Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this statutory instrument makes an important change. It will amend the 2014 regulations so that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury, known as TDDI, is brought within the regulatory scope of the Care Quality Commission. This change will be for the treatment of disease, disorder or injury provided in sports grounds or gymnasiums, or under temporary arrangements at sporting or cultural events, where it is delivered for the benefit of those taking part in or attending those activities.
Let me start by clarifying what this is and what it is not. This regulated activity relates not to the task being carried out but to who is doing it. It is the assessment and treatment of physical or mental state when provided by a specifically defined list of healthcare professionals, as per the CQC’s website. The scope of this activity requires those carrying it out to be listed healthcare professionals registered with the appropriate professional body, such as the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the Health and Care Professions Council. When a healthcare professional uses their professional title, qualification and skills to assess and treat a person for a disease, disorder or injury, they must be registered with or employed by a company registered with the CQC.
Providers carrying out the treatment of disease, disorder or injury at events may include independent ambulance services that employ paramedics, doctors and nurses, and which are commissioned to attend an event such as a music festival, marathon or football match and be on hand in case anyone there experiences a medical emergency.
Perhaps I can give some context. Members will recall the tragic events of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others. The subsequent inquiry uncovered serious failings, including inadequacies in the provision of healthcare services at the arena. The inquiry noted that these shortcomings may have been present at other venues across the country, in part because of the absence of appropriate regulation. A central finding of the inquiry was absolutely clear: the Department of Health and Social Care should consider changes to the law to enable the CQC to regulate healthcare delivered at events. The CQC has itself outlined additional concerns about the quality of care provided at events. It has heard serious allegations of unregulated provision resulting in severe patient harm.
The Government, as noble Lords would expect, are committed to acting on the inquiry’s recommendations and strengthening public safety. I recognise that these changes are overdue, but it was important that they be carefully considered in order to understand the impacts. I am pleased that they have now been laid before us.
To turn to what the amendment will do, the 2014 regulations exempted the treatment of disease, disorder or injury provided at sports venues or gymnasiums or under temporary arrangements from regulation. This SI removes this exemption. It will bring the provision of this treatment at events into line with provision in hospitals, clinics, ambulances, GP surgeries, community services and care homes where it is already registered. This means that any provider delivering the treatment of disease, disorder or injury at an event must register with the CQC and must comply with the same robust regulatory standards that apply elsewhere in the health system. Of course, some of the providers will already be registered to provide this treatment in other settings, which will make the process quicker for them.
I should say to noble Lords that there has been some misunderstanding about what is covered by
“the treatment of disease, disorder or injury”.
It includes a wide range of treatments, from emergency interventions to ongoing care for long-term conditions. I wish to be clear that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury does not include first aid. First aid remains outside the scope of CQC regulation.
By making these changes to the 2014 regulations, the Government will make true our commitment to fulfilling the recommendations of the Manchester Arena inquiry and the drive to improve patient safety. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I shall speak briefly to this statutory instrument and ask a number of questions, if I may, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. I think that I understand the structure of what is proposed and the exclusion of first aid so that it is not covered, but when I look at the providers that are likely to be affected, I am trying to work out carefully which are the providers concerned. I am assisted by a friend who is part of the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine and who said that it had undertaken a survey.
It seems to me that many of the people who responded to that as healthcare professionals may well be working in registered providers already, so they may be concerned about the need to register in relation to the services that they provide at events but in fact they do not need to register. However, the event organisers themselves may need to register if they bring healthcare professionals on site in order to provide services that go beyond first aid at their event. I am trying to understand how, when the department went out and identified 89, or whatever the number was, potential providers that were not already registered, it ended up with a figure of 36, which seems very low. It certainly bears no comparison to what those who are working in the sector believe would be the number of presently unregistered providers. We need to understand who these 36 are, the character of those providers that the department has identified and why there is such a discrepancy between that and what others have been saying. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us much more about that.
As a practical example, are all football clubs, or the major football clubs in the Premier League, the Championship and so on, already registered with the CQC? Clearly, they, as organisations, provide continuing healthcare to their players. Do we not need to worry about any of that? Is an event like one of the big festivals that take place already registered, because it has put a team together in order to provide more than simply first aid? Perhaps we are worrying about a need for registration when actually we do not need to worry so much.
I have only one other question. An essential part of the follow-up to the Manchester Arena inquiry was the preparation of an event healthcare standard. Would the Minister be kind enough to update us on that process? Where does it stand and when might we see its publication for consultation?
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will also ask a few questions. I declare my interests as the senior steward—namely, the chairman—of the Jockey Club and as the mother of an elite athlete.
I spent last weekend at two quite different sporting events, juggling my time between the Grand National and the Home Internationals lacrosse competition, as my daughter played for England for the first time— I did check with her that I was allowed to mention that in the Grand Committee. I mention them both because while one is really a grass-roots sporting event—it has a small crowd, but none the less there is an ambulance in attendance because it is a potentially dangerous sport—the other, the Grand National, is the second largest attended sport in the country and the second most watched sporting event on television. As I understand it, both are captured by the same changes being proposed today.
I express my condolences to everyone who was affected by the tragedy at Manchester Arena. In no way do I want to suggest that the questions I am posing negate the need to address the recommendations of the public inquiry. It is hugely important that we learn the lessons.
First, I took some time to speak to a former chief medical adviser of the British Horseracing Authority, Dr Jerry Hill, who told me that a clear standard of healthcare for events is an extremely positive move. I put on record that I wholeheartedly support the event healthcare standard. I understand that there has been good consultation on the draft and that, in Dr Hill’s view, it will help event medics fight their corner for resource. He told me that, at the moment, event medics often feel that they are behind Portaloos and security in priority at events. It is important that we recognise that we need that standard.
However, in moving from that standard being guidance to putting it on a statutory footing—I appreciate that this SI does not do that, but it sets us on that path—we need to evaluate formally whether the draft is effective. As I understand it, the DHSC was somewhat swamped by people wanting to participate in evaluating the draft, and that it was perhaps not following the more scientifically robust approach that a number of sports suggested—I think two focus groups were planned to evaluate the draft. Can the Minister assure us that that event healthcare standard will be evaluated to a scientifically robust standard rather than that of a more politically normal focus group? It is very important that we get it right.
Secondly, I also understood that, as my noble friend Lord Lansley says, the CQC’s initial impact assessment had claimed that only 36 healthcare providers would need to register. Horseracing alone thinks that we have 350 individual clinicians who would need to register, even allowing for the fact that each clinician tends to work in three different sports. Potentially, the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine UK’s estimate of 23,000 is an overestimate. Even if it is one-third of that, it is still massively more than the CQC expected.
I also understand that, in November 2024, the CQC said that it had a maximum capacity to register new providers of 1,000 per year. If we are not very careful, with all the best intentions we will be setting up a bureaucratic quagmire, which will mean that events, big and small, will not be able to find suitably registered clinicians to support them. What assurances can the Minister give us that the CQC can cope with the workload? Has the CQC recruited, or does it intend to recruit, anyone from the sports or cultural events sector? In the past, the CQC has had, in maybe more traditional healthcare settings, a bad habit of sending non-specialist inspectors—my noble friend Lord Lansley is laughing at that, but it is serious business. The best example I have is of occupational therapists being sent to inspect ambulance services.
What assurance can the Minister give us that the CQC is going to recruit the suitable expertise to deliver on this important obligation? Where will it sit in the priorities of the CQC which, after all, has an awful lot of important work to do? It currently has an interim chief executive and a chairman who wants to leave, so I am nervous about quite so much going on to the CQC. I support others who have called for pragmatism in the implementation of these regulations to allow time, if the CQC is struggling to put the resource to them that they need.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. The Explanatory Notes say that a full impact assessment was not completed because
“no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen”.
I think it entirely foreseeable that there could be significant cost and complexity, as well as an inability to deliver the healthcare benefits that we all seek, for two important sectors of society that provide important glue as well as economic value. Whether we are talking about grass-roots or world-class sporting and cultural events, if we implement this SI badly, there will be substantial negative consequences.
I am aware that I have asked an awful lot of questions. May I be presumptuous and ask the Minister for a meeting with the department and the CQC so that a number of us can properly understand how this measure will be implemented?
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Sport Wales; with that, I sit on the board of UK Sport. I am also a board member of Active Travel England.
I reiterate the comments made by others about how horrendous and horrific the Manchester bombing was, as well as how significant an impact it had on so many people. The recommendations are important. I absolutely understand why we want to protect people and improve the system. I am also going to ask a number of questions, so I would be very happy for a follow-up afterwards.
I have spoken to a number of organisations in the wider sport industry. It is fair to say, I think, that there is a level of concern about the statutory instrument that we are debating today and the impact that it could have on the wider sports industry. I understand that the Sport and Recreation Alliance has written to the Minister; I would be interested in the reply and to know what further work has been undertaken.
I know from speaking to a wide group of people who work in the sports industry that they generally feel as though His Majesty’s Government have failed to engage with the sector properly and have not understood the significant, negative effect that this measure may have on the provision of medical care at events. There is a real risk of this preventing some sports events and activities from going ahead, or going ahead without the medical cover that they currently have, in order to avoid the consequences of the proposals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, made some interesting points on registration. Medics often work in a voluntary capacity across a number of events of various sizes. It is important that these people are not registered multiple times. We should try to avoid some of the failings of DBS checks, where people are registered on lots of different systems. That does not solve the problem that we are trying to solve.
The Sport and Recreation Alliance has called for a commitment to create a specific exemption for all treatment provided to athletes, performers and officials. This is also an important area for us to look at. We should include spectators in that as well, because some events have lots of spectators and some have absolutely none. Many believe that this would not be contrary to the recommendations of the Manchester Arena inquiry and could solve many of the issues that the regulations might cause.
Can the Minister explain what further considerations have been given to understanding the impact on sport and sporting events? I wonder if clarification is needed on the definition of different events and the sizes, because they are very different. Also, what is understood by “injury” and “first aid”? People working on the ground might struggle to understand that. I was also wondering whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has provided a view on this and on its impact.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the founder and director of Cignpost Express Test, which did a lot of Covid testing for sports events and currently does health screening at PGA golf events and Mercedes Formula 1 testing, so I have quite a bit of experience in health screening. As other noble Lords have said, what we are trying to do here is very well intentioned. Ours hearts go out to all those affected by the Manchester Arena bombing. This is designed to try to correct many of those ills. The fact that we have two Ministers here shows the important stress that the Government put on this, and I know that Minister Ahmed has been engaged on this, too.
There are good intentions here but, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the devil is in the detail and implementation. Everyone thinks of big events in this context but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, mentioned, the small events are the real concern. I have had volunteers at mini rugby tournaments asking, “How are we going to cope with this?” There is a confusion, which perhaps the Minister can clear up, about doctors who are currently CQC-registered through their practice and volunteer at, for example, weekend point-to-point racing events or mini rugby tournaments, who feel that they will no longer be able to do that without being CQC-registered separately for those events, which costs almost £1,000 a time. That drives a lot of the discrepancies we seem to have in the numbers: are we talking about 36 events or many thousands? It would be helpful to get an understanding of that because there is a lot of concern out there.
As a former Health Minister, I know that the CQC already has a lot on its plate. The 1,000 limit on new registrations was mentioned earlier, and this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, to be honest. I am very concerned about this. Event organisers and chief medical officers have told me that if it becomes too burdensome, we will employ first-aiders instead of having volunteer doctors, because they do not have to be CQC-registered. That, of course, will mean that the care is less good. They gave an example: apparently, during Wimbledon, 4,000 people saw the medical support services during the whole tournament, and only 1% of them ended up being referred onwards to the NHS or hospital services, because good volunteer doctors and medics were there. Clearly, if they were just first-aiders, a lot more of those people would have been pushed straight on down to Kingston Hospital or wherever, which would have put a large burden on the local NHS services, which I am sure we all want to try to avoid.
I have three suggestions, if I may, the first of which is an athlete exemption. Will athletes be exempt from this, since their medical treatment is quite different, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said? Secondly, there is a feeling among the chief medical officers that it would be useful to get the event healthcare standard finalised in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, talked about, before we do this. It would be useful to have this standard, but it is hard to talk about implementation until we know exactly what that standard will be.
Thirdly, I, too, would like to be involved in the meeting, if I may, but a round table with the CQC and all the chief medical officers would be useful. I know that Minister Ahmed said that he was in favour of that and suggested to the CQC that it should meet with all four chief medical officers. However—I appreciate this is hearsay—I have heard from the chief medical officers themselves that the CQC refused to meet them all together and wants only to meet them separately. I do not know why that is, but the meetings would be more valuable as round tables, with everyone in the room, so that the CQC can get the full flavour of the things we are hearing about today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I am president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, so it is partly with that hat on that I am asking these questions.
