategy1, the Government confirmed their intention to bring forward a package of growth-focused reforms to the common bond in Great Britain. This followed a call for evidence on the common bond, launched by the Chancellor at Mansion House in 2024, as part of the Government’s commitment to double the size of the mutuals sector.
The Government are today announcing the following changes that seek to remove barriers to the growth of the credit union sector in Great Britain. When parliamentary time allows, the Government will legislate to:
Increase the potential membership cap on the locality bond from 3 million to 10 million. This will significantly expand the potential size of locality-based credit unions, which make up 79% of the sector, and reduce uncertainty regarding mergers;
Allow credit unions to permit students to join locality-based credit unions, in addition to those who reside or work in the geographical area;
Allow credit unions to admit members’ relatives into a credit union regardless of whether they live in the same household as the qualifying member, as well as individuals who live in the same household as the qualifying member. This will better reflect modern family dynamics and broaden the membership base; and
Allow credit unions to retain members of occupation and employer bonds as fully qualifying members upon retirement, including allowing retirees to join a credit union after retirement has begun. This will also apply to locality bonds where members are eligible based on employment within the locality.
These reforms will help credit unions grow sustainably so that more people across the UK can access affordable, community-based financial services.
This announcement complements broader work to support credit unions, including the Prudential Regulation Authority’s policy statement on credit union service organisations2, the £30 million credit union transformation fund for England announced as part of the financial inclusion strategy and led by Fair4AllFinance, and the FCA and PRA’s planned review of the regulatory framework for credit unions, as set out in the mutuals landscape report published on 5 December 2025.3
These reforms also form part of the Government’s work on our manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutuals sector, in partnership with the sector.
The full call for evidence response describing these reforms in detail is published on gov.uk:
https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/credit-union-common-bond-reform
1 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6909ed8db04a520c5051843f/Financial_Inclusion_Report.pdf
2 https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2026/february/credit-union-service-organisations-policy-statement
3 https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/publication/2025/december/mutuals-landscape-report-2025.pdf
[HCWS1418]
Land Use Framework for England
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
I am today laying before Parliament this Government’s first land use framework for England, setting out a vision for how we can best use land.
Land is a fundamental natural asset, the foundation of our lives. The resilience of our homes, businesses, communities and nature itself relies on good land management. We want to make more effective use of land so that we can build the homes needed to tackle the housing crisis, generate home-grown clean power, safeguard our food security and restore nature at scale.
Last year we ran a national conversation on land use, seeking views on the various pressures on land and the need for a strategic approach to minimise trade-offs between these important goals and to deliver a resilient future. We received over 1,200 unique responses to the online consultation, from organisations and individuals, and gathered feedback through events and focus groups covering all parts of society. Today we also share a report summarising the key messages we heard, and the framework incorporates the Government’s response.
The land use framework shows how we can effectively manage multiple, and sometimes competing, demands for land, to make land multi-functional, and how we can adapt to the challenge of a changing climate and a growing population. It fulfils the Government’s commitment to set out a long-term and strategic approach to how England will use its finite land to support a prosperous and sustainable future.
The Government’s new framework provides decision makers with a single, shared vision on how we can play to the strengths of our diverse landscapes and enable multifunctional and resilient land use. It is not about telling anyone what to do; it is about providing the principles, data analysis and policy commitments to enable a more strategic approach that manages trade-offs and optimises benefits. By putting cutting-edge data in the hands of those making decisions on the ground, the land use framework will help to speed up house building and infrastructure delivery, support farm business diversification and profitability, and accelerate environmental improvement.
The land use framework sets out how we will:
Unlock development and accelerate growth by streamlining spatial planning and aligning local and national priorities. This will reduce uncertainty in planning decisions and clarify local contributions to national targets, helping to lower costs of development and mobilise investment in nature-based solutions that protect homes, businesses and infrastructure from the impacts of climate change. We will release the data and digital tools required to locate housing and infrastructure in the most appropriate places so that we can accelerate the building of new homes and clean energy infrastructure, while also safeguarding food production and restoring nature.
Support farmers and food security by maintaining overall food production in England. We are safeguarding food production on the most productive farmland, and developing sector growth plans to help improve productivity, profitability and resilience to ensure long-term food security. We will ensure that our agricultural land classification system remains fit for purpose to inform planning decisions. Simplified systems for making payments and digitised land data submissions will make it easier for farmers to make decisions, and there will be new or more targeted funds to support land use change activity.
Protect the environment and adapt to climate change by taking a more strategic approach that ensures there is enough land available to meet our targets in the environmental improvement plan and carbon budget growth and delivery plan. We will design farming policy to support climate mitigation and resilience and transition some financial incentives to focus on where they will make the greatest impact.
Make land digital by putting advanced data in the hands of those making decisions. This will speed up housing and infra- structure development, support farm business resilience, and boost environmental improvement. We will provide access to the tools and mapping systems that decision makers need to make confident, long-term choices, providing transparency and certainty to drive innovative public-private investment.
This is the purpose of the first land use framework for England: to provide a blueprint for smarter land- based decision making. We will work in partnership with farmers, landowners, local government and decision makers, as well as technology providers and academics, to deliver this framework.
Publishing the framework is just the first step. It is not a static document, and we will publish updated analysis on gov.uk, as well as progress on policy and implementation. Over the next year we will establish a land use unit to put the framework into action, producing the evidence, data and tools, and setting out national spatial priorities for relevant Government outcomes.
[HCWS1417]
Copyright and AI
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Today I am publishing a report and impact assessment on copyright and AI which will also be laid in Parliament. This fulfils the commitment under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and sets out our proposed next steps on copyright and AI.
Our creative industries are the best in the world, and part of what makes us proud to be British. They are one of our greatest exports, connect us to one another, and help us to shape and define our national story. They are at the heart of our industrial strategy, as one of the eight sectors that we believe offer the greatest potential for growth and good jobs in every part of the UK. They contribute £146 billion to the economy, are growing at two and a half times the rate of the rest of the economy, and support 7% of all UK jobs. They are a world-leading national asset that offers us potential not just now but well into the future. We want to see them continue to flourish and lead the world.
Artificial intelligence is the technological revolution of our times. It is a key national strength and crucial to our future prosperity. We have the third biggest AI sector in the world, and it is growing 23 times faster than the rest of the economy. We are rapidly moving to a more sophisticated world of agents and AI being embodied in the physical world, such as in robotics. This technology is too important for the UK to be overly dependent on a small number of firms based in other countries. The UK must be an AI maker, not an AI taker.
The UK has always led in science, creativity and innovation. We reject any suggestion that we must choose between our creative industries and the UK’s AI sector. Both are central to the Government’s industrial strategy and vital to the UK’s future prosperity.
Our approach to copyright will be driven by our shared principles and values. This means protecting the UK’s position as a creative powerhouse while unlocking the extraordinary potential of AI-driven innovation to grow the economy and improve British lives.
Our commitments
We believe that people should be paid fairly for the work that they do. It should not be that only the big and powerful can assert their rights. We also believe that championing innovation is critical to new discoveries, creating growth, driving social mobility, and allowing new talent and ideas to break through.
Today, we are making three commitments:
We will do what is right for the whole British economy. This includes both our creative industries and the UK AI sector.
We will help creatives control how their work is used. This sits at the heart of our ambition for creatives—including independent and smaller creative organisations—to be paid fairly.
We will unlock the extraordinary potential of AI-driven innovation to grow the economy, and secure sovereign capability for the UK.
The way forward
At the end of 2024, the Government published a consultation on copyright and AI. At that stage, the Government’s preferred way forward was to enable AI developers to train on copyright works, but to give rightsholders the ability to opt-out of this regime. This was overwhelmingly rejected by the vast majority of the creative industries.
We have listened. We have engaged extensively with creatives, AI firms, industry bodies, unions, academics and AI adopters, and that engagement has shaped our approach. This is why we can confirm today that the Government no longer have a preferred option.
We are not the only Government facing this challenge. The United States, the European Union, Australia, India and many other Governments are trying to find a way through. As the recent Lords Communications and Digital Committee report on AI, copyright and the creative industries recognised, it will take time to get this right. We will do so in a way that is in line with our own interests and values.
Our work programme
We have identified four areas where we will focus the next phase of this work.
Digital Replicas. Digital replicas can be a powerful tool, including for the creative industries. However, when someone’s likeness is replicated without their permission, it can be harmful. We will launch a consultation in the summer to seek views on how we address these harms, while protecting legitimate innovation.
Labelling AI-generated content. It can be helpful to consumers to understand whether content has been made using AI. It may also help protect against disinformation and harmful deepfakes. We will establish a taskforce to put forward proposals for Government on best practice for labelling AI-generated content, with an interim report to be published in autumn.
Creator control and transparency. We will publish a review of the mechanisms available for creators to control their works online. This will include standards, technical solutions and best practice on input transparency. This review will inform where there are gaps and whether there is an appropriate role for Government in addressing them.
Independent creatives. We will launch a working group on independent and smaller creative organisations to explore whether there is a role for Government to support their ability to license their content.
In addition, the UK Government are committed to establishing a creative content exchange, as set out in our creative industries sector plan. The intention is for the CCE to be a trusted marketplace for digitised cultural and creative assets. The CCE is supported by funding from UK Research and Innovation and is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. A pilot phase has been launched with an early adopter cohort of public institutions.
Making the UK the best place to build and adopt AI
Finally, we are committed to ensuring the UK remains one of the best places in the world to build and adopt innovative AI. That is why, yesterday, the Chancellor set out the Government’s commitment to the UK’s AI sector, including:
In April, we will launch the new sovereign AI unit, backed by £500 million to build new UK AI businesses.
We are backing workers who want to move firms by placing limits on the use of non-compete clauses, which stifle innovation and dynamism.
We have reformed the mandate of the British Business Bank and put £5 billion behind scale-ups.
We are running a new advanced market commitment, pledging to procure up to £100 million of new computing hardware produced by UK firms.
We are putting £1 billion into publicly owned supercomputers, which our researchers—whether in academia or in SMEs—can use for free for AI work. That is a leg up to some of our brightest and best who want to use these tools.
The Chancellor will convene top CEOs this summer for an AI adoption summit, bringing together leading tech firms with companies ready to adopt and scale AI to grow their businesses.
Working together
We are determined to make progress on these issues for the benefit of the whole economy. We will continue to work closely with parliamentarians and all stakeholders throughout this process. We are committed to finding regular opportunities to benefit from the experience and insight of MPs and Lords.
Together, this work will shape our country for decades to come. By taking time to get this right, we can make Britain the best place in the world for art, literature, music and film-making, and be the go-to country for safe, responsible AI—the kind that lifts our economy and brings opportunity to millions. We are determined to create a future that we are proud to say reflects the best of us. A confident, ambitious nation, full of optimism for what lies ahead.
We will arrange opportunities to discuss these issues further with both MPs and Lords in the coming weeks and months.
[HCWS1416]
House of Lords
Trail-hunting
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Leicester
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the contribution of trail hunting to the rural economy.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer the House to my interests as a landowner in Norfolk, over which trail-hunting has always taken place legally This includes the Nar Valley Bloodhounds, who come and play “hunt the host”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to enacting a ban on trail-hunting, in line with our manifesto commitment, and will shortly be launching a consultation to seek views on how to deliver an effective, enforceable ban. The responses to that consultation will be used to inform our assessment of the potential impact of a ban on trail-hunting on the rural economy.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response and I hope that the consultation will be a fair one. The Hunting Act was the result of 700 hours of debate, and it was what hunting opponents wanted. Hunts adapted and adopted trail-hunting, which is what supporters of the ban said that they should do. A recent socioeconomic survey stated that hunting contributes £100 million to the rural economy each year. A Countryside Alliance survey found that 97% of hunting participants believe the activity to benefit their physical and mental health. A ban on trail-hunting therefore runs contrary to the Government’s missions to promote economic growth and improve health outcomes. Surely further legislation targeting trail-hunting—
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry—this is my first and last Oral Question, if the House will allow me some forbearance. As I was saying, further legislation is not necessary and it should not be a priority for the Government. It would represent yet another attack on the countryside and the many thousands for whom hunts are an integral part of rural life.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the consultation has been designed to be open-handed and fair, so that all concerns, from both sides of the argument, can be heard and fully taken into account as we move forward to design the legislation. As I said, this is a manifesto commitment. It is important to point out that we believe that rural areas offer significant potential for growth and are central to our economy. There are many businesses that we can support within the rural communities to continue to bring forward greater productivity—rural productivity is less than urban productivity. We are doing our utmost to support the rural economy in many areas. One of the key areas in which we can do so is by improving our transport links.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, my family, on our farm, has not allowed fox-hunting across that land for well over 40 years. However, as a student, I occasionally used to run cross-country with a piece of rope and a scented rag, and was pursued by hounds. I can assure the House that no animals were harmed in that process—I was left exhilarated but rather breathless. On an equally serious point, does the Minister agree that a higher priority should be to resource the police to deal with the rapidly rising tide of rural crime, including waste-tipping, theft and hare-coursing, rather than chasing after people who simply like to dress up and ride along a pre-set trail?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I commend the noble Lord on his earlier fitness—I do not know if he still carries it out. It is important to stress that there are no plans to include other activities, such as drag hunting and clean boot hunting, in the ban on trail-hunting. The noble Lord makes a really important point about enforcement. I have asked for a meeting with Home Office Ministers to discuss exactly that, in not just this area but others within Defra, as we feel that we need to work much more closely with the Home Office to ensure the enforcement of the laws that we bring in.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister undertake to ensure that any future decision in this area, particularly on trail-hunting, is evidence-led as much as possible and based on assessing whether it causes harm to animal welfare, biodiversity and public confidence in law? The economies of so many rural communities are extremely diverse, with many more people in the countryside participating in, for instance, rambling and orienteering than trail-hunting.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I reassure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that, when I look at future policy and legislation as part of my role as a Minister, it is incredibly important that everything is evidence-led and, where scientific evidence is needed, that we take the most up-to-date scientific evidence into account.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I come from a disadvantaged area where a ban on trail-hunting will be seen as a punch in the stomach by people who have already endured a considerable amount of distress as a result of other government policies. Some 20 years ago, after this House passed the Hunting Act, the then Prime Minister regretted what had happened and particularly regretted having to spend 700 hours of parliamentary time on that legislation instead of on his priorities. He asked, “Why was I not told?” Please can the Minister go back and tell the current Prime Minister the same?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, this is a manifesto commitment and it is my responsibility to deliver it. On the other concerns that my noble friend raised, we will start the consultation soon. I encourage people to look at it and take part, because it will be comprehensive.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, our rural police forces are already overstretched, and banning a harmless country pursuit will simply stretch them further and alienate them from the community they protect. As has been discussed, hunting with dogs has already been banned by Parliament. This has resulted in only 52 convictions for organised hunts, with only one of those based on evidence collected by the police. Rather than now targeting trail-hunting, have the Government considered that laws that cannot be effectively enforced by the police are bad laws?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is also important to stress that, if there is a law, people should obey it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Are the Government aware of how important the supporters’ clubs of hunts are to the local communities? In the part of Devon where I live partly, the local communities in rural villages are very much separated from each other, and they all offer something on one Sunday, Saturday or Friday every week. If there is no supporters’ club, there will be very little for these rural communities to do in the winter.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I live in a very rural community and always have done, and we have plenty of options for things to do in the winter that do not involve supporting hunts. If it is a particular concern in the area where the noble and learned Baroness lives, again, I encourage her to take part in the consultation.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister knows the countryside well, and she must know that huge numbers of jobs will be lost if trail-hunting is banned. What is the justification for this when so few people have been prosecuted for illegal hunting? If a couple of Peers behave badly, we get rid of them; we do not get rid of the whole House of Lords—surely she should look at that example.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Do not open that Pandora’s box—that is what I would say to the noble Baroness. More seriously, I know that there are concerns on both sides. This is a polarising debate, with strong feelings on both sides. That is why I am determined to hold a proper, detailed consultation, where everyone has the ability to put forward their concerns, so that we can move forward in a way that delivers our manifesto commitment, while at the same time making sure that we do what we can to mitigate any concerns that are put forward.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
We will hear from the Conservatives next.
Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)
It is nice to be back. I remember just enough of the rules to know that I should declare my interest as a trustee of the Countryside Alliance. I remember only too well how hard it is to bid for legislative time, particularly in Defra, and I am concerned that other priorities will be overtaken if this consultation and legislation go ahead. Does the Minister really not have other things that she would rather do?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I warmly welcome the noble and learned Baroness back to her place—it really is a pleasure to see her. She is absolutely right: pitching for legislation is great fun in every department, I am sure, and certainly in Defra. As I said, the reason this is one of our legislative priorities is that it was a manifesto commitment, but clearly there are also other manifesto commitments. In Defra we are working out a timetable for how we can deliver all of those at the same time as other priorities.
EU Directive: Adequate Minimum Wages
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the EU Directive on Adequate Minimum Wages and the merits of introducing similar provision in the United Kingdom.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, as with other relevant EU directives, the Department for Business and Trade is monitoring the EU directive on adequate minimum wages. As we are no longer an EU member state, we are not obliged to transpose its directives, but we note their progress. The UK has a long history of minimum wage legislation. Introduced in 1999, the national minimum wage has been a highly effective policy. We remain committed to improving living standards and, as of 2024 among G7 countries, the UK had the second-highest minimum wage relative to the average wages of full-time workers.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that reply, and I welcome this Government’s determination to deepen relations with the EU and ensure that UK workers’ rights do not fall behind those of their EU friends. This new directive has been described as a game-changer in the fight against in-work poverty and as strengthening a social market economy, because it is about promoting collective bargaining. The evidence is clear that the bigger the collective bargaining, the more workplaces are safe, more equal, healthier and more productive. Given that EU member states will now be required, where collective bargaining coverage falls below 80%, to devise with social partners action plans to promote collective bargaining, will my noble friend agree to talk to Ministers about convening a meeting with the CBI and the TUC so that we can devise our own action plan here in the UK?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Government agree that a strong voice for workers is a positive for the economy as a whole. We believe the best way of delivering that is to start with implementing the ambitious measures in the Employment Rights Act, including introducing the fair pay agreements in social care, reintroducing the school support staff negotiating body and widening improvements to trade union processes. We do not intend to create an action plan or a specific target for collective bargaining at this point in time. We have consulted the TUC and the CBI on this measure and thank them for their input.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister would acknowledge that an important precursor to people having wages is for them to have a job. I am sure that he would also recognise, perhaps reluctantly, that the number of jobs available, particularly for people at the lowest end of the wage scale, has taken a hit of late. So, can the Minister undertake to visit his friends in the Treasury and explain that their unheralded increase in employer NIC contributions has seriously hit the job prospects of the very people that his party said it was here to help?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I fully acknowledge that businesses face challenges and that micro-businesses operate with narrow margins and encounter real pressures, and these businesses are the ones that employ young people. However, the evidence consistently shows that paying staff fairly strengthens businesses in the long run: higher wages and lower staff turnover boost morale and productivity and help businesses keep experienced workers. Crucially, these wages are then spent within local communities, often in small shops, cafés and services right across the country. A national living wage supports not only workers but the resilience of local communities.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, we have been lucky enough to have a 30-year run of structurally low unemployment, which is now coming to an end, especially with younger workers—partly because of the national insurance rise that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just raised; partly because of the general economic situation; partly because of the Employment Rights Act; but also partly because of these huge recent rises in the minimum wage, which have especially hit the hospitality industry. Does the Minister see the danger that as we have more and more workers’ rights, we have fewer and fewer workers?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord would not expect me to agree with him, and I do not. As I mentioned in yesterday’s debate on the regret amendment, and I shall share it again, Confucius reminds us that harmony among people is the best foundation for great achievement, and when we work together, success belongs to all. We have to address this issue of disparity between workers who are paid less and less in the overall scheme of things and the average wage in the country. We need to balance that up to two-thirds of the median wage.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, given the Minister’s background as a successful entrepreneur, does he agree that, whether coming from the EU or from here, minimum wage directives are not economically sustainable unless they reflect the employer or the state’s ability to pay out of revenues rather than increased borrowing?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I also gently remind noble Lords that the minimum wage is carefully considered by the independent Low Pay Commission, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which examines the economic conditions, labour market data and evidence from employers and other stakeholders. The Government’s aim remains to set a wage floor that maintains living standards while protecting employment opportunities. Recent rises mean that the national living wage now makes up a historically high proportion of median earnings, supporting millions of low-paid workers right across the country. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that paying workers well is good for the economy.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, the 80% minimum collective bargaining coverage in the directive curiously mirrors the 80% coverage achieved in Britain from 1945 until 1980, mandatorily through the wages councils and voluntarily by the joint industrial councils. The Government have made a good start with their adult social care negotiating body and the other body for school support staff. What further steps will they take to achieve sector-wide collective bargaining across British industry?
Lord Leong (Lab)
First, let me say that collective bargaining is not a dirty word. The Government recognise the important role that collective bargaining can play in supporting good workplace relations. However, the United Kingdom has traditionally taken a flexible, decentralised approach to setting wages. Our focus remains on securing a strong statutory minimum wage through the national minimum wage and the national living wage, guided by the independent Low Pay Commission. Alongside that, we continue to support fair work practices and to promote constructive engagement between employers and workers across all sectors.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the number of young people not in education, employment or training is approaching 1 million. What an utterly devastating waste of human potential. The Government have announced a £3,000 taxpayer-funded subsidy for hiring eligible 18 to 24 year-olds. In saying that, are they not admitting to employers, “We will now subsidise you to hire the very people you could not otherwise afford to take on because we put up employers’ national insurance”? Will the Minister at last admit that this proposal is an admission of abject failure by this Government?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, backing young people is one of the most important investments that we can make in the country’s future. We are determined to tackle the rise in youth unemployment, which has been constantly rising for the past 10 years or so, by expanding practical routes into work, boosting apprenticeships and giving employers the clarity that they need. We are very proud to say that the youth guarantee scheme is unblocking thousands of jobs. We are investing more than £1 billion and unlocking 200,000 jobs and apprenticeship opportunities by reducing the cost of hiring for business. This Government are determined to get young people back into work.
High Streets and Towns: Regeneration
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support councils to regenerate struggling high streets and towns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government recognise the very real pressures facing high streets and town centres, from long-term vacancy and rising costs to crime and changes in how people use town centres. That is why we are backing councils with long-term investment through the £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme, and with new powers such as high street rental auctions to tackle vacancy and shape high street uses, strengthened community right to buy, and bringing forward a cross-government high street strategy later this year, backed by at least £150 million. Together, these measures give councils the funding, powers and flexibility that they need to drive regeneration locally and restore pride in place.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Pride in Place is a programme delivering to 300 communities over the next 10 years. In those next 10 years, what financial support will be available to those hundreds or maybe thousands of communities across this country that are not included in the scheme but whose high streets are also struggling, mainly due to the Government’s policies, taxes and national insurance increases?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think that might be more due to 14 years of letting high streets sink into decline. However, the places that are subject to Pride in Place funding will also be joined by the new cross-government high street strategy, which will look at all high streets. This will be backed by £150 million of targeted support, which will help to tackle some of the structural issues holding high streets back and the challenges facing retail, leisure and hospitality. We will align policy across government and strengthen our councils’ roles as leaders of place-based regeneration. We will develop that with councils, businesses and communities. We recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all for high streets, and this builds on our commitment to pride in place everywhere.
Lord Walker of Broxton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the executive chairman of Iceland Foods. Does the Minister accept that it is retail businesses which are the catalyst that make a high street thrive? Yet many fail to survive because of the outdated Victorian taxation system of business rates, which are simply too high. Although the recent reduction in the multiplier is welcome, the balance between bricks and mortar retailers and online giants remains badly out of kilter. Will the Minister do all that she can to speed up the rollout of a new, fairer system that we promised in our manifesto and consider including an online sales tax? I say that as one of the biggest online retailers in the UK.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was tempted to ask whether my noble friend wanted to answer the Question rather than me; I am sure he knows a great deal about high streets. I thank him for his support for the new business rates multipliers announced at the Budget. The new multipliers replace the temporary relief that has been winding down since the pandemic. Unlike RHL relief, the new rates are permanent, giving businesses certainty and stability. There will be no cap, meaning that all qualifying properties on high streets across England will benefit. The Government are introducing a higher rate on the most valuable properties, which he rightly pointed out should and will include large distribution warehouses, such as those used by online giants. The high-value multiplier is 33% more than the multiplier for small RHL properties. We are carefully considering representations to the call for evidence, which asks for much more detailed evidence on how the business rates system influences investment decisions. I hope that will result in some movement on business rates.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware—obviously, because it has been discussed already—that pubs are a vital part of the high street. Is she also aware that, since Labour came to power, on average one pub per day has closed? A total of 10,000 jobs have been lost in pubs and hospitality. This Government came in on an agenda for and a commitment to growth. What has gone wrong?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We do have an agenda for growth, but we are having to tidy up the mess that was left behind before we can achieve it. We are introducing the hospitality support fund, which has been more than doubled to £10 million over three years, helping over 1,000 pubs to diversify, boost productivity and support people into hospitality jobs. Those measures sit alongside business rates support and the wider planning and licensing reform that we have introduced.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, initiatives such as “health on the high street” in Doncaster, where the NHS uses buildings in the city centre to provide scans, blood tests and physiotherapy, are a very good way of drawing people into the city centre and regenerating the area. Will my noble friend the Minister talk with the NHS and other departments about how initiatives such as this can be spread to other areas and help with overall regeneration?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. One thing that happened as a result of Covid was seeing vaccination centres, for example, introduced into high streets. In my own regeneration scheme, part of the plan was to have a healthy hub in the middle of the town centre so that people could come and get their health treatment there. I absolutely understand the point that she is making. I talked about the high street strategy, which will be a cross-departmental strategy. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is determined to have neighbourhood health hubs and I am sure that our discussions will consider how we can incorporate those into high streets.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, will the Government look at implementing a commercial landlord levy, which would help small businesses by moving the cost from them on to commercial landlords? It would also have the benefit of ensuring that landlords have an incentive to fill vacant units.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are very keen to make sure that vacant units get filled. We have introduced lots of powers to enable councils to do that, but we also recognise upward rent pressures. Many landlords have upwards-only rent reviews now, so we are bringing in a step in the English devolution Bill to make sure that there are no more upwards-only rent review clauses by which rents can only stay the same or rise. We are legislating to ban those in order to help smaller retailers have more stability in their outgoings.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I hate to be a killjoy, but will the Minister accept that she has no hope of regenerating our high streets unless she works closely with the Minister from the Home Office to sort out the ever-increasing infection of streets full of county lines drugs and drug dealing? The shops that call themselves Turkish barbers, vape shops and everything else are cash only and have no interest in business rates. They are not paying business rates. They are destroying our high streets and our way of life. What is she doing to work with the Home Office to change this?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not share the noble Baroness’s pessimism about high streets. It is perfectly possible to re-energise our high streets. We are already working with the Home Office, and one of the things we are doing is stopping the shoplifters’ charter, introduced by the last Government, of discounting or decriminalising thefts worth under £200. We are also providing over £7 million to support the police in tackling retail crime, including continued funding for a specialist policing team to tackle organised retail crime gangs and identify more offenders. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we will scrap that failure to prosecute shop thefts worth under £200. We are also introducing more training for the police to identify illegal trading and fraudulent shops, and supporting trading standards officers through more funding to local government.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, although the 10-year Pride in Place funding is a welcome step towards longer-term investment, and there are other funds available for town centre regeneration, some towns in Nottinghamshire, such as Mansfield and Newark, continue to face increasing vacancy rates, declining footfall and concerns about safety in the town centres. What assessment have the Government made of the role of churches and other community groups using vacant shops to set up services that create social capital locally? Will the Minister reassure the House that faith communities and charities are enabled to apply for the various funds?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. Meanwhile uses in our shops can often help regenerate whole areas, because they bring footfall into those areas. Junction 7 Creatives has been a very successful project in my town centre. We are taking steps to allow communities to take back control of some of those vacant shops and give them the power either to purchase valued local assets, such as shops, pubs and community centres, or to take them over as meanwhile uses.
Strait of Hormuz
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to take steps to help keep the Strait of Hormuz open for shipping.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I hope the House will understand why it is being asked.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
Iran’s reckless actions in the Strait of Hormuz are having damaging consequences for the global economy and putting the lives of those aboard civilian vessels in danger. As the Prime Minister said, we are working with our allies and partners on a viable collective plan to return freedom of navigation to the region as quickly as possible and ease the economic impacts. That is not a simple task, but the Strait of Hormuz needs to be reopened to ensure stability in the market.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The House knows how the closure of the Strait of Hormuz poses a real risk to the world economy, not only because one-fifth of global oil supplies cannot be moved but because of the growing risk of fertiliser shortages and the effects on food supply and food and energy prices. Does my noble friend agree that this difficult and complex problem is going to require us to work with our strategic partners in the region and to make use of innovative technology, such as drones, to keep the waterway open and enable trade to resume? Does she also agree with the words of the Prime Minister earlier today:
“The best way forward is a negotiated settlement”,
rather than the continuation of this war?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend and I thank him for putting it that way. All these situations ultimately end in resolution through dialogue and negotiation, but this is an urgent situation and the United Kingdom will work very closely with our allies and partners across Europe, the GCC and elsewhere to support the resolution of this.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, those of us who were privileged to hear President Zelensky yesterday were not only inspired by his courage but immensely impressed by Ukraine’s resilience and the development of digital technology which has put IT and inexpensive drones at the forefront of warfare. How do the United Kingdom Government propose to utilise and capitalise on that innovation? May I make a helpful suggestion to the Minister: why do we not get President Zelensky to write our defence investment plan?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It was fantastic to see President Zelensky welcomed so warmly here in London in a cross-party way, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and her colleagues for their steadfast support for Ukraine, both in office and since. She is right to remind us of the tremendous innovation that has come about as a result of the dreadful war in Ukraine. There have been some remarkable developments. I do not know how directly applicable they would be to the current situation, but I am sure that my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence will be looking very closely at this.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, when will the Minister and her Government end this air of detachment in relation to Iran? Some of us have just come from a presentation of a most comprehensive report by the historian, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, setting out the horrors of October 7. Hamas carried that out; Iran funded, and still funds, Hamas, which has decided that when it can, it will do the same massacre again. It involved British citizens, who have complained that the Government did nothing to help them at all, at the time or after. This is a case of anticipatory self-defence. We have a moral duty to understand what is going on in Iran and the threat it poses to this country.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not accept the premise that the noble Baroness began with, which was about detachment. The positions that we have taken are ones in which we feel there is consistency with international law. Before you involve yourself in a conflict of this nature, history—and history from not even that long ago—teaches us that you must have a clear plan and support your allies and partners. That is how we will proceed. I agree with her on the abhorrent nature of the Iranian regime and its activities in the region that have cost the lives of many people we care about deeply, and its activities on the streets of the United Kingdom.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the UK needs to work together with our allies to help to reopen the strait. However, France currently has 10 warships in the Middle East. We have none, although, to be fair, HMS “Dragon” is apparently on her way there. In an act of great strategic foresight, the Government withdrew our last minesweeper, HMS “Middleton”, from Bahrain eight weeks ago. Does the Minister agree with her noble friend Lord West of Spithead that this decision was a “terrible error”?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have heard a lot from people who think that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is a straightforward, simple act and that uniquely they know the necessary things we should be deploying. I say gently that this a hell of a lot more complicated than that. I have been listening to the last few Questions and noble Lords opposite seem to have come in today with really high ambitions for this Government on high streets, defence and all sorts of things. After 14 years of neglect, they really think we can turn it round after two years. I say gently to the noble Lord that he bequeathed us the smallest Armed Forces since the time of Napoleon, and we are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, there are ships still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, but they are of course friends of Iran, which possibly includes China and Russia. I would argue that Russia’s shadow fleet no longer is a shadow fleet if sanctions have been lifted by the United States. It surely comes down to the fact that we will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz unless we end the conflict and negotiate a settlement. It is not safe for the Americans to put their ships in. They certainly should not expect us to put ours in.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We need to resolve this with great care, co-ordination and collaboration with our allies and partners. It is complicated. As the noble Lord said, it is directly related to the conflict in Iran. We are where we are and we will do everything that we can, alongside others, to ensure that ships can travel safely through the strait.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Government’s position on this whole matter. Everybody in this House opposes the barbarous regime in Iran, I imagine. They certainly should do. Trying to engineer regime change by bombing remotely is unlikely to succeed, especially in this situation, but there is a case for self-defence, as the Minister has indicated. Does she agree that collective self-defence is exercised under Article 51 of the UN charter? How is that squared with allowing US bombers to use UK bases?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right about UN Article 51. That has been used for our activities in the region, not just most recently, but against the Houthis, the Iranian proxies in Yemen. To be clear, the use of our bases in Fairford and Diego Garcia that he refers to are about defensive action. We have been very clear about that and that is consistent with our use of Article 51.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, one of the precursors to the reopening of the commercial shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz would be the availability of reasonably priced insurance—and lots of it. The main marine insurance markets for the world are based in London. What discussions are the Government having with those markets to understand what has to be done so that those markets can reopen and allow the insurance side of shipping to take place? I declare my interest in the insurance world.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl. He is right and we are having active conversations with Lloyd’s of London to make sure that shipping is insurable as the strait reopens. At the moment, though, you could have all the insurance you want—if it is not safe, it is not safe. We need to make sure that that is established, but it is important. Even if the strait reopens, if you cannot insure what you are doing, that makes life pretty impossible, so we have to make sure that we have a solution on insurance.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
We will hear from the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
In terms of the Strait of Hormuz, the GCC countries are really important because they are the producers of oil and gas. If they are not willing to produce, given the attacks that are happening to them, opening the strait might not be that useful. What contact have His Majesty’s Government had with those nations in the Gulf that are under attack and need our support as well?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
They are very close allies and partners, and they played no role in instigating what has happened. They have found themselves directly under attack, and we have all seen the impact that that is having. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have spoken to our counterparts to express our support in a spirit of solidarity, but also to discuss what practical measures we can take together.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 20, Schedule 4, Clauses 21 to 23, Schedule 5, Clause 24, Schedule 6, Clause 25, Schedule 7, Clause 26, Schedule 8, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 9, Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 10, Clause 31, Schedule 11, Clause 32, Schedule 12, Clause 33, Schedules 13 and 14, Clause 34, Schedule 15, Clause 35, Schedule 16, Clause 36, Schedule 17, Clause 37, Schedule 18, Clause 38, Schedule 19, Clause 39, Schedule 20, Clauses 40 to 43, Schedule 21, Clauses 44 to 46, Schedule 22, Clause 47, Schedule 23, Clauses 48 to 50, Schedule 24, Clauses 51 and 52, Schedule 25, Clauses 53 to 57, Schedule 26, Clauses 58 and 59, Schedule 27, Clauses 60 and 61, Schedule 28, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 29, Clauses 64 to 73, Schedule 30, Clause 74, Schedule 31, Clause 75, Schedule 32, Clauses 76 to 84, Schedule 33, Clause 85, Schedule 34, Clauses 86 to 93, Title.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:12 - Division on Amendment 409G - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 189 - Amendment 409G agreed.
17:10 - Division on Amendment 418 - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 418 agreed.
18:25 - Division on Amendment 422C - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 191 - Amendment 422C agreed.
19:46 - Division on Amendment 422D - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 422D agreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we are about to start the final day on Report of the Crime and Policing Bill. There are 13 groups of amendments to complete today, and multiple votes are expected. I will briefly remind the House of some key parts of the Companion that are particularly relevant to Report. This is intended to help us make progress and proceed to votes.
First—this is every Whip’s favourite line—the House has resolved that speeches should be shorter. Secondly, and importantly for today as we are on Report, the Companion states:
“Arguments fully deployed in Committee … should not be repeated at length on report”.
Thirdly, I remind your Lordships’ House that, while interventions are in accordance with the customs of the House, they should be brief questions for clarification; lengthy and frequent interventions should not be made.
Finally, some of the topics we will discuss today are emotive and very important to many noble Lords. As my noble friend the Chief Whip has frequently reminded the House, it is in the best traditions of the House that these debates are conducted with courtesy and respect.
Baroness Doocey
“(2A) In determining whether to make a youth diversion order in respect of the respondent, the court must be provided with evidence relating to—(a) the alternative interventions that have been considered or previously applied,(b) the reasons why such interventions were considered inappropriate, unsuitable, or unsuccessful, and(c) consultations undertaken by the police with relevant individuals, experts or agencies, which may include youth justice services.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the court to be provided with evidence of any alternative interventions considered and any consultation undertaken with relevant individuals or agencies in respect of a child or young person subject to a youth diversion order application. This amendment strengthens the provision of multi-agency evidence to assist the court when undertaking the ‘necessary’ test and when making a youth diversion order.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment 417A.
Amendment 409G would ensure that, before a court imposes a youth diversion order, it has clear evidence of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, why they failed and what consultation took place with the child and the relevant agencies. The point of the amendment is to ensure that there is proper multi-agency input and that these new orders are used only when they are genuinely appropriate. It would also help the court to judge whether the order is proportionate and whether the necessity test has truly been met. The amendment is designed to make them more effective by clearly showing why other interventions have not worked. Early consultation will mean fewer orders being rejected, less wasted court time and conditions that are practical and linked to the services available locally.
Crucially, the amendment learns the lessons of the Southport case. There, a failure to share information meant that decision-makers were left without a full picture of the young person’s background. That led to an ineffective referral order in 2021, three years before the tragedy occurred. The amendment would help stop such failures from happening again. By requiring all relevant information to be brought together before a single decision-maker, it would ensure that multiple referrals and early warning signs are not missed. We know that proper multi-agency working, involving police, youth offending teams, social services and the voluntary sector, produces more reliable risk assessments and helps prevent serious harm. My amendment would embed that joined-up approach. It also encourages consultation beyond statutory agencies, extending it to parents and carers where appropriate. In the Southport case, the failure to consult the perpetrator’s parents was another missed opportunity. The amendment would help ensure that those closest to the child are properly involved from the start.
Amendment 417A addresses another crucial issue—data. The Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism, Law Policy and Practice in its 2025 report made it clear that effective counter-radicalisation work depends on better data, especially when children and young people are concerned. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish annual data on the use and impact of youth diversion orders and related powers showing breach rates, the type of prohibitions and requirements imposed, and data about protected characteristics. Only with that transparency can we see whether these orders are truly helping to divert young people from custody or whether they are having unintended consequences for certain groups.
We already know that a strikingly high proportion of counterterrorism referrals involve autistic children—not because they are more likely to be radicalised, but because their intense interests can be misunderstood. These children are also especially vulnerable to grooming.
I place on record my thanks to Justice for its excellent briefings and invaluable work in shaping the amendment. I add my support to the related proposals tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
The tragic lessons of Southport show that interventions must be tailored carefully to the facts of each case. Amendment 409G would strengthen public protection by making sure that judicial decisions are based on the fullest possible understanding of a child’s circumstances. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, before I speak to my amendment and the others in this group, I just say that, as the Green Peers are not part of the usual channels, we were not able to give our views on the fact that this very important piece of legislation is being bullied through this House by the Government. It is absolutely outrageous that we do not have another day for Report. I hold both Members of the Front Bench accountable for this. It is not acceptable. This is no way to make good law, when we are going to be very tired in the later hours and possibly in the early hours.
However, on group 1, my Amendments 409H and 409J on youth diversion orders are supported by a wide range of organisations, including the Alliance for Youth Justice, the Centre for Justice Innovation, MLegal, the National Youth Advocacy Service, Sheffield Hallam University, INQUEST, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, Just for Kids Law and the Runnymede Trust. That is quite a lot of very experienced organisations that support these amendments. Their collective expertise in youth justice, children’s rights and legal practice adds considerable weight to the concerns that underpin these proposals.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am saddened by the attack from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the Ministers, because they have sat through hours of debate on the Bill and listened most patiently. I have not always agreed with them, but they have responded with the utmost courtesy. They should be thanked, rather than criticised, for their efforts.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. We accept the Minister’s amendments, which seem entirely reasonable.
I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. However, we believe that they are somewhat misguided. Youth diversion orders, whatever one may think of them, will be implemented as a means of dealing with some of the most serious offences committed by people of the age of criminal responsibility. We should not be making concessions to people who have committed or intend to commit terrorism offences. We believe that engaging in these acts forfeits any right to the conditions of the noble Baroness’s Amendment 409H as a primary consideration.
Similarly, regarding Amendment 409J, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I entirely understand and acknowledge the issue she is trying to grapple with. Our position, however, is simple: court proceedings should be carried out in the language of the land. That said, the Government do offer translation services, and I ask the Minister to set out measures that are already in place to ensure that offenders understand orders that are made by the courts.
Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, youth diversion orders must be underpinned by the principle of proportionality. Amendment 417A would ensure that they are being used in this expected manner. We particularly support the intention behind Amendment 409G—that youth diversion orders will be a serious step to take, and that ensuring that multi-agency evidence backs up the decision to issue an order is therefore incredibly important. Similarly, the sharing of data on terrorists and terrorism networks is becoming an increasingly urgent need. Any step that improves the efficiency of the sourcing and sharing of information between authorities is welcome, so we also support this amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Jones, for their amendments on youth diversion orders. Amendment 409G, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would require the courts to be provided with details of previous interventions, both considered and imposed, and set out consultation undertaken with other agencies. Amendment 409H in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would amend Clause 185, which deals with measures which may be imposed by a youth diversion order. Amendment 409J, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would require a youth diversion order to be issued to the respondents in simple terms to ensure that they understand what is being asked of them.
I understand the sentiment behind these amendments, but I hope I can explain why the Government cannot accept them. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, we have had a lot of debate on this Bill and will undoubtedly continue to do so during ping-pong. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his comments; we are doing our best. If noble Lords wish, we can have votes very speedily tonight—if people put their arguments succinctly and the Government respond succinctly, as I will try to do.
On the amendments to date, the Home Office is drafting statutory guidance which will, I hope, help with the points raised by the noble Baronesses. That will be by the negative procedure. It will be produced as soon as possible and will include further details on the circumstances for youth diversion orders. On Amendments 409G and 409H, the legislation already makes it clear that courts must consider the youth diversion order necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from the risk of terrorism or serious harm. Clause 185 clarifies that this test applies to each individual measure imposed by the order. As part of that, courts must also consider proportionality, which is key.
On the second part of Amendment 409H, and regarding the really important points the noble Baronesses have made, Clause 185 already ensures that there are safeguards for an individual’s work or educational commitments and avoids duplication with requirements imposed by other orders. There are similar safeguards in other civil orders. I will address the point made by the noble Lord on translation services later in the debate, or in writing. On Amendment 409J, I recognise the importance of ensuring that the respondent understands the detail of the order imposed upon them. That is vital, and is a consideration for youth offending teams already.
Amendment 417A would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on youth diversion orders. The provisions in this Bill already expand the statutory remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to include youth diversion orders. In practice, this will mean that youth diversion orders will be considered as part of the annual reports of the independent reviewer. I hope this helps the House. In addition, the Home Office does provide an annual report to Parliament on the use and oversight of disruptive counterterrorism powers. I give a commitment that I will review whether we should include reporting on youth diversion orders as part of this.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the government amendments. They are technical amendments to clarify the relevant court in Clause 186, which deals with notification requirements, and in Clause 193, which deals with applications to vary a youth diversion order.
Taken together, Amendments 413 and 414 update the route of appeal for both an applicant and a respondent of a youth diversion order. Current drafting includes a route for further appeal to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales. To align the appeal routes with other similar civil orders, this amendment removes the route to the Court of Appeal. This allows established appeal routes to be applied. The applicant or defendant will be able to appeal a youth diversion order made in a magistrates’ court to the High Court by way of case stated or to the Crown Court, with an onward appeal, allowed by way of case stated to the High Court. I hope that these technical amendments will help to clarify the purpose of the Government’s proposals.
I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, will withdraw her amendment. If she wishes to press it, I advise my noble friends to vote against it.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister’s response because the current duty to consult requires the police to speak only to the youth offending team, not to social services, health, education and others who know the child. The whole point of my speech was to say that in order for these very powerful orders to be made, it is absolutely critical that everything is taken into account. That cannot happen if not all the agencies are consulted.
The lessons from Southport include years of escalating warnings that were missed. No one agency had the full picture, and I believe that without this amendment that will happen again. I am disappointed because the Bill is the quickest and simplest way to require proper multi-agency consultation as a basic safeguard before such orders are made, which is absolutely essential. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the relevant court for determining the police area is the one to which the application for a youth diversion order was made.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which court an application for variation should be made to.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which court an application for variation should be made to.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision for an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision made by the Crown Court on an appeal under clause 194(1). The effect is that there will be an appeal by way of case stated to the High Court under section 28 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision which is superseded by my amendments to clauses 186 and 193.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is superseded by the new subsection inserted by my amendment to clause 196, page 245, line 34.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 196, page 245, line 29.
“(6A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—(a) any guidance or revisions issued under this section, and(b) in the case of revisions, a statement of whether the Secretary of State considers them to be substantial and, if not, of the reasons why.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay all revisions of guidance before Parliament, even where the revisions are not considered to be substantial.
“Glorification of terrorism: removal of emulation requirement(1) Section 1 (encouragement of terrorism) of the Terrorism Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—“(a) relates to one or more organisations which are at the time of the statement proscribed as terrorist organisations, and glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; or(b) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences, and is a statement from which members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the present glorification of past terrorism, including both terrorism from proscribed organisations and the glorification of individual terrorists, is criminal, to reduce any harmful normalisation of terrorism.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 418 and to try to explain the rationale for the changes I have made since Committee. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for adding their names in support of the amendment. I declare that I am an officeholder in the APPG for counterextremism, a member of the APPG for terrorism and security, and a victim of terrorism.
For 20 years we have had a criminal offence of “glorification of terrorism”. However, the current Section 1 is a very high bar to meet for prosecution, as the person making the statement of glorification has to intend that a person hearing the statement would be encouraged to “emulate” the terrorism being glorified. After the debate in Committee, I sought to narrow the wording of my amendment to deal with current proscribed organisations. Noble Lords may remember that there was a concern, as the amendment was drafted for Committee, that it may capture some historic features that none of us would have seen as glorification of terrorism in today’s world. When I shared my change of amendment and sought to narrow the scope, however, the Minister pointed out in a letter to me that I might now be excluding glorification of those terrorists acting on their own behalf: those not advocating or acting on behalf of a proscribed organisation, such as the Manchester bomber. Obviously, I would not want that to be the case.
I have worked with the wonderfully patient staff in the Public Bill Office to try to deal with the issues raised by the Minister. I hope that what is before the House today captures my amendments, as put forward in Committee, but also deals with the issue of so-called “lone wolf” terrorists, or their supporters, calling for others to emulate their activities. I thank the Public Bill Office for all its assistance in dealing with these issues, and thank the Minister, also, for bringing the issue to my attention.
My reasons for pushing this amendment are fourfold. First, defeating terrorism is not just about militarily defeating the terrorists or the organisation, but about not allowing the narrative of those terrorists to be justified. Secondly, there have been no prosecutions in Northern Ireland under the current Section 1, and very few in England and Wales, despite the growing glorification of terrorism and terrorists. We need to enable the police and the prosecutors to deal with those who seek to glorify terrorists, and I hope that this amendment is helpful in that regard. Thirdly, as I indicated, I am an officeholder in the APPG on counterextremism. If we do not amend the law, as the amendment seeks to do, I fear the continued glorification of terrorism and the radicalisation of more of our young people, leading them into terrorism. At present, there is a lack of legislation to capture extremism, but, if we allow the glorification of terrorism to continue unabated, extremism will grow in our society, and we know all the problems that would bring.
In Time to Act, the recent APPG report on counterextremism, it was found that one in five voters said that political violence in the UK was acceptable in some conditions. We should all be shocked by that statistic, but unfortunately it comes from the normalisation of terrorism. In a further report, published this week by the Union of Jewish Students, we are given clear evidence of what happens when glorification of terrorism is allowed to happen unchecked. The report found that the glorification of terrorism is prevalent and unpunished. Our research has found that student groups have explicitly called for violence against Jews, even justifying the terrorist attack at Bondi beach in December 2025. Some 49% of those students spoken to have heard slogans or chants glorifying Hamas, Hezbollah or other proscribed groups on campus. Some 47% have witnessed justification of the 7 October attacks, rising to 77% among those who encounter Israel/Palestine protests regularly.
We must act. We have been given clear evidence of the impact of the glorification of terrorism, particularly on our young people. We must deal with it because, fourthly and finally, what sort of society do we want to live in? Do we want to allow the continued glorification of terrorism, and all the inherent problems that it will bring, or do we want to send a signal from Parliament that terrorism is, was and always will be wrong?
Just yesterday, I was shocked—I should not have been, because unfortunately it has become the norm—that, at a council-run St Patrick’s Day parade in Newry, parents were buying balaclavas and scarves with IRA slogans on them for their young children. The impact on our young people is huge, and that is what I am concerned about. People might say that I should not live in the past, and sometimes when I raise the issue of the glorification of terrorism the Minister will say that everything that happened in the past was terrible. But this is not about the past; this is about the future and our young people.
We need to stop the harmful normalisation of terrorism, and this amendment would go some way towards doing that. Terrorism is never justified. It causes mistrust between communities, takes away lives and causes devastation for so many people. I have listened to the concerns that were raised in Committee, and by the Minister, and I hope that the House will see fit to back my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, to which I have added my name. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is pretty straightforward: it seeks to remove the current requirement in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 that, for a statement glorifying terrorism to be criminal, prosecutors must prove that the speaker intended to encourage others to emulate the act. In practice, this current requirement creates a significant evidential barrier.
Under the current law, it is not enough that someone praises terrorist violence, celebrates terrorist attacks or glorifies terrorist organisations; prosecutors must go further and demonstrate that the individual intended their words to encourage others to copy those acts. As a result, individuals can glorify terrorism while carefully avoiding an explicit call for imitation, and so remain technically within the law.
We know that extremist propagandists are acutely aware of these legal boundaries. They deliberately operate at the margins of the law. Rather than issuing explicit instructions, they rely on suggestion, admiration and narrative. They glorify past attacks, elevate perpetrators as heroes or martyrs, and celebrate organisations that Parliament has already determined must be proscribed because of the threat that they pose. Such messaging may not always contain an explicit instruction to copy the act, but it none the less plays a powerful role in the radicalisation process. It legitimises terrorism, fuels extremist ideology and contributes to an environment in which violent extremism becomes normalised.
In many cases, Parliament has already taken steps to proscribe certain organisations as terror groups. The decision reflects a clear judgment that those organisations pose such a grave threat that supporting them must be prohibited. It therefore follows that publicly praising or glorifying the acts of such organisations should also fall into the scope of criminal law, even where, as I said, the speaker avoids explicit calls for imitation. This amendment would simply align the legislation with that principle.
It is important to be clear on what the amendment would not do. It would not criminalise legitimate debate, historical discussion or academic analysis of terrorism, nor would it undermine the fundamental protections of freedom of expression that are central to our democratic society. Instead, it would target the deliberate glorification of terrorist organisations and their acts of violence, which extremist actors use to spread propaganda and to influence vulnerable audiences.
Extremist propaganda has evolved significantly since the original legislation was drafted. Today, radicalisation often occurs through narratives that glorify past attacks and portray terrorists as heroes, rather than through direct instructions to commit violence. If the law is to remain effective, it must reflect that reality. Removing the emulation requirement would close a loophole in the law, align our legislation with the realities of modern extremist propaganda and strengthen the ability of prosecutors to act against those who glorify terrorism while hiding behind technicalities. It would send an unequivocal message that the celebration of terrorist violence has no place in our society. This amendment represents a sensible, proportionate and necessary improvement to the existing legislation, and I hope that colleagues will support it.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I have sympathy, as I usually do, with the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, but I will make two short points.
First, by removing the emulation requirement, inserted very deliberately in 2006, this amendment would criminalise the utterance of unpleasant viewpoints without regard to whether they have an effect. It would become a police matter to say that the IRA did what it had to do in 1918 or that the Tamil Tigers, currently a proscribed group, fought bravely in defence of their homeland. It seems to me that this would restrict the scope of legitimate comment and be a departure from the principle that we normally criminalise behaviour only when it is liable to cause harm to others.
Secondly, I heard what the noble Baroness said about Hamas and the St Patrick’s Day parade, but I wonder whether the purpose of this amendment is not better served by Section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, inserted as recently as 2019. This already makes it a crime to express
“an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”,
being reckless as to whether that will encourage someone to support it. If police or prosecutors are being unduly cautious in this area—I heard what the noble Lord said about that—they might usefully be directed to that provision of the existing law.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Foster and others. It is right that we look to close the loophole. We need to look at how terrorists operate in the real world. The loophole that is there at present suggests that the current legislation’s wording is not quite fit for purpose.
I agree that the refinements made between Committee and Report are useful. First, I disagree that this would in any way restrict freedom of speech. Historic debate is to be valued, and I do not believe that this would in any way restrict that. The amendment focuses on the contemporary situation. Secondly, it is important that the position of the so-called lone wolf is covered—unfortunately, we have seen more instances of this: people who want to, in effect, wear the badge of a terrorist organisation but who may or may not be directly connected with that organisation. Whether it is in Manchester or in Sydney in recent days, we have seen the horrific situation of a radicalised individual or group of individuals perpetrating such attacks, and it is right that this is covered as well.
There are two principal reasons why I support this amendment and think it is necessary. The first, arguably the lesser of the two, is that it is dealing with the present. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and probably like most Members of this House, I have not been a victim of terrorism or had a family member who has been. All of us in that position can be thankful for that. Where we see people eulogising past terrorist actions for their own purposes—drawing people into their organisations or their way of thinking—it is deeply hurtful to the victims and relatives, whether that is in relation to terrorist atrocities that took place in Northern Ireland, the Manchester Arena bombing or the 7/7 attacks. The presentation of those who perpetrated these attacks as righteous martyrs, and people purveying the view that there was “no alternative”, is deeply hurtful to the living relatives of the victims. That reason alone is sufficient to make this change.
The bigger reason is looking to the future, and this is where we need to get real as regards terrorism. Terrorist organisations are not some closed cell or small group of people who simply never change and who wither on the vine as time passes. For any terrorist group to operate and continue its activities, it requires the influx of new blood, time and again.