The Manchester Arena inquiry makes harrowing reading, and I expect that there will be some bereaved people watching this debate, because they are aware that these regulations have come out following that inquiry. The deficits that the reports highlighted are really worrying, but I was struck that many of them are in the domain of so-called first aid: the failure to use tourniquets when people were bleeding, and the fact that the tourniquets were locked up in a first aid room anyway, compound the distress and the memories with which people who lost somebody in that event have to live.
So, one of my questions relates specifically to where the boundary defining first aid sits. The initial response of qualified doctors and physiotherapists may be first aid, but they may also start to instigate longer-term treatment for whatever happened at the event that could not be instigated by somebody who was trained in first aid only as a volunteer from a charity or group. I was thinking about the Glastonbury Festival, an event that is extremely well organised for medical emergencies. It is set up to do a lot of treatment on site, but some things mean that people have to be airlifted out sometimes. They go from the very minor—the joke is rashes from all the wellies rubbing on people’s legs—right through to life-threatening adverse reactions to the most bizarre cocktails of drugs. That needs a highly specialised knowledge. If emergency medicine consultants had not been working there, lives would have been lost because this is so complicated.
One of my other questions relates to the people who are to be used or employed. A level of first aid could happen anywhere, but what is needed at a sporting event may be very different from that at a large event where a lot of illicit substances are being used and the expertise required to avoid loss of life will be quite different.
My other main question relates to the boundaries around an event. How big and organised does an event have to be to qualify, or how small not to qualify? What about a local children’s football league that happens on a Saturday morning with lots of different clubs competing? The kids are traveling around with parents, and may cross from Wales to England, England to Wales, into Scotland or wherever. As amateur participants, their risk of a really bad injury is no lower —in fact, it may even be higher—than if they were playing as fully trained professionals with a full support team.
I am also slightly concerned about where the boundaries are around the person. For some of these smaller events, people will have volunteered as doctors. I know one who volunteers to work at football matches: he is employed by a large hospital and is not a sports medicine person, but he brings a lot of experience that you could say all falls within the realm of first aid, or you could say is tipping over the boundary, because general medical emergencies arise from time to time.
Both the national boundaries and the size of the event concern me. I am not quite clear where those physiotherapists sit who are in private practice—possibly solo private practice—but who are then providing support at a sporting event. If they are to register with CQC as a single worker, it might be quite a lot of money out of their practice pocket. They may therefore feel that they are not incentivised to carry on but they have a great deal of skills. The danger is that the skills available on-site at an event might, inadvertently, be lower than one is anticipating. I realise that there have been a lot of questions to the Minister, but we look forward to the answers.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I want to add to the comments and questions made by my noble friend Lady Harding about the potential impact of this regulatory change on horseracing. It is a very important sport, as the Minister responsible knows, and a sport that is already under considerable financial pressure, despite its tremendous popularity. There is concern about what the unintended consequences of this significant change may be, the bureaucratic burden that could be created by the extension of the CQC’s jurisdiction into event medicine and the cost, so I seek reassurance that Ministers are alive to these issues.
I want to raise a particular issue, which has also been raised by other noble Lords, about the possibility of exempting from registration the healthcare that is provided to athletes, performers and officials, as opposed to the healthcare provided to the public. I understand that that exemption exists already for treatment provided under arrangements between employers and employees, but not more widely. However, much medical provision might not be on an employer-employee basis and therefore would not be covered by the exemption. That would create an anomaly.
Ministers are of course right to draw attention to the importance of this issue, given the terrible events in the Manchester Arena nearly a decade ago, the awful loss of life and the very large numbers of people injured. But the extension of the CQC’s remit, as a consequence of the inquiry’s recommendation, was precisely to improve healthcare provision for the public. I am not aware that there was any perceived problem with healthcare provided for athletes and competitors—a much narrower group of people. That was not, of course, what the inquiry was thinking about when it proposed this extension, but the extension at the moment covers them, so there may be significant unintended consequences.
We know that one survey suggests that over a third of the doctors who currently provide medical cover for racing may not continue if required to register, because of the bureaucratic burden. There is obviously a tremendous reassurance job that has to be done, at the very least, but it seems that we also need to address the fundamental issue. I wonder whether the Minister would accept that there is a difference between the care that is provided for the public, which is what the inquiry was all about, and the arrangements for athletes and competitors, which are different and where there was not a problem that needed to be addressed. However, accepting that an event healthcare standard is a good thing, and that Ministers will look at the potential for exempting from registration healthcare provided for athletes, performers and officials on that basis, this instrument would seem to be commonsensical.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those debates where you think, “Who do I disagree with?” I am afraid that I have not disagreed with anything from anybody. As I speak for my party, it is important for me to restate that things went wrong with the treatment of the Manchester Arena disaster. We should do something about it—that would be great.
The problem here is that we seem to have gone far too wide. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked, how far down do you go when covering an event? For instance, for small rugby union clubs—my own sporting background—you are lucky if there are three men and a dog watching. That is your crowd, but a local cup game could have a couple of thousand. Where does that support structure kick in? That is something that all amateur sport will confront from time to time. This is merely the first opportunity for the Minister to correct these perceptions. We need to have some cut-off points, going from when it is enough simply to have a first-aider within earshot to when we need better medical support and structure. When that changes and how they interact is really what the discussion here is about.
When it comes to sport, please let us not do anything that stops sporting events happening. There is a fear that we will do so inadvertently by providing a greater bureaucratic burden on providing help. We hope that the Government will not do that. I hope that the Department of Health will not do something that will make the country intrinsically less healthy. That is really what we are looking at.
Let us look at other specialist events. This is not an interest, but I live in the village of Lambourn so, even if I did not want to be, I am very aware of things to do with equestrian sport and particularly races. Anything to do with horses is intrinsically dangerous; indeed, we have a rehabilitation centre for neck and back injuries in Lambourn. When it comes to racing, as my wife has often pointed out to me, there are not many events when an ambulance follows you down the course as you are taking part—so there are structures there. If something that organised is raising concerns—it is not because they want it to be there but because it has to be there—there might well be something worth listening to. We must make sure, when we deliver this, that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and that good intentions are erased out. We should go through all those things.
The Government need to start doing something to get better information out there about exactly what they are doing, where the barriers are and what will happen. A series of meetings might help—possibly with parliamentarians and certainly with larger groups—and they should get the information out quickly. It will dramatically help to let the information out in dribs and drabs—as and when they see fit as they go forward—setting out their intentions, and we will bring in stuff behind it. That way, if there is a real fault-line here, as opposed to a fear of one, we will find out. Then we can start to do something about it.
Can the Government give us something that reassures us on our worries about the extra bureaucratic burden, given that people are terrified? They are one newspaper report and a few tweets away from people having a panic about everybody being sued every time anybody gets cuts in an amateur football game. What are they doing? Where are the structures going? That is what is required here.
We all want the big events to be safer, but they will have got it wrong if they apply this to an open mic night at a pub and a Sunday league football game at the same time. We must make sure that people know where those fault-lines are. The exemption for people taking part in sports events is a no-brainer. Can we make sure that this happens and that people know about it? It is clear that they do not, at the moment, and that is a fundamental flaw in the Government’s approach.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as other noble Lords were declaring their interests, I thought, “Oh, that’s good; I have no relevant interests”. But, the last time I thought that, a number of people tweeted at me for not declaring my interests, so I will bore all noble Lords with them. I am a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham. I teach an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy. I also work with the medical school that it is starting and have started co-operating with colleagues in the Faculty of Sport, Technology and Health Sciences. I also teach at the University of Buckingham, but I have no contact with its medical school. I just wanted to touch all the bases.
I thank the Minister for setting out these draft regulations in her usual clear manner. Obviously, they arise from the tragic events of the Manchester Arena attack and the subsequent inquiry. Like other noble Lords, my heart goes out to those who were affected; we offer our condolences to the victims and their families, some of whom are probably still in a state of bereavement. Clearly, that inquiry called for a review of healthcare provision at events, as well as clearer standards for public safety, which I think everyone who has spoken is in favour of.
Most of the people who have contacted us said that they support the principle that those attending sporting and cultural events should have access to safe, high-quality medical care—there is no disagreement there—but the question before your Lordships is one not of principle but of implementation and delivery. It is right, therefore, that the detail be scrutinised carefully.
In removing the previous exemption and requiring providers of event healthcare to register with the CQC, the SI clearly extends the CQC’s regulatory remit to a sector that is complex and, in many cases, heavily reliant on volunteers and small providers. You cannot just transplant knowledge from the hospital or mental health sectors into sports events; noble Lords have referred to the range of events that would be covered. This removal, while understandable, has given rise a number of concerns—I am sure that the Minister has heard them—among, but not limited to, small organisations and volunteer-run sports clubs. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I share the concerns of the noble Lords on different Benches who have spoken. There is no disagreement here.
The department’s own impact assessment acknowledges the increased costs associated with registration and ongoing compliance, but one of my concerns arose when I saw the estimate for the registration fee. It said that, for newly regulated providers, it will be between—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt but there is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Kamall (Con)
A number of noble Lords have raised concerns, and I am going just to outline or repeat a few of them. The first is that the department’s own assessment acknowledges that the costs associated with registration and ongoing compliance are estimated, for newly regulated providers, as being between £99,400 and £994,000 per annum. They are quite accurate figures, but let me rephrase that: it could be nearly £100,000 or nearly £1 million. We know that most forecasts are wrong, but a factor of 10 is rather a wide range. I have to admit that that raises concerns about the understanding of these regulations.
But more concerning is the evidence from the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine suggesting that many clinicians working in event medicine may reconsider their involvement if these regulations are implemented as proposed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised. As other noble Lords have said, events medical providers support the principle of these regulations but warn that they could lead to a reduction in workforce capacity, with the potential unintended consequence of reducing safety. My noble friend Lord Herbert referred to that unintended consequence.
There are also concerns that, where providers withdraw from delivering this regulated medical care, events may instead have to rely on first aid provision, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords. That falls outside the scope of CQC regulation. Well-run events such as Wimbledon, Royal Ascot, the Silverstone Grand Prix and the Glastonbury Festival currently manage most medical incidents on-site. But we could see a shift away from properly staffed medical provision, which risks increasing demand on already stretched NHS services off-site.
Stakeholders, including the Sport and Recreation Alliance, have highlighted a lack of comprehensive engagement with the sector to date. Given the unique characteristics of event medicine, it is essential that any regulatory framework be developed in close consultation with those who deliver care on the ground. However, I have been told by some medical professionals that the CQC is being selective in who it wants. I was told a similar story to that told to my noble friend Lord Markham: when three or four CMOs asked for a joint meeting, the CQC person refused and insisted that they wanted to meet only one of the CMOs. When I hear this, frankly, it gives me no confidence in the CQC or its consultation process. Let me be clear: I do not use those words lightly, but the CQC should be doing proper consultation and not refusing meetings.
I recognise the efforts by the previous and the current Government and the CQC to fix its previously poor reputation. Last year, in the mental health debates, these Benches supported the Government in resisting the appointment of a separate mental health commissioner, because we agreed that the mental health part of the CQC was getting its house in order. Indeed, I met today with some people from the CQC on transitional care, and I was very impressed with them.
However, when I am told that for this regulation the CQC suggested that an additional 36 organisations would require registration, compared to an estimated 25,000 in the survey by the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine, this, as my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Markham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, said, demonstrates a massive gap in understanding that needs to be addressed. Once again, I am sorry when I say this, but it gives the impression of the CQC being out of its depth.
I am sorry if that is not exactly the ringing endorsement that the Minister was hoping for, but I also know that she has been willing in the past to meet to discuss legislation, and we have worked constructively together in the time we have both been on our respective Front Benches. So, in that constructive spirit, I will make three suggestions, which in fact touch upon those that that were made by other noble Lords.
First, we need to see meaningful CQC engagement with sector representatives, our national governing boards, the chief medical officers in sports groups, the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine and the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care to ensure that any inspection framework is sector-specific and not simply lifted from the hospital sector. Imposing a CQC regulatory framework suitable for hospitals is inappropriate for pop-up clinics at park runs, cycle races or pitch-side at rugby. Let us be frank: the CQC does not have any existing knowledge of working in these sectors at that level, and it should be listening rather than seeking to impose.
Secondly, we should consider expanding the current employer/employee CQC exemption to athletes, performers and officials whose healthcare providers meet strict occupational health standards regardless of the patient’s contractual arrangement, as other noble Lords suggested.
Thirdly, although I understand that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns about the time taken to bring forward these regulations, given that the CQC is not exactly inspiring confidence from those who organise sports and other events, could the Government possibly ask the CQC to wait until the event healthcare standard being led by the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care has been published? In addition, if and when it becomes apparent that the CQC has indeed underestimated the size of this and the cost to the sector, would they be prepared to perhaps extend that December 27 deadline, if appropriate?