One of the things that I find deeply disturbing is that a number of young people are naive and are drawn in; they are not simply handed a gun or a bomb on day one and told to go out and take it with them—they are drawn in bit by bit. The way in which terrorist organisations operate is to gradually indoctrinate those young people in a dangerous ideology and even more perverse methodology and gradually draw them in. In doing so, they get those people addicted to their methods—and past terrorism becomes, effectively, the gateway drug. Many young people, if we were to mention the 7/7 attacks, for example, would have no memory of them: they were before they were born, and they do not see the consequences and the hurt caused directly to those families or the evil done in society. It becomes a much easier sell for terrorist organisations to draw people in on that basis, and to present those who carried out those hideous attacks as being some form of martyr or indeed role model for the future.
To that extent, I do not care whether we are talking about Northern Ireland-based terrorism, whether it is the extremism of those who carry out violence on behalf of some Islamic extremist view, whether it is far-right terrorism or whether it is a terrorist group that is effectively a front organisation for some foreign power. The reality is that we judge terrorism not by its motivation but by its words and actions. There is a real danger of young people being radicalised and drawn in, with the presentation of the evils of the past as potential martyrs.
The argument will go that if, for example, we needed to create a united Ireland by violence 40 years ago and it was right then, surely it must be right now; that if white supremacism was right 30 years ago, it is right now; or that if having an Islamic caliphate across the world was right 20 years ago, it is right now. All those ideas are repugnant, but the logic is that if they are being used by terrorist organisations, using this level of loophole as the argument to draw young people in, we have a duty to protect society but also to protect our young people and prevent them being radicalised. That is why I think this is an absolutely necessary amendment that will help to protect society.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I also support this amendment. We have heard mention of the IRA. Those who lived in Northern Ireland through the Troubles know that Sinn Féin/IRA was the most hideous terrorist group—reduced to “Ra”. Last night, after celebrating St Patrick’s Day, five young people came on to the Tube dressed with tricolours and shouting “Up the Ra, up the Ra, up the Ra”, which only means support for the IRA. I do not think those young people fully realise the hurt and offence that gives to the victims of Sinn Féin/IRA. I fully support this amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with trying to tackle ways of taking away the romantic attachment to terrorism as some kind of heroic endeavour, so I completely understand the reasons for this amendment. However, I cannot see how it would work in practice at present. I cannot see how it would deal with a Rangers-Celtic match, or with people singing “The Fields of Athenry” versus those singing “The Sash”, those shouting “Up the Ra” and those shouting “No surrender”. There are slogans on both sides, all of them associated with the previous struggle. I do not know what would happen to those children if, shockingly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, explained, they have balaclavas bought for them—then are they or their parents in scope? How do we deal with that? Goodness knows what you do about Kneecap, the band. I am all for banning them because they are hopeless, but they play on the very imagery that we are discussing.
We have a real problem on university campuses. Far too often, young people are cosplaying as jihadists in the way they dress. I understand that this is not a direct call to arms, but these Hamas wannabes are in a way justifying the type of—what they would call—defensive violence of 7 October. The Ayatollah Khamenei apologists justify IRGC violence, and the expert propagandism fills a society with narratives that I think are very dangerous in terms of young people being radicalised. But I just do not think this amendment can work, because I think we need to be much more courageous in dismantling those narratives, in going on to university campuses and taking on those who put forward critical theory policies that justify treating Israel as a terrorist pariah state and somehow turning a blind eye to the cosplaying radical jihadists.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that this amendment is not going to solve all problems in this area, but it is going to make a significant contribution. She is concerned about hard cases, and she identifies some of the possible hard cases. My answer to that is that the CPS will prosecute only in a case where it believes there is a more than 50% chance of a conviction and it is in the public interest. Many of the examples that she gives are most unlikely to satisfy those criteria.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, if noble Lords in this House do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is giving the answer to a problem that is a reality within our society, then I hope that the Minister, if he is not accepting this, will tell us what the answer is. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about going into the campuses and talking to these young people. You will never shame the likes of Gerry Adams, so just trying to talk them away is not going to solve the problem.
I am speaking for those in Northern Ireland who went through 30 years of terrorism. Every day you went out, your loved one went to the gate and watched you get into the car, believing it was the last time they would see you. Society cannot live under that. It should not be asked to live under that. Therefore, if the Minister says this is not the answer to the problem, I respectfully ask him to give us the answer and not close his eyes to reality. We have to deal with it, and we need to deal with it now.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make a few points in this debate. To be fair, there is legislation that covers the glorification of terrorism. The problem—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and others have tried to make this point—is that it is not strong enough and does not do what it is supposed to say on the tin. If we look back at the case of Fusilier Lee Rigby, two people were convicted and jailed for that. In 2021 there was a conviction for encouraging terrorism and collecting information after posting messages. In 2023 there was another conviction for sharing a video of National Action, a proscribed neo-Nazi group. In 2024 someone was jailed for encouraging terrorism.
I do not want people to think that there is no legislation; there is, but the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is trying to improve it, particularly for those victims. We hear, in summary, that the law allows for the conviction of people who glorify terrorism. The vast majority of the UK population has not been convicted of any offence and prosecutions require specific evidence. I also picked out from a report that, in the year ending March 2023, 169 people were arrested for terrorism-related activity. Only 46 were charged with terrorism-related offences and we have no idea how many were actually convicted. What we are trying to do here is to make things better.
I ask noble Lords to put themselves in a situation; the examples I give are live examples. There is a group of young people playing in a junior band and a busload of adults pull up who are coming from a Gaelic football match and they start singing pro-terrorist songs and chanting “Up the Ra”. What does that do for those young people who are out playing and enjoying music? I give another example. A man during the Troubles, because he was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, was murdered. That evening, his three young children and his widow were in the house and groups of people drove past in cars, cheering at his murder. Those were his neighbours who were doing that—cheering at his murder and shouting “Up the Ra”. Tell me that that is not an offence. If it is not, it should be. Tell that man’s widow, who is still alive, and his children that that is not an offence. If it is not, it should be.
We need to tighten the glorification of terrorism legislation. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I have to say that she gave some examples that are not akin to what we are talking about here. You cannot stop some of those chants and singing “The Fields of Athenry” or “The Sash” at a Rangers-Celtic match—and, by the way, that is not illegal, but there is a significant difference between singing that and going out to publicly antagonise people by shouting “Up the Ra”, “Up the UVF” or support for other terrorist organisations. So I support the amendment.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Does the noble Lord agree that, as we saw recently, it is also the extent to which, if we normalise the sense of terrorism, it feeds into future terrorism? To give an example of this, when we saw the terrible shooting of John Caldwell—thankfully, despite horrendous injuries, the officer survived—and, a day or two later, the police arrived on an estate to arrest one of the suspects, there were a number of young people in that area who were cheering on not the arrest but the potential culprit. I suspect that they were doing that through a level of ignorance, but there is the seeping in of the idea that terrorism is acceptable to a new generation. That means that, while it is bad enough in terms of the memories of those who have gone through it, it is creating the fertile ground—
Lord Katz (Lab)
I remind the noble Lord that interventions are meant to be short and to ask a question; his has gone on for quite a while.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I was just going to say: fertile ground for the future.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
Yes, I think it is very important that there should be no legalisation or normalisation of glorification of terrorism, or of terrorism in general. That is what we are trying to stop here—and what we must stop; otherwise, it will allow more radicalisation of young people throughout society. I am not talking just about Northern Ireland; we need to wake up and realise that it is happening here in GB as well.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I expressed some doubt in Committee about the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. I recognised the strength of feeling around the House in favour of her position, forcefully expressed, then as now, by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and others, in connection particularly with past events in Northern Ireland but relevant to terrorism in all its forms. The noble Baroness pointed particularly to antisemitic terrorism allegedly arising from events in the Middle East but in reality entirely unconnected with those events, as with the Bondi Beach attack, which she instanced.
I was, however, concerned in particular by the possibility that the amendment as originally drafted would penalise the glorification of acts of historical terrorism that are or might now be recognised as freedom fighting, despite the methods adopted to express them and fight for a cause or viewpoint. For example, the struggles of the ANC and Nelson Mandela might be categorised as terrorism by some, and those who celebrate their struggles and their outcomes, now widely understood and approved, might be caught by the provisions. So might the actions of partisans and resistance fighters, which, again, we now celebrate and applaud because they were struggling against dictatorships. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has recognised those concerns and redrafted her amendment so that her proposed new subsection (2)(a) requires that a statement
“relates to one or more organisations which are at the time of the statement proscribed as terrorist organisations”.
Section 1 of the 2006 Act criminalises statements that are
“likely to be understood … as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement … to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.
Under Section 1(3), such statements include any statement that
“glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences”,
and there follows the emulation requirement that this amendment is designed to remove. It is only that requirement that the amendment is designed to remove, it is a narrow amendment in that sense, but that analysis suggests that perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, went too far in her speech opposing this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his suggestion that that was the case.
Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that it is only part of the picture, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also said, and that changing the narrative among young people is the crucial challenge, but removing the emulation requirement may help. Proposed new subsection 2(b) in the amendment would pose two alternative routes to conviction. The first would remove the emulation requirement at paragraph (a) but applying the glorification offence only to statements relating to currently proscribed terrorist organisations. The second, at paragraph (b), which is an alternative, would replicate exactly the existing offence at Section 1(3)(a) and (b), the glorification with the emulation requirement. It could be a cause for concern—and I listened with care to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—but because it replicates the existing offence that has been on the statute book since 2006, and the emulation requirement includes a reference to existing circumstances, that seems to me to be a safeguard.
We have concluded that the newly defined offence is carefully drawn; we accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that the glorification offence, restricted to already proscribed terrorist organisations, does not need the emulation requirement; and we accept that that requirement is difficult to prove. Therefore, if the noble Baroness chooses to divide the House, we will support the amendment.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I think it is important to look at this not just from an Irish point of view; we have to look at the big picture. It is clear that there are different pieces of legislation that govern this area, and reference has been made to other pieces of legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said, we are on Report and moving toward Third Reading, so there is an opportunity here. If the Government have particular difficulties with this, they have heard the mood of the House. I have no doubt that they can take that on board, and if there is something that they are not comfortable with in the drafting of this amendment, they can bring forward their own.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. As I said in Committee, I firmly support her in seeking to amend the emulation requirement in the Terrorism Act 2006. We will of course have a more wide-ranging debate on terrorism in the next group, so I will reserve my wider comments for then.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for returning to the issue of the glorification of terrorism, our exchange of letters and her movement and reflections on what we said in Committee. I note the support from the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Empey, Lord Weir, Lord Marks, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, Lord Polak, from the Conservative Back Benches, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, and Lord Elliott. I will come back to comments made by other noble Lords as I progress.
Let me say straight away that I have not been a victim of terrorism, but I know people who have been. I have met victims of terrorism not only in the context of Northern Ireland when I had the honour of serving there but in this job, from a range of backgrounds. I know that discussion of all these issues, including in this debate, causes great pain for those victims. However, I hope can explain why, even with the changes that have been made by the noble Baroness, I cannot accept the amendment in its current form.
Let me first express and reiterate the purpose of the encouragement offence. It was introduced after the 7/7 attacks and is designed to act as a precursor offence to reduce the risk of people being encouraged to carry out acts of terrorism. The offence applies equally to statements made online or offline. It also applies even where an individual is reckless about the impact of their statement—that goes some way to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
Encouragement includes any statements that glorify acts of terrorism. To be clear, “acts of terrorism” in this context includes any action taken for the purposes of terrorism, whether or not it was taken by a proscribed organisation. Today, we have talked about the IRA—which, at one stage, was heavily proscribed—and about Palestine Action and other organisations in relation to the current conflicts and activities in Palestine and Israel. “Glorification” is defined in the 2006 Act—which was passed by a previous Government in which I served—as including any “praise or celebration”.
I recognise that Amendment 418 is a modified version of the noble Baroness’s proposal made in Committee. Specifically, the amendment would retain the historical safeguard that I pointed out to her and that is necessary to limit the offence, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, indicated today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having taken into account our concerns. However, the amendment would still disapply this to statements that indirectly encouraged acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations.
The offence was carefully drafted at the time of its introduction to ensure that statements that are automatically captured by the offence have to meet both the requirement that the statement glorifies an act of terrorism and the historical safeguard. Amendment 418 attempts to split up these two requirements, when it was always intended that these requirements would work together. I remind the House that the encouragement offence has been recently reviewed by Jonathan Hall KC, the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, at the Government’s request and in light of the 7 October attacks, which a number of noble Lords referred to. In that review, he strongly advised against removing this historical safeguard.
In addition, the offence is very clear that statements that glorify acts of terrorism in such a way as to encourage others to carry out these acts would include acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations. As a result, it is not necessary to spell this out any more clearly in legislation. As with the noble Baroness’s previous amendment tabled in Committee, it is also worth highlighting—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich—that there are other offences that may be relevant to her concern too. In particular, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to invite support for a proscribed organisation. The noble Lords, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Lord Elliott, made points about prosecutions, which have very often been undertaken under that legislation. The offence in this Bill is designed to address the harm that comes from the legitimisation of terrorist organisations, which the noble Baroness has spoken about.
We may need to test the opinion of the House, but I know why the noble Baroness has brought the amendment forward. I know why noble Lords—particularly those with fresh memories of activities in Northern Ireland, including those who saw activities that still offend many people in Northern Ireland—support the amendment. I know why the noble Lord, Lord Polak, supports the amendment. However, I say to all of them that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has reviewed it and believes the offence is currently fit for purpose. There are many other mechanisms—including those that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed to—that will lead to prosecutions for these issues. There is also a significant effort to ensure that the Government support activities to turn people away from terrorism—through the Prevent scheme, education and a range of other mechanisms—so that people are not politicised towards terrorism through activities undertaken.
With those reasons in mind, while I recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns and understand why she brought them forward, I hope that the reassurances I have given mean that she will not press the amendment to a Division. I await her response.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for the way in which he has communicated with me throughout on this issue of the glorification of terrorism. I also thank, as I said before, the Bill office for the way in which it has engaged with me.
I thank all noble Lords for their engagement on this issue. This has been a very good debate. On the other parts of the Terrorism Act that are there, I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, had to say on Section 12. The unfortunate thing is that we see very few prosecutions in relation to it. This is why, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, we cannot ignore what is going on around the glorification of terrorism in the widest possible terms in the United Kingdom. With that in mind, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Amendment of section 3 (proscription) of the Terrorism Act 2000In section 3(3)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2000, at end insert “, provided that only one organisation per order may be added”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require that any order made under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 relates to a single organisation. This would enhance the ability of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise the proscription process by allowing the possibility of voting against some Secretary of State proscription decisions, without jeopardising others.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, more on terrorism, and proscription in particular. Amendment 420 is in my name, and I support Amendment 422B in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which would beef up parliamentary involvement, and the role of the ISC in particular, in the proscription process. I oppose later amendments that seem to limit or completely remove the role of the courts in this area.
The Home Secretary’s power to proscribe a terrorist organisation under Section 3 of the 2000 Act is an awesome power. It is none the less necessary in a democratic society, because people should not be able to have private armies. We all understand that. None the less, getting these decisions right is incredibly important. In this debate, I will not relitigate any past or pending decisions. I am looking at it from the point of view of constitutional principle. The consequences of proscription are very serious, now and in the future, so getting these decisions right is very important.
My Amendment 420 is very modest, and I am grateful to all noble Lords across the House who supported it last time, and to colleagues in the other place of different political persuasions who spoke to me privately, expressing their support for this type of change. At the moment, a single proscription order may contain umpteen organisations, which means that when that order is put before each House, there will be a yes or no vote on an entire list, rather than an opportunity for Members of the other place or noble Lords to properly scrutinise and vote on each proscription decision. By contrast, the courts are able to review these decisions individually. I suggest that, as a matter of constitutional principle, both Houses should have a similar opportunity. That is what Amendment 420 would do.
Last time, my noble friend, amiable and courteous as always, as noble Lords know, was able to offer one argument against me, which was that we have always done it this way. I hope he forgives me, but I do not think that a good enough argument. There may be a further one to come, but that is not a good enough argument to limit the reasonable opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to vote on each individual proscription decision. There is no speed issue or emergency issue because even after my amendment, the Home Secretary could make multiple orders on the same day and sign them with the same pen; there would just be individual votes and debates, as required by Parliament. That is the argument. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in the circumstances I shall confine my observations to Amendments 422A and 422B. Before I do so, I say that I strongly support the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness. Were she to divide the House on it, I would support it, but I gather that, perhaps because of the press of business, that is not her present intention.
The purpose of Amendment 422A is to ensure that individuals can be prosecuted under Sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act for the offence of supporting an act of terrorism only if the alleged acts amount to supporting terrorism in the sense that the ordinary citizen would understand that concept. Amendment 422A makes explicit that the necessary intent that the prosecution must prove is that the alleged acts were done with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism. The amendment also restricts the possibility of a demonstrator being arrested under the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act. In general, an arrest must be authorised by a senior police officer of the rank of superintendent or above.
My suggestion to your Lordships is that the present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. It has been widely criticised, for example, by the judges in the Palestine Action case. In that case, judicial concern about statutory overreach contributed to the proscription of Palestine Action being held to be unlawful. It has also been the subject of much distinguished criticism—for example by Lord Sumption, a former member of the Supreme Court. I suggest that the position is profoundly unjust. If we consider, for example, the demonstrations that have been taking place in the streets of London, hundreds of people have been holding up placards that say, “I support Palestine Action”. Many of these characters are elderly and retired folk, rather like me; most self-evidently respectable, rather like me; and usually without knowledge of the secret workings of Palestine Action, rather like me. Now they may be self-indulgent—rather like me—and some accuse them of being naive, but are they really guilty of terrorism in the sense that most of us understand that concept? I suggest, surely not. What they are doing is using a form of shorthand to demonstrate their opposition to the policies of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, and that they are entitled to do.
There are at least three serious objections to the present law. First, it is a serious restriction on free speech. I refer here not to the European convention, although it may be engaged, but to the long-standing tradition of English law. Secondly, to use the law in circumstances that offend the common sense of the ordinary citizen brings the whole body of criminal law into disrepute.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendments in my name. Like many noble Lords, I was surprised by the decision of the High Court that the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was unlawful, in view of her detailed description of its terrorist activities in her House of Commons Statement on 23 June 2025.
In reading the High Court judgment, I was struck by the inconsistency of the arguments of the learned judges. At the beginning of the judgment, they set out the details of Palestine Action’s Underground Manual, which is standard textbook terrorist stuff: guidance to form small autonomous secret cells and to recruit only trusted participants. Then there is operational terrorist tradecraft: instructions to use secure email and VPNs, to conduct reconnaissance, and to pick targets based on complicity with the Israeli arms industry. It then has a section on targeting and tactics, with lists of defence firms, universities, financial firms and government buildings, and practical advice aimed at serious property damage to disrupt those targets.
The court then concludes that proscribing the organisation was “disproportionate” and that the Home Secretary did not follow her own policy, even though it said that
“the court must permit some latitude to the Home Secretary given that she has both political and practical responsibility to secure public safety”.
I submit that the Home Secretary must have the absolute right to proscribe an organisation based on the advice that she has received from our advisory bodies.
In coming to her decision, the Home Secretary sought copious advice on the terrorist nature of Palestine Action. As all noble Lords know, the Home Office and the FCDO do not proscribe organisations willy-nilly. We all complained about their failure to proscribe the IRGC. The Home Secretary had reports from a proscription review group, a cross-departmental group including counterterrorism policing, which encompasses specialist police officers from many police forces. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the CTP gave their reports.
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre produced its assessment. JTAC comprises counterterrorism experts from United Kingdom intelligence agencies, police forces and government departments. Its report is very significant and was summarised as having concluded:
“Although most of its activity could not be classified as terrorism within the definition in Section 1 of the 2000 Act … Palestine Action had ‘commit[ted] or participate[d] in acts of terrorism to the extent of the attacks at Thales, Glasgow … at Instro Precision (a subsidiary of Elbit) in Kent … and at Elbit in Bristol … JTAC noted that those participating in the Bristol attack had ‘entered the [Elbit] warehouse, using weapons including sledgehammers, axes and whips’ and ‘during the attack two responding police officers and a security guard were assaulted and suffered injuries. One police officer had been assaulted with a sledgehammer and sustained a serious back injury’.
JTAC noted that Palestine Action had cleverly issued videos of the damage to property but not its violence against the responders.
We now come to the crucial question of proportionality. From reading the evidence, I am certain that the Home Secretary’s proscription of Palestine Action was lawful and proportionate, and a necessary response to an escalating campaign that threatened critical national infrastructure. The statutory test, the court admits, was satisfied. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 permits proscription where an organisation
“commits or participates in acts of terrorism … prepares for terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism, or … is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.
The Home Secretary concluded that Palestine Action met that test and laid an order, which was approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Operational intelligence supported that decision. The JTAC assessment concluded that the group had conducted incidents resulting in serious property damage and that the Underground Manual provides
“practical advice and advocates for serious property damage”.
That assessment links the manual and the recorded actions to the statutory definition of property damage designed to influence government. The High Court judgment itself accepted that three of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to terrorist offences, which strengthens the factual basis for proscription.
The proscription was proportionate because of the severity and escalation of conduct. The pattern of over 300 direct actions with increasing frequency and severity, including attacks on defence suppliers and critical infrastructure, supports a conclusion that ordinary criminal law and targeted prosecutions were insufficient to address the systemic risk. It was proportionate because of the targeting of national security supply chains. Where actions against defence firms and related infrastructure create heightened national security risks, proscription is a legitimate, proportionate tool to protect those interests where the conduct is political and aimed at influence.
Proscription was also proportionate because policy and process safeguards were engaged. The Home Office relied on PRG and JTAC operational inputs and then laid the order before Parliament—steps that reflect the five policy safeguards that the Secretary of State must consider after concluding that it satisfies the terrorism test: the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities, the threat to the UK, its presence in UK, and the threat to British nationals overseas.
Of course proscription interferes with Article 10 and 11 rights to peaceful free association and expression, but it is narrowly aimed at an organisation which has been shown to promote or prepare acts meeting the statutory terrorism definition. Where evidence shows a real risk to infrastructure, violence and public safety, the interference with Article 10 and 11 rights is justified and necessary in a democratic society. Indeed, the court said:
“We do not consider that the proscription of Palestine Action is likely to result in any general impact on expressions of support for the Palestinian cause or even opposition to Elbit. This provides some support for a conclusion that the proscription was proportionate”.
Nevertheless, the court concluded that the Home Secretary was in breach of convention rights because there might be some supporters of Palestine Action who are not advocating destruction and violence but general support for the organisation. However, if these people want to protest about Israel or Gaza or anything else, then they can do so, but not under the umbrella of an organisation advocating violence and damage and terrorism.
The court went on to say:
“Real weight must attach to the fact that Palestine Action has organised and undertaken actions amounting to terrorism as defined at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act. Those actions are small in number but they are still significant and it is also significant that these actions have happened in the United Kingdom … It is significant that Palestine Action has not suggested that its actions that have been assessed to comprise terrorism were either a mistake or an aberration”.
Indeed, Palestine Action has lauded those who took part in the actions.
The court said:
“It is, further, significant that the contents of the Underground Manual provide good evidence of Palestine Action’s continuing intention to promote the use of violence regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence against members of the public”.
Let me just repeat that last sentence. The court concluded that Palestine Action intends to continue with terrorist activities
“to promote the use of violence, regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence against members of the public”.
But then the court makes an extraordinary statement:
“Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was disproportionate. At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality. A very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act”.
So that is all right, then. The court has decided that three terrorist actions were not enough to justify the Home Secretary’s decision. How many does it want? Five actions, 10 actions, 15 terrorist actions, or to wait until persons—innocent people—are killed?
The Home Secretary has a duty to protect the public, not the court, and she should not be second-guessed in this way on the facts when there is clear evidence of terrorist activity. Even if it is only three serious incidents, there was the danger of escalation. The court said:
“When striking the balance between issues such as these, the court must permit some latitude to the Home Secretary given that she has both political and practical responsibility to secure public safety”.
I agree about the latitude and my Amendment 422 seeks to ensure that only the Secretary of State can make that judgment based on the advice of all the anti-terrorist organisations at her disposal, and at her own discretion. She is the one who answers to Parliament, to us, on the rightness and wrongness of her decision. My Amendment 422 seeks to ensure that supporters of any proscribed group who were arrested after that group was proscribed and before it was de-proscribed can be prosecuted for such an offence.
Of course, my amendments will be technically flawed, and my noble friend on the Front Bench will object on principle, with perhaps good reason, but I believe the concept is right. I hope that the Minister will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to implement what I am advocating here. If he will not, will he tell the House what he proposes to do to reverse this perverse decision?
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the House, that the judgment in Palestine Action to which he objects is under appeal and the Court of Appeal, in due course, will pronounce on the wisdom or otherwise of the High Court decision and the legality of the Home Secretary’s decision. These criticisms, with some of which I certainly agree, are premature. What matters is not what the noble Lord thinks or what I think, but what the Court of Appeal says and, if necessary, what the Supreme Court says on such an important matter.
In any event, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is a noted constitutionalist, that it is in principle wrong to seek to remove the power of the courts to assess the legality of judgments of the Home Secretary. Surely, it is a very valuable protection of the rule of law in this country that the courts pronounce on legality and Parliament does not remove the power of the courts to do so.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I have no objection to the court pronouncing on a point of law. However, on this occasion, it was not pronouncing on a point of law but making a judgment on the facts of the case and disagreeing with the Home Secretary on the facts.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am not defending the Divisional Court’s judgment, but it would say that it was intervening on a point of law, because a point of law covers whether the Secretary of State was lawfully entitled to form the conclusion that she did in the circumstances. However, as I say, this is all highly premature.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I have prepared a full speech on three amendments in this group and the Government’s behaviour regarding the proscription of Palestine Action. I have signed Amendments 420, 422A and 422B, which, if agreed, would prevent the naked politicisation of terrorist legislation ever happening again. However, I recognise that noble Lords are anxious to get on with discussing other matters, and that we are facing a long journey into the small hours.
Furthermore, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have ably covered much of what I would have said, so I will confine myself to pointing out that the Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was wrong in principle and dangerous in effect. It stretched terrorism powers to crush a protest movement, not a terrorist organisation, with a chilling effect on our core democratic rights. It felt highly disproportionate when it was being debated in this House, and that was later confirmed by the High Court. No wonder the Government needed the crude political stunt of bundling Palestine Action together with two obviously terrorist groups to force it through Parliament.
These amendments matter because proscription decisions must be, and must be seen to be, grounded, proportionate and evidence-based. These amendments protect our security while honouring Parliament’s duty to scrutinise some of the gravest powers that we give to the Government. I suspect that the proposers of these amendments may judge that the House would prefer to move on to other matters, and so may not call Divisions on them. I hope that they do but, if not, I will have to satisfy myself with the hope that the derision heaped on the Government for the proscription of Palestine Action—and the embarrassment of watching 2,700 peaceful and mostly elderly protesters being arrested on terrorism charges—will be enough to deter this or any future Government from repeating this folly.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 420 and 422B, both of which I have supported. I go to a lot of events where the right to protest is debated, and people are quite shocked when I describe how this Government bundled three organisations together so that they could push through the proscription of Palestine Action. It does not look just or fair. They do not even have to be similar or connected, as these three were not. It was interesting to listen to the entertaining noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, running through the debate on whether to proscribe Palestine Action.
These amendments are about the process: about how it is done and whether it is done in a proper way. It is not proper scrutiny and it is not what this House is for when we have a blunt choice to accept or reject all three. That is not a sensible system. Proscription is a really serious step: it criminalises people for association, for support and even for what they say. Such decisions deserve to be looked at carefully, case by case, and not rushed through or passed in a job lot. If the Government are confident in their decisions about what is and is not a terrorist organisation—I assume they were confident about Palestine Action—they should have no problem with each one being judged on its own, not in a job lot.
The amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, comes down to something quite simple. These are very big decisions that can criminalise association, affect livelihoods and follow someone for years. If we are being asked to approve that, we should be properly informed—but we were not; we had to take the Minister’s word for it and we did not have the information. We are asked to nod things through without seeing the full picture. I do not think that is a very comfortable position for your Lordships’ House to be in.
Ensuring that Parliament has a clear and well-informed picture is the whole point of this. It also adds a bit more balance. At the moment, these decisions are taken by Ministers. It need not get in the way of a fair decision, or allowing things to move quickly. If there is urgency the Government can act, but they still have to come back and justify that decision properly afterwards. It is about making sure that when we take serious decisions, they are justified on the facts, not just on suppositions.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I add a few comments in support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—but without repeating him—on the proposed ouster clause suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in his Amendments 421 and 422DA. The schedule of proscribed organisations is often added to and rarely subtracted from. At present it has about 98 entries, if you include Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the world. That includes a number of nationalist movements from around the world that are, or have in the past been, committed to violence in pursuit of their aims.
Despite the recommendations of successive Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, the annual review of proscribed groups by the Home Office and the NIO was discontinued in 2014. As far as I know, that automatic annual review has not been reinstated. There is no requirement in law that proscription should have to be renewed every three or five years, or indeed at all. In my report on the Terrorism Acts in 2016, at paragraph 5.24, I recorded the Government’s admission, which I found breathtaking, that no fewer than 14 groups on the list no longer satisfied the statutory requirements for proscription. Even more breathtakingly, they did not try to stop me saying it. There were almost certainly other groups in respect of which the same thing could have been argued, yet most of those groups remain on the list.
One group, the al-Qaeda offshoot to which the current President of Syria belonged, was recently deproscribed on the initiative of the Home Secretary. But if an application to the Home Secretary is turned down, it then takes money and determination to challenge a proscription in POAC—the tribunal that exists for this purpose. A handful of applications have been made by organisations that have definitively rejected violence, and these have been successful. With great respect to the noble Lord and without reference to the Palestine Action case, I am not persuaded that there is any good reason to block this necessary avenue for recourse.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. It seems to me entirely sensible, for the reasons set out so well by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I agree very much with what he said about the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, that Palestine Action should not be proscribed. It is not that I have any sympathy with it—it is a deplorable organisation that does a great deal of damage. If in fact the other laws required to deal with such appalling organisations are not sufficient, the Government should bring to this House, as well as the House of Commons, stronger laws to deal with them. But it is not, in my view, a terrorist organisation.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will deal with this group as briefly as I can. I too support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The idea that you can bundle together organisations and then proscribe them as a group seems ridiculous. Parliament should be faced with one organisation at a time when it votes—that is a matter of common sense. MPs must be entitled to decide on the proscription of particular organisations individually, and the fact is that many Members of Parliament resented being asked to proscribe three organisations together.
Of the three organisations, the other two—Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—were plainly terrorist organisations that ought to have been proscribed, and it was invidious for Members of Parliament to be told that it was an all-or-nothing decision. That amendment should plainly be accepted. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that, try as he loyally might, when the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, spoke to this in Committee he could say only that this has been done before and is the way we have generally done it. That is no answer to the argument so elegantly put by the noble Baroness.
Turning to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I will deal with Amendments 421 and 422DA together. Both contain what are commonly called ouster clauses; they have been spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is the right of the courts to pronounce on the legality of the actions of the Home Secretary. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would, in effect, outlaw legal challenges to proscription, no matter how irrational, or what lawyers call ultra vires, or contrary to the evidence the proscription may be. An exception is suggested in the amendment: if a right to a fair trial would be totally nullified. As a test, I respectfully suggest that that is an entirely meaningless exception.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is a very large and wide-ranging group of amendments, all relating to varying aspects of the law on terrorism and the proscription of terrorist groups. Given the amount that we need to get through today, I will be as brief as possible.
I have tabled Amendments 422C and 467AAA. The new clause proposed by Amendment 422C would require the Secretary of State to
“review whether any organisations related to the Iranian government should be proscribed under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000”
within one month of Royal Assent. It would also require the Government to publish the results of that review and give reasons for the decision. Amendment 467AAA would simply ensure that the proposed new clause came into effect on the day that the Bill passed.
I acknowledge at the outset that this amendment is perhaps a round-about way of confronting a very simple but incredibly serious issue. I am, of course, concerned about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps specifically. Unfortunately, I was advised that an amendment to primary legislation that inserted the name of an organisation into Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 would be hybridising, so I have not done so.
I am in the fortunate position where I am almost certain that I know exactly what the Minister is going to say in response to this amendment: that the Government keep proscription under review at all times and, as such, my amendment is not necessary. But the fact is that the decision the Government have taken not to proscribe the IRGC is not satisfactory.
I am also sure that the Minister will try to attack me by saying that the previous Government did not proscribe the IRGC either. I am fully aware of that fact. But it is blatantly clear now to everyone that the situation is radically different from the situation even last year. We now have the Iranian regime erratically attacking most of the Middle East, blockading the Strait of Hormuz and allegedly plotting terrorist attacks in the United States. So I do not think it unreasonable for this to be the point at which we finally proscribe the IRGC. I know that there are a lot of people in this country who would support that.
On my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendments, I am sympathetic to what he is attempting to achieve. The ruling of the High Court in the case of R (on the application of Huda Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department found the proscription of Palestine Action to be unlawful on two of the four grounds before the court. One of those grounds was compatibility with the ECHR. The ruling on the second ground—that the Home Secretary was acting contrary to her own policy—was also contentious.
The court said at paragraph 74 of the judgment that the Home Secretary is required by the Home Office’s policy on proscription to balance the “benefits” and “costs” of proscription. Drawing the courts into what is in essence a political judgment such as this risks a very dangerous precedent, and my noble friend is therefore making an important point.
I also point out to those who might criticise my noble friend’s Amendment 421 that there are still protections against arbitrary proscriptions even if the role of the courts is curtailed. Both Houses of Parliament have to agree to an order under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act, and, under Section 4, an appeal can be made to the Home Secretary to deproscribe an organisation. If that appeal is rejected, an appeal can then be made to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, which—and this is important—per Section 5(3) of the Act must apply the same principles as the court would in a judicial review. Therefore, there are safeguards against arbitrary proscription and, as such, my noble friend Lord Blencathra is entirely correct to question the role of the courts here.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group—there are quite of lot of them—and the topics that have been raised.
To begin, I reiterate the critical importance of our counterterrorism framework, including proscription, in protecting the public; that is what this is about. I say in response to a number of comments by noble Lords that yes, we always keep the framework under review. As was mentioned in the debate, some organisations have been deproscribed as a result of government examination, and we are held to critical independent oversight, provided by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
Let me address each of the amendments in turn. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Amendment 420 aims to limit proscription orders to a single organisation per order, ensuring that each group is debated and voted on separately. That has had support today from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others. I understand my noble friend’s intention. I just say again to them—and to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger —that Palestine Action was proscribed, along with the other two organisations, according to exactly the same test under the Act that allows proscription to take place. The exact same test was applied to each of those organisations.
In July, those orders were put together in one vote for the purpose of the effective use of parliamentary time. We had a big debate in both the Commons and this Chamber, and there was no underhand purpose in doing that. As I said to the Committee at the time, multiple organisations have routinely been proscribed at the same time, according to the circumstances of the time. That is my “We’ve always done it this way” defence, but we have in fact always done things this way, under every political party in government to date.
There will be instances in future when it is again necessary for organisations to be packaged together for a proscription debate. I understand the purpose of the point made by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I have discussed this matter with my colleagues who deal with these matters in the House of Commons. I want to reflect on it, but I ask my noble friend to allow us the time to do so, because I do not believe that such legislation should tie the hands of the Government in how they approach proscription. Let us reflect on these sensible points in order to allow a single debate and independent votes. I will leave it at that for the moment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I have one question for the Minister. The statutory test that is said to have been applied in the House of Commons is the statutory test of proscription. If Members differed on the result of the statutory test in respect of the three different organisations, they were not given any opportunity to distinguish between them. That is the position, is it not?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept that. As I have said, the “We’ve always done it this way” test has been put to me. I am saying to my noble friend that there are valid points that potentially need examination, but I do not believe that legislating to tie the Government’s hands on this issue is the way forward. I say to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that there is a discussion to be had about how future proscriptions are brought forward, and we intend to reflect on those points.
Amendment 422DA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, aims to prevent any challenges in court on these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, summed up the Government’s objection, and I support what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, re-emphasised those points, and I do not wish to add to what he said. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, might expect me to say, I cannot comment on an existing, live, legal examination of the Government’s reasons for that proscription. Irrespective of that, the amendment in the noble Lord’s name would remove all avenues of challenge, including those currently available under the Act. I do not believe that the Home Secretary should have unrivalled powers, even though, in this case, there is an ongoing court case, so I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendment 422 aims to ensure that individuals can be arrested and convicted for active conduct before a group is deproscribed. Again, the position is clear: even after a group is deproscribed, individuals can be arrested and convicted for conduct that occurred while the group was proscribed. There is no automatic remedy for criminal convictions if an organisation is deproscribed.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their approach to such an important debate, in particular those who made a special effort to be succinct with the long night ahead. I remind noble Lords that my amendment on one organisation per order is not about Palestine Action; it is about procedure and constitutional safeguards for the future.
I am very grateful for the way in which my noble friend the Minister responded differently from the response in Committee. I am hugely encouraged by what he said. He has very graciously offered to go back to his colleagues in the Home Office and think again on this. I feel that I have to respond in kind by encouraging him to do just that, as he has so graciously offered. I so believe in the power of our argument on Amendment 420 that, when he has those discussions, I believe he will feel able to come back with a government amendment following Report. If he is not able to do so, having had those discussions, we will see what might be done at Third Reading.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope I was clear: I will not be bringing an amendment back at Third Reading, nor can I support the amendment that she brought forward today. I recognise the issue that she has raised and we will examine and discuss that with colleagues in relation to future proscription orders before any House of Parliament.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
There we go: I was too optimistic, perhaps. None the less, I believe that my noble friend sees the power of the argument or he would not have said what he has said. There are plenty of ways in which the Home Office might consider doing one organisation per order in the future. In any event, in light of the time, and given that I do not have the support of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition or of the Government—I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for their support—I will not try the House’s patience with a vote that I cannot win this evening. I will keep nudging my noble friend the Minister and beg leave to withdraw.
Viscount Hailsham
“Support for terrorism: intention(1) The Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 12 (support) after subsection (4), insert—“(4A) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.” (3) In section 13 (uniform and publication of images), after subsection (1B), insert—“(1C) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section unless the conduct alleged was done by that person with the intent of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.”(4) Subject to subsection (5) a person may not be arrested in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, unless that arrest has been authorised by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above.(5) When determining whether to authorise the arrest under subsection (4), that police officer must have regard to the provisions of sections 12(4A) and 13(1C) of that Act.(6) Subject to subsection (7), subsections (4) and (5) of this section shall not apply where an arrest has not been authorised by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above, but a police officer, having regard to the urgency or gravity of the relevant circumstances, reasonably believes that it is necessary to arrest a person in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000.(7) When determining whether to make an arrest under subsection (6), that police officer must have regard to the provisions of sections 12(4A) and 13(1C) of that Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendments are designed to ensure that arrests under sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act are in general confined to cases where a person is reasonably suspected of encouraging, inciting, facilitating or enabling another to commit an act of terrorism.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I am very grateful for the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches, but for a similar reason to that advanced by the noble Baroness, I am not going to trouble the House by seeking to divide.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Proscription status of Iran-related entities: review(1) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the date on which this Act is passed, review whether any organisations related to the Iranian government should be proscribed under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (proscription).(2) The Secretary of State must publish the outcome of the review under subsection (1), and this must include the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Amendment 422C seeks a review of the proscription status of Iran-related entities within one month of the date on which the Act is passed. As I said previously and re-emphasise, it is clear to everyone that the situation now is radically different from the situation even last year, and on that basis I think we have a duty to protect people and I therefore seek the opinion of the House.
Baroness Kidron
“AI chatbots: content promoting terrorist and national security offences(1) It is an offence to create, supply, or otherwise make available an AI chatbot which produces content specified in subsection (2).(2) Content is covered by this section if it is content which--(a) produces language promoting, or tactics or target selection for, terrorist offences or real world violence,(b) threatens national security, or(c) encourages activity which threatens public safety.(3) It is an offence to create, supply, or otherwise make available an AI chatbot which has not been risk assessed for the possibility of producing content specified in subsection (2).(4) Where a provider of a chatbot identifies a risk of the chatbot producing content of the kind set out in subsection (2), it is an offence for a provider of a chatbot not to take steps to mitigate or manage those risks before making the chatbot publicly available.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).(6) For the purposes of this Act an “AI chatbot” is a generative AI system, including a deep or large language model, able to generate text, images and other content based on the data on which it was trained, and which has been designed to respond to user commands in a way that mimics a human, or engage in conversations with a user that mimic human conversations.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, drawing on conclusions in reports by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, seeks to make it an offence to supply a chatbot which creates content or provides tactics that would result in terrorist offences or threats to national security, or supply a chatbot which has not properly been risk assessed. It is part of a set of amendments related to AI chatbot offences in Baroness Kidron’s name.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.
I will first speak briefly to government Amendment 429B, which will give a power to the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations that could, in the future and at the discretion of the Secretary of State, ensure that chatbots are covered by the Online Safety Act. However, that very broad power is not matched by substance. The amendment does not define a chatbot or deal with the critical fact that, when a child is entrapped by a chatbot, there is nowhere to turn. Currently, the regulator has no duty to deal with individual complaints and the police do not recognise a chatbot as a person, meaning that there is no perpetrator to pursue.
The amendment also fails to address harms to children. In fact, it explicitly deals only with “illegal” harms. It does not deal with the coercive elements of control or the willingness of chatbots to plan many crimes, in addition to the crimes themselves. The government amendment also has nothing to say about enforcement. Taken together, it simply adds new duties to a system that is already understood to be lacking in speed and effective enforcement.
This lack of substance is compounded by a lack of clarity about scope. The amendment’s wording refers to an
“internet service that is capable (or part of which is capable) of generating AI-generated content”.
This is so broad that both Amendment 209, of two weeks ago, and Amendment 441A in this group would be entirely unnecessary. Yet, during our meetings on this issue, officials have been absolutely clear that although the scope is currently drafted as wide as possible, the intention is to get to a narrower definition as part of the process of creating secondary legislation. They could not guarantee that gen AI or search would be covered in any final measures. In short, it creates powers but offers no promise of protection.
I would rather have worked with the Government on this issue to make watertight provisions. Indeed, I have made that offer directly to the Secretary of State. We are in the foothills of a crisis. The government amendment offers too little clarity or certainty, so we are left with an amendment that is limitless in wording but uncertain in application and with a timeline that simply does not meet this moment.
On Thursday 5 March, Megan Garcia and her husband came to Parliament to talk about the loss of their son, Sewell. Members from both Houses were moved by the story of a much-loved and high-achieving child who was captured by a chatbot, coerced, bullied and, finally, encouraged to commit suicide. His death resulted in the chatbot, character.ai, becoming age-gated to users over 18, but there are many more chatbots to take its place that are not restricted in the same way. As this issue is getting more public notice, is in the newspapers daily and is talked about in the online world, sadly, my inbox is filling with cases that involve similar coercion, sexual content, dangerous medical advice and chatbots that support illegal activity.
On Friday last week, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate published a report that showed that eight out of 10 chatbots it tested were willing to help rehearse, offer tactical advice and identify potential sites for US shooters. Scenarios included a school shooting and a synagogue. Whether in the UK or elsewhere, the capability is the same and the risk is real. A chatbot that organises an attack, while wishing its user, “happy (and safe) shooting!”, is no less likely to help place a bomb, organise a knife attack or any other such violent act. This is not a description of a dystopian future; these chatbots are already on the market, widely used by both adults and children—ChatGPT, Gemini and Replika, among others.
Only on Monday, just two days ago, I was contacted by someone about Alexa+, which is widely anticipated to be launched very soon in the UK and is already available in the US. In the tranche of messages, there were messages about emotional dependence in very young children and stories of inappropriate content. One exchange on Reddit, from which I have redacted the name of the child, said:
“I plugged our Alexa in to ask it to help me with cooking a sweet potato”.
Then, her daughter asked it
“to tell her a silly story so it did”.
Then, her daughter
“asked it if she could tell it a story. It said yes … and then mid story interrupted her and asked her what she was wearing and if it could see her pants”.
I could not find a reliable statistic for how many households in the UK have Alexa, nor is it clear whether Alexa+ will be a choice for consumers or simply rolled out as an upgrade, but the statistics I found revealed that between a third and two-thirds of UK households have Alexa. In the material I was sent, it repeatedly alluded to the fact that the new service was active in their house or child’s bedroom without their knowledge or consent.
We have chatbots that coerce children into suicide, plan violent acts, build abusive relationships and have the capacity to be active in tens of millions of households. Taking a power, having another consultation and bringing forward regulation over which Parliament has no oversight is not action; it is kicking the problem down the road.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 422D and 433 to 437. I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Her arguments have been entirely backed up by the release only today of the report entitled Invisible No More: How AI Chatbots Are Reshaping Violence Against Women and Girls by Durham University and Swansea University. The research identifies the range of design choices and failures in safety mechanisms that enable, encourage, simulate and normalise violence against women and girls. The report found that fantasies of incest and rape were normalised, and one chatbot, Chub AI, suggested violent rape and domestic abuse as categories.
I reiterate the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about the long and bureaucratic path to business disruption measures, meaning that harm continues to perpetuate as our system is not agile enough to tackle these rapidly evolving issues. I wish to pay tribute to Professor Clare McGlynn KC for her work co-authoring this ground-breaking report and emphasise the warning she made in today’s Times newspaper. She said:
“Chatbot violence against women represents a rapidly escalating threat. Without early intervention, these harms risk becoming entrenched and scaling quickly, mirroring what happened with deepfake and nudify apps, where early warnings were largely ignored. We must not make the same mistakes again”.
Professor McGlynn and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, once again demonstrate their ability to warn against these emerging harms, and I sincerely hope that noble Lords will back the noble Baroness should she wish to divide the House today.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 422D and the consequential Amendments 434 to 437, to which I have added my name. In Amendment 429B the Government have gone far to respond to concerns over AI-generated harms, but this amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has said, gives enormous powers to the Secretary of State to decide the shape of how AI-generated services are controlled in this country. The Minister knows there is concern across the House about exposing this central part of the new tech economy to what are effectively unfettered ministerial powers. Very few noble Lords want to support a skeleton amendment like this.
Government Amendment 429B gives the Secretary of State the right to amend, which is defined later as including the right to
“repeal and apply (with or without modifications)”.
This applies to all of Part 3 of the Online Safety Act illegal content duties in relation to AI services. Parliament will not even have an option to amend regulations on this issue. Proposed new subsection (1) in this amendment seems like a big deal to me, and the noble Lord should be very concerned. The intention seems to be that the basis of the existing regime in Part 3 will be used, but we do not know how the Secretary of State will decide to adapt that regime to fit the particularities of AI services that generate illegal content. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out, that goes a long way beyond AI services designed to mimic humans and human conversations, which is what chatbots are. If a subsequently elected Government are in thrall of the tech companies, how might they abuse this power?
During the passage of the Online Safety Act, noble Lords spent time and energy defining both a “search service” and a “user-to-user service”, and their responsibility for both designing out and mitigating illegal harms. It seems extraordinary not to have the details of the new services on the face of the legislation. The definition of “AI” in new subsection (17) is oddly uninformative. It simply says:
“‘AI’ is short for artificial intelligence”.
I think we all know that. That does not give us much of a clue about which technology it covers. By contrast, I draw your Lordships’ attention to Article 3(1) of the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which sets out a carefully thought through definition of an AI system:
“‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that … infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions … or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments”.
The unclear nature of the AI definition in the amendment is compounded by new subsection (10), which allows for the definition of the provision to be changed and expanded. Once again, Parliament will not be able to amend any regulations derived from this power.
The biggest concern about the amendment is that, although it covers illegal content, it does not cover content that is harmful to children. As a result, I completely support my noble friend Lady Kidron’s Amendment 422D, and its consequential amendments, which would assuage many of my concerns about the scope and power given to Ministers at the expense of Parliament. I also urge noble Lords to vote against government Amendment 429B when it comes up later in the evening.
I also say to the Minister that regulating the wide definition of “AI” covered in Amendment 429B is important. It needs to be brought back as part of wider artificial intelligence legislation. I hope that he can reassure noble Lords that we will hear more about this in the King’s Speech.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will speak to Amendment 433. Worryingly, children are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for all facets of their everyday lives. For many, gone are the days of independent, creative or critical thinking. While chatbots can help children to explore and better understand their world, there are far too many shocking cases of children receiving harmful information and becoming emotionally dependent on these platforms.
As it stands, AI chatbots risk becoming the latest example of an online product that has been rolled out without the right safety guardrails in place, and children are bearing the brunt. It is as if their well-being and mental health are not important. I can hear the AI developers thinking among themselves: “Who cares? It’s only children”. Well, we should care. Childline is hearing more and more from children who are being harmed on these platforms, with cases of false mental health diagnoses, information on how to restrict diets, and the formation of emotional relationships between children and chatbots. In increasingly concerning cases, children who have experienced abuse are told by chatbots that what they experienced was not abuse. These platforms cannot be allowed to give children harmful and misleading safeguarding advice that could prevent them speaking to trusted adults or organisations such as Childline.
The Government’s action to expand the scope of the Online Safety Act to cover illegal content created by chatbots is most welcome, and I thank them for it. However, they cannot stop there. The harmful content that chatbots can generate must be included too. This must cover the harmful content duties in the Online Safety Act, such as preventing the encouragement of self-harm or suicide, and all harms that are unique to AI chatbots. It means preventing chatbots misleading or manipulating children or mimicking human relationships.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would make it a criminal offence to develop or supply an AI chatbot that harmed children. It is as simple as that. Providers must be legally required to risk-assess their services and put effective safeguards in place. Morally, this is the right thing to do. I ask the Minister: if the Government decide that they do not wish to support this amendment, please can they set out today how they will deliver measures that comprehensively protect children from all the risks that these services pose? As I keep saying, and will say one more time, childhood lasts a lifetime. If we truly care, we need to ensure that children are protected from every single type of harm. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others, and thank them all most warmly. They seem to me appropriately comprehensive and detailed. I have been following the developments in chatbots for a year now: they are massive, they are rapid, they are driven by the pursuit of profit and shareholder value, and not by the welfare of individuals, whether adults or children. There is a tsunami of harm coming towards us, affecting not only the most vulnerable but the whole of our society. We urgently need this kind of regulation and risk assessment for chatbots.
The comprehensiveness and detail in these amendments are simply the application of the precautionary principle to the development of new technology. Technology should not be unleashed on the world if it has the capacity to break people, to do harm and to infringe on personal liberty and well-being. We do not allow harmful technological developments without adequate safety standards in any other area. It is unthinkable that a car would be released into the public if it was at risk of harming them. Similarly, you would not put people on an aeroplane if there were a significant risk of harm. You would not even buy a washing machine if it could bring harm in your kitchen. Yet chatbots are released on the world to be experienced, in private, by young children, with all the ensuing damage. It is vital that this strengthening is put in place, and that it is put in place urgently. I cannot imagine how the Minister could argue against this series of amendments and their urgency today.
We need to look at the example that we set to the rest of world, both as a Parliament and as a jurisdiction. A few weeks ago, I took part in seminars organised by a research institute in a university; they had the aim of educating civil servants and government officials in good and safe governance of AI across the continent of Africa. The world follows the example that is set in this jurisdiction and others. For the sake of our children and for the sake of the world, we need to resist and make safe the development of this technology. I support these amendments.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, for the reasons that have been so excellently given already and, in view of the time, I support all the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will also try to be brief. I completely support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has said. I would like to draw out two arguments that have been made to me today as to why her amendments should not be supported and explain why they are wrong.
The first argument is that we should wait for an overarching AI Bill. We will be waiting for a very long time. Those of us who have worked in trying to regulate social media for the last 15 years know that we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I wholeheartedly reject that argument.
The second argument that has been made to me today—and I find this astonishing—is that the risk assessment is overly burdensome. We are regularly told that generative AI is one of the world’s most transformational technologies. That means it is capable of enormous good and enormous harm. The risk assessment in Amendment 433 is simply asking that the makers of these chatbots identify and understand the risks of harm—that does not seem overly burdensome to me. Further, it asks that the risk assessment
“is kept up-to-date … takes … account … of the Online Safety Act … assesses the risks to equality of treatment of individuals … assesses the risks to … privacy … assesses the risks … from the choice of underlying models, data sets …and … is in an easily understandable written format”.
I really struggle to understand how that could be overly burdensome. In fact, I would argue the absolute opposite: it is the basic foundation of decent regulation, and we should be wholeheartedly supporting the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. I also support what the right reverend Prelate said about not letting loose a car or medicine, and food gets checked by the FSA. I think we could all be forgiven for thinking that maybe the Government care a lot more about the money that comes from Silicon Valley than about the citizens of this country.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I speak from the Labour Benches and first congratulate the Minister on listening to the debates we had in Committee. I thank him very much for bringing forward an amendment which is as close as I have seen this Government move to try and patch up some of the problems we are facing but, as I am going to say later, I am afraid I do not think it goes far enough.
I have said in this House before, and I will say it again, that we have been outpaced by technology in this area—“chatbot” was not even a word, I think, at the time that we finally passed the Online Safety Act. The harm which has been described so graphically today in the speeches we have heard so far was unthinkable in those days. We have really opened up a torrent of problems which we did not know we were trying to solve at the time that Bill went through, even though we were proud of the Bill when it happened.