However, really to emphasise the point that the Government are listening, I know we have asked for individual meetings, but a much better suggestion would be a round table with interested noble Lords, with the relevant Minister from the department—obviously we would love to have the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, there as we always enjoy her consultations— and the CQC, so it can stop being selective about who it speaks with and can actually listen to CMOs and other medical experts from across the sector. They are not doing this to score points; none of us is doing this for that reason. We agree with the principle, and we want this to work, whichever party and whichever Bench we work on, but we are concerned that the CQC’s approach will lead to the unintended consequence of the withdrawal of appropriate medical provision at these services.
It is quite clear that all noble Lords support the goal of improving public safety at events. All noble Lords have heard the concerns from public events medical experts, and all noble Lords hope that the Minister has listened to their concerns and will agree to the modest requests they have made in today’s debate.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today. I will make a few general points.
I very much welcome the points and the concerns that noble Lords have been willing to outline. I also want to acknowledge that I have heard the understanding of why we are doing this. I know that we all understand the intent, and I understand the numerous questions— I make that as a comment, not as any criticism—trying to understand the workability. I very much welcome them. What I take from this debate and what I will share with Minister Ahmed as the Minister for Patient Safety is that clearly there is considerable concern. To refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about fault lines, I think this is about fear of fault lines, but even fear of fault lines is fear enough, so I absolutely take that point.
Let me say at the outset that, if noble Lords had not asked for it, I would have suggested having a round table for interested Peers. It will indeed include officials from the department and the CQC. Ministerially, because it is Peers, I would want to be there in any case. I am sure that Minister Ahmed would want to be there too, but my anxiety is to get on with the meeting, so I will happily have a discussion with him, but I certainly want to be there. If noble Lords remain concerned about a lot of the points, we can tease them out there.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful for the offer of further discussions and a round table, but there are several numbers relating to the number of providers that might be anticipated to require registration. We keep coming back to this figure of 36 in the impact assessment, but I do not understand exactly who those providers are. For example, I imagined it would probably be football clubs but it turns out that it is not. Who are they exactly?
The Minister and the department in their impact assessment have moved from that figure of 36, which presumably had some substance, to a guess of somewhere between 100 and 1,000, which, as my noble friend said, is a very high degree of uncertainty. I still do not know—if there were to be as many as 1,000—who these providers are and how many, for example, would be small charitable organisations or small, sporting voluntary organisations for which £1,000 is not a small matter.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I can add to that. What is the process for notifying those who will come under this regulation? That would be helpful to know as well.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
If I may add to the list of questions, I think it might be helpful for the Minister to explain how the decisions over the size relate to the Purple Guide that the Health and Safety Executive produced, because I understand from page 114 of volume 2 of the Manchester Arena inquiry report that the Purple Guide for an event of that size set things out quite clearly, but was not adhered to at all. I have a slight concern from the responses that we have had that we may have two completely separate things going on. The Minister may not be able to answer that now, but it would be helpful in this meeting that we are all anticipating if there is a cross-reference to the Purple Guide and if the discussions could include how that would impact and be used by the CQC in regulating.
Lord Markham (Con)
If I may, I hope this may be helpful: the confusion that I have heard is over whether a doctor, for a CQC registration at their GP surgery, can use that to volunteer on a point-to-point racecourse, as an example, or whether they have to separately register with the CQC to be a volunteer on the racecourse and pay the £1,000. Again, if that comes in the letter, that is fine, but that is one of the main points of confusion.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On all these areas, as I said, I am happy to meet with noble Lords in person. To be honest, I think that that would be more helpful, not least because we are talking about scenarios and we have a note of the questions that noble Lords are raising. I would be delighted to go through them. Again, in the responses today, I am probably going to be repeating some of what I said earlier and I am not sure that that will take us forward, so I would rather that we held those points for a meeting, if noble Lords are agreeable.
With that, I thank noble Lords. This has been a very valuable debate. It shows the work that needs to be done and we will be pleased to do that. I thank all noble Lords for their considered contributions and support of the principle of why we are here.
Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I ask that the Committee considers two statutory instruments made under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023: first, the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026; and, secondly, the Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the UK’s capital framework remains agile and responsive for banks and investment firms. I will first set out the context in which this legislation is being delivered.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 revoked assimilated law in the UK related to financial services, to bring it in line with the UK’s domestic model of regulation. The UK’s domestic model—the Financial Services and Markets Act model—was first established through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That model prioritises the setting of regulatory standards by expert, independent regulators, working within an overall policy framework set by the Government and Parliament. This approach maximises the use of expertise in the policy-making process by allowing regulators with day-to-day experience of supervising financial services firms to bring their real-world experience into the design of regulatory standards. It also allows regulators to flex and update those standards to ensure that regulation responds to emerging developments.
One area of financial services regulation where the Financial Services and Markets Act model will apply is capital requirements regulation. Capital requirements regulation is an existing body of assimilated law that covers the detailed and technical capital rules that apply to credit institutions, such as banks and building societies, and larger investment firms. Applying the Financial Services and Markets Act model in this area means replacing the existing capital requirements regulation in three ways.
First, some of it is being replaced by rules set by the Prudential Regulation Authority. This includes rules in relation to Basel 3.1, the final set of post-crisis reforms designed to strengthen the resilience of the UK banking system. Secondly, provisions relating to prudential equivalence, also contained in the capital requirements regulation, are being replaced by a new overseas prudential requirements regime in legislation. Thirdly, important definitions in the capital requirements regulation are being restated in new legislation because they are essential for ensuring that the system of prudential regulation continues to operate as intended.
The statutory instruments that we are debating relate to the first and third of these areas: the replacement of rules by the Prudential Regulation Authority, specifically in respect of Basel 3.1, and the restatement of key definitions in the existing capital requirements regulation. They do not relate to the new overseas prudential requirements regime, which will be legislated for separately.
The first statutory instrument that I will address is the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. The sole purpose of this instrument is to restate important definitions from the existing capital requirements regulation in law. For example, the definition of what constitutes an investment firm is being restated so that it remains in legislation, rather than being defined by the Prudential Regulation Authority rulebook. This is necessary to ensure that the Government and Parliament remain in control of what activities should be regulated.
This instrument does not introduce new regulatory requirements, neither does it make any substantive change to the scope or effect of the definitions being restated. Its purpose is simply to maintain legal continuity and ensure that the prudential framework continues to operate as intended, as we complete the move to the Financial Services and Markets Act model.
I turn to the second statutory instrument, the Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. This instrument relates to the first part of the capital requirements regulation reform process—namely, the replacement of certain capital requirements regulations with rules set by the Prudential Regulation Authority, specifically in respect of Basel 3.1. Most of the work to deliver Basel 3.1 has already been completed and, following extensive consultation, the Prudential Regulation Authority has published the new rules that will apply to credit institutions and larger investment firms. These rules will ensure that the UK banking system is well capitalised, while protecting the ability of firms within scope to support economic growth, including the ability to provide finance to small businesses and infrastructure projects.
The UK remains committed to the full and consistent adoption of the Basel reforms. The Prudential Regulation Authority intends to implement most of the new Basel 3.1 rules from 1 January 2027, which will give UK-focused firms the regulatory certainty that they need to plan for the future and invest in the real economy. The timing of implementation in other major jurisdictions, however, remains unclear, particularly for certain market-risk requirements affecting banks that use internal models. This is particularly relevant for internationally active firms with cross-border trading activity. Implementing those specific requirements in the UK ahead of clarity elsewhere risks causing unnecessary operational complexity for internationally active firms, including the need to run different systems and processes in parallel across jurisdictions.
That is why the Government, in conjunction with the Prudential Regulation Authority, have decided to build in flexibility to the UK’s approach. The Government announced last year that implementation of new international model market risk requirements—the element of Basel 3.1 that will most affect the ability of UK banks to compete in international markets—will be delayed until 1 January 2028.
This instrument gives effect to that approach by disapplying the updated international model market risk rules during the transitional period from 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027. During that period, firms will continue to apply the existing requirements. This will apply only to a small number of internationally active firms. This limited delay will allow the UK to flex the new internal model requirements for market risk, should that prove necessary, to ensure that the UK remains competitive with other major jurisdictions.
The instrument also provides the Treasury with the ability to extend the transitional period by making further regulations if international developments warrant it. Any such extension would be time-limited, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and used only if necessary to respond to material international developments.
These statutory instruments are limited in scope and carefully targeted. They restate important provisions in the capital requirements regulation which need to remain on the statute book to ensure that the system of prudential regulation continues to operate as intended. They also enable a flexible and pragmatic approach to Basel 3.1 implementation, minimising disruption and protecting the competitiveness of UK firms while uncertainty over implementation remains in other jurisdictions.
Taken together, these limited changes will help to deliver an agile and responsive prudential regime for banks and investment firms. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the definition of a statutory instrument is very technical, and I frankly have nothing to add to it. The capital requirements SI, in that it provides the temporary flexibility to see how other jurisdictions will behave, seems understandable and we on these Benches oppose neither. However, I have some questions for the Minister on the changes that underlie these SIs.
The Minister will know that undue risk taken in their trading activities by internationally active institutions played a significant role in the depth and complexity of the 2007-08 crash and the economic stagnation that followed. I have always been concerned that the regulators will be persuaded by their competitiveness and growth objective to relax the risk requirements on this sector, and these SIs seem to confirm that that is indeed the direction of travel. Am I right?
The finance industry, which is keen to get profits from risk so long as the losses fall on taxpayers, has certainly been calling for scope to take more risk, always assuring us that its genius means that risk is not really risk. The Treasury is strongly encouraging risk-taking in the name of growth, but its view is very short-termist and again there is very little understanding of the way in which risk takes impact.
This SI refers constantly to competitiveness with other jurisdictions, particularly the US and the EU. What assurances can the Minister give me that we have not now entered the world of the lowest common denominator, which of course has been the greatest fear of many of us as we have seen regulation continuously softened?
Some I have talked to have said that the regulator is easing capital requirements, as this SI illustrates, to help the big conventional institutions counter the surge in private credit as the lesser of two evils. Is that correct? Some have said that the reduction in the risk requirement is to counter the pressures that will flow from the EU capital requirements directive 6, which could significantly restrict the ability of non-EU banks to provide core banking services to EU clients from outside the EU, thereby encouraging the further relocation of operations and staff from London to EU locations. Is it correct that this is an anticipative countermeasure to what the Treasury sees coming?
Others are saying that President Trump’s determination to significantly deregulate US banks and financial activities means that we have to enter and accept an era of high-risk banking and serious financial volatility. I am very cautious when the risk profile of British banking is set by President Trump’s definition of what is risk and what is not, but is it the view of the UK Government and regulators that we have to adjust to be competitive with President Trump’s perspective on what risk should be undertaken in the financial sector? I am most concerned that increases in risk across the piece in the financial sector are not being acknowledged and are consequently treated with complacency. The various protections that we have in place are partial, many of them are untested and even those that do exist are consistently being undermined. Does the Minister share my anxiety?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, these instruments are being taken together and I shall address them accordingly in the light of the helpful introduction by the Minister. However, before turning to the specific provisions, I would like to raise some broader questions about the Government’s approach to financial services regulation.
First, on the matter of dynamic alignment with the European Union, there has been considerable speculation about whether the Government intend to pursue closer regulatory alignment with the EU in financial services. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the Government’s position on this. My understanding is that the City itself has moved away from enthusiasm for dynamic alignment, recognising that regulatory autonomy, properly exercised, offers competitive advantages that should not be lightly surrendered. There is also the important point about regulatory uncertainty, which the Minister mentioned and which we all know stifles growth and deters investment. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether dynamic alignment remains under active consideration in this area and, if so, in what form?
Secondly and relatedly, on progress with EU-related regulatory changes, the Government have previously indicated certain commitments regarding implementation timelines for their reforms. Can the Minister update the Committee on whether these commitments are being maintained and the proportion of EU-derived legislation that has already been replaced, and give some indication of the timescales involved?
I turn to the instruments themselves, which are technical but important for the direction of travel. The first instrument provides transitional relief for the new market risk internal model framework, inserting a one-year pause before full implementation, for reasons that the Minister has set out. The second instrument restates and domesticates EU capital requirements regulation definitions into UK statute, addressing what would otherwise be a gap when existing EU-derived definitions fall away.
I have several questions for the Minister, some of which come from a slightly different perspective to those from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. On the definitional instrument, any process of transposition carries some risk that meanings shift in translation. Has any assessment been made of that risk? Have the PRA and FCA reviewed the new definitions from an operational standpoint to identify any areas where domesticated versions could give rise to interpretive uncertainty?