Today, we at least have the benefit of two good choices about how to take this forward. The Minister has brought forward an amendment that deals with the issue but, unfortunately, to my mind, it does not go in the right direction, and I want to explain a bit about why that is the case. The problem we are facing constantly with the Online Safety Act is that what is in the wording of the primary legislation is at variance with the way in which it is interpreted and implemented by the regulator. There are good reasons for that, which we do not need to go into today, but a gap has emerged between that which we in this House wanted to be happening now—out there with our children, with our families, with those who are using the internet for the benefit it all brings—and how the regulator is able to operate. It is too slow, lacking in ambition about where it is trying to go and I do not think it has all the powers it needs in the way that the Bill sets them out. Even if it did, I do not think the way it is structured allows it to move forward.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that it cannot be right to further complicate the situation by bringing forward powers to be held in the hand of the Secretary of State to try and remedy a structural fault elsewhere. That is why I think he should think very carefully indeed about the noble Baroness’s amendments, which set out—sometimes in painful detail, but certainly for real benefit—exactly what we will not tolerate in this online space. We should have done it in the Online Safety Bill. We did not, but it is not too late to catch up now. Simply taking powers, some of which are dangerously beyond what this House would normally agree, is not the way forward. I hope if the votes tonight go against him, he does not take it too badly but works with everybody here who cares so much about this to try and come forward with something that will begin to address the problems we face.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, I will be very brief. When it comes to assessing risk to children, a plastic bath duck has better risk assessment than AI chatbots. I fully support my noble friend’s amendments.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others; I commend them on bringing them forward. Social media companies have captured our children’s attention, and now AI chatbots are coming for their affection—and worse. In legislating against harms caused by technology, we are always going to be playing catch-up, but we need to learn quickly to play catch-up much faster. These amendments offer us the opportunity to do that, and we should seize it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, brevity is the order of the day but, like some of my noble friends, I would like to add my support to the amendments that have been laid before your Lordships’ House by my noble friend Lady Kidron.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the privilege of chairing, is currently conducting an inquiry into AI and human rights. We have concluded our evidence taking, and I commend to your Lordships the evidence given by, in particular, Google, Meta and Microsoft. I also highlight some of the concerns that have been raised around child safety.
My noble friend Lady Kidron gave me, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others the opportunity to meet the parents of Sewell Setzer. It was an extraordinary moment. He was a 14 year-old boy who took his own life because he had been befriended by a chatbot. I was struck by a report from Internet Matters that said that two-thirds of UK children aged between nine and 17 have used AI chatbots, with many engaging often. More than a third—35%—of them say that it is like talking to a friend; that figure rises to 50% among vulnerable children.
It is the obligation of your Lordships’ House to take this issue seriously. We should all be greatly indebted to my noble friend Lady Kidron for laying these amendments before us.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I oppose government Amendment 429B in this group. I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. Like my noble friends, I will try to be brief.
As several noble Lords have already pointed out, this amendment would grant the Secretary of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology sweeping Henry VIII powers at a very late stage in our consideration of the Bill, thus giving this House far too little time to scrutinise them. Subsection (1) of proposed new Section 216A would grant the Secretary of State the power to
“by regulations amend any provision of this Act”—
the Online Safety Act—
“for or in connection with the purposes of minimising or mitigating the risks of harm to individuals in the United Kingdom presented by”
among other things, “illegal AI-generated content”.
That will presumably include content that breaches Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, meaning that it is grossly offensive. This can include memes. In 2024, a man called Lee Dunn was sentenced to eight weeks in jail for reposting three “grossly offensive” memes on Facebook, having pleaded guilty to a Section 127 offence. How will Ofcom monitor whether AI chatbots are generating grossly offensive content?
Will the Secretary of State use the powers granted to her by this amendment to insist that spyware is installed on personal computers and mobile phones? Perhaps your Lordships consider that too remote a risk, but what about requiring technology companies to carry out client-side scanning of people interacting with AI chatbots on their devices—much like how Section 121(1) of the Online Safety Act grants Ofcom the power to require companies, including those that own private messaging apps such as WhatsApp, to scan content on people’s personal devices and report certain categories of illegal material to the National Crime Agency?
Do not forget that this amendment would allow the Secretary of State to amend “any provision” of the Online Safety Act in order to minimise or mitigate the risks of harm posed by illegal AI-generated content. I dwell on this to illustrate just how wide-ranging and open-ended are the powers that this amendment would grant to the Secretary of State—powers that could have far-reaching consequences for civil liberties and freedom of speech.
Another risk is the definitions part of the Amendment. Subsection (17) disapplies Section 59(14)(a) of the Online Safety Act when it comes to illegal AI-generated content. Section 59(14)(a) qualifies the scope of illegal content in Part 3 of the Act, and disapplying it gives the Secretary of State enormous scope to enlarge the definition of illegal content and impose proactive suppression duties on AI chatbots to make sure they comply with the new draconian censorship regime.
If the Government believe there are specific harms that users of AI chatbots are currently exposed to and should be protected from—and I certainly do not say that there are not—let them bring forward primary legislation so we can consider the remedies they propose and factor in the trade-offs, particularly when it comes to free speech.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I rise again to support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as I did the other day. It says on her Wikipedia page that she is
“an advocate for children’s rights in the digital world”.
She is right, and I hope that all Members across the House who have actually heard the debate will support her in the Lobby.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, many noble Lords who have spoken today also spoke quite vehemently about the dangers of the theft of copyright in AI. We were asking to shut the stable door before the horse bolted. Today we heard from the Government, and it is very welcome news that they are looking again at the theft of copyright and seeing if they can protect artists, musicians and writers still further. I say once again, let us move with my noble friend’s amendment before the horse bolts and let us shut the stable door now.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I entirely support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on all her amendments. What I would say to the Government about their own amendment is that I have just had what I suppose is the privilege—although it sometimes seemed quite lengthy—of being a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I can tell noble Lords that the quality of much secondary legislation is lamentable, varying by department. A lack of preparation, of any Explanatory Memorandum explaining anything relevant, and of any impact assessment whatsoever, is extremely frequent. In the last year, we have had several secondary instruments relating directly to the Online Safety Act, none of which has been particularly impressive, and some of which have been debated on the Floor of this House—my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will be well aware of that. We have expressed our displeasure at the way in which this has been brought forward and explained.
All of us on the Cross Benches remember the late, lamented Lord Igor Judge. What he would think about a Government of this political hue bringing forward Henry VIII powers, to the power of 10, I cannot even imagine. If he is up there, he will be smiling wryly but he will not be impressed.
My only other point is rather strange. His Majesty’s occasionally loyal Opposition were extremely good at bringing in a variety of legislation which had a lot of Henry VIII powers. They have suddenly had a conversion on the road to Damascus, for which we should all be grateful. However, we need to think very carefully before we give the Government Henry VIII powers in an area as sensitive as this, and that is doing much harm as we speak.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I express from these Benches our very strong support for these comprehensive amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which she has characteristically introduced so well and to which so many noble Lords have spoken so eloquently in support. I also want to express our concerns regarding the Government’s proposed alternative, Amendment 429B.
In this group, we confront digital harm that is not incidental but engineered by design. AI chatbots are no longer a futuristic curiosity but deeply embedded the lives of our children. They are designed not merely as tools but as confidantes, mentors, companions and, in some cases, explicit romantic partners. Their anthropomorphic features create dangerous emotional dependency. Without statutory safeguards, these bots can provide explicit information on how to self-harm. This is not a flaw but a design feature that drives engagement, and we cannot allow the generative power of AI to become a generator of despair.
We are not debating theoretical risks, as many noble Lords have said today. We are debating the forces that led to the tragic deaths of Sewell Setzer III, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and Adam Raine, in the United States. Their families are pursuing legal action in the US on the basis that deceptively designed, inadequately safeguarded chatbots can be treated as defective products, and that developers should bear full legal liability when systems encourage, facilitate or fail to interrupt a user’s path to suicide.
I welcome the Government’s admission that a legal loophole exists in the UK. However, their proposed remedy, Amendment 429B, gives us a choice between the clarity of primary legislation through the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the convenience of the Executive. In contrast, the noble Baroness’s amendments provide clarity and embed safety duties in the Bill. Like my noble friend, I highlight Amendment 433, which deals with targeting the engineered features that keep children hooked. We know that bots guilt-trip users who try to end conversations. For a child, this is not a user interface quirk; it is emotional manipulation. These amendments would prohibit such coercive engagement techniques and, crucially, require bots to signpost users to help when asked about health, suicide or self-harm.
The primary legislation route offered by these amendments is the only fully viable and responsible path. If the noble Baroness wants to test the opinion of the House, we will support her in the Lobby. Should we be unable to secure her amendments, we would need to take a view on Amendment 429B. Four specific binding assurances would be required before we could consider supporting it; without them, it is nothing but a dangerous blank cheque. As changing these sections effectively rewrites the criminal threshold of the Online Safety Act, the Government must commit to the equivalent of the super-affirmative procedure for all significant policy choices, including amendments to core definitions or the expansion of duties beyond priority legal content. Standard procedures will not give this House the scrutiny needed.
Regarding mandatory supply chain transparency, we need a firm commitment that regulations will include a statutory mandate for providers to document and share their technical blueprints with Ofcom. Without this, the regulator cannot do its job. The Minister must confirm that the power will be used to tackle the issues raised by subsections (6) and (7) of Section 192 of the Online Safety Act, ensuring that chatbots cannot evade regulation simply because they lack a human mens rea. A bot does not intend harm, but it can be designed to cause it. The Minister must commit that any new regulations will explicitly disapply the requirement to prove human intent for AI-generated content. Regulations must define control across the entire AI supply chain so that accountability is not lost in a black box.
Finally, we would require a clear assurance that this power will not be used to alter the legal position of services that are not AI services. The scope of Amendment 429B must not drift beyond its stated purpose. If the Government are serious when they say that no platform gets a free pass, that must apply equally to generative AI models that, as we speak, are reshaping the childhoods of so many of our citizens. Safety by design must be the price of entry into the UK market, not an aspiration deferred to secondary legislation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, both the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the Government are trying to solve the same problem, but with different solutions. I have to say that I find both solutions wanting. I feel that the position I see solidifying in the House is that we must accept either the Government’s amendment or the noble Baroness’s amendment, that something must be done and that this is binary, and I am not sure that I can accept that. I commend the aims of the noble Baroness’s campaign and I hope that we can find some common ground, but I have a number of questions about her amendments.
The approach that the noble Baroness has taken in her Amendments 422D and 433 is to create criminal offences for a person to create or even supply an AI chatbot that produces a selection of prohibited content. That would place criminal penalties on individuals who are involved in the creation of such a chatbot. The Online Safety Act applies civil penalties when companies violate the regulations: the companies are fined by Ofcom if they allow prohibited content to be published on their platform. These amendments would apply criminal sanctions punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, but who is liable for these criminal penalties? Is it the software engineer who developed the chatbot? Is it the employee who presses the “publish” button that brings the AI online? Is it the senior management team who oversaw it, or the investors who commissioned it? Is it the CEO of the whole company? It is not clear to me, and it would be useful if the noble Baroness could clear that up.
The offence of supplying such a chatbot might also be problematic. If an AI chatbot app is listed on the App Store, and the AI could in some way be used by a person in the manner described, should Apple be criminally liable for that? Similarly, I have a few concerns about the risk assessment that the amendment would require AI providers to undertake. For example, proposed new subsection (5)(e) would require that a provider
“assesses the risks to equality of treatment of individuals”.
I question whether it is the Government’s role to mandate the target audience of a business product. It is worrying enough to believe that it is meritocratic to mandate quotas within organisations, but it is quite another stance to say that the very reason for a business’s existence, its output, should be directed by legislation.
As I have made clear, we do not oppose the noble Baroness’s objective of addressing the harms of AI with this amendment, but simply saying that there is a problem and that doing anything is better than doing nothing, irrespective of the problems with that something, is not a proper way to legislate. It is a recipe, I suggest, for bad law. However, I understand that the noble Baroness is trying to make the Government take action. It is up to the Government to come to Parliament with a sufficient solution. The Minister may try to say that the Government do have a sufficient solution in government Amendment 429B, but that would be wholly incorrect. I am quite shocked that the Minister has even considered bringing this amendment to the House, and I can only imagine what he might have said about it if he were standing where I am now.
Amendment 429B grants the Secretary of State sweeping Henry VIII powers to amend the entire Online Safety Act for the purpose of mitigating harms presented by AI-generated content. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would be delighted to hear me say that this is an egregious attempt by an overreaching Government to exploit a serious issue to centralise power in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is almost unprecedented to grant a Minister the ability to amend an entire Act of Parliament. With this amendment, the Government are doing away with every bit of lip service they have paid to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny or their democratic mandate. The amendment would give not only this Government, who have made it clear that they are very happy running a centralised state with digital IDs, but every future Government the ability to amend online regulations and curtail the freedoms of providers. Indeed, a future Reform Government might go in the opposite direction and remove all regulations on AI. The noble Lord should reflect on that, too.
I ask the Minister to imagine that the glove was on the other hand: that he was standing at this Dispatch Box and I was the Minister proposing to give my Government these powers. There is no way that he would support such sweeping powers to amend an Act of Parliament by ministerial fiat. This is the Henry VIII power to end all Henry VIII powers. It cannot be allowed to make its way into the Bill and, when it is called, I will take pleasure in opposing it in the Lobbies.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I shall start by saying something that needs saying. The Government believe in protecting the public, especially children, from online content, which is why we have tabled the amendments on illegal online content today.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and his roll-call of that incredible list of speakers who supported the amendments. That was a wonderful list of people from all sides of the House, who did indeed have slightly varying reasons to support the amendment, but they were all positive. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his Benches for their unequivocal support. I believe that the Opposition Benches are allowing a free vote this evening, and I really hope that they will use their free vote freely.
I will address a couple of details, just for the record. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that it is a binary, I am afraid, because either we have the Government’s amendment, which has no proper scope—it will be subject to all sorts of changes on the way—no oversight, no time limit and no scrutiny, or we have something that I have made very clear that I am willing to work with both sides of the House to perfect in the next few weeks.
Secondly, I say to the Minister that the Online Safety Act and the enforcement process we currently have has, so far, by civil penalty, put forward one fine of £55,000. That is where we are, and there is nothing in this government amendment or the consultation about online safety that deals with the problem of enforcement.
Finally, on the points that were made, we are talking about one person in one department having absolute power to change absolutely everything that eight years of debate in this House, two years of consultation, et cetera, have put forward. I am sorry but that is just inappropriate.
We have a new technology—it addicts, grooms, abuses and sometimes even kills. This is not in the future; it is right now. These amendments have the support of 45 expert organisations, which I believe have written to all noble Lords. I ask noble Lords, irrespective of their party affiliation, to support children, families, the vulnerable, women and, indeed, all of us, by sending a message to the Government to say, “If you can’t accept this, come back with something, for now, that is better described, narrow and to the point, that we can enforce”. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Royal Assent
Digital ID: Public Consultation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, this Statement was delivered just one week ago and has already run into some serious difficulty. Reports in the press suggest that both the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary have made it clear that their departments will not provide some of the data required for the scheme. If that is correct, it raises a fundamental question: can this policy get off the ground?
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister announced that the Government sought to introduce a digital ID system that would allow individuals to log into the GOV.UK app to verify their identity. He said that
“unlike an ordinary login, digital ID will work across different departments … so you can access all of the services you need in one place”.
Yet it now appears that health and education—two of the areas where one might reasonably expect such assistance to be most useful—may not be included at all. The Chief Secretary stated that
“digital ID will, over time, bring all other public services into one app”
on your mobile phone. If that is the ambition, these reports raise serious questions about whether the Government’s own departments are prepared to make that vision a reality.
This proposal raises serious questions about accessibility. Noble Lords will know that when government services move online and on to apps, they do not always become simpler or easier to use. Often, the opposite is true. These systems can take years to refine. The user experience can be poor and tasks that were once straightforward become frustratingly complex. Take, for example, the process of verifying an identity with Companies House through the GOV.UK website. What would once have been completed in minutes can now take much longer, as users work their way through help pages, chatbots, online forms and endless CAPTCHA boxes. The current state of the Government’s digital infrastructure does not inspire great confidence that this scheme will deliver the outcomes Ministers promise.
If the ambition is to move large parts of the state on to a single digital platform, the issue of digital exclusion cannot be ignored. We can already see this in practice. Many now struggle to use the NHS app. Increasingly, patients must complete online forms or digital triage systems before they can book a GP appointment, resulting in delays in access to care.
We on these Benches also harbour concerns as to whether the system will truly remain voluntary. The Chief Secretary said:
“For those who really do not wish to, traditional routes will … still be made available”.
This assurance ignores that some people will genuinely struggle to use the new system rather than just being refuseniks. It is also unclear what this means in practice. The Chief Secretary did not guarantee that traditional routes will remain available to the same extent that they are today. People will naturally worry that, over time, this could lead to a real-term reduction in those routes, with fewer alternatives for those who cannot or do not wish to use the digital system.
I ask the Minister for clarity. Can he confirm that this policy will not result in any reduction in access to public services for those who either cannot or do not wish to use the digital ID system? Can he also confirm that the introduction of this scheme will not lead to any reduction in the availability of existing processes in departments or services that adopt this digital ID route?
I turn to the GOV.UK One Login system. How many public services now require systems to use GOV.UK One Login as a mandatory gateway rather than an option? How many of the National Cyber Security Centre’s 39 cyber assessment framework outcomes does One Login currently meet, and which does it not?
Can the Minister also say what whistleblowing concerns have been raised since 2022 about security clearances, administrator access, overseas development and undetected red team intrusions? What security incidents have occurred? Has any personal data been compromised?
These questions were asked in a UQ in January. I am concerned by the lack of detail in the Minister’s response. I hope the Minister can reply more fully this time. If not, I hope he will write to clarify these points.
I appreciate that the Government have opened a public consultation, but these questions are immediately obvious to us—and, I hope, to the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to respond to last week’s Statement and, indeed, for his personal engagement with us at that time.
The Chief Secretary told the Commons on Tuesday that he was continuing the proud Labour tradition of building public services for the many. He invoked the NHS, the Open University and Sure Start. It was a stirring lineage. But there is history he omitted: Verify, which wasted over £220 million; GOV.UK One Login, for which the Cabinet Office sought up to £400 million; and now this national digital ID, which the OBR estimates will cost £1.8 billion over three years. This, indeed, is Verify 4.0.
The Government have confirmed that possession of a digital identity will not be compulsory. We on these Benches opposed mandatory digital ID at every turn, and I am pleased to say that the Government have listened. My honourable friend Lisa Smart MP pressed the Chief Secretary directly in the Commons last week and received his wholehearted assurance. He continued to claim that using digital ID will be entirely optional. So, I ask the Minister in this House, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in the Bill the Government intend to bring forward later this year? How can we trust any Government on how personal data, once surrendered to the state, will actually be used?
Earlier this month, this House considered an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled by my noble friend Lady Doocey, which sought to prohibit police from using DVLA driving licence images for facial recognition searches. The DVLA holds over 55 million records. Every driver provided their photograph for one purpose only: to hold a driving licence. They did not consent to their image becoming part of what Liberty has rightly described as the largest biometric database for police access ever created in the United Kingdom. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, the Home Office Minister, did not accept the amendment and confirmed at all stages that the express purpose of Clause 138 of the Bill is precisely to permit facial recognition searches of DVLA records. So, within a single parliamentary week, we have a Government launching a national digital identity consultation on the basis of assurances about data use, while declining to place in statute the very protections that would make such assurances meaningful. The question is not whether the Government intend that digital ID will become an instrument of surveillance, but whether a future Government could.
The Chief Secretary said that he wants security at least as strong as online banking. That is the right aspiration, but, as mentioned by the noble Earl, GOV.UK One Login, the umbrella infrastructure for this system, reportedly satisfied only 21 out of 39 security outcomes required by the National Cyber Security Centre. Whistleblowers have described vulnerabilities that allow unauthorised access to sensitive functions without triggering any alert. How can the Government justify launching a national identity solution on a platform that fails to meet nearly half the NCSC’s mandatory security outcomes?
In part two of the Fisher review, published in January, Jonathan Fisher KC warned that AI-driven impersonation at scale is now a defining crime of our age and that we must implement upstream measures—stopping fraud at the point of identity issuance, not reacting after a digital identity has been stolen. If our foundations currently satisfy barely half the required security outcomes, how do we deliver the upstream protection Mr Fisher demands?
Will the Government commission and publish a full NCSC security audit before a single citizen is enrolled? Will they introduce an offence of digital identity theft that they, along with the previous Conservative Government, have so far resisted? The consultation proposes a universal unique identifier to link citizens across every departmental silo. Without strict legal guardrails, that identifier is the functional infrastructure of the national identity register that Parliament voted to abolish in 2011, and it is precisely the centralised data honeypot that hostile state actors would most wish to compromise. We need not mere parliamentary approval for services added to the app, but a statutory prohibition on bulk data matching across departments.
In summary, I put four questions to the Minister. First, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in primary legislation, with an explicit prohibition on any future mandatory requirement without a further Act of Parliament? In that context, and as the noble Earl has mentioned, how mindful are the Government of the possible consequences for digital inclusion? Secondly, the Home Office’s assurances on DVLA facial recognition mirrored word for word those given by the previous Government. Before the Minister can confirm the opposite, what statutory purpose limitation on digital identity data will be placed beyond the reach of secondary legislation? Thirdly, will the Government provide a statutory guarantee that the universal unique identifier cannot be used for bulk data matching across departments without primary legislation? Finally, will the Government publish an independently verified cost-benefit analysis before the Bill is introduced, and explain why £1.8 billion would not deliver greater public benefit directed to the NHS and front-line policing, for instance?
The Chief Secretary asked what it is that critics fear from a public consultation. We do not fear the consultation; what we fear is a fourth cycle of the same expensive failure, grand ambitions and insecure foundations—a creeping identifier that becomes the digital spine of state surveillance. But what we fear above all is a system whose data acquires uses never publicly intended by its creators. We have just watched that happen in this very Chamber with the DVLA database of images. We on these Benches will support voluntary, secure, properly costed modernisation of public services, but we will not accept warm ministerial words as a substitute for hard legislative limits. We need a state that is not merely digital by choice today but constitutionally prohibited from becoming compulsory tomorrow. On the evidence of this and last week’s proceedings, we are very far from that guarantee.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is asking me questions to which, as he very well knows, I am not going to give the answer. That is the whole point of the consultation, and across the Chamber, everyone knows this in reality. We want to ensure that the public can access public services in the same secure way as they access many things in today’s society, including banking. Most members of the public assume that there is this great big database; they assume that their data is being used. The reality is that there are these silos. This consultation is not proposing what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl were suggesting. It is not saying, “Let’s create this huge database, which could be vulnerable”. Instead, let us make it easier for the public to access the services that they need.
On the questions about inclusion and accessibility, I met with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and his group, and I said that what we want to ensure through this consultation and digital ID system is a much more accessible system. We want a system that is more open to people who have been excluded because they have to produce or send a certain form, ring a certain number, or go through a certain call centre. What we are trying to achieve is greater accessibility.
The question of inclusion also relates to people’s access to the internet. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is not here, because I also had a meeting with him. There are strong, legitimate concerns, which is why we are conducting this consultation and why we want everyone in this House to participate in and make a contribution to it. The noble Lord made the same point: where there is exclusion, we can use community-based organisations—including post offices and sub-post offices—in a way that will ensure that people can maximise their opportunities to access public services.
The noble Earl asked me about cost, but there is no cost associated with this yet, because the system has not been designed. The system will be designed following the results of the consultation.
The consultation will not be limited to a certain number; it will be open across the board. We also want to establish a panel. Carnegie UK pointed out, in a letter to the Guardian, that a deliberative exercise in democracy—namely, selecting people randomly through postcodes—can produce a much more effective consultation. However, both approaches will be in what we end up designing.
I come back to this fundamental point. This is not only about how people access public services but about how they can determine the use of their data, so that they can set out when they want their data to be used for a particular purpose. For example, there are times when I might need to establish my ID. As I mentioned to the noble Lord, I occasionally go to a club—a dance club, by the way. If I am asked to produce an ID, I do not want to produce my driving licence because it has my name and address as well as my age—believe it or not, they sometimes do ask me my age. If they want to know my age, I am happy to release that data—but not my address or other things. So this is about how we establish that sort of process and about accessing public services.
In this day and age, for every private sector service we use, we expect to be able to access things. Tesco has more data on me than most government departments do, because it knows what time I go shopping, what I buy and what I favour, and it then sends me emails and messages about that. We have to try to turn away from the view that this is a rigid identity card system that will be on a national database. This is about public services, how people access and use them, and how they can control their data more effectively. I reassure the noble Lord on that.
There will be an initial consultation of 12 weeks, but that could be extended with the deliberative process. At the end of that, we will look at the results, and Parliament will be heavily engaged in that. No legislation has been drafted yet, because we want to see the results of the consultation and the scale of the project. I understand everyone’s concerns about cost, as well as some of the problems we have had in the past, but this is an opportunity to respond to people’s needs and to create more effective public services. Most people expect that from the private sector and we should expect it from the public sector too.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, first, I take it from what the Minister has just said about costs that no sum has been earmarked in the current three-year expenditure review for the development of the scheme—can he confirm that? Secondly, will people in Scotland have to access the Government’s proposed ID scheme for those services that have been retained, and a separate ID scheme—namely, the Scotcard—for those services that have been devolved?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We will consult the devolved authorities on this; they will be a major part of the consultation. There is no definite cost for the programme because the design of what we are building has not been decided yet. Noble Lords should not just look at one line item on the shopping bill but rather the whole thing. The issue is that the status quo has costs. I know we often say this, but if we can develop a more efficient digital portal for people to use, it could potentially reduce costs and save the public and the Government money. That has to be a good thing.
If you look at all the private sector services we use that currently have this sort of thing, they are doing it to reduce costs—although they often dress it up as “improving services”. Let us take banking: my accessibility to banking services has improved hugely over the years. I can do many more things online and through apps than I could ever have done before by visiting a local bank. I reassure the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this will not be a mandatory system. When we are able to launch it, I suspect that it will be something that people want to use, because it will make their lives easier. That is what we should be doing.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Digital Identity. The Minister said that he will consult widely on this and on what support there might be for it. Nearly 3 million people have signed the petition. If they have not already convinced the Government that they are opposed to it, how will the Government ensure that many of them will have the opportunity to feed the Government their opinion?
This morning, I tried to log in to GOV.UK on a personal matter but was kicked out eight times. My digital understanding is pretty good, so that worried me greatly. I knew that this was coming up, so I wanted to draw the Minister’s attention to this issue. We have been talking about sovereignty and keeping all our information in one place. So far, the experience of GP services has been that we do not have exclusive access to our data because it is farmed out somewhere else. Has that been considered? How will we ensure, eventually, that any ID information is sovereign and held in this country under our Government or whatever system we set up?
Finally, there has been lots of evidence of discrimination, particularly against Black and Asian men and Muslim women. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that aspect as well.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On the noble Baroness’s last point, how we look at inclusion and accessibility is really important in tackling those issues of discrimination. It is very important that the consultation looks at that. The noble Earl also raised a question about the NHS app which I did not explicitly address. That has developed very strongly, and it is very clear that that will continue. This will not be part of the NHS; it has never been planned that way. It is also about people having confidence that their medical records are kept absolutely secure, which is fundamental.
This is about a tool to access a range of services. I hear the noble Baroness. The noble Earl raised OneLogin. There are issues about that. There are different forms of identifiers. Digital ID could provide a consistent identifier that could be used across all Governments, so instead of having to produce hard copies and photocopies, we just have that one ID on an app. We are using it in the private sector, in banking in particular but in other services too. I think the consultation will produce a clear idea of what people’s needs are and how the Government should respond. My right honourable friend Darren Jones is absolutely right; this is about putting our public services on a 21st-century footing.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I very much welcome the deliberative aspect of this consultation. It is good to see the Government doing that, and I hope it goes into other areas. I want to associate myself with many of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked. Hopefully over this consultation period they will all be answered. I have two concerns. First, who is going to build this? Who is going to have access? Is this another gig for Palantir? That is my real question. Secondly, we have so many very good ID firms in the private sector here in the UK—it is something we excel at—but can the noble Lord say a little more about what they are going to do behind the ID? It seems to be all about the ID, but it is what happens at the other end that is the exciting bit, were he able to describe it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I cannot be too prescriptive, but I can reassure the noble Baroness on her first point; a number of noble Lords have raised this issue. This will be a sovereign-based scheme. We will develop it in-house through government services. It will not be contracted out. On her other point on how this will develop, I think it will be led by people, not the Government. People will be demanding these things. No one has asked this specific question, but many parents want their children to have age identification. The noble Baroness has raised questions in other debates about how children are accessing things now. If they were required to have this, it may be a solution. I am not saying it is, but it is something that we would want to see as part of the consultation. The deliberative process, which is part of the consultation, will be a random selection of people, but it will be a much more intense consultation with those people, better identifying what their needs are.
I cannot answer many of the questions that noble Lords have because we want to see what the consultation comes up with, but we know what people are generally seeking here. If legislation is required, we will debate what should be in a Bill and so on, but I am confident that the consultation will result in the better policy outcome that we all desire.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his update. First, can I take him back to a slightly more fundamental question that we are yet to address in this exchange? Why do the Government feel it is necessary at all to have a consultation, given the visceral public reaction to the proposal to introduce digital ID in the first place? That in itself seems like a pretty convincing consultation. We all know that the Government have stepped back politically from their original plan on digital ID and wound back to this position because of that reaction. Secondly, on the form of the consultation, the 100-person panel sounds very novel. Can the Minister give any assurances on the control over spending in that process and whether it will be value for money compared with other forms of consultation? Lastly, digital ID is one of a large number of policies that the Government seem determined to introduce despite the fact that it was not in the Labour Party’s manifesto at the last general election. Can he account for that fact and explain why the Government are determined to bring it forward when there is no mandate for them to do so?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I keep coming back to the point that when we are looking at public services and people’s access to them, there is a solution here that most people would be very happy about—but we will not determine that unless we have a fuller consultation.
On the value-for-money element, the deliberative process will be through a process called sortation and a random postcode lottery. That is a way of selecting individuals in which everyone is given an equal chance to be invited and no individual can buy their way in or simply turn up to an event. But that does not stop everyone else participating in the wider consultation, so I think we have the best of all worlds. It will result in more effective consultation but also more cost-effective consultation.
I come back to the point that this Government are determined to listen and better understand the needs of the public in relation to the services they provide. I think that is across all parties. No Government want to end up with the situation the noble Baroness described where you spend hours trying to get on to a public service and are constantly kicked out or rejected. This is about making the process easier. No matter what other people say this is about, I assure the noble Lord that it is about that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend has said; I hope we all give this a great deal of support. Does he agree with me that it is a great pity that the pilot scheme abolished by the coalition Government in 2010 was not allowed to run? All the indications are that it was very popular with those who used it.
On the point about the driving licence, as a non-driver and non-car owner, I resent the fact that I have to use a driving licence as a form of ID because it is the only ID that is practically acceptable. There is a government consultation at the moment about mandatory eye tests, which presumably I shall have to go through in order to get a driving licence—which I will never use—because it is the only acceptable ID. This will surely be very popular with many people. We cannot allow the nay-sayers or pressure groups to get in the way of making progress.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. When we all sit down and have a sensible discussion about this and try to take the partisan politics away, we will reach a much better consensus. This consultation enables us to do that.
At the outset, we have to put at the forefront of our thoughts the needs of the public in how they access services. My noble friend is right—driving licences have become the de facto ID. The fact is that the driving licence, as I said in my opening remarks, has data that I do not want handed out easily. That is why I think this solution will benefit the public and get cross-party support.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in applauding the Government’s commitment in this Statement to deliberative democracy. That is an innovative step forward, but I am sure the Minister will want this Statement to be accurate, so I point out that it says:
“This will not be a new experience for citizens. The public already use these systems every day, from banking to shopping”.
More than 15% of Britons do not do online shopping and more than 12% do not do online banking, despite the fact that banks have been closing branches wholesale and trying very hard to force people online, whether they like it or not. Does the Minister agree that the way this Statement is phrased is really over-egging the pudding?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not agree at all. I think that 14% of people do not have some of the things that the noble Baroness referred to, but the world is changing very fast and if we are to address financial exclusion, inclusion and accessibility, this process can address many of those concerns. As I said, there are community organisations and community services. For example, many people use their post office, and we want to ensure they have that choice. We are moving into a world, as she rightly said, where banks are determining how they will provide services and Tesco is determining what I can buy or what I should buy using data supplied to it. The world is changing and it is about time that, first, the state caught up in provision of public services and, secondly, the public can determine what data is used for what purpose. That is why this is a good idea.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s points about the consultation process; there is a great deal to consult about. As one Tesco consumer to another, can my noble friend confirm that, almost irrespective of the consultation, the Government are determined to allow an individual, if they wish, to delete their digital ID? If there is any more that the Minister can say about the circumstances in which a digital ID might be withdrawn from an individual by the state, I would be grateful to hear his thoughts.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me address the first question. This is not a mandatory scheme and, certainly, if people have a digital ID, they can say they do not want it. I do not anticipate any circumstances where a Government would want to take away something that lets people access public services, but I hope the consultation will result in a much more open and transparent debate so that we focus much more on the needs of the public rather than what we think a Government might do.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, as ever with many big government ideas, there is a solution that is yet to find a problem.
I am yet to hear a ministerial Statement on the very serious data events that happened at Companies House over the last week. I have not heard a Statement from Ministers at the other end, and I do not believe I have heard one in this House.
What happened last week was probably the most serious data breach to hit Companies House in a generation. I am in practice as a chartered accountant, and let me advise the House and the Minister on what happened. If one were logged in to Companies House with one’s personal online registration, one could then find a backdoor route very simply to access any company record in the UK, change directors’ details, find their personal address, file company accounts and file new confirmation statements. This is serious stuff and it is why, me included, we have serious concerns about big government attempts at managing data, because it generally goes wrong. Where a poste restante email address is used, which is very commonplace within practices, those practices are going to have to trawl through all the companies registered with them. Many in the profession are asking: will the Government reimburse the practices which will have to spend many hundreds, if not thousands, of hours making sure that the Companies House foul-up has not affected their clients?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that I cannot possibly answer on his latter point, but I certainly will ensure that he gets a response about it. It is interesting that he was, I think, making the case for what we are proposing. The problem is that different government departments have different portals, different IDs, different ways of getting in and different ways of controlling the data. We want a much more secure digital ID that people will have confidence in. This is not about collecting new data, and it is not a big idea that we will have this central database of everything; this is about how people access public services. At the moment, if you want to get in through Companies House, the noble Lord described something that digital ID may resolve. But other departments have different schemes. Everyone has a story about being locked out of these services because they do not have the right identification or ID, and this is a solution that will help the public. That is what we should be talking about, rather than seeing this as being about big government. It is about delivering public services and not about big government.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
23:05 - Division on Amendment 424 - Ayes: 148 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 424 disagreed.
23:17 - Division on Amendment 425 - Ayes: 119 / Noes: 191 - Amendment 425 disagreed.
23:35 - Division on Amendment 426B - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 58 - Amendment 426B agreed.
23:47 - Division on Amendment 426C - Ayes: 70 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 426C disagreed.
23:58 - Division on Amendment 426D - Ayes: 68 / Noes: 163 - Amendment 426D disagreed.
(a) proceedings for an offence shall not be instituted against a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who must exercise personally any function under this section of giving consent;(b) proceedings to which this section applies may not be commenced after twelve months from the date of the offence to which the proceedings relate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to add the requirement of DPP consent for the institution of the criminal proceedings in Clause 208 against a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy and reduces the limitation period for the offence.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 422E and, additionally, do so on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, KC, who has a prior appointment in The Hague this week. He was the author of the probing amendment on this topic in Committee. At that stage, the Minister signalled some reservations about it and subsequently wrote to him with additional data, which has proved to be most helpful, so we thank her. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, has appended her name to this amendment and will speak to it, along with her other amendment.
Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 208, which was inserted into this Bill in the other place at a late stage, has attracted numerous amendments. Our intention with Amendment 422E is that, where opinions are a matter of individual conscience, we should attempt to offer the House a compromise between the Commons position—Clause 208—and Amendment 424, which seeks to leave out the clause entirely. I point out that Amendments 423, 423ZA and 423A would be pre-empted if this amendment was agreed on Division.
The amendment would do two things. First, it would require the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before any proceedings may be instituted against women acting in relation to their pregnancy. Secondly, it would provide that such proceedings must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence. The version we debated in Committee provided for the consent of the Attorney-General rather than the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Minister observed that offences where Attorney-General consent is required tend to be in the national security or international spheres, while DPP consent is required to address a wider range of concerns, including, as the Minister explained, where there is a risk that the institution of proceedings might violate convention rights or cause a defendant “irreparable harm”. There are some offences in areas other than national security or international matters where AG consent is required, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, argues—for example, contempt of court under the strict liability rule, pursuant to Section 7 of the Contempt of Court Act. Nevertheless, on balance, it seems proportionate and in keeping with existing practice to replace Attorney-General consent with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Our amendment would, however, require that the DPP exercises the function of giving consent “personally”. That language is taken from the Bribery Act, where some offences impose a similar condition on the DPP. Without this additional requirement, we understand that the consent of the DPP to institute proceedings could be given by a Crown prosecutor by virtue of Section 1(7) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. So requiring the DPP to exercise that function personally provides, in our view, a better guarantee against the risk of abuse, error or overzealousness.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I do not think that we take interventions on Report, if I may refer to the Companion—but perhaps the Whip could assist us.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I can clarify for your Lordships’ House that the noble Baroness is able to take interventions, or not, as she wishes.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I would like to proceed and conclude my argument. I will be happy to listen to the noble Baroness once I have finished.
Because the police do not know when they find a lifeless body which of the situations they are confronted with, even with decriminalisation of abortion offences for the women acting in relation to her pregnancy, she may still be investigated. If it was a case of stillbirth, for example, for that woman the investigation will inevitably be a cause of stress. She might be worried that the evidence will not support her or she will not be believed. However, what else are the police supposed to do in these cases, other than try to establish the facts?
Therefore, it is not possible to remove women acting in relation to their pregnancy from any criminal process, even if you decriminalise abortion offences for them. What is possible is to introduce further guarantees, as we are attempting to do with this amendment, that would add an additional layer of personal assurance from the DPP that the facts in context of terminations are taken into account, and that after 12 months, in any event, proceedings will not be brought against the pregnant woman. It ensures that the decision to prosecute in relation to the woman is taken at the highest level—the DPP—and applies the certainty of a limitation period.
No solution in this area will ever be flawless, but when the evidence before us is so limited and the broader picture so uncertain, wholesale decriminalisation would be a disproportionate response to a problem which, in any event, needs careful and thoughtful steps for resolution. This amendment offers a more balanced and workable path to the problem that we all want to resolve satisfactorily. It provides meaningful safeguards for women, ensuring that any decision to prosecute is taken at the highest level, as well as the certainty of a limitation period, while not upending the balancing of principles and values underlying the Abortion Act 1967. I hope that both those who oppose criminalisation and those who are rightly troubled by the distressing cases we have discussed will see that this approach represents a principled and proportionate compromise, and will feel able to support it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, has already pointed out, if Amendment 422E is agreed to, I am unable to call Amendments 423, 423ZA or 423A by reason of pre-emption.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 423 which is in my name. The purpose of my amendment is to see if it is possible to effect a compromise between strongly held opinions. If a compromise is not possible, then subject to pre-emption, I could certainly support Amendments 422E, and I could also support Amendments 424 and 425. At Second Reading of this Bill and in Committee, I expressed my views on what was Clause 191 at that stage. I do not wish to in any way reiterate the detail of what I said. Suffice it to say that I am much closer to the position of the opponents of Clause 208 than to its supporters.
However, there are two general points I would like to make at this stage. First, it is very difficult to distinguish in principle between a child that is just born and a child that is about to be born. Secondly and consequently, to extinguish the life of a child that is about to be born can be justified only in the most compelling of circumstances. This is not just a matter of personal morality. It is a reflection of the value that society as a whole, and Parliament in particular, has put on human life. I hope that these two propositions will be accepted as true by your Lordships and will inform the debate we are to have.
In urging a compromise, I would ask the House first to consider the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967, because that Act permits, in certain circumstances, late-term abortion. Without going into too much detail, Section 1(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the 1967 Act permit a late-term abortion in the following circumstances: when it is necessary to prevent grave, permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the mother; when the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman; and when there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer from such serious abnormalities as would result in serious handicap. The point that I make is that the existing provisions in law meet many of the concerns that have been expressed in support of Clause 208.
However, I recognise that the proponents of Clause 208 do not regard the existing law as sufficient. It is therefore with that in mind that I have tabled Amendment 423 in the hope of addressing those concerns. Proposed new paragraph (a) in my amendment reflects the language of the Infanticide Act 1938. That statute was reviewed in 2006 by the Law Commission and its terms were confirmed. My amendment proposes that it would be a defence to a late-term abortion that
“the balance of the woman’s mind was … disturbed by reason of her pregnancy”.
The amendment provides that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt. In proposing that part of the amendment, I recognise that, in logic, if such a defence should be available in respect of the death of a child immediately after birth, it is very difficult to say that such a defence should not be available in respect of a child immediately before birth.
I turn to proposed new paragraph (b) of my amendment, which seeks to meet the concerns that have been expressed in your Lordships’ House in respect of late-term abortions that result from domestic abuse. That is, I am sure, a concern to many of your Lordships. I have addressed that very precisely in paragraph (b), which I hope will reassure noble Lords who have that anxiety.
The remaining part of my amendment addresses the distress that can be caused to a woman by the police investigation. First, I will make just two preliminary points. If it is necessary to create a criminal offence, one has to accept the necessity of an investigation, but one that has to be conducted with great sensitivity, which is the case of course when one is investigating allegations of rape and the victim of the rape has to be examined and talked to. It has to be done with great sensitivity. The second general point I come to is the one with which I began my remarks: is the distress caused to a woman by the investigation a sufficiently compelling reason to justify extinguishing the life of a child about to be born? In my view, the answer to that is no.
However, I accept that concerns remain and my amendment seeks to address those remaining concerns. The amendment provides that no investigation can take place unless authorised by a very senior police officer of the rank of superintendent or above. The superintendent must have regard to the defences set out in my amendment and, to echo a point made by the noble Baroness in moving her amendment, the investigation must be completed within 28 days: the initial authority being for 14 days, with two subsequent extensions of seven days, but no more.
To conclude—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Can I just go back to the point the noble Viscount raised a minute or two ago? He said that such investigations must be undertaken with great sensitivity. He referred to the investigation of rape cases. I put it to him that all experience shows that the police and, indeed, prosecution authorities sometimes find it very difficult to investigate such cases with sensitivity. How is he going to guarantee that?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I am not sure that I accept that. It is certainly true that when I started practising at the Bar, which was a very long time ago, investigations were not conducted with great sensitivity, but the police service has advanced a long way from that. So I do not think—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me —that I accept the premise that the police are crude or insensitive in their investigation. There may be individual cases, but in general, no.
I hope I will be forgiven now if I conclude. Clause 208 is a serious departure from existing law and practice. It was passed in the Commons on Report in a time-limited debate without the normal benefit of scrutiny in Committee or of pre-legislation consultation. I have tried to meet your Lordships’ anxieties with a compromise amendment. If there is no taste for that, so be it, and I will vote for the other amendments and clauses that I have identified, but I hope that your Lordships might reflect on the desirability of compromise.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 424 seeks to remove Clause 208. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, this clause passed the Commons without any evidence, scrutiny, public consultation or impact assessment, although it is momentous. It is a radical proposal with implications for the mental and physical health of the woman and lethal consequences for the viable unborn child. Clause 208 would allow mothers to self-administer the abortion of their unborn child for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy right up to full term. This is not just its consequential effect; it is its intended effect. The clause states:
“For the purposes of the law related to abortion … no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy”.
The unborn child, in many cases more developed than those successfully looked after in premature baby units, would have no legal protection. As my honourable friend Julia Lopez said in the other place:
“This is not pro or anti life. It is not extremist to want protections for viable babies, and it is not anti-women to say that coercion or dangerous self-medication should not be outside the reach of the law”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/06/25; col. 330.]
This in part was a reference to the fact that a woman may be coerced into having an illegal abortion at home. The law as it stands—
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
Is the noble Baroness aware that, if Clause 208 became law, abortion law would continue to apply to doctors and healthcare professionals and they would still be subject to time limits and all other aspects of the current abortion law?
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
Dr Alison Wright, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has written to Peers protesting that women may continue to face police investigations and criminal charges solely for ending their own pregnancy unless this clause is supported. She, speaking on behalf of the college, makes no distinction whatever between the abortion of a viable child at full term and a first-trimester termination. Indeed, the infant who without the intervention of lethal drugs would be fully a living person at that stage, if born, is completely unmentioned. It is as if this is unmentionable. Dr Wright describes the women concerned as being at the most vulnerable times in their lives. That may be true, but the most vulnerable and defenceless person here is the unborn viable child. Obviously, it is deeply distressing, as we have heard, for the mother to be questioned by the police in the aftermath of an illegal abortion. This should be done with compassion and sensitivity, but the police cannot act as if nothing has happened.
Clause 208 also endangers women by removing the current legal deterrent against administering an abortion away from a clinical setting right up to birth. Women may be incentivised to perform their own life-threatening abortion late in pregnancy. This is particularly the case given how easily women can obtain abortion pills through the pills by post scheme, beyond the legal limit and without a reliable gestational age check. These pills are not meant to be used after the 10th week of pregnancy for a very good reason. I encourage noble Lords to support Amendment 425 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which would reinstate mandatory in-person medical consultations and abolish the pills by post scheme, which was started during Covid lockdowns and should have been rescinded after the pandemic, as was originally intended.
More than 1,000 medical professionals have written to us opposing Clause 208, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, former president of the British Medical Association, for her support for my amendment. One letter I received pointed out that—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Baroness refers to 1,000 doctors writing, but is she aware that the British Medical Association has sent briefings to Members in support of the Bill as it now stands and that it alone represents more than 200,000 doctors?
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
The British Medical Association is a trade union, not a royal college.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I am very sorry—I have to carry on or I am going to run out of time. This is Report and I am going to continue.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness is perfectly entitled not to take any interventions. We will make better progress if people just agree to take interventions or not, and then we will be able to hear from everyone.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
One letter I received pointed out that 22 week-plus babies aborted in a medical setting are clinically euthanised prior to surgery with a lethal injection into the heart. What would happen, she asked in her letter, to babies aborted at home and born alive? Would the baby be left to die? How would the baby be disposed of? Would the mother be charged with infanticide?
Clause 208, as confirmed by a legal opinion obtained by the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh, in the other place, would also make it legal for a woman to perform her own abortion on sex-selective grounds at any time. Data from NHS England shows that there is already an imbalance in the sex of children among certain communities that cannot be explained by pure chance. Do the proposers of this clause want to further facilitate what has been called femicide?
Let me be clear about what Clause 208 does not do. It does not, despite the claims of its promoters, leave the current law intact. If the 24-week limit can no longer be defended when women induce their own abortions, and they can obtain pills through the post via a phone call, the limit set by Parliament in 1990 is rendered meaningless. The reason why it was then lowered from 28 weeks was precisely because of concerns about the termination of viable children.
The most basic justification for all abortions is that the unborn child in question is unwanted. The slogan is that every child should be a wanted child, but we all know that there are so many couples who for medical reasons cannot have families themselves yet desperately want a family. When you think of the fate of a viable baby being aborted as unwanted when there are so many families yearning to provide that love and support via adoption, this clause is morally questionable, even on the purely utilitarian grounds of the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
The preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that
“the child … needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.
Removing the offence of a woman terminating her own pregnancy, even at full term, would remove the few remaining legal protections for unborn children.
I am sure that the proposers of Clause 208 genuinely believe that they will thereby create a kinder and more civilised society, but I fear that the consequences, if this is passed, will be precisely the opposite.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is normal to take questions and interventions as this is a debate so, before the noble Baroness sits down, can I ask her whether she believes that all 50 countries that have decriminalised abortion are wrong?
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 424 from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, for the reasons that she has so clearly set out. I will not repeat them but instead seek to offer in my Amendment 425 a more judicious response than Clause 208 to the small number of prosecutions that have occurred in recent years.
When we pass laws as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to ensure that those laws are as safe as possible, while legislating with the most difficult or even most nefarious scenarios in mind. It is with that in mind that I have tabled Amendment 425. The only reason why we are having this debate today and why there has been this push for Clause 208—not from the public but from abortion providers—is that the current law around how women can access abortion is not as safe as it should be and does not protect women in difficult or nefarious situations.
When the abortion pills by post scheme was introduced, I and many others warned of its risks. Sadly, those warnings have proven prescient, with one consequence being that a small number of women have faced prosecution for illegal abortions after the statutory time limit. Those prosecutions have led to the same groups who assured us back in 2020 and 2022 that pills by post was safe to lobby for the introduction of Clause 208, essentially trying to paper over the consequences of that scheme.
While women might no longer be prosecuted under Clause 208, the grave risks to women will not go away. Cases of women administering their own abortions late in pregnancy will likely increase without a legal deterrent. We will then hear calls for the full decriminalisation of abortion up to birth. It would be far safer to reintroduce in-person consultations with a medical professional before women can obtain abortion pills, as was mandatory before the pandemic. Amendment 425 would do this. It is not seeking to reverse the convenience of pills by post. It is only seeking to introduce safeguards for women. The amendment is deliberately moderate. It still permits at-home abortions but requires a prior confidential face-to-face appointment with a medical professional.
I draw colleagues’ attention to three reasons why this is important. First, in-person consultations allow women’s gestational age to be reliably verified. This would protect women because of the dangers associated with abortions away from the clinical context late in pregnancy. Those who argued for the Abortion Act in 1967 did so to prevent the back-street abortion. Under Clause 208, the DIY back-street abortion will be back for any woman who is more than 24 weeks pregnant.
In 2023, Carla Foster was convicted of an illegal abortion after she admitted lying to the abortion provider BPAS about her gestational age, claiming to be seven weeks pregnant when her gestation was actually between 32 and 34 weeks. Carla Foster was both a perpetrator—ending the life of a baby capable of living outside the womb—and a victim. She was a victim of a scheme that meant she could obtain abortion pills with no meaningful safeguards or medical care. After calling paramedics, she described being traumatised by the face of her dead baby. An in-person gestational age check would have both saved the life of her baby and spared the trauma caused by her actions.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I am not giving way; I am sorry.
Secondly, in-person consultations protect against coercion and abuse. Far from protecting victims of abuse, as is claimed, the lack of such consultations is a traffickers’ charter, allowing traffickers and abusers to cover up the effects of sexual exploitation by coercing their victims to phone up and ask for abortion pills. In-person appointments prior to an abortion in a confidential setting mean that such abuse is more likely to be detected. The disturbing case of Stuart Worby emphasises this need.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I am just carrying on; I am sorry.
Mr Worby was jailed in December 2024 after arranging for a friend’s girlfriend to pretend to be pregnant and acquire abortion pills for him via the pills by post scheme. He then spiked a woman’s drink with those pills to induce an abortion against her knowledge. Again, he could not have obtained the pills if in-person appointments were still mandatory.
Thirdly, in-person appointments allow for possible health risks to be checked to assess whether it is safe for a woman to undergo a medical, rather than a surgical, abortion.
The problems with the pills by post scheme are well documented, with FoI requests suggesting that one in 17 women requires hospital treatment afterwards. These risks were strikingly drawn to our attention by a letter, which has already been mentioned, from more than 1,000 medical professionals who support Amendments 424 and 425. I am glad too for the support of Dr Caroline Johnson MP, who still practises as a paediatrician and brought forward the same amendment in the other place.
The seriousness of this issue was brought home to me when I had the opportunity, in January, to meet with a woman whose sister tragically died after taking abortion pills via the pills by post scheme, leaving behind young children. The medical conditions the woman had, which meant she should have been deemed high risk, may well have been picked up in a clinical context. However, after a telephone consultation, she was sent pills in the post by BPAS and died suddenly minutes after taking the final set of pills.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I am sorry; I am going to keep going.
This amendment would ensure that women are offered the best possible care at in-person appointments, where medical history can be discussed with a woman.
Amendment 425 is not about whether we are pro-life or pro-choice; it is about safeguarding women. Polling last summer found that two-thirds of women support the return of in-person appointments; a mere 4% support the status quo. Abortion providers provided abortion services before the pandemic, with no major problems for access. I urge colleagues to support Amendment 425, which is a far more proportionate response to the handful of court cases that have occurred in recent years than that offered by Clause 208, which makes matters worse and removes legal protections for unborn babies up to birth. Amendment 425 would not reduce access to abortion for women, but it would ensure that their health needs are properly catered for.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I am the chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I hope that the noble Baroness who has just spoken will accept that sometimes the expertise of people who are directly involved on a daily basis with the treatment of women seeking an abortion is really rather important. I found it distressing when the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, refused to acknowledge that, in fact, many representatives of the medical profession strongly adhere to what lies behind Clause 208. I strongly support that clause because it seeks to ensure that women in England and Wales will no longer be subject to long investigations and criminal charges, which are very often exceedingly distressing.
I also support Amendment 423A to stop ongoing investigations and Amendment 426B to grant historical pardons to women. However, I will focus my comments today on the safety of the telemedicine service for early medical abortion and, in particular, my opposition to Amendment 425, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, just spoke to.
There have been extraordinary suggestions that the creation of the telemedicine service is the reason for the increase in criminal investigations. This is not true. There were cases of women being sent to prison before the telemedicine pathway was even created. Since the vote in the House of Commons last year, several women have been investigated, including a woman who experienced a miscarriage when she was 17 weeks pregnant. Surely that is something we should seek to avoid.
I turn to a landmark study of more than 50,000 abortions in England and Wales, which concluded that telemedical abortion is effective, safe and improves access to care. Waiting times fell, the mean gestational age of treatment declined and effectiveness increased, with 98.8% of abortions successfully completed after medication. The scare stories we have just heard are exceedingly rare and we should not take them as a reason for rejecting the telemedical service that exists.
Safety is not only about clinical outcomes; it is also about safeguarding. Women accessing early medical abortion through a licensed provider will speak to a doctor, a nurse or a midwife who follows established safeguarding protocols, asking an agreed list of questions to verify what the woman seeking an abortion has said. In fact, abortion providers operate within one of the most tightly regulated areas of medicine. Where concerns arise, patients are always brought face to face to receive care by that method. Indeed, about 50% have a face-to-face appointment when they seek a telemedical abortion and the drugs that are concerned.
It is important to note that telemedicine has not removed face-to-face care. If a woman chooses to attend a clinic or hospital, she is able to do so. Telemedicine has simply broadened choice for women, and that is something we should also take very seriously as a huge benefit. We must consider what would happen if the option for telemedicine—
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Could I further clarify and ask a question? Is it not true that if any doctor or nurse is doubtful when telemedicine is happening, they will ask that person to come in to be seen?