On the transitional instrument, the fact that it is necessary at all implies something concerning about the readiness of firms, the complexity of the new framework or both. The Minister also mentioned developments overseas, but can he confirm whether the new market risk framework, once fully in force, will represent a material increase in compliance burdens? He will know that this is something I am always concerned about. What concrete steps are being taken during 2027 to ensure that firms will genuinely be ready for full implementation, other than finding themselves reaching for another transitional instrument in 12 months’ time?
I should also like to know how much additional regulatory capital banks are likely to have to hold under the new rules, when they are finally implemented. Last year, the Financial Policy Committee concluded— I thought, helpfully—that overall bank capital levels could be 1% lower. Did the FPC take the trading book changes we are discussing into account?
On the questions of regulatory capacity, is there a risk of a bottleneck in the PRA’s model approval process? Has the PRA assessed its own readiness to manage applications without that becoming a practical choke point? Alternatively, and if the answer to that is reassuring, is it because, given the complexity, only big banks with big trading desks will opt for model approval under FTRB?
Turning to broader international comparisons, how does the UK’s implementation timeline approach to approvals compare with other major jurisdictions? If our framework proves materially more demanding than equivalent regimes elsewhere, there is a genuine risk of competitive disadvantage in global wholesale markets.
I heard from some involved that our regulators feel good about implementing international rules, while the US—and, indeed, the EU—are less driven to comply quickly or in detail. Can the Minister give the Committee his assessment of where the UK stands in relation to its peers and reiterate his commitment to growth in financial services, which he mentioned in his introductory remarks?
Finally, on the power to extend the transitional period, can the Minister set out the criteria by which the Treasury would judge whether an extension is warranted and what signals would prompt the Government to consider using that power? The Minister said that it would be time-limited and used only if necessary, but I am not quite sure what that means.
The integrity of our prudential supervisory framework depends on sound legal foundations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has always emphasised. These instruments appear to address that, but technical competence is not the same as strategic direction. As we build out a domestically rooted regulatory framework, the question of whether that framework is orientated toward competitiveness and growth, and not merely toward prudential conservatism, becomes pressing.
I was glad to hear the Minister mention both growth and the importance of SMEs, but the Committee will no doubt recall the report published by the Financial Services Regulation Committee on this subject and the good debate it prompted in Grand Committee, for which the Minister was sadly unable to be present. As several of us stated, the regulators are still too risk-averse and their culture needs to change. The report by that respected committee found that the competitiveness and growth objectives were “work in progress”.
In conclusion, is the Minister able to tell us how the Government are keeping up pressure on the regulators on these important objectives, and perhaps provide some live examples of what they are actually doing on competitiveness and growth?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their extensive questions on these relatively modest SIs. I have some answers to the questions posed by the noble Baronesses. I do not have all the answers but I will, of course, write with the answers that I do not have to hand.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked me, as we have debated many times in the past, about risk and growth. She knows my position on this. We are not undermining many of the incredibly important elements of a system that were put in place post financial crash. We are, though, seeking to tilt the system slightly more towards growth and away from regulating purely for risk.
The noble Baroness asked whether this was a race to the bottom to the lowest common denominator and whether we were undermining the strength of standards in the UK regulations. Of course, as she knows, it is an asset to the UK that the PRA is a global leader in promoting strong international standards, having played an important role in developing the Basel standards and now implementing those standards in the UK. The UK’s priority for Basel implementation has always been aligned implementation across the major jurisdictions, in particular the US. The UK is pressing ahead with implementation, as it has committed to do, while putting in place transitional measures to reduce operational complexity while the US finalises its approach.
The uncertainty surrounding the US implementation of Basel 3.1, particularly in relation to the market risk elements of their package, meant that a UK implementation date of 1 January 2027 would be materially out of line. Therefore, the decision was taken to delay the UK’s implementation of the market risk rules for new internal models to facilitate alignment of implementation dates as much as possible.
The noble Baroness asked whether we were adjusting to President Trump’s perspective. I do not believe that is the case at all. She asked me about delaying Basel to defend against CRD VI. The Treasury is aware of developments relating to Article 21c and is monitoring the position. The Treasury engages regularly with EU counterparts on a range of financial services and banking regulatory matters. Strengthening our relationships with international partners, including the EU, is a key focus of the Government’s financial services growth and competitiveness strategy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked me initially about dynamic alignment with the EU. She will know that much of the commentary at the moment is speculation about the forthcoming King’s Speech, and I am obviously not going to comment on what may or may not be contained in it. Specifically on financial services and alignment with the EU, the UK is not directly linking our implementation with that of the EU. The UK has published its Basel package and continues to plan to implement a Basel package that aligns with international standards by 1 January 2030. However, if any jurisdiction releases proposals that may have a material impact on the competitiveness of the UK financial services sector, we will work closely with the PRA to address these impacts as needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about definitions and whether they may be changed in any way. We consulted on the legislation at Mansion House last year and sought views from industry and the regulators to ensure that the effect of the definitions remained the same, and no issues were raised throughout that process. The noble Baroness also asked me about increasing admin burdens from market risk rules. The PRA has designed its Basel package to result in an overall capital level that remains stable and will be no more complex to comply with.
The noble Baroness also asked me how the PRA is ensuring that its model approval is effective. The PRA’s work is obviously supported by the Government. We support what it is doing to develop a more responsive and agile approach to banks, using its own internal risk models for capital requirements. This in turn could help improve competition and lending in a mortgage market, allowing banks to invest more into the UK. In March, the PRA set out changes to its approval processes for firms with existing models, including enhanced pre-application engagement, to help resolve difficult issues before formal submission, dedicated submission slots and a commitment to complete quality checks within four weeks and review complete applications within six months.
The noble Baroness also asked me about how UK banks will prepare for implementation. The UK has published proposals for Basel 3.1 which strengthen the resilience of our banking system and deliver the certainty banks need to finance investment and growth in the UK. This announcement is a positive example of the UK’s FSMA model of regulation, providing a package tailored to UK needs and a clear plan for implementation, giving banks the certainty they need to plan and invest for the long term.
The noble Baroness also asked me to restate my commitment to growth in financial services; I am more than happy to do that. I am aware that both noble Baronesses asked me a couple more questions that I do not have answers to immediately, but I promise I will write on the specifics of those. In the meantime, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument has two objectives. The first is to amend Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority more flexibility to grant exemptions to the basic regulation. The second is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable further legislation later this year in order to bring the UK into line with international requirements on how far aircraft can operate from diversion airports.
This instrument was originally laid before Parliament in January this year as a negative procedure statutory instrument, in accordance with the procedures set out in the retained EU law Act 2023. Following scrutiny by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments during the sift, the Transport Committee recommended that this instrument be relaid as an affirmative SI. The Government accepted that recommendation, and the instrument was relaid as an affirmative SI in January.
During that sift, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about how genuinely exceptional exemptions to Article 71 would be, given the suggestion that they would be used to facilitate day-to-day activities, and the JCSI raised a concern that
“the changes proposed by this instrument could represent a significant diminution of existing regulatory protections”.
Once the instrument had been relaid, the SLSC reiterated its original concerns and the JCSI had no comments. I will go into the detail of the amendments and then address those concerns.
Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation sets out the conditions under which the Civil Aviation Authority may grant an exemption to the basic regulation for an applicant. A legacy of EU legislation, the existing wording of the law means that the CAA can grant an exception in only two possible scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances, and urgent operational needs. This means that the CAA cannot issue exemptions for foreseeable circumstances with no urgent operational need, such as festivals or testing drones—consider, for example, the Formula 1 races at Silverstone, which handle around 1,000 helicopters over four days.
Under the assimilated aviation law, which is a legacy of the UK’s membership of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency—the EASA—all the basic requirements of the basic regulation would need to be met. This legislation was developed with the requirements of airports providing a permanent service in mind; such requirements are disproportionate for a short event. Currently, the CAA cannot grant exemptions for these events because they are yearly, predictable and foreseeable, even though granting an exemption would clearly enhance safety.
In addition, this amendment will allow the CAA to grant exemptions to businesses in order to enable the testing of new and innovative technologies. Today, that is difficult because many of the requirements of Article 71 do not take into account future developments in technology, such as testing “beyond visual line of sight” drone flights in airspace that is not separated from regular air traffic. The existing rules were made before current “beyond visual line of sight” developments, and it is difficult for the CAA to grant exemptions specifically for testing as testing is usually neither urgent nor unforeseeable. By enabling exemptions to be granted beyond urgent operational needs or urgent unforeseeable circumstances, the UK aviation sector will be able to trial and test new technologies more easily.
As the UK has now left both the European Union and the EASA, the Government are now able to amend Article 71 to give the CAA more flexibility to support safety and innovation. The CAA has developed a robust framework to ensure that exemptions granted under Article 71 will not degrade safety. Each request will be risk assessed by the CAA’s aviation safety experts and will be granted only if they believe that the exemption will maintain a high standard of safety and there is no other way of achieving the same goal. The CAA will examine each request individually, and just because the request has been granted once, it will not then set a precedent for future exemptions.
These criteria are deliberately strict, ensuring that the CAA considers the existing protection requirements for aircraft noise, fuel venting and engine emissions, whether decisions are non-discriminatory, the creation of unreasonable working conditions or safety risks, and whether exemptions support public protection and broader aerospace development. This means that while exemptions will be given for day-to-day activities such as testing, each exemption will still be exceptional. The CAA’s framework will ensure that each request is scrutinised and granted only if applicants can demonstrate high levels of aviation safety, as well as setting out a path to future full regulatory compliance. Regulatory protections will remain and my officials will continue to work closely with the CAA to oversee how the new exemption process is used.
I note that during the consultation, 42 of the 51 respondents supported the amendments to Article 71. One respondent, Unite the Union, raised concerns that exemptions might be granted on a regular basis, particularly where such exemptions could weaken the working conditions of crew onboard aircraft. I assure noble Lords that exemptions will be granted only where a high level of safety can be assured, and the CAA must and will carefully consider the impact of exemptions on working conditions.
I turn to the second objective of this SI, which is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable amendments later this year, which will allow operators of two-engine aircraft more flexibility in how far they operate from diversion airports. Operators of aircraft with more than two engines will now also need to consider their distance from diversion airports. This change will bring the UK into line with international requirements. These amendments could not be introduced without removing the criminal sanction, as the powers needed to amend provisions with criminal sanctions are contained in the retained EU law Act, which expires in June this year. The Civil Aviation Authority has never brought a prosecution under this provision, and I am confident that it already has sufficient regulatory tools to ensure compliance without relying on a criminal offence—for instance, by revoking approvals to fly extended diversion time operations or by limiting operators’ air operator certificates.
On the wider powers gap issue in relation to criminal sanctions, the Government are aware of the powers gap. We are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill the gap, and we are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows—I await with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. I beg to move.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the Minister mentioned, has looked at this and suggested that the House may wish to seek assurances from the Minister regarding the use of exemptions. In the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday, the Minister said:
“I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]
The issue that I wish to question the Minister on is the capacity of the CAA to handle the various applications. Will he also address the issue of the testing by companies of new products, either aircraft or drones? We know of public events where there are a large number of helicopter flights coming in—golf tournaments, for example; I do not know whether Glastonbury has a lot of helicopter traffic—and I presume that these are covered by this sort of thing.
Without wishing to see things kept overly tight, particularly when we would like to see and encourage companies to develop new products—after all, this country has a tried and tested record of innovation in the aviation sector—the question is: who is overseeing the overseers in this case? I presume it has to be the CAA and the Department for Transport, ultimately, but is there sufficient capacity? Does the Minister expect an increase in these applications, or will it be only short term? If he does, is the capacity there and is his department sufficiently well organised to oversee that process?
The issue, I presume, comes down to the definition of “exceptional”. The Minister in the other place said:
“The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by ‘exceptional’. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]
He went on to give some examples.
This is a fairly straightforward regulation, but whenever regulations change there is always the risk that the organisation overseeing them may not be as fully prepared as we would like. I perfectly understand the Minister’s position on the powers that have not been used; it seems that there are alternative ways of dealing with those matters without having to regulate any further.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, these regulations will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to exempt industry from certain safety requirements to allow for such things as greater research and development, as well as allowing increased air traffic control for one-off major events with increased air traffic. I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing with his officials, who answered my questions and provided clarity on a number of matters. I was really pleased to read the CAA exemption policy, which makes it clear that:
“When considering whether or not to issue an exemption, the CAA’s starting point will be that the requirements exist for good reasons and exemptions should therefore be exceptional. We will only issue an exemption on the basis of this Policy if to do so will maintain a high standard of safety, having regard to the safety of all aircraft, crew, passengers and persons on the ground”.
I was also pleased to hear the Minister’s assurance regarding risk assessments. Those points should assure us all.