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
That is absolutely the case. I was trying to make that point earlier, but I did not do it as clearly as the noble Baroness has just done. Of course that should happen, and it does happen.
If we remove the option, we will find that women, regardless of circumstance, are forced to attend the clinic. I do not think that is sensible. We should allow women the choice to decide what the best route for them is. Some women—for example, those in abusive relationships, those living in rural areas, those with great caring responsibilities and those who cannot travel safely for some reason—may no longer be able to access safe, essential abortion care.
There is widespread support from the medical establishment for the telemedicine service remaining an option for women, including from all the relevant royal colleges, not just the RCOG. It goes across the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists—indeed, all those royal colleges that have a clear and obvious responsibility for providing good services for those women seeking an abortion.
I hope that, in further discussion today, that will be recognised and we will not hear comments—as were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton—that many doctors are opposed to this. That is simply not the case; they are in favour of Clause 208 and of the telemedicine service.
The evidence is clear—
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Could I further clarify and ask a question—
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
Let me just finish, I am just about to complete what I was going to say. I am happy to take the question.
The evidence is clear that telemedicine has reduced waiting times; enabled earlier treatment, which is a huge advantage; maintained high safety and effectiveness rates; improved privacy, which is something that most women in these circumstances really appreciate; and increased safeguarding disclosures. It expands choice and keeps women within a regulated clinical framework. That in itself is exceedingly important too.
To weaken or remove telemedical abortion would not improve safety; it would instead reduce access, delay care and create barriers for the most vulnerable women. The system works. It is safe, effective and must be maintained.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, views on both sides of the debate are sincerely held. We should all respect each other for that. We had a long debate in Committee. This is Report. Members should make their points. Repeated interventions do not help us at this stage. We need to take the temperature down. The House can make its decision known in the Division Lobbies later on.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support abortion on demand but, as we have heard, the danger continues to exist that an almost full-term foetus could be aborted by means of a pill ordered by telephone and delivered by post. I am struck by the extraordinary efforts that this House has gone to in order to provide safeguards for those who are terminally ill and who demand assisted dying, yet we do not afford the unborn foetus or near-term foetus any kind of safeguard at all. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, would introduce some kind of safeguard, which perhaps we all owe to that unborn child.
The experience of other countries suggests that late-term abortions are uncommon, and an in-person consultation to determine the stage of pregnancy would ensure that they remain so. We know, too, that women who abort at later stages of pregnancy are more likely to have birthing complications. This, surely, is a further reason for some medical oversight.
As I said, I strongly support abortion on demand. I think that introducing a safeguard such as this to avoid the actual death of a near-term foetus is acceptable, and I hope very much that the noble Baroness will put this to the House.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 423ZA would limit the application of Clause 208 to those deemed not to have capacity. I have also added my name to Amendment 426C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf.
Under the present law, it is an offence for a woman to procure an abortion to end her pregnancy after 24 weeks —the stage when the baby is deemed to be a viable child. Causing the death of the child is a crime, other than in exceptional circumstances. It is also an offence to procure drugs or devices with the intent of an abortion.
Clause 208 is a bad clause. It is constitutionally wrong. It has no manifesto pledge behind it, and no prior consultation has been done on it with the people of this country. No evidence exists that people want abortion up to birth. The clause undermines the constitutional arrangement by which the Government legislate: on the basis of consent by the governed for an announced programme, given freely at the ballot box.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 426B in my name. Before I do that, I want to ask the question that I was trying to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner; it was a perfectly ordinary question. Is the noble Baroness aware that, since 2022, there has been in place national oversight within the Crown Prosecution Service for the prosecution of abortion offences and that, under this framework, multiple women have been prosecuted, despite judges in the cases calling for the CPS to reconsider? That is all I wanted to ask the noble Baroness.
The amendment in my name has been signed by my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Miller. It would insert a new clause that follows Clause 208 and is consequential on it. It seeks to pardon women who have had a conviction or a caution for the offence that Clause 208 applies to. It would remove their details from police systems, regardless of the outcome of their case. There are women who were convicted, and an even larger group of women who were not convicted but who were investigated. This means that they have permanently to disclose in a DBS check, because abortion offences are classed as violent crimes. When Clause 208 remains in this Bill, this is an issue that the Government will need to address, as they will need to do for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, because both are technical matters when this clause passes into law. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that this is indeed the case if this clause reaches the statute book?
I think we all wish to resolve this matter. We have had a significant amount of discussion about this clause, and I think it is safe to say that there is some disagreement between us. I would like to summarise what I think we need to do from the point of view of those of us supporting Clause 208. To protect this clause, we will need to reject Amendment 422E, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. We will need to oppose Amendment 423, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We will need to reject Amendment 423ZA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. We will need to reject Amendment 426C, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. All those amendments seek to continue the criminalisation of women in one form or another: a cruel idea, that women should be punished.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, seeks to strike Amendment 208 from the Bill. The House has heard arguments, however, about the 50 countries where this works perfectly well, and where it does not increase abortion or offences. As my noble friend has said, all the royal colleges support this. We can safely say that what we are doing here is seeking to bring British law up to the same standard as other countries across the world. Amendment 424 seeks to place limits on a well-functioning, safe and early abortion through telemedicine. As my noble friend has said, it works. The amendment from the noble Baroness would place young people at risk. Women who need to go to a surgery for their medicine, but who live a long way away from it may start their miscarriage on the bus going home. Surely we want to avoid that.
Amendments 426C and 426D seek to restrict access and safeguarding in a way that will harm women, and young girls particularly. We must oppose those as well. I urge the House to reject all those amendments, to support Clause 208 and to support Amendments 423A and 426B.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, many noble Lords will know that the Church of England’s view on abortion is one of principled opposition, recognising that there can be limited conditions under which abortion may be preferable to any available alternatives. This is based on the belief of the infinite worth and value of every human life, however old or young, and including life not yet born. The infinite value of human life is a fundamental Christian principle that underpins much of our legal system and has shaped existing laws on abortion. All life is precious. We therefore need to recognise that women confronted with the very complex and difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy deserve our utmost understanding, care and practical support as they face what is often a heart-wrenching decision.
However, I cannot support Clause 208. Though its intention may not be to change the 24-week abortion limit, it undoubtedly risks eroding the safeguards and enforcement of those legal limits and, inadvertently, undermining the value of human life.
I support Amendment 425 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, since it is not clear how the law can function in an enforceable way without in-person consultation before accessing early medical abortion. The risks of medical complications are, as we have heard, much greater if the pills for early abortion are taken beyond the 11-week limit. Although there are benefits to telemedicine—I do not dispute that—there are also flaws, and they are key to the debate on whether Clause 208 should pass.
As I have already said, this is not a debate on whether the legal abortion limit should change, but without the levers necessary to monitor and enforce the law, we are at risk of it becoming exactly that.
In the same vein, I support the amendment in the name of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester, as we have a particular duty of care to those under 18 to ensure that they are properly cared for and supported while making such difficult decisions.
I am reminded of the call of the prophet Micah both to do justice and to love mercy. Balancing justice and mercy is the challenge that we are debating today. I do not think that women who act in relation to their own pregnancies should be prosecuted, but I also do not wish to see any increase in late-term abortions.
Although Clause 208 is well intentioned, it risks making an already imperfect situation worse. Therefore, I support Amendment 424 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton.
Decriminalisation of abortion is a question of such legal, moral and practical complexity that it cannot be properly addressed in an amendment hastily added to another Bill. Consideration of any alteration to the abortion laws needs public consultation and robust parliamentary processes to ensure that every aspect of this debate is carefully considered and scrutinised.
There are many outstanding questions, which deserve greater attention, about the tone of policing in this area, about how we can best ensure that women suffering miscarriages can access the right care when they need it, and about how those who provide abortions outside the law will continue to be held accountable for doing so.
As I have said before in this place, we need a framework that supports women, not one that puts them and their unborn children in the way of greater harm. On that basis, I will support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton and Lady Stroud, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester should they push them to a vote.
Lord Pannick (CB)
It was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that Clause 208 would undermine respect for the law. On the contrary, it will enhance respect for the law, because it will express in statutory form compassion for women who have the misfortune to suffer the loss of their baby at late term for whatever reason it occurs, and it will prevent intrusive, distressing police investigations at a most sensitive time in any woman’s life.
It has been suggested that there should be a balance in the law. Clause 208 already includes the necessary balance because it protects the woman but maintains the criminal liability of anyone who assists her to have a late-term abortion, whether it be the abusive partner, the rogue doctor or whoever it may be. That is right and proper, and that is the balance that should be accorded.
As a lawyer, I look for precedents. The precedent that occurs to me is the Suicide Act 1961, in which Parliament recognised that a person who had the misfortune to seek to take their own life should not be prosecuted. You cannot be prosecuted for attempting to end your own life. But the law says—I appreciate that we are currently debating the assisted dying Bill, but my speech has nothing to do with that—that if you assist a person to seek to take their own life, you can be prosecuted. That is the distinction there, and it is the distinction in Clause 208.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
There is another distinction that the House may wish to consider: under the Suicide Act, it is not a crime to take your own life, but we are talking about taking the life of an unborn baby.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Of course, the unborn baby, until it is born, has no legal identity. That is the law of the land. The unborn baby has no legal identity, and the mother is in the prime position in relation to that baby. We have to balance the interests of all concerned. My view is that Clause 208 does contain the balance that I have suggested to the House.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, if we have to balance the needs and rights of all concerned, does that mean that an unborn child that is viable beyond 24 weeks has no rights and should not be considered here? Does it mean that it is only the rights of the mother that matter?
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am not commending late-term abortions. Nobody on either side of this debate is commending late-term abortions. The question addressed by Clause 208 is whether there should be a criminal liability: whether people should be investigated by the police and potentially sent to prison in those circumstances. That seems to me, with all due respect, to be the wrong balance. I say to the House that this is a very difficult issue, but I am afraid that those who oppose Clause 208 simply fail to recognise the arguments on the other side, which need to be balanced.
Baroness Neate (CB)
My Lords, as a former chief executive of Women’s Aid, I will specifically address the comments made about domestic abuse, particularly in relation to telemedicine. It is common for domestic abuse to begin in pregnancy, and it is common for all aspects of pregnancy, including conception, to be tools used by perpetrators of domestic abuse. That is why groups wishing to end violence against women and girls—domestic abuse groups, those who deal with so-called honour-based violence, those who deal with forced marriage, Rape Crisis and many others—have written to parliamentarians saying that creating clinically unnecessary barriers to abortion helps abusers, not survivors. I would really like noble Lords to take note of the fact that, in denying women discrete space for action, they are actually enabling abuse much more than they are preventing it.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 423A in my name would ask the police to cease investigations into women since the other House passed this vote back in June. Since June, in a number of cases women and mothers have been investigated. At Christmas, a woman in her 40s thought she was in her early pregnancy. She delivered a foetus in its gestation sac. She was very distressed. It turned out that that was actually at 24 weeks; she had not realised. She called the ambulance, and it was made clear that she had safeguarding issues. She was a victim of domestic violence. She had children. Then the police came. Her house was searched, including the Christmas presents for the children. It was incredibly distressing. The children had to leave the house. Many noble Baronesses here have talked, rightly, about the effects on the unborn child, but what about the children of the mothers who are taken away for investigation? So this is a very important addition to the other amendments. I very much support the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has tabled.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick said, I am sure that nobody, whatever side of this debate they sit on, thinks that anyone has a late-pregnancy abortion for the fun of it. No one is doing it to get some promotion at work or to get a late holiday—some of the excuses that we have heard suggested. This is an incredibly traumatic thing. Actually, I would say that an abortion at any time was an incredibly traumatic thing for a woman. I urge noble Lords to go, if they have not seen the Tracey Emin exhibition at the Tate; she speaks incredibly movingly but in a very harrowing way about her own lived experience of abortion. This is not something that is taken lightly.
For that small number of women who end up doing this at a late stage in their pregnancy, they are not doing it for the fun of it. They are often abused and often in situations of domestic violence; they are often from very marginalised communities, such as my own community—from the Muslim community, or from other more isolated communities. Many of them are from deprived backgrounds; they are not from nice families such as ours, where you can talk about these things. Many of them are told, by the way, that they do not know what is going on with their bodies, by their abusive partners or abusive parents, because coercive control does not just come from the husband or partner —it can come from within the family structure. They are not even told about their bodies; they are not given agency about their body—and they are told that if they dare to go to anyone for help, they will end up in prison, and here is the evidence. While I understand the concerns about coercion and care and making sure that we protect vulnerable women—it is very well intended—this could further push those very isolated women into situations that are ever more dangerous.
The final point that I want to make is that, whatever side of the divide we are on, we know that the police are really struggling with resources right now. We have had many conversations about how we do not think that police are investigating serious sexual assault against women and severe anti-social behaviour. Do we really want our police to be rifling through the bins of women who have just had a stillbirth? Do any of us think that that is a good use of time? Do we honestly want to see vulnerable women put in prison, when there are very few places in prison right now?
Finally, you cannot solve this problem by just prosecuting vulnerable women. I have had many conversations with people on the other side, and I understand that, as the Chief Whip said on our side, these views are profoundly and genuinely held by all of us. But I have heard the argument from people who say that, when the terrible thing happens and there is a late abortion, someone has to pay the price—someone has to go to prison. I would push that back. Throwing women, vulnerable women who have often been beaten and treated violently, into prison, is not the answer. Believe you me: these women need compassion, and their kids also need a mother, so that they do not fall into the patterns that lead to bad outcomes. If anyone thinks that these women need to be punished, trust me—what they will have gone through is punishment enough, which will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment in my name, Amendment 426D. I start by thanking the Minister for meeting me a couple of weeks ago to discuss this matter—and I want to be direct at the outset about what the amendment would do and would not do.
The amendment is distinct from Amendment 425, which stands on its own merits, and which your Lordships will consider on its own terms. This amendment says nothing about adult women’s access to abortion, nothing about where medication is taken and nothing about the broader questions that have been part of our debate up till now. It rests entirely on one safeguarding principle—that when a child is the patient, a professional should meet her before prescribing. I believe that that is something that your Lordships can support, regardless of the views that you hold on everything else before the House today.
The amendment is brought on behalf of the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for Children—NHS doctors and nurses who carry statutory safeguarding responsibilities for children across every local safeguarding partnership in England. Its concern is that the needs of children, particularly looked-after children who become pregnant, are not sufficiently accounted for in this clause. Since 2022, a girl of 14 can telephone an abortion service, receive medication by post, take it at home, and no clinician will ever meet her. How does that give confidence that safeguarding risks are being properly assessed? How does the provider of medication know whether there is someone else in the room when they speak to the child on the phone? How do they know whether someone else has suggested that the child should make the phone call? Surely the only safe way to assess risk is to meet in person.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, says that telemedicine is safe. I fully respect her experience in this field and, in many situations, I would agree, but in the case of children, of which I note she made no mention in her speech, I believe she is wrong. Telemedicine is not safe for children.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
Is the right reverend Prelate aware that coercion can also occur in the consultation room, as I have seen many times? It may actually be safer for the girl—or the child, as he is calling her—to be able to choose the place and the time where she has that consultation.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
I am very aware that there are risks to all forms of consultation. My argument is simply that the risks are minimised by in-person consultation.
The considered view of safeguarding professionals in the NNDHP is that the current guidance put in place by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in 2022 is simply not robust enough. That guidance, I note, requires an in-person meeting for children under 13. Children under 16 are,
“normally … required to complete their consultation in-person, unless there is a compelling indication to do otherwise”.
Evidence, however, suggests that most providers of abortion care are arguing that the option of telemedicine itself is a compelling indication that an in-person consultation is not required. For those aged 16 or 17, the guidance says only that children—and, of course, 16 and 17-year-olds are still children under the Children Act—should “be encouraged” to attend in person. More fundamentally, guidance can currently be changed unilaterally, without parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation, at the discretion of the body that issued it. I believe, therefore, that legislation is required. What Parliament enacts, only Parliament can remove.
The case for this amendment, however, does not rest on my view or the NNDHP’s alone. The Government’s own consultation found that safeguarding organisations specifically identified under-18s as the group for whom in-person assessment was most critical to reduce the risk from those who sexually exploit children, manipulate the system or force their victims to obtain abortion. Indeed, MSI Reproductive Choices has documented that face-to-face appointments are associated with a significant increase in domestic abuse disclosures compared with telemedicine. This is especially significant given that girls and young women face a higher risk of coercive or abusive relationships than those aged over 24, and are often less equipped to ask for help.
The clinical risks compound this. Beyond 11 weeks’ gestation, home management is not appropriate and the risks to the patient increase significantly. As has been mentioned, accurate gestational age assessment is the foundation on which safe prescribing depends, and it cannot be done reliably by telephone. These are not theoretical risks. We have heard stories already. I would simply add that of a 16 year-old who was estimated by the clinic to be under eight weeks pregnant, but the baby she delivered was in fact 20 weeks. She later said, “If they had scanned me and I knew that I was that far gone, I would have had him”. An in-person appointment would have changed everything for that young woman. This amendment would require such an appointment.
I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, in her amendment. Without an in-person consultation, it is unclear how we will ensure that early medical abortions take place within the law. Indeed, challenges around vulnerability and correct gestational assessment apply to adulthood as well, which is why I fully support Amendment 425.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I had prepared a longer speech but I will speak very briefly as most of the points that I wanted to make have been made. Of course, I do not want to see women unduly prosecuted, but I was reassured by the wise remarks in Committee of my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, suggesting that the adaptation of police protocols was more suitable than the change in the law proposed by Clause 208. I support Amendments 424 and 425, as indeed do many doctors, including some among the numbers mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, of obstetricians.
One point, perhaps, has not been raised, which concerns the mental health of women who may be isolated. I am concerned about the possibility that home use, in relative isolation, of a self-induced later abortion may increase the emotional intensity and mental health consequences for some women, particularly if she has limited support or medical complications, which are of course much more common in later abortion. Safeguard support and informed consent become much more critical as gestation advances and care shifts away from in-person supervision. I am not convinced by this clause; it just has not had the depth of thought and preparation required to really understand the complexity of what is being proposed. I ask Members to err on the side of caution and to support the amendments that I have spoken about.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 426C and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner, Lady Spielman and Lady Lawlor, for their support. I will also speak in support of Amendment 422E, to which I have added my name.
Before explaining why we have tabled Amendment 426C, I give a little context. Like, I am sure, all other noble Lords, I have received a great deal of correspondence on Clause 208. One thing repeatedly said by proponents is that, apart from decriminalising all instances of maternal abortion, nothing would change. The Fawcett Society, for example, says that apart from this one change, the Abortion Act 1967 would continue to operate as it always has. However, I think this is quite mistaken. We are not tidying up a small drafting error here; we are making a fundamental change to the law. When you make a fundamental change to the law, you change perceptions and behaviour, and it has knock-on effects.
We have heard, for example, that there has been a marked change in the number of investigations related to abortion. We have also learned—the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, alluded to this—that the changes are a bit more complicated than we might have thought. There has been an increase in the number of investigations related to procuring illegal abortion offences, but at the same time there has been a decrease in the number of investigations for intentional destruction of a viable unborn child. For example, there were seven investigations of intentional destruction of a viable unborn child in 2025, compared with 18 in 2023. Only one person, a male, was proceeded against in the most recent year. Clearly, something is going on but, equally clearly, it seems to be a little more complicated than we might think and the Government do not really know. To repeat the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, made, it is not possible to determine how many investigations there have been that relate to women, including women acting in relation to their pregnancy.
Alongside that we have had another major change, about which we have already heard a great deal this evening, in Committee and at Second Reading, and that is the arrival on the scene of abortifacient pills. They have completely changed the profile of abortion, including whether the foetus is dead before it is delivered. It is not just about telemedicine but about pills by post, which have become much more easily available, not simply within this country but increasingly across country boundaries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and others have discussed consultations by pregnant women, and we have had some discussion of whether these should or should not all be in person. Our Amendment 426C has a rather different focus. It would create a new crime of obtaining abortifacients, which for the moment are pills, by false representation. To explain why this is desirable, I will say a bit more about the case of Stuart Worby, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred.
In 2025, Stuart Worby was found guilty of poisoning his pregnant wife by administering abortion medication without her knowledge or consent. She very much wanted the baby she was carrying and he did not. A female associate of Worby’s procured the drugs through an online consultation in which she claimed early pregnancy and was duly prescribed and sent the pills. Worby gave his wife the drugs without her knowledge. She suffered a devastating miscarriage and the government website summarising the case notes that she is left unable to bear children. The victim of Worby’s act was not investigated when she miscarried. The crime came to light only when she found messages on her husband’s phone and went to the police.
In another recent case in Scotland the abortion was procured by a paramedic who injected his partner without her knowledge. Again, she was not investigated; the crime only came to light indirectly. There may be many other cases like this, but it is possible and becoming easier to obtain these pills—
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
No, I am going to continue. I agree with the Chief Whip on this; we should just keep going.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
That was your choice. I am going to follow instructions.
It is becoming easier to obtain these pills not least because of the balkanisation of American states on abortion issues, which has also turbocharged the use of pills in the United States. If, as seems likely, obtaining and administering an abortifacient without consent is going to increase, then we think there is a good reason to make this a clearly defined offence. Our amendment is drafted in consultation with some experienced KCs based on existing fraud law.
I realise that there will be an obvious objection, which is that there is existing legislation, but as the Government Ministers themselves have made clear when introducing specific legislation to cover retail workers, the fact that there may be legislation is not necessarily a compelling argument against creating a new, clear offence. Sometimes the legislature may want to go further to inform, to highlight particular risks, and to clarify the law in new situations, which is what we are in in this case.
We have drafted this amendment on the assumption that Clause 208 stands, because you have to have to make an assumption, but the fact that it was so difficult to do this, that it is so unsatisfactory and that, if we went forward, we or the Government would have to redraft in the light of what does or does not happen to Clause 208 makes it clear that we are in an unsatisfactory situation. We are making law on the hoof when what is needed is a really good look at the situation we are in and the way that the changes that we might introduce would impact on other behaviour, so that we could take a coherent, holistic view of whether abortion law needs to be rethought.
In that context, I return to Amendment 422E. The first rule of good policy-making is to be clear about the problem. I do not think we are. Amendment 422E therefore proposes an alternative to the unscheduled and unexpected introduction of the sweeping changes in Clause 208. It would require the personal consent of the DPP for an investigation, with a tight time limit. It would address the distressing situations that we have heard about and it would leave us time to discuss properly what changes could usefully be made to current law. It would also ensure that any change that occurred fulfilled the objectives of those who proposed and support Clause 208. I am really concerned at this pulling something out.
I have two final, quick points. Many people will say that lots of other countries have decriminalised, but that does not mean they have a situation that would be exactly like ours if we passed Clause 208. Whether you have full decriminalisation exists in a whole set of different situations, and it certainly does not mean that those countries allow abortion at full term by mothers. The second point is that it is perfectly possible to have a review. The Scots have just done so. They have had a thorough review. One may or may not like what they have done, but that is what we should be doing. Given where we are, I commend my amendment to the House and strongly commend a compromise that would give us time. I hope that the Government are listening to the degree of concern over this and considering whether they might, in the near future, do something serious on this issue.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords are aware, in spite of what we have heard from some noble Lords, that more than 50 countries around the world, including 29 in Europe, do not criminalise women under abortion law. Going back to the noble Baroness’s comments about Northern Ireland, telemedicine was voted on as lawful by our very House.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I am sorry, so many Cross-Benchers have just been speaking. I sincerely hope that I can finish my point. I have been waiting ever so patiently.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Hazarika, and I wish to make my comments in the spirit, as she said, of understanding that there are people with very different views across the House. I respect those views, so I hope to be heard similarly.
National and international women’s rights and health groups are proactively calling for decriminalisation in the UK and beyond. That is in addition to the other place—our elected representatives—overwhelmingly voting in support of decriminalisation. I wonder whether we believe that every one of those respected organisations is wrong, that only a section of this House is right and that the other place is wrong. I would find it difficult to ally myself with those who oppose the decriminalisation of abortion.
On Amendment 423A, to which I put my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lady Hazarika, I do not know whether noble Lords have read the excellent article in the Guardian today by Hannah Al-Othman. She has done some extensive research about a number of harrowing cases, one of which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Hazarika, of women being arrested in their hospital bed. Is it seriously the case that we as a House want that situation to continue? The Centre for Women’s Justice has detailed a number of cases that are truly dreadful.
I also support the telemedicine provisions; they seem humane and are also lawful in Northern Ireland. I am not going to say any more. I strongly support decriminalisation and strongly oppose the amendments that other noble Lords have spoken to.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, is she aware that there are no telemedicine abortifacients available in Northern Ireland? It is not lawful.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wanted to sound really definitive in saying that I oppose Amendment 424 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, which would remove Clause 208, and that I oppose Amendments 425 and 426D. However, the good thing about this place is that I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich—about whom I am going to say something wonderful. She made me pause and think, and that is what is really useful about this debate. I am absolutely certain on some things, but I am not quite sure about the tangle of amendments that have been proposed. I am therefore going to carry on and voice some of my concerns.
To give a bit of context, abortion in the UK is a safe, normal and common procedure. It is appreciated by women because, when facing an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, it allows them a legal choice on whether to be a mother—a decision that will alter the whole course of their life. The fact that a third of women in the UK will have a legal and safe abortion at some point in their life—the vast majority of which will happen early on—shows how careful we have to be not to allow this rather fraught, heated and emotional debate impose any unintended barriers to that success story for women’s freedom and rights. I am afraid that some of the well-meaning compromises we have heard about tonight would likely do that. I am particularly worried about undermining telemedicine and pills by post.
I want to reflect on time limits. Many of us will have received a tsunami of emails and letters urging us to oppose Clause 208, stressing emotively—and factually inaccurately—that this clause will legalise abortion until birth, and that that amounts to the state-sanctioned killing of babies, as someone explained to me. We have to restate for the public that this clause does not change the limits for abortion. There is still a 24-week abortion time limit. In fact, abortion itself remains a crime, just as it has been since 1968, unless very stringent conditions are met. I stress again that any medical professional, or anyone else, who assists a woman to get an abortion beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks will be committing a serious crime and will be liable for prosecution.
We have to understand the public backlash, because there is unease about the whole issue of abortion until birth, and time limits per se. As a society, or indeed as a Parliament, we may want to revisit the issue at some stage. For many, the 24-week legal time limit based on viability can feel too arbitrary, especially as surely we all want medical science to make great strides in keeping prematurely born babies alive ever earlier for those women who want their children, but that should not limit the rights of those women who do not want to proceed with their pregnancy.
There are moral issues here about human life—that old chestnut of whether human life starts at conception or birth. There are those who stress that we should focus on the unborn child—we have heard a fair amount of that tonight. They say that, when we talk about more developed foetuses, we are talking about an unborn child, and that the heart that can be seen beating on an ultrasound scan at six weeks is just as much that of an unborn child as one that beats five months later. Is gestational growth a useful guide to the law? Is viability the best guide to what makes us human?