We on these Benches support greater research and development in aviation, which these changes will allow. The regulations will allow the CAA to issue more exemptions, although within those safeguards, around trialling new aircraft and testing uncrewed aircraft or new fuel types and technology. In recent years, we have seen rapid developments in aviation technology, particularly in uncrewed aircraft. It is important that the UK is not left behind, but it will be essential that the CAA does not overuse these increased powers. Therefore, my only question for the Minister is: could he clarify what criteria have been drawn up by the department to set clear guardrails for how the CAA can use these powers and then report on their use?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for arranging a short briefing for me yesterday on this measure, which I found very helpful. That was a useful thing to do and I thank him.
The substance of this statutory instrument is not terribly interesting. We could go on about whether the CAA could be trusted to do its job, and exactly how you might define exemptions, but these issues have been raised in the course of debate; there is no point in my belabouring them. Generally speaking, I trust the CAA to do the job that it has done so well for so many years. I do not see any reason to think that it will go wild and start indulging in or approving unsafe practices in the near future.
I think that there are more interesting things about this statutory instrument that relate to its circumstances. The first circumstance that we want to take account of is the EU reset. The third clause of this instrument—the second operative clause in this instrument—is undoubtedly a Brexit benefit. It is a relaxation of regulation that could not be brought about had we remained a member of the European Union. The Minister has said this. I am not making a controversial point. We are doing this in a context where the Government have said, without any mandate, that they want to align our laws with the European Union, making us subject to laws that they make without any consideration of what the benefits might be for us. These advantages that we are getting today by passing this statutory instrument could be yanked away at any moment in the next year or so as the reset starts to bite.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, quoted the Minister in the other place in two respects, and because he quoted him, I do not feel I need to add to either of the things that he said in this Committee this afternoon.
On the question about testing how the Civil Aviation Authority assures itself that operators are acting safely, I have faith in the Civil Aviation Authority. This would not have come forward, fundamentally, if the Civil Aviation Authority was not confident that it was capable of overseeing the changing regulations that are being proposed today. It oversees and audits approval holders and individuals granted privileges, as set out in the regulation. That includes monitoring the effectiveness of organisations’ quality and safety management systems. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to the policy framework for assessing requests for exemptions, which she helpfully asked for during the briefing that she referred to. The Civil Aviation Authority will seek clear justification, demonstrating compliance with the new policy, supported by a robust and documented safety risk assessment, showing that high safety standards can be maintained.
The Civil Aviation Authority is overseen by the department through the State Safety Board, which is a formal body. In addition, my officials maintain a good working relationship with the UK’s independent regulator, the CAA, which is responsible for enforcing all the aviation safety regulations. As I say, I am very confident that the Civil Aviation Authority has the resources to carry out what this statutory instrument is seeking to do. Of course, it has the option of rejecting applications if it cannot resource looking at individuals.
I believe I have answered the point about policy raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. She also raised the question about reporting on actions that have been taken by the CAA. The CAA will publish details of general exemptions applied to defined classes, such as all operators involved in short-term events. It will not publish all exemptions due to concerns about exposing commercially sensitive information for technical developments. I can see the noble Baroness nodding, and I am sure that that is right, because it will also have a duty of protecting people’s commercial positions.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the European Union reset. These powers would only be changed if we joined the EASA, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, which is the organisation I previously referred to. We would have to have rejoined that to make a change to these powers again. I am not aware of any proposal to rejoin the European Union Aviation Safety Agency as part of the reset, which is why we are bringing this forward today.
The noble Lord referred to the gap in powers. I already said that I am awaiting with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. He will be aware that this first parliamentary session has been a long one, so the Government need to take the opportunity of putting forward legislation when they can. I cannot say any more about that, but I do not think that he will find that the gap in powers is quite the terrible thing that he describes.
The noble Lord lastly referred to the reorganisation of the Department for Transport. Today I have signed off an Answer to a Written Parliamentary Question from the other place. There is a reorganisation; a number of people have not moved to join Network Rail—they have moved to join DfT Operator as a precursor to the radical programme of railway reform that the Government put in their manifesto and have committed themselves to. That still leaves—and the Answer to the Parliamentary Question will say so in the other place—no less than 477 people who work on railway policy and HS2. We are not leaving the department bereft of people. I expect that number may go down over time as reform is finished, but that has no effect on the rest of the department, and there is no suggestion in that change that the department is making any change which will affect its capabilities in supervising aviation or the Civil Aviation Authority.
For any question that I have failed to answer or to which I have not given a sufficient answer, I am happy to write as soon as possible. In conclusion, the safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for the Government. The Government are committed to ensuring that we maintain our exemplary record for aviation safety; these regulations represent a further step in doing so. I beg to move.
Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the Committee to consider these three instruments together today: the Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026, the Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026 and the Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
These statutory instruments were laid before this House on 25 February 2026 under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. If approved, the Department for Work and Pensions will transfer adult education functions and the associated adult skills fund to these local areas for the start of the new academic year, 1 August 2026. These local areas will then have the freedom to use their adult skills fund to help their residents meet their skills needs, fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region.
Since 2018, a portion of the adult skills fund has been devolved to local bodies, which have exercised control over that spending in their area. For the most part, these organisations have been combined authorities, although functions and funding were devolved at Cornwall Council one year ago.
In March 2024, the previous Government agreed devolution deals with the three local authorities we are considering today. Those deals, taken forward by this Government, committed to full devolution of the adult education budget, now called the adult skills fund. This was to be exercised from the academic year 2026-27, subject to readiness conditions and parliamentary approval. It has been judged that all three authorities have demonstrated readiness to acquire functions; therefore, these instruments are the final step in ensuring that they are able to deliver from August this year.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will confer the same functions on strategic authorities, to be exercised from at least one full academic year after the authority’s establishment. The package of these instruments, and that Bill, will increase the percentage of the adult skills fund that is devolved from 67% to 76%.
Six further areas agreed devolution deals through this Government’s devolution priority programme. The Government are going through the legislative process to form these areas, with the intention that they deliver adult education functions from August 2027, subject to ministerial approval. Taken together, these actions deliver on the Government’s commitment to empower local leaders and unlock growth.
The specific adult education functions being transferred to these three local areas are under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and will be exercisable by these local authorities. These SIs transfer three specific duties set out in the 2009 Act from the Secretary of State to each local authority. These duties are: Section 86, which places a duty to secure appropriate facilities for education for individuals aged 19 or over, excluding those under 25 with an education, health and care plan; Section 87, which places a duty on the authority to secure the provision of facilities for adults who lack particular skills to obtain relevant qualifications; and Section 88, which places a duty on the authority to ensure that these courses of study are free for eligible learners. The duties above, solely exercisable by the local authority, are subject to an exception in relation to apprenticeships training, persons subject to adult detention or any power to make regulations or orders.
The SIs also confer other powers and duties on each local authority to be exercisable concurrently with the Secretary of State. These are also set out in the 2009 Act and are: Section 90, the duty to encourage participation in education and training for persons aged 19 or over; Section 100(1), provision of financial resources, which is the general funding power for the adult skills fund; and Section 100(1B), provision of financial resources in connection with technical education.
The adult skills fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. Local areas are best placed to identify what their local people, communities and businesses need. Strategic authorities decide how they spend their funding to deliver opportunity and growth in their area, and they will be able to respond in a more agile way to local priorities and emerging challenges, and address barriers more effectively.
Local areas can apply the flexibility that devolved adult skills funding offers to identify adults in their region who are most in need and invest more funding to support those groups, to work directly with employers, training providers and other local partners to commission new provision to meet local needs, and to set funding rates that incentivise delivery of provision that offers the most positive impacts for their region. Within this local flexibility, strategic authorities must offer free courses for adults to deliver national statutory entitlements in English, maths, digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for those who do not yet have those skills, and free courses for jobs. This funding provides an essential stepping stone for adults with the lowest skills.
I recognise that the nature of skills challenges and the solutions will be different in every region. That is why I am pleased that three new areas are poised to take the opportunities and to develop new thinking and priorities for the adult skills fund in their areas. If the draft statutory instruments are approved, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire will be responsible for managing their adult skills funding allocation efficiently and effectively to deliver for their local residents. The DfE and the DWP have worked closely with each area over the last two years to ensure that they are ready to take on these functions and have provided implementation funding to help them to prepare effectively and support a smooth transition.
Each area has consented to the transfer of these powers and the making of these statutory instruments. They have also provided assurances that a permanent skills team is in place to manage delivery effectively. They have each developed a strategic skills plan setting out how they will use their devolved adult skills funding to meet key priorities, and I can confirm that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, Ministers have concluded that the statutory tests have been met. Each area has given its consent and demonstrated that devolution is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of people who live and work in the region, and a report has been laid before Parliament explaining how these conditions have been met.
To support future devolution and identify best practice, the Department for Work and Pensions will continue to hold constructive conversations with existing strategic authorities, other local areas and our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on how devolution can help to shape future skills provision to meet local needs. I take this opportunity to thank all our partner organisations, particularly colleagues at Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council, for their expertise and input in getting to this important milestone.
These statutory instruments will give those three authorities the opportunity to shape their adult education provision, address local barriers, focus provision to meet local needs, enhance economic growth and bring greater prosperity to their areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us that introduction. It is nice to have her back, and I hope she is fully recovered. The most pedantic thing I could think to say is that the Minister said Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire but the regulations are in a different order on the Order Paper, which says Warwickshire, Surrey and Buckinghamshire.
Having got that out of the way, my main question is this: we are in a situation where we are reforming local government involving different groups. Could she give us a slightly better idea, as I may have missed this in her initial statement, of how this actually transfers? Which authorities are expected to take it on once the county councils change? That is something that I would like to hear because it would give us an idea of what is going on. I remember from when we discussed this that the idea is that authorities will respond to local needs in their training. I had reservations because I am not quite sure how you define that, who should be moving on and what the structure will be, but that is for another day. Could we have an idea of which group will be taking charge after we have had the changes to local government?
I do not really have any other fundamental objections to these instruments, but I will add that the Minister spoke about those with low attainment. I wonder if one day I will get up in a debate on education and not mention special educational needs—I suppose it is quite possible—but what about identification of those who would benefit from this support and structure in acquiring these local resources? Do we have any development plans for it? That is a speculative question. If the Minister has any information that could be sent to me then I would be grateful to receive it, and if she has it now then I would be grateful to hear it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on these regulations, which transfer adult education functions to Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire councils from the 2026-27 academic year and, as the Minister said, from 1 August 2026. I am very grateful for the detail that the Minister has given in setting out these measures.
The principle of devolution in adult skills is well-established and enjoys cross-party support. Bringing decisions closer to local labour markets and employers makes intuitive sense and these regulations build on that foundation. I do not oppose them; indeed, this policy is in line with the principle that we established during our time in government of devolving the adult skills budget. However, I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance on a number of points.
First, on funding, the Department for Education has cut the adult education budget by 60% for this academic year. Devolution is of limited value if it simply transfers responsibility without the resources to deliver. I know that the Minister gave some details on this, but can she confirm the indicative allocations for these authorities and explain how the Government will ensure that funding keeps pace with local demand? What data will the Government collect on devolved adult skills fund money spend and how this is being translated into outcomes? I am aware that industry experts have expressed some concerns about this.
Secondly, on accountability, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised this point, but I want to go a little bit further. One of the long-standing concerns with devolved skills funding is the absence of consistent comparable outcome data. Will the Government commit to publishing performance information at local authority level across both devolved and non-devolved areas so that Parliament and the public can assess whether the model is actually working? Can the Minister please tell us more about the lines of accountability and reporting? Who will have oversight of how adult education services in these authorities are performing, and how often will they be kept abreast of outcomes?
Thirdly, on structural stability, Surrey County Council is due to be abolished in 2027. Warwickshire is expected to be reorganised in 2028. The Government have indicated that functions will transfer to successor bodies, but I would welcome further clarity on the providers during this period of change. I know the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised this issue. To go further, what safeguards are in place to protect learners and providers during this period? More broadly, why have the Government chosen to devolve these powers to local authorities now on the eve of their abolition?
Finally, on coherence, with some areas now holding devolved powers and others not, there is a real risk of a patchwork system emerging with uneven provision, inconsistent entitlements and fragmented oversight. How do the Government intend to maintain a coherent, national skills strategy while pursuing this localised approach? I am certain that the Minister is well placed to cover this area with her portfolio profile.