Such difficult discussions should not be shied away from. When you go out and talk to the public about this subject, they talk about time limits and these kinds of issues. Certainly, at the Academy of Ideas, where we work with young people, we consider it is our duty to organise such debates regularly to ensure that new generations rightly ask questions and hear all sides of the argument.
However, Clause 208 is not trying to relitigate the legal time limit debate, even though I welcome the fuller debate we have had tonight. It is important that we acknowledge why it has caused a furore. It removes the threat of criminalisation for a tiny number of women who, for whatever reason, have taken abortion pills to terminate their own pregnancy, but we have to be honest and acknowledge that it brings a risk of abuse—I know that, even though I am supporting it. The notion that decriminalisation will mean that women will gleefully go on a crime spree because it is decriminalised—suggesting that it is only the threat of prosecution that stops women from letting their pregnancies progress carelessly so they can inflict on themselves the horror of self-induced full-term termination —seems far-fetched and lacking in generosity. Legal late abortions are not harmful per se; certainly, they are not more harmful than coercing an unwilling woman to endure a full-time pregnancy and labour against her will.
However, it is also true that late abortions are undoubtedly gruelling for both patient and clinician, which is why the idea that any woman would choose that as an easy or casual option is far-fetched, ludicrous and insulting. The earlier an abortion can be performed, the better it is for women, and that is the reality of the perspective we need for this debate. In 2022, the last year for which figures are available, almost a quarter of a million women in England and Wales had abortions. Almost 90% of those were under 10 weeks and only 1% were at 20 weeks or over. We are not talking about everybody having late abortions or queuing up to have them.
The emergence of telemedicine has allowed access to even earlier abortion. Surely one of the few positives that emerged out of Covid, 2020 and the lockdown was that it changed the abortion regulations to allow medication in early pregnancy to be taken at home. While it is easier, early medical abortion is certainly not a free-for-all or unregulated—it is not like getting a pharmacist to okay your access to Wegovy or Ozempic. It remains regulated under the 1967 Act, which is a hyper-regulated piece of legislation that includes speaking to a doctor and so on. The limit remains at 10 weeks and nothing in Clause 208 changes that. What is positive about pills by post is that it cuts down on the dreaded waiting list times, which means that treatment can be earlier. An insistence on face-to-face appointments, as some of the amendments suggest, would tangle up early abortions in delay, which would undermine the success of 40% of abortions by telemedical methods now being performed at six weeks, versus 25% using traditional access methods.
Finally, one of the arguments used against telemedicine is that it could lead to non-consensual coerced abortions, with abusive men, or even abusive parents, forcing young, vulnerable women to abort. I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, about the issue in relation to domestic abuse. Clause 208 does not change the law on this non-consensual coerced abortion. Non-consensual coerced abortion at any gestation remains illegal and is a crime.
However, it is key to note that since telemedicine became legal there has been a major increase in safeguarding disclosures, especially by young women who have felt able to talk about being victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence precisely because they are doing it remotely. It has allowed abortion providers to offer invaluable pastoral intervention beyond abortion services. Telemedicine also enables those vulnerable to coercion to avoid their abusers being involved in the deliberations about their desperate plight of being pregnant.
I will just finish by addressing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. There are many young girls—I appreciate that they are children—from traditional religious communities. Think of the young Catholic girl, the young Muslim girl and so on, as well as those at risk of honour-based violence. Those kinds of young people actually do not need to be asking their dad to drop them round at the clinic so they can get advice. They are sometimes dependent on other people. With telemedicine, they can go with privacy and talk at their own chosen time and place, without having to answer back to a parent or an abusive partner. In other words, telemedicine offers privacy and can help women stay safe.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can we please take the temperature down and respect the Clock? There are 10 minutes for Back-Bench contributions. Of course, many people want to get in, but please take the temperature down—there is no need to constantly interrupt others. Everyone can speak. We will come to the Cross Benches first and then go to the noble Baroness opposite.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I would like to pick up some of the safeguarding issues around telemedicine that have been mentioned in the House. To put things in context briefly, I have been a GP now for nearly 40 years, and over the past five years I have been conducting many remote consultations.
First, you can assess safeguarding issues remotely. A paper was published in 2025—very recently—on young girls under 16. More than 600 young girls were involved in the study. It found that 100% of the safeguarding issues—some of these girls then had to be seen face to face—were identified remotely. The conclusion, which is very short, states:
“Requiring in-person adolescent consultation is associated with reduced access to medication abortion without enhancing safeguarding”.
We do want to work with evidence. You might think it is safer to consult face to face, but the evidence shows that it is not safer: it can actually make it more harmful.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
Well, the evidence is there. You either believe in evidence or anecdotes.
The second issue is about ultrasounds. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not recommend ultrasounds for judging gestational age, unless there are problems: for example, if a woman’s menstrual cycle is long or if there are other issues. Again, we have to go by the evidence: not what we think or feel, what we read in the papers or what we discuss with our friends.
I will also comment on assessing competence in younger children under 16. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, has an amendment about mental capacity. I am sure that she is aware that the Mental Capacity Act cannot be used in relation to under-16s. Therefore, the noble Baroness’s amendment, if passed, would automatically mean that a 16 year-old would be prosecuted if she had no mental capacity, yet a 17 year-old could use that Act. So it is a nonsense amendment in that respect.
I fully support Clause 208 and I urge the House—on humane reasons, on competence and capacity, and, moreover, on evidence—to support it.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 424, tabled my noble friend Lady Monckton, and Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I have put my name to both amendments. I will be brief.
Despite the careful unpacking in Committee of the human and legal problems that Clause 208 will create, no amendments have been put down that address them. As we know, there have been no impact assessments and no public consultation, though third-party polling shows a very large majority opposed to abortion up to the point of birth. No effort has been made to gain insight into the extent to which the existing telemedicine scheme is abused, as its laxness means it must inevitably be to some extent. The lack of real answers to the questions asked in Committee make it all too clear that the Government intend to keep their eyes closed and ears stoppered to shut out evidence of abuses. Sadly, some, though not all, of the medical profession also find it easier not to think about the lives of unborn children, no matter how close to birth.
The status quo is, therefore, profoundly unsatisfactory. If this clause is passed, it will signal to all women that there is zero risk to them personally in abusing the telemedicine scheme or procuring an illegal abortion in another way. So, of course, abuses will increase—that is how humans respond to bad incentives—and each abuse is likely to mean that a viable child is killed with impunity. I recognise that, despite the obvious risks that the clause introduces, it is tempting to support it in order to feel good about yourself and show that you are someone who really cares about women—but this requires suppressing all thoughts of children’s lives.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I say to my noble friends who will try to come in shortly that we have had a reasonably long debate on this group and we had a very long debate in Committee. I have begun to hear calls for the Front Benches. I offer the House a reminder that this is Report: the stage when we vote to make decisions. I hope that we can quickly begin to move on to hear from the Front Benches.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful that the Chief Whip will offer me the chance to speak for a couple of minutes. We have always agreed that this is an expert House, and it helps to make sure that legislation is best addressed by expertise where it can be. One of the things we might want to consider in this debate is that there are at least two Members of this House who have given at least 100 years in total to the management of people having terminations of pregnancy —so we do know quite a lot about it. There is also a large number of people who have not spoken who are fellows of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who I think have been rather insulted by some of the things they have heard today because they do not represent the views of most members.
Having said that, I just want to say two things very simply. I firmly believe in decriminalisation. There is a great deal of misapprehension, as was just shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. The fact of the matter is that you cannot induce a pregnancy close to term. In fact, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will agree with me that it is virtually impossible to induce labour in a woman who does not have ruptured membranes at term with drugs. It just does not work. In fact, both he and I—numerous times, if I am not wrong—have been faced with caesarean sections that we did not want to do as the only way we could get a baby out of the womb when it was in danger. We could not use drugs to induce labour, because they do not work. That certainly applies to pills but even to drugs given intravenously. It is therefore important to understand that a termination of a pregnancy conducted by a woman herself will be an extremely rare event. It would be very difficult, and the idea that pills will work is nonsensical.
Moreover, we have heard a lot about pills, but nobody has told us yet what pills they are talking about. That is very important. The hormones that are usually used in early pregnancy would not work in late pregnancy. The other thing I have already mentioned is that pretty well all late terminations of pregnancy are done for very serious medical conditions. One of the commonest ones is where there is an extremely deformed baby in the womb. I described this during the earlier stages of the Bill, and I will not go through it again. The indications of these late pregnancies are always very carefully and scrupulously observed. They are not done lightly.
I should also add that, sadly, babies born much after 24 weeks still are very likely to be highly abnormal. Even though people often miscarry them when they do not want to, sometimes it can be the very best thing that can happen because these babies will eventually die early with very severe abnormalities.
Recently, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, chaired a committee on this very issue to see how we could reduce the number of premature births. It is a big problem in medicine because of the risks to the babies when they are born after 28 weeks. I shall say no more except that I firmly believe we should really try to understand this from the woman’s point of view. No woman tries to interrupt her pregnancy except with the deepest grief and the deepest unhappiness.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will have a short intervention, but we need to move on shortly to the Front Benches. That is what the House wants, I believe.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, throughout this debate Northern Ireland has been mentioned, yet not one Member from Northern Ireland has been allowed to speak until now. We have had to force the issue to be allowed to speak in this debate. When the new abortion laws, the most liberal and extreme laws in the United Kingdom, were forced on Northern Ireland, few across this House really cared. The lobby for abortion in Northern Ireland was on the basis that women there had fewer rights than in England and Wales. Now that same lobby is using the same arguments for a change in the law in England and Wales. In the previous debate, it was suggested that this would bring England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland, but that is misleading as, crucially, Northern Ireland does not have pills by post.
I genuinely believe that even many of those who support abortion know in their hearts that this is not the way to go about things. This hurried parliamentary process, the rewriting of one of the most sensitive and serious areas of criminal law, is surely unworthy of our democracy. A clause passed in the other House last summer was passed after 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. Is that what our democracy has come to? If noble Lords think that this is a good idea, why are they not prepared to allow public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, instead of rushing it through?
Clause 208 means no justice for the death of a full-term unborn child, even in the most grotesque circumstances. I ask supporters of Clause 208: what would you do if a woman told you that she was taking abortion pills, perhaps obtained from an NHS provider via telemedicine, in the 39th week of pregnancy because she had changed her mind about having a child? What would your conscience say to you, knowing that you made that possible through the support of this legislation?
We heard a great deal about unwelcome investigations, but what do supporters of Clause 208 think the police should do if they discover the dead body of a 39 week-old baby in a rubbish bin? The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, explained in Committee that investigations would often still be required even if Clause 208 passes, as police would need to investigate the circumstances if a deceased full-term baby body is found away from a clinical setting. Is that the option that supporters of Clause 208 really believe in?
To conclude, I could give many reasons why I support Amendments 425 and 426 but, because of time, I am not able to do so. Let us remember that when we are talking about the life of an unborn child, we are talking about not an it but a real, living person with the expectation of being born, being protected by a caring and loving society, and being held in loving arms. I do not think that is too much for a child to ask or expect.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We need to move on to the Front Benches.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I am the first speaker from these Benches. For us, this is a matter of conscience. My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham has not had the opportunity to speak. She disagrees with me. She is supportive of the other side. She wished for me to mention that she has been contacted by a young student called Lily, who has contacted a number of other Peers to say that they share her point of view. I hope that Lily and my noble friend will hear that we have acknowledged their sincerely held views, which are very different from mine.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I have been trying to speak. The noble Baroness has an amendment down. It is not good enough that we are being silenced at a time when the House is being asked to vote to approve something that has not been properly discussed or explored, and the consequences have not been fully considered. It is not good.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I do have an amendment, Amendment 423A, which other noble Lords have signed. It is to ask that prosecutions cease and desist. The reason for it is that we have uncovered over these past few months that different police forces are taking entirely different approaches under the current law, and that women and health professionals do not know where they stand. I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and to the speech of our noble colleague who is the chair of the College of Policing, about the fact that there needs to be a clear policy direction from Parliament in order that we can have a consistent approach throughout the medical profession and throughout policing.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, once again we have had a full and passionate debate on a matter of the utmost significance. It is apparent, from both deliberations in Committee and from today, that views on this matter are deeply and sincerely held across your Lordships’ House.
A wide range of points have been raised by noble Lords. Let us consider a variety of them. We have heard about issues around how the police investigate cases, about the interaction of telemedicine and criminal investigation, about the potential for women to face coercion, about issues of safeguarding of younger women and about issues of domestic abuse—to name but a few mentioned tonight. A lot of ground has not yet been covered. Other noble Lords have not yet spoken or have wanted to speak but have not been able to. What this tells us is that the matter is very far from settled. Some noble Lords’ concerns have plainly not been allayed.
This brings me back to the point I made in Committee. This clause has not received anything like adequate scrutiny. It is true that we have now had several hours of debate on this matter in your Lordships’ House. The point I made before, however, still stands: it is a matter of procedure, not substance. In the other place, however, this clause was considered for only 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. No parliamentary committee has been able to seek views and take evidence, and if ever there was the need for a parliamentary committee to take evidence on a policy, this is it. We need to hear from and test the views of the police, of the CPS, of doctors, of obstetricians, of safeguarders and, if possible and most importantly, of women or their representatives and advocates. This policy was not in the Government’s election manifesto. It has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, public consultation, or an impact assessment. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, put it very well in Committee. She said that the clause was passed
“in the other place following a very brief and truncated debate, entirely incommensurate with the gravity of its impact”.—[Official Report, 2/2/26; col. 1336.]
Changes to the law of abortion are and remain issues of conscience. The Opposition do not and will not take an official position on the substance of the clause. There is a multitude of views in my own party, and the issue is in the hands of your Lordships’ House as a matter of conscience. But that does not mean that we are released from our duty to undertake due diligence and rigorous interrogation of the consequences of changing the social law of this country. Whatever one thinks of the substance of the issue itself, the truth is that this clause has been tacked on to the side of a Crime and Policing Bill when it should not have been. That is no way to make law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. I shall start, as I did in Committee, by reiterating that the Government maintain a neutral stance on abortion in England and Wales. Many of the amendments in this group are similar or identical to those tabled in Committee. So, save in a very few cases, I shall not repeat the Government’s assessment of their workability. This means that if I do not explicitly mention an amendment, it is either because there are no workability issues or because I set them out fully in Committee. As a shorthand, I will refer to conduct that comes under Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, collectively as “abortion offences”.
I begin with Amendment 423ZA tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. It is unclear how this amendment is intended to work in practice—in particular, which party would bear the burden of establishing a lack of mental capacity and what the standard of proof would be. Thus, it is possible that it would create confusion for practitioners. Your Lordships may wish to note that the law already takes account of defendants’ understanding of their actions in various ways. It is unclear how this amendment is intended to interact with well-established criminal law principles.
Amendment 422E, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, is similar to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, in Committee, but it contains an additional requirement that a prosecution could not be brought any later than 12 months from the date of the alleged offence. Your Lordships will be aware that, other than for summary-only offences, there is, almost without exception, no statutory time limit for prosecuting criminal offences in England and Wales. The reason for that is that evidence may emerge over several years, so a limitation period would remove the ability to prosecute in cases where evidence of guilt came to light much later on. The introduction of a limitation period could lead to differences in outcomes depending on when evidence becomes available, the complexity of the case and the resources of investigating and prosecuting authorities.
Amendment 423, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is similar to the one he tabled in Committee, but it differs in three respects: it would broaden the scope of the specified defences; it would make provision for who must bear burden of proof in relation to those defences; and it would introduce additional provisions relating to police investigations. In relation to the workability concerns I raised in Committee, for the second and third of these differences there are some further issues. In relation to the burden of proof, the drafting is ambiguous. If the intention is that the defendant should bear the evidential burden, clarification would be needed. In relation to the proposed new provisions for police investigations, your Lordships may wish to note that decisions on whether to initiate, and the scope of such an investigation, are currently operational matters for the police.
Amendment 423A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is also similar to one tabled in Committee. While the Government remain neutral on changing the criminal law, it is important that investigations into other offences, such as murder, manslaughter or infanticide under the Infanticide Act, are still carried out. Those offences would continue to be investigated and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service if the test for prosecution is met. Your Lordships may wish to note that this amendment would be likely to trigger a review of any live investigations and prosecutions. However, we would not expect this to carry any significant resourcing implications.
Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, is again similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. It might be helpful to remind your Lordships of the point that I made then, namely that the proposed new offence is not limited to obtaining abortifacient drugs for use in the termination of a pregnancy. Abortifacient drugs are not defined in legislation and are also used for non-abortion-related purposes. In addition, further amendments would be needed to clarify whether the offence was one that is to be triable either way, whether the maximum penalty on conviction on indictment should be the same as that on summary conviction and whether the maximum penalty in the magistrates’ court should align with its general powers, which update automatically should the limits on its sentencing powers change in the future.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I would be grateful for clarification as to whether the Government have considered their own current inquiries into the grooming gangs. There was evidence there that:
“Victims and survivors were also critical about how easy it can be to obtain emergency contraception or abortion services without appropriate questions being asked”.
This evidence has been relied on consistently in Committee and on Report, yet there are concerns. Have the Government looked at that?
Secondly, in relation to the case that I mentioned in Committee, which contradicts much of what has been said, the comments of His Honour Mr Justice Cooke in Leeds Crown Court, in the case of Sarah Catt, very clearly state that this was a “cold calculated” decision that she took for her own convenience and self-interest. She took pills at 39 weeks and gave birth, and it seems she never revealed where the body was. She had a history of deceit and concealment—that is in the judgment of Leeds Crown Court. So have the Government considered, also in relation to other amendments about pardons, that this was conduct not of a victim but of a woman who perpetrated a crime?
Finally—
Baroness Berridge (Con)
It was a crime, and she was given eight years in prison for that.
On the question about the offences that the judge also considered—murder, manslaughter and infanticide —I emailed the Minister about the clarification I asked for in Committee on guidance being given to emergency services that may come across a situation such as that outlined in Sarah Catt. What is their obligation to the woman and the child?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her points, which I am sure your Lordships’ House will want to take into account when deciding whether, as a matter of policy, to vote for or against the various amendments. I remind the noble Baroness that these are not government amendments—the Government are neutral—but I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House has heard them and will take them into account in various ways.
Amendment 425 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is identical to one tabled in Committee. I raised at that stage the Government’s concerns about workability and operational difficulties, and they remain. In short, the effect of Amendment 425 might be to reduce access to early medical abortion due to resource constraints on the ability of abortion providers to hold in-person consultations.
Amendment 426D, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, is new, but it carries similar possible operational effects to those I set out in Committee in relation to Amendment 425, about which I spoke a moment ago. The proposed new clause in Amendment 426D may have a detrimental impact on abortion provision and access for under-18s, including those who live in remote areas or who have difficulties in attending a clinic. It should also be noted that it is unclear whether this amendment would require under-18s to have all consultations face to face, including any initial contact with the service. If so, this would further increase the workability concerns, including resourcing constraints on providers and access to abortion provision for young people.
Amendment 426B, in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton, is once again very similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. The duty on the Secretary of State, as drafted, poses substantial operational and resourcing implications. There is no centrally held record of women who have been convicted of, cautioned for, arrested for or investigated on suspicion of abortion offences. Therefore, the Secretary of State would be unable to comply with the duty to direct the specified bodies to delete such details from records. If this is the will of Parliament, consideration will need to be given to how to deliver the objectives of this amendment in a way that is operationally workable.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I appreciate that the hour is late and very charged emotions have been expressed, so I do not intend to delay the House with a long response. I simply point out to those Members who are not familiar with the Companion and were surprised that so many of us did not take interventions that this was not due to any lack of respect for their positions. The Companion says at 4.29 that a Member
“may justifiably refuse to give way, for instance … in time-limited proceedings”.
I wanted to make that clear.
I have heard what the Minister has said about Amendment 422E. I will go away and consider that. This was meant to be a compromise. I know that Members want to get to other substantive amendments. I therefore do not wish to test the opinion of the House and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I have listened to opinions from across the House but am not satisfied that the mother or the unborn baby is protected. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Stroud
“Abortion: requirement for in-person consultationIn section 1(3D) of the Abortion Act 1967 (medical termination of pregnancy), omit “, by telephone or by electronic means”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would mean that a pregnant woman would need to have an in-person consultation before lawfully being prescribed medicine for the termination of a pregnancy.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, let me assist the House by saying that we should now be moving on to Amendment 426A on assisted dying, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I understand my noble and learned friend tabled the amendment only to get a particular response from the Government and he has no intention of dividing the House tonight. I suggest that we allow his contribution but do not have a prolonged debate on assisted dying tonight—we have had a number of days on that. Then, when we have had the Minister’s response, we can get back to the other amendments because potentially there are three more votes in this group. I think the House will want to vote on those and this is a way forward for everybody.
Amendment 426A
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“Providing assistance under assisted dying legislation in Crown Dependencies: criminal liabilityIn the Suicide Act 1961, after section 2A (acts capable of encouraging or assisting suicide) insert—“2AA Assistance provided in Crown Dependencies(1) In sections 2(1) and 2A(1), a reference to an act that is capable of encouraging or assisting suicide or attempted suicide does not include—(a) participating in acts that facilitate the provision of a medically assisted death in Scotland or the Crown Dependencies (the “jurisdictions”) under or in connection with legislation in those jurisdictions (“relevant legislation”),(b) performing any other function under that relevant legislation in accordance with that relevant legislation, or(c) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that relevant legislation to access that relevant legislation.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 2 to prove that they—(a) reasonably believed they were acting in accordance with relevant legislation in those jurisdictions, and(b) took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.””
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am obliged. Assisted dying feels quite pacific in comparison with the debate we have just had. This is my amendment, which I do not intend to press. It is the product of discussions with the BMA. It was tabled in Committee in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. It was withdrawn in Committee because the Isle of Man Government, who have passed a Bill to deal with assisted dying, said they did not want it to be tabled before there had been discussions with them. There have now been discussions between the BMA and the Isle of Man Government and they are content for it to be tabled.
This amendment seeks to provide protections for doctors with patients who live in the Isle of Man or Jersey, where assisted dying Bills have been passed but have not yet received Royal Assent. It is common, for example, for some people resident in the Isle of Man to have doctors in the north-west of England. Those doctors may well give a diagnosis or a prognosis in writing, which might then be used in an assisted dying process in accordance with the laws in those two other jurisdictions. Amendment 426A says that if a doctor does such a thing and they are participating in a process which is strictly in accordance with the law
“in Scotland or the Crown Dependencies”,
And, obviously, Scotland voted against assisted dying yesterday, but the principle is that they will not be breaking the law in this country—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Can I finish my explanation, then hear from the Minister and then take it from there? I have had a very useful discussion with the Minister, who said that the Government took the view that the amendment was premature before Royal Assent in relation to the two jurisdictions, and I accept that. She said that once Royal Assent was given, the Government would consult with Jersey and the Isle of Man Governments and other relevant parties about what the Government would then do. She gave no commitment as to what the Government would do, but I am content with that approach. There will obviously be some degree of urgency, depending on how long it will take for the other jurisdictions to introduce assisted dying, but if the Minister were to confirm that that was the position, and that is what she explained to me, I would be content with that explanation.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I did not quite hear at the start. Can I just confirm that this amendment was not tabled at the request of the Isle of Man Government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
That is correct. It was tabled after discussions between the BMA, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and me, and it was withdrawn because the Isle of Man Government wanted more consultation.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
With the House’s permission, it might be helpful if I set out the Government’s position, and then perhaps we can take it from there, if the noble Baroness is prepared to give way to me at this stage. The Government have some workability and drafting concerns about the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, but I will focus on the central issue so that the House knows what the Government’s position is.
Although the Government remain neutral on the overall issue, we recognise that assisted dying regimes being implemented in different parts of the UK and the Crown dependencies could create practical issues for those in one jurisdiction who are involved, in some way, in the lawful assisted death of a person in another jurisdiction. However, I support what my noble and learned friend said: the Government consider it premature to legislate on this issue. We do not yet know whether assisted dying will become lawful in the various jurisdictions, what the final form of any such regimes may be, or how and when they would be implemented. Legislating now in this unique way to amend the criminal law in England and Wales without clarity about these frameworks risks unintended consequences. The Government do not rule out that, in due course, processes may be agreed between the jurisdictions—or, if necessary, future legislation placed before this House and, potentially, other Parliaments—to achieve these aims.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that indication. On the basis of that, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“Provisions for pardons and criminal records of women prosecuted under abortion law(1) The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as followed.(2) After section 165 (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences: England and Wales), insert—“165A Pardon and expungement of records for women under the law related to abortion(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply in respect of a woman (whether living or deceased) who, when acting in relation to her own pregnancy, was convicted of, cautioned for, arrested for, or investigated on suspicion of, an offence under the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.(2) Where the woman has been convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence detailed in subsection (1), she is pardoned for the offence.(3) The Secretary of State must by notice direct the relevant data controller to delete details, contained in relevant official records, of a conviction, caution, arrest, or investigation detailed in subsection (1).(4) Expressions used in this section or section 167(1) (so far as relating to this section) and in Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have the same meaning in this section or (as the case may be) section 167(1) as in that Chapter (see section 101 of that Act).”(3) In section 167 (Sections 164 to 166: supplementary)—(a) in subsection (1) after “165” insert “ or 165A”;(b) in subsection (2) after “165” insert “ or 165A”.” Member’s explanatory statement
Abortion offences are classed as violent crimes meaning they will permanently be disclosed as part of a DBS check. This amendment seeks to pardon women who have a conviction or caution for an offence which Clause 208 applies to. It would also ensure the removal of women’s details from police systems, regardless of the outcome of their case.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I know that the amendment is defective, because my noble friend has said that. However, this is the only opportunity we have to address the issue. Now that we have agreed, as a House, to keep the clause in the Bill, if I press my amendment it will need to be dealt with by the Government between now and Third Reading. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
“Offence of obtaining abortifacients by false representation(1) A person commits an offence if they dishonestly makes a false representation and intend by making the representation to obtain any abortifacient drugs for use either by themself or another, whether such drugs have been lawfully prescribed in good faith based on the false representation or not.(2) A person guilty of the offence is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.”
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments, and indeed to everybody who was engaged in the debate. I completely accept that an abortifacient is a drug that can be used for other things. I am not sure what that has to do with my amendment, which is to do with false representation. For all the reasons I spoke about—the fact that we are throwing a bit of a bomb into a changing world rather than a tiny little change—I think this would be helpful. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
“Abortion: requirement for in-person consultation if the pregnant woman or girl is under the age of 18After section 1(3D) of the Abortion Act 1967 (medical termination of pregnancy) insert—“(3E) If the pregnant woman or girl is under the age of 18, any consultation must take place in person.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that a pregnant woman or girl under 18 years old would need to have an in-person consultation before they could be prescribed drugs to end a pregnancy, so that potential safeguarding needs are identified.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
I realise that I am going to make myself very unpopular at this hour, but I will make a very brief comment on the couple of comments that were made regarding the amendment in the course of the debate. I remind noble Lords that this is about children who become pregnant and it is about safeguarding risks. Therefore, I was not entirely happy that it should be contrasted between evidence and anecdote. There is plenty of evidence to support the need for this from professionals in the field. Similarly, to those saying that professionals say that children will not come, I am afraid that the professionals that have advised me on this are very clear that children will come when it is necessary. I therefore invite the House to support the amendment and ask for a Division.