These regulations change not what adult education is provided but who controls it. That shift can bring real benefits, but only if accompanied by adequate funding, robust accountability and, of course, stable governance. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the points I have raised but, as I have said before, we are broadly behind the measures that are being taken today.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I start by thanking noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I will endeavour to answer them and to get the SIs in the right order as I do so. Before I turn to the questions and the reasonable points that have been raised, I reiterate the important strategic role that devolution has to play in the growth of our economy across our country. These instruments broaden the scope of devolution, meaning more local decision-making in more areas across England than ever before. I recognise the noble Lord’s point, and I reiterate, as I did in my opening comments, that this was a process for these three authorities, started by the previous Government in 2024 and taken forward by this Government.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We could argue about the figures but, in the academic year 2025-2026, it was the case that the Government made a small cut to the adult skills fund in the very challenging fiscal context that we inherited. There have been no further reductions, nor will there be for this forthcoming academic year.
I do not want to get into a row about this, but adult skills funding has seen a considerable cut, along with its predecessor funds, from 2010 onwards. The job for this Government is to at the very least stabilise this important contribution to developing skills and providing opportunities for adults. We will determine the proportions of funding for each of these areas using historical spending from 2017-2018, with each area’s share calculated as the proportion of the ASF spent on local learners prior to devolution. We will continue to work closely with devolved areas to support them and to ensure efficient use of funding and the long-term sustainability of skills provision.
Noble Lords understandably asked how that accountability and reporting will work. Accountability arrangements for devolved organisations are set out in the British devolution accountability framework. As part of this, local areas with devolved powers are required both to submit annual assurance reports to the Department for Work and Pensions and to publish them on their own organisation’s website. They will set out what a devolved area has delivered against its strategic skills priorities over the previous academic year; that will include an assessment of key outcomes, local partnership work, achievements, challenges and lessons learned. Key data against which local areas are expected to report include adult skills fund data on spend and data on the number of learners in their local areas who are taking up their statutory entitlements. Skills England uses the information in each of these reports to undertake annual skills stocktakes with each local area in order to discuss key findings, including how any issues can be addressed.
Finally—I would have been disappointed if the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had not raised special educational needs and disability—I reiterate the point I made on devolution when I talked about the exception being for young people with education, health and care plans up to the age of 25. Those young people will still be funded through the 16-to-19 funding and will still have the provisions in their education, health and care plans delivered through that funding; the responsibility will remain.
More broadly, the statutory national entitlements focus in particular on those people who, perhaps by virtue of special educational needs or disabilities, have not been able to get a grade 4 in their English or maths GCSE, for example; have not had the opportunity to get to a level 2 or level 3 standard of education; or have not been able to develop digital skills up to level 1. They have a statutory national entitlement that must continue to be funded, regardless of the devolution of funds here. I hope that that provides some reassurance.
Lord Addington (LD)
What I would like to extract is the identification of those who have a learning disability or special educational need and who will require slightly different learning patterns to get the best results. More of the same in a system in which you have already failed will probably lead to more failure. That change in style requires some identification. It is something that we are told we will talk much more about in the next parliamentary Session; I just wondered whether there is any information available to us today about that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Much of what we will be talking about in the next parliamentary Session will obviously relate to special educational needs and disability funding and provision in schools, both in early years and post-16. What we are talking about today is adult skills funding, which, as I said, for those with special educational needs, will be above the age of 25.
This does not mean that I do not think the noble Lord is making an important point. One of the things that devolution enables authorities to do—and one of the things that the adult skills fund already does—is provide opportunities for people who are a very long way away from the labour market, perhaps by virtue of disability, to get the necessary training for that. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord about the other routes supported by DWP that would help enable people with learning disabilities, for example, to access work and get the sort of development that they might need in order to succeed in life. I will provide some more detail about that.
I reiterate that this fund carries out a very important function: supporting adults with the skills and learning they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. It can provide a stepping stone to progression and prosperity, particularly for disadvantaged adult learners. We believe that it can be delivered to greater effect, more efficiently and in line with local priorities through these devolution proposals. For that reason, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee considers these draft regulations. Before I speak to them, I thank both Local Authority Building Control and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for raising the important issues that led to these regulations coming before us today.
The amendments are technical in nature. The purpose is to maintain legal clarity and make sure that the responsible actors scheme and its associated prohibitions operate as intended. They do not alter in any way the legal requirements on developers to undertake remediation under the responsible actors scheme.
These amendments are made using powers in Sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and amend the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023. By way of context, the responsible actors scheme exists to make sure that eligible developers take responsibility for remediating, or paying to remediate, life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings over 11 metres that they developed or refurbished in the 30 years prior to April 2022. It is an important scheme under which more than 2,500 buildings are being remediated at an estimated cost to developers of around £4.1 billion.
The scheme is underpinned by planning and building control prohibitions. Where an eligible developer decides not to join the scheme or seriously fails to comply with its conditions, those prohibitions can prevent that developer and entities they control from operating freely in the housing market. This incentivises developers to sign up to the scheme and undertake remediation. The amendments in this instrument are concerned with how those prohibitions and exceptions to how they are applied would operate in practice if a developer was prohibited, following a failure to join the scheme or live up to the developers’ obligations. It is important that if this eventuality occurs, protections for residents, leaseholders and property purchasers work as intended. These amendments make sure that this will be the case.
First, the instrument clarifies the scope of the building control prohibition. The Building Safety Act 2022 provides that the building control prohibition should prevent prohibited developers from making applications for building control approval. However, as currently drafted, the implementing regulations do not clearly capture applications for building control approval within the prohibition. This creates a risk of ambiguity and inconsistent application. The amendments correct that omission to align the regulations with the intent of the primary legislation and update terminology to reflect current building control processes. The result is greater clarity and certainty for the building control bodies administering the system.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument before the Committee. As the Minister said, this instrument makes a number of minor technical amendments to the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023, which were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. These amendments are minor and seek to ensure that the exceptions to the building control prohibition are effective and clear to the building control professionals, and that they respond to the drafting issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We support these changes, but I have a couple of questions.
First, I understand that the Government will continue to monitor and publish data on the RAS regulations to determine their effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of these technical changes. I would be grateful if the Minister can provide the Committee with an update on the progress made so far by developers in meeting their obligations under the RAS regulations.
Secondly, the responsible actors scheme is part of a wider range of actions to address building safety, a key part of which is the building safety regulator. In October, only 15 of 193 high-rise applications had been approved. Can the Minister update the Committee on the number of applications and approvals, and the average turnaround times for each of the stages? I appreciate that the Minister may not have that information with her and would be very happy if she would write. With that, we support this statutory instrument.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his support for the instrument and I will pick up his two questions. First, on the publishing of data for developer-led remediation, the ministry carefully monitors developer remediation performance, including through scrutinising detailed quarterly data returns. Data from these quarterly returns is published on GOV.UK and includes information about each developer’s progress. In relation to the BSR, I may have to come back to the noble Lord on the specific numbers that he asked for, but, in general, improving the speed in which remediation applications are approved is an absolute priority for the BSR, which has recently announced a remediation improvement plan.
Before I go on to the rest of the answer, the change in management of the BSR has driven very considerable improvements in its performance and I am very pleased to see that. The improvement plan includes improving internal processes, ramping up capacity to deal with remediation cases and working very closely with the industry to support applicants to improve the quality of their applications. That was one of the issues that was raised when we debated this previously. We expect applicants, particularly large developers, to work with the BSR to improve the quality of their applications, so that remediation can progress without delay. I hope that, with those improvements and the improvements that are taking place within the BSR, we are already starting to see considerable improvement, and I hope that that will continue. I will respond in writing to the noble Lord on the numbers issue.
In closing, this instrument makes technical amendments that clarify, as I said, drafting inconsistencies and defects previously reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and makes sure that the responsible actors scheme and its prohibitions will function smoothly in practice, should they be applied. It maintains the integrity of the existing system while making sure that residents and other affected parties are protected.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Viscount Bridgeman
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on Friday 10 April. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Viscount’s family and friends.
Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards banning bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the consultation on the latest round of proposed by-laws to introduce restrictions on bottom trawling in 41 marine protected areas resulted in a very large number of responses being received. The Marine Management Organisation is now carefully considering those responses and reviewing the evidence. When all of that has been considered in full, the decisions will be made. Our environmental improvement plan commits us to finish putting MPA fisheries by-laws in place by the end of this year.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I thank the Minister for that response. She will know that bottom trawling is a hugely destructive fishing practice that causes widespread, severe and often irreversible environmental damage to our marine ecosystems. I would like to push the Minister a bit more on the response to the consultation; it has been over six months since it closed. Bottom trawling is taking place in our waters every day. It depletes fish populations and habitats, undermining the healthy seas that our fisheries and coastal communities rely on for their livelihoods. Does the Minister agree that time is of the essence, and can she say any more on when the consultation response will be published?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a serious issue that we need to move on as soon as we can. We have proposed that we will do this by the end of the year. The big issue is the sheer number of responses that were received; it is taking a long time to go through them. Also, the proposed by-laws are very substantial. We are absolutely determined to get it right. It is better to take the right amount of time to come out with the right decisions that will genuinely make the differences that we need to see in our marine environments.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Is the Minister confident that the Government can justify calling these marine protected areas when bottom trawling is still permitted in 90% of them, resulting in 20,000 hours of suspected bottom trawl fishing last year? An outright ban would mean that there is no need to monitor that. We are still waiting for the much-promised ban that was promised in the general election. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, we are all asking, “When, when, when?”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, we are working with the Marine Management Organisation on this, because we need to get it right. We had a huge number of responses. There is also ongoing research at the moment that needs to be taken into account. The way we are looking at this is that each marine protected area is set up to protect specific species or habitats. Regulators look carefully at what those are and how different types of fishing affect those different habitats and species. It is quite complex, so it is important that any decisions we make will make the biggest difference they can.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I take great comfort from the Minister’s words. This is a hugely complex issue, as we know. On a previous Question in this area, I spoke very much in favour of total banning, but subsequently there have been representations to me about the valuable source of food in this time of the importance of resilience, the targeting of special species that are valuable for the industry, the lower carbon footprint and the economic contribution to the very knocked-back local fishing communities. I very much appreciate the effort that the department is putting into it. I stress that there may be solutions in paying attention to the gear that is used—there are a lot of regulations that can be further enhanced—and regulating the quantity of catch.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes some really important and sensible points. The reason we are doing it site-specific and tailored is to ensure that we limit fishing only where genuinely necessary and avoid placing restrictions on activities that do not damage the seabed. Sometimes, management measures will involve a ban across the whole site, but it is important that we get that balance. That is what we are looking to do.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said about the disastrous effects of this practice and the fact that it is now six months since the consultation ended, will the Minister take into account the fact that one of the main campaigners against this awful practice has been Sir David Attenborough? It is his 100th birthday on 8 May. Perhaps the Minister will agree that we could congratulate him by announcing the implementation of this ban for his birthday.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very happy to congratulate David Attenborough, whether we bring in a ban or not. He has been an extraordinary champion for our environment over many years, and I am sure we all wish him a very happy 100th birthday. I watched his film on bottom trawling. It was an extremely important piece of footage.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, this Government’s agreement with the EU last year surrendered around 40% of UK fishing rights to our European neighbours for the next 12 years. Just 10 EU vessels account for 25% of all bottom trawling in UK waters, with little by British vessels. Under this agreement, is the Minister able to end this damaging EU exploitation of our waters?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I am not able to divulge any of the detail of the current negotiations on the EU reset. Those of us who are involved in that reset process are extremely aware of the sensitivities around fishing, the type of fishing and the fishing gear being used, as the noble Lord mentioned earlier.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s approach will align with their 30 by 30 commitments and nature recovery goals? How will the Government measure that delivery?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the reasons for bringing in this proposal to extend the protections to 41 more areas is entirely to support our ambition of delivering on 30 by 30. As I have said before, it is much more complex to deliver that in a marine environment, which is why it is so important that we get it absolutely right. I do not have the further detail the noble Baroness mentioned, but I am sure we can pick that up another time.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I would like to ask why No. 10 is so eco-stupid, but that would be very rude of me, so instead I ask the Minister, because I know she feels strongly on these issues, to please explain to No. 10 or whoever produces these policies that we need nature and that bottom trawling destroys a complete ecosystem that is irrecoverable for decades, so it actually militates against any sort of food stocks for the future?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Perhaps my noble friend would like to answer the question. I know the noble Baroness feels passionately about this. I am very glad that she decided not to be rude about No. 10. We all know the importance of the marine environment and the damage that bottom trawling does, which is why we need to take our time and get this right.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her response about the protection of the fishing industry. In that regard, will she talk to the Isle of Man fisheries and the Northern Ireland Minister for fisheries about the spatial squeeze that is going on in the Irish Sea and the fact that Northern Ireland vessels with foreign crew on skilled worker visas and transit visas are excluded from Isle of Man waters? It is important that a meeting takes place to ensure that the fishing industry, with all the issues that have already been demonstrated, particularly along the east coast of Northern Ireland, is protected and can play a pivotal role in the local economy.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure my noble friend that Ministers meet regularly across government and with devolved Governments on how to ensure that we have a thriving, sustainable fishing industry right across the UK. I am aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently met representatives from the Northern Ireland fishing industry and has discussed issues, including those raised by my noble friend. I assure her that skilled worker visas have never been accepted by the Isle of Man and non-UK nationals have always been required to hold the appropriate permission to work on land or in Isle of Man waters. I have recently met the Minister from the Isle of Man, and we have agreed to have regular meetings going forward. This is something I can raise with her at our next meeting.
Zimbabwe: Constitution
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the government of Zimbabwe regarding the proposed change to the constitution which would allow President Mnangagwa to stand for a third term.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, UK officials remain in contact with the Government of Zimbabwe, civil society and other stakeholders as part of our ongoing engagement on this matter. The ambassador raised these issues yesterday with senior officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, constitutional amendments are a sovereign legislative matter for Zimbabwe. However, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association are essential to democracy. We continue to monitor reports of harassment and stress the importance of transparent, inclusive and lawful processes.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that response, but does he realise that the constitutional changes proposed will mean that the people of Zimbabwe will no longer elect their president, the electoral commission will be abolished, judicial appointments will become very unsafe, and there will be many more changes, all of which are anti-democratic? This is coupled with continued brutality, beatings, torture and imprisonment against opposition figures and those in civil society. I am glad that our ambassador has been having meetings, but can we have an assurance that he will speak out more strongly against the tyranny of the ZANU-PF regime, which rules by terror and threat of terror and is using these corrupt political processes to change the constitution and stay in power? Is it not time, finally, for a radical reappraisal of the United Kingdom Government’s engagement with SADC and the African Union to impress on them that only when we get free and fair elections throughout Africa and corruption is tackled will there be sustainable economic growth and social development in Africa?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
There are a lot of questions there, but I will set out the position as clearly as I can. We share the concerns that have been highlighted in the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission’s report, that the constitutional amendment public consultations —to which the noble Baroness refers—were highly managed, with limited space for dissenting voices, civil society, and the media. I should also say that the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission is an agency of the Zimbabwean Government. We continue to urge that the constitutional reform processes are inclusive, transparent, and fully consistent with democratic principles and the rule of law. I spoke to the ambassador this morning, and he raised these issues yesterday.
On speaking out more strongly, frankly, the Government’s view is that 20 years of megaphone diplomacy did not get us anywhere, and we are now in the business of engaging, though we do not underestimate the concerns that the noble Baroness is raising.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by declaring that my British wife is also an African Zimbabwean. My father-in-law, who as a young man taught Robert Mugabe, resisted Mugabe’s regime with humour and disparagement. The Zimbabweans have a sophisticated understanding of democracy, which is their cultural tradition. Their democratic sentiments were eloquently expressed in the protests that accompanied Mugabe’s steps to appoint himself president for life. The symbol of the protests was a little red card held aloft. It signified that politics is a game that must be played according to the rules, which Mugabe had violated. It behoves us—
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
The question will come. It behoves us to support this spirit of democracy, and to prevail upon other African members of the Commonwealth to exert pressure upon this regime. Might I ask the Minister—
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is Question Time, not speech time.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot match my noble friend’s commitment to humour and disparagement as a tool for democracy today. I take seriously what he says about the importance of democracy, and it is no secret that we have a long people-to-people relationship with the people of Zimbabwe, not all of which reflects terribly well on the UK. We will continue to build those relationships.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, ZANU-PF has justified extending the term of the president, and giving him a third term, on the grounds that he is “doing a good job”. It has also said that not having elections from the people, but in parliament, will save money and reduce the risk of violence, which we know is mostly perpetrated against the people by ZANU-PF. What is the price of democracy? Does it not show that ZANU-PF has utter contempt for democracy, and how can we challenge it to reverse its decisions?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
There is an active civil society in Zimbabwe. My noble friend Lord Collins visited last year, and we will continue to work with stakeholders, including the Zimbabwean Government. We welcome the president’s re-engagement efforts, and the progress on economic reform, but we understand the concerns about these constitutional reforms as proposed, and we will continue to advocate about that.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister probably knows that Zimbabwe is rather keen to rejoin the Commonwealth. Could it be explained to President Mnangagwa that the chances of doing so will be much improved if he stands down after two terms, since the Commonwealth on the whole—it does not always work—prefers presidents of two terms rather than indefinite terms?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Lord regularly raises the Commonwealth, and I appreciate its importance. There was a Commonwealth assessment mission in 2023, and we would welcome another assessment mission. In the end, it will be a matter for the Secretary-General to make a recommendation, and for all members of the Commonwealth to take a view.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, my diocese of Southwark is linked with four of the five Anglican dioceses in Zimbabwe, and I have visited our link dioceses on many occasions. I note that the Zimbabwe Council of Churches has called this week for the withdrawal or amendment of the Bill currently before the Zimbabwean parliament. Would the Minister advise the House what the reaction has been of neighbouring states to this latest development in the governance of Zimbabwe and its wonderful people, so poorly served by those currently in power?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. If he will forgive me, I do not think I should speak on behalf of the other states around Zimbabwe, but I have made clear what this Government’s view is on these proposed constitutional changes, and we shall continue to make that case.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say. These changes are profoundly undemocratic, extending the current presidential mandate and abolishing the elections, with violence and intimidation at the public meetings when it was discussed. What I have heard from the Minister is lots of “consultation” and “listening carefully”, but I have not heard any condemnation in what he had to say.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I have not used the words “consultation” or “listening carefully”. I have said that we will engage with the Zimbabwe Government on these issues, and the ambassador raised our concerns as recently as yesterday. I am sorry, that is a complete travesty of what I have said.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that Zimbabwe’s president is intrinsically involved in the criminality at the heart of the state, the machine of that criminal enterprise being the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, oiled by a business elite—many of whom are the sons and daughters of the white and Asian elite who supported sanctions-busting under the racist regime of Ian Smith—and unchecked today by the independent judiciary, accountability and professional scrutiny that continue to exist in South Africa, enabling the state of Zimbabwe to either sponsor or turn a blind eye to massive gold and tobacco smuggling?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. We recognise the economic reforms undertaken by the Government of Zimbabwe and the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, including—this is an important point that I have not made before—the signing of the IMF staff-monitored programme, as an important step towards greater macroeconomic stability, which, frankly, is greater than it was under Mugabe. However, for these reforms to be sustainable, tackling corruption must remain a central part of the reform agenda. We are very clear about that.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, as a former resident of Zimbabwe, I ask what is being done in terms of working with other countries on representations to the Zimbabwean Government. Surely it is better that we work not alone but with many other countries right around the world.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Indeed it is. I often find myself agreeing with the noble Lord on this and other matters. The most important thing that will help to transform the lives of the people of Zimbabwe is progress on debt distress, and that is what we are working on through the arrears clearance dialogue in which we are taking a very active part. Despite what lots of noble Lords have said, we welcome the progress on economic reform.
NHS Adult Gender Identity Clinics
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many patients under the age of 25 have been referred to NHS adult gender identity clinics in each of the last three years; and what safeguarding measures are in place for those individuals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, 5,624 patients under 25 were referred to adult gender dysphoria clinics in 2023-24, 6,355 were referred in 2024-25 and initial figures show that 6,167 were referred in 2025-26. There are strong safeguards within the existing service provision and specification that was agreed following public consultation, including with the medical royal colleges. These include specialist assessment, accounting for complex co-morbidities and care delivered by a multidisciplinary team with a wide range of expertise, including in neurodiversity and endocrinology.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I wonder if she has had a chance to review the landmark study from Finland recently, which suggests very strongly that gender medicine actually has a very negative impact on vulnerable young people with complex needs and, far from actually helping them, in fact is harming them. Can I urge her to expedite one of the most important recommendations from the Cass Review, which is to bring in a separate set of services for 17 to 25 year-old young people who are experiencing gender dysphoria? She will know that, currently, the adult clinics operate an affirmative model; that can be very worrying because young people can access life-altering and irreversible hormones after only two appointments. For young people with a whole set of complex needs, I do not think that is right.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, we are indeed committed to developing services for 17 to 25 year-olds, and I certainly recognise that this is a potentially very vulnerable time in a young person’s journey, as was clearly outlined in the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass. I can say to the noble Baroness that we recognise changing patient demographics, and therefore a holistic biopsychosocial assessment framework is being developed for use across all services, including a complexity measure to support understanding of the impact of any co-occurring conditions, as the noble Baroness refers to.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, we know that the 18 to 25 year-olds have many of the same complex problems as the under-18s and, as the Minister has said, they need similar holistic wraparound care, although that is not necessarily yet in place. However, Dr Levy’s review had a narrower remit than mine, focused on quality improvement rather than the model of care, so as a next step would the Minister agree to ask departmental and NHSE colleagues to convene a group, which should include independent experts, representatives of professional groups and representatives of the new children’s and young people’s services as well as service users, to consider how we best understand and, importantly, improve clinical outcomes for this group of young adults?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I remain grateful to the noble Baroness for her work and her expertise in this area, which I know has been acknowledged both by the previous Government and this Government. I will certainly take on board what she has said and ask my officials to discuss this further with NHS England.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to seek some clarification from my noble friend the Minister about this matter, because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes adult capacity and the Care Act 2014 defines safeguarding thresholds, which my noble friend has outlined in some detail already. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that adults aged 18 to 25 referred to gender identity clinics are treated as autonomous patients without additional safeguarding measures beyond those which she has already outlined and apply to any competent adult?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, I can assure my noble friend that patients are treated as individuals and their care is personalised. It is important, as my noble friend says, to recognise that the law presumes that patients aged 16 and over have capacity to consent to medical treatment. I can also give the reassurance, acknowledging as I have already that patients may have co-existing conditions that warrant additional safeguarding measures, that this will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, if the Government are concerned with safeguarding those aged 18 to 25, can the Minister set out what assessment has been made of the documented harms caused by multi-year waiting lists, including serious impacts on mental health, physical well-being and life outcomes? Given the evidence that regret or detransition among those accessing gender-affirming care is rare, can the Minister clarify what specific risk this proposed safeguarding framework is intended to address?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It might be helpful if I speak in general terms. The Levy review highlighted multi-year waits for adult gender clinics. We recognise that waiting times are too long, and that is why we have increased the number of adult gender services from seven to 12 and we will be establishing a national waiting list. Dr Levy’s report did not make specific reference to concerns about safeguarding, and it is important to see it in that context. I emphasise once again that, where there are additional safeguarding matters, they will be dealt with on an individual basis as is right and proper.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this is a highly sensitive topic, and I think we have to be very careful about how we talk about it. Evidence published in the BMJ shows a fiftyfold increase in recorded cases of gender dysphoria among children and young people between 2011 and 2021. While we should show compassion and not generalise about individuals presenting with gender dysphoria, what assessment has the Minister’s department made of the drivers for this rise in presentations? It is a sensitive issue, as I said, but are the Government assured that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the most vulnerable young adults are not irreversibly medicalised, only for some, even if just a small number, to regret it later?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a number of points. Let me be quite clear that surgical interventions are only for adults—that is for those aged 18 and over. As I said in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, I also refer to the fact that the strong safeguards in place include, among a whole range of others, specialist assessment, access to a multidisciplinary team and assessment of capacity. These are strong safeguards, and it is right that this is the case in order to support patients to get the care that is appropriate to them and which they need.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, NHS England’s Levy review catalogued failings in relation to a lack of data and tracking outcomes from gender dysphoria clinics. Can the Minister explain how the NHS can offer any treatment without such evidence relating to efficacy, benefits, harms, regret and detransition? Can the Minister also comment on the criticism that clinicians are reluctant to correct patients’ unrealistic expectations, often those of young women, about medical transition. They believe that hormones and surgery can change biological sex; they cannot. That is a scientific fact and surely NHS doctors should explain that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am not quite clear about the questions I am being asked. However, I return to the point about safeguards and say to your Lordships’ House that I have already outlined the strong safeguards, the professionalism and the medically informed evidence. Contrary to what is being suggested, there is no casualisation at all about decision-making.
Masculinity and Misogyny in Schools
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the results of the recent survey by the NASUWT on masculinity and misogyny in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, misogyny has no place in our society or in our schools. The NASUWT survey is deeply concerning and underscores why delivering on the freedom from violence 10-year strategy to halve violence against women and girls is a necessity and a government priority. This Government are committed to tackling misogyny and the spread of toxic influences, with new misogyny resources for both teachers and parents, dedicated school programmes through the new VAWG strategy, and online safety resources.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, the NASUWT survey indicates that misogyny is on the rise among our young people. Some 23% of female teachers have experienced misogyny in our classrooms; this figure has increased year on year and is up 6% since 2023. Teachers are pointing to the influence of the manosphere, online misogyny and AI in spreading harmful narratives, and evidence indicates that social media use by young men is driving this growth in misogynistic beliefs. What assessment have the Government made of the role social media is playing in this worrying trend?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure it is the case that social media has had an impact here. We know the influence that those who choose to use it to express toxic masculinity and misogyny can have. That is why we need to support schools, as we are doing through increased investment in resources to help teachers and students to tackle misogyny. It is why the consultation on social media use among young people that the Government have launched is so important, and why we have committed to act on its conclusions.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, to pick up on the point about parents that the Minister raised, how do the Government intend to engage with not only parents but communities, particularly to deal with the negative cultural influences on the perception of women among some of our young people? It is not just in schools that this issue is happening; often it occurs at weekends and in our city centres. How can we engage with communities, as well as parents?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. This needs to be tackled outside school, as well as inside. That is why the DfE has worked jointly with DSIT to design, test and launch a website for parents of all-age children to help them keep their children safe online. We are currently developing misogyny-specific content for that site that will give parents information and tools to spot warning signs and hold open conversations, and will direct them to further support that will link with the Home Office’s Enough campaign, about which we will be saying more soon.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, will the Government start with children in primary school?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The new RSHE guidance that we published and the curriculum are clear that there is important work to be done at key stage 2 to support children to develop their ideas and approach to healthy relationships. That is a really important baseline from which to talk more explicitly later in their school life about misogyny and how it is tackled.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, this report makes for quite harrowing reading, and it points to two particular things: one is misogyny and the other is a breakdown of discipline and respect for authority in school. What work are the Government doing to address this issue, which covers both girls and boys? In speaking to young boys about their behaviour, how are we going to avoid demonising boyhood?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes two important points. On the latter point, it is important that we recognise that the vast majority of boys and young men abhor misogyny as much as anybody else. Supporting them to be strong allies and to challenge their friends where necessary is an important part of the work. As the noble Lord suggests, one of the shocking elements of the NASUWT report is the suggestion that students are using misogyny to abuse teachers. Good behaviour in all our schools is the right of pupils and teachers. That is why every school has a legal responsibility to have a strong behaviour policy, and why we would expect strong action to be taken to protect staff, just as we would expect for students.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, unfortunately, girls are not always able to feel safe in calling out sexist or abusive behaviour that they experience from other pupils in schools. What more can be done in schools, and after school, to give girls the confidence to speak out and feel safe?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend raises an important point—we want girls to be able to feel safe and to report, as she suggests. However, it should be not only the responsibility of girls to stand up for themselves in the face of misogyny; it should be part of the whole-school approach to challenge that and part of a school’s safeguarding process. Support for that is clearly spelled out in the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance, for staff to understand how to support girls when they report incidents and how to identify what is happening even if those incidents are not reported.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, is there any evidence that the problem is worse with a decline of single-sex schools? Would things be better if there were more single-sex schools, at least for girls?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The truth is that I do not know whether there is any evidence that supports that contention. The vast majority of children in this country do not go to single-sex schools. We need to ensure that every school, single-sex or not, recognises the need to tackle misogyny and is supported, as this Government will do, with the resources to be able to do that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister acknowledged the impact of harmful social media on our children’s attitudes and behaviour, so I am puzzled why the Government will not commit in primary legislation to restricting access to social media for under-16s. The noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, the Secretary of State for DSIT, and the Prime Minister have all said that they intend to, but the government amendment does not include that commitment. Can the Minister explain why?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Can I say how much I am enjoying getting back to this in the next stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on Monday? We will have the opportunity, once again, to discuss the action that this Government have already taken to understand the concerns that there are about social media and to recognise the different views on how, in detail, we should respond. That is why, on 2 March, this Government launched the consultation on how, not whether, we should take action, with further measures to ensure that children have healthy relationships with technology, mobile phones and social media. It is why we tabled new powers that mean that we can act fast on the consultation’s findings—in months, rather than waiting years for new primary legislation every time technology evolves. I do not think it is unreasonable for a Government to act on the basis of consultation and detailed consideration.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, last week, I attended the Cambridge Disinformation Summit run by the Judge Business School, where a key takeaway for me was that restricting young people’s access to social media is not on its own a sufficient response to the risks that we are discussing today. Does the Minister agree that we need accountability from social media companies on algorithms that promote and target extremist content to both adults and children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I largely agree with the noble Baroness. It is important that the strong powers within the Online Safety Act are implemented. However, the logic of her argument is that we need to make sure that we support children and young people and our schools to be able to challenge misogyny and avoid falling for the toxic influencers, while strengthening the good values and attitudes that most young people have. That is what we will be supporting our schools to do.
Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 13 April.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, has consented to place his interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 110: Commencement
Amendment 1
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendments 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in my name. These are minor and technical amendments, which I understand have been agreed by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Pidgeon
“(ia) section 17 (Greater London Authority Act 1999: amendment of Schedule 6);”
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I beg to move Amendment 3, following advice about the need for a technical amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these are minor and technical amendments following amendments made to the Bill on Report. The Government will not oppose them today.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(ka) section 40 (brownfield land priority);”
Lord Shipley
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, to be clear, Amendment 5 removes a reference to a clause and a schedule that were removed from the Bill on Report on Monday. It is a consequential amendment, which I beg to move formally.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(za1) section 63 (promotion of parish governance);”
Lord Freyberg
“(z2a) section 70 (agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities);”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and engagement during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill through this House. I am particularly grateful to the Opposition Front Bench, namely the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Moylan, for their constructive challenge throughout the debates. I am very aware of the challenges facing an Opposition Front Bench, and let me say how much I appreciate the approach of clarity about points of difference, concise, clear and consistent speeches in debate, and all the work that goes on behind the scenes with me and officials, as well as with opposition Peers. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, deserves much credit from the House for her approach.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pidgeon, for all their work. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who stepped in admirably to fill the shoes of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, when she could not get her own shoes on because she had a fracture. I thank him very much for his last-minute work on the Bill; his contribution was highly valued. I also thank my noble friends Lord Wilson and Lord Leong, who have supported me in the Whips’ role throughout the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Hendy, whose very considerable expertise and knowledge on taxis and licensing has made this Bill a lot easier for me to deal with.
Many noble Lords from across the House have shared their valuable expertise in local government, local growth and community empowerment during the scrutiny of this Bill. I am particularly thankful to the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Bassam. Their insights and engagement have allowed us to bring about critical improvements to the Bill, including establishing local scrutiny committees as a first step towards proper public sector accountability at local level. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his work to help resolve the legal lacuna from the Day v Shropshire case. I also extend my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Borwick and Lord Foster, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Royall, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and many more for their championing of issues such as culture, taxi safety and addressing gambling harms.
We may disagree at times on how devolution and community empowerment are best delivered, but I believe we are in broad agreement that a change is overdue. Local leaders and communities should have a greater say in shaping their areas so that they can deliver growth and improve the local public services that people want to see. The Bill is a fundamental step towards achieving this ambition.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to all the officials who have worked on this Bill: the Bill manager, Hannah, Caragh, Jenna-Marie, Guy, Simon, Alice, John, Wendy and Rachel; and to Nadja, Beth and Anna in my private office. I also pay tribute to the many parliamentary staff who support the work of this House: the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard, the Public Bill Office and our excellent Whips’ team. We have not had as many late nights on this Bill as we did on the planning Bill, but I know we were all very grateful when we were here until 1 am that we had a whole team supporting us.
I am pleased to have been part of some very productive and constructive discussions in this House. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive engagement with this complex Bill, both in Committee and on Report. While there have been a wide range of concerns and differing proposed solutions, I think there has been a shared sense that this Bill falls short of its title in several of its measures. Instead of local devolution, we are seeing regional centralisation and, instead of community empowerment, we are seeing yet more direction from central government.
To many, it is still not clear why the Government have decided to pursue this course of action or what the underlying vision is behind the Bill. It goes without saying that all of this comes at a cost, as we are seeing with local government reorganisation up and down the country. We said this from the start and I believe that we are beginning to see it now.
That said, we on these Benches believe that the Bill as amended on Report leaves this House as better legislation than when it came to your Lordships. I am pleased that this House has agreed to prioritise brownfield land for development, to integrate new development with existing businesses and facilities, to promote parish governance for unparished areas and to amend Schedule 1 to safeguard local consent in local government changes. In addition, in the light of the Government’s amendments to increase the number of commissioners that mayors can appoint, I am glad that our amendment to ensure that they are appointed through a fair and transparent selection process was agreed.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I extend the thanks of these Benches to the Minister, all her staff and the Bill office. She was right to point to the amount of work that has gone into getting the Bill to Third Reading. I thank her for her engagement with the Bill; it is of major constitutional importance and therefore has to be as good as we can make it. I am personally grateful for all she did to improve the clauses on scrutiny and audit, which will make a big difference. I extend my thanks to the Liberal Democrat Bill team, where a number of people have done a lot of detailed work. I pay tribute to Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office for his excellent support to the Bill team over many months.
I see the Bill as a work in progress. I think I said at the outset that it gave a sense of direction and that we want it to succeed. Everything we have said at each stage of its passage has been about trying to make it better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said, the Bill is entitled “devolution”, but actually it is about decentralisation and does not say very much at all about community empowerment. We are a glass-half-full group on these Benches, and we want the Government to succeed. You cannot manage 56 million people in England out of London. I see this as being part of a renewal of our democracy, and I wish the Government well.
I just hope when the amendments, which are not many in number, are considered in the other place that our proposed changes will be taken seriously. There is one about rural issues, which should become a strategic authority competence. As I recall, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, moved one on the appointment processes for commissioners. How they are appointed needs to be in the Bill, not in guidance. It is for local people, as we said on Monday, to decide governance structures that they think are best for them, rather than having a single model which is imposed out of Whitehall by the Government.
Crucially, to demonstrate that the Government are serious about devolution, there should be a duty to promote parish and neighbourhood governance. With the Bill, the Government are creating very large democratic units that are increasingly remote from people. All that we have said about neighbourhood, parish and town governance is trying to bring decision-making closer to people who, after all, are paying the bill for it.
With those comments, we shall see what the Commons does at ping-pong. These Benches are pretty firm on some of these issues, so I hope the Government will be flexible in their approach. With that, I thank the Minister for the leadership that she has shown, and her staff. We have something which is a major improvement on what we have had in recent years, and I wish the process well.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful for those contributions. They were in the same tone that we have had all through the Bill of constructive challenge where it is appropriate. I say to both opposition Benches that there are some further discussions to take place on the outstanding matters before we get through ping-pong and I hope those discussions will be conducted in the same spirit as we have dealt with the rest of the Bill.
I have been in local government for a very long time and there have been numerous attempts at reorganising and devolving over the years, but most of the power still sits here in this very small part of London when it should be out there with local people. I hope, as we go through the final processes of the Bill, that we will end up with a piece of legislation that does exactly what we all want it to do, which is to make sure that power, funding and decision-making are devolved out of Whitehall back to local areas where the people taking the decisions actually have skin in the game and are connected at that very local level to take the right decisions for the people who we all serve. That is what we all want to do, and I hope, as we progress through the final stages of the Bill, that we will get to a good place on that.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:31 - Division on Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 260 - Motion C1 disagreed.
17:11 - Division on Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) - Ayes: 270 / Noes: 200 - Motion D1 agreed.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, B1, C, and C1. This group concerns amendments made in this House relating to access to court transcripts, and homicide abroad. In relation to each, I shall set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak first to Motions A and C, which relate to Amendments 1 and 3, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, both of which concern access to criminal court transcripts.
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her extensive engagement on the Bill throughout its passage in the Lords, as well as in recent weeks. I am sorry she is not in her place today. I know she has not been well, but I think she may be joining us remotely in due course. I hope she can hear me when I say that she and I have spent significant time with each other discussing these amendments at length, and I really am grateful to her for her constructive and collaborative approach in addressing the issues before your Lordships’ House today.
That said, I am disappointed and frustrated that I have not been able to get a meeting with the Opposition Front Bench, despite making numerous attempts through various channels to do so. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, knows I am sincere when I say the Government agree that it is extremely important for victims to be able to access information relevant to the criminal court proceedings in their case. But, as we made clear both in Committee and on Report, these amendments would not achieve the meaningful benefits that victims are seeking. In the case of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, the Government believe it could in fact undermine victims’ experience rather than improve it.
With that, I turn to Motion C1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. We have already set out in previous debates the operational and financial implications this amendment would have. Our first reason for not accepting it is that while the Government are firmly committed to strengthening transparency, this would create substantial pressures on a system in which resources are finite.
The second reason is arguably the more important one: the potentially serious and damaging impact this amendment may have on countless victims. The noble and learned Lord has said that this amendment contains a pragmatic safeguard for victims, in that victims would be able to request anonymisation prior to publication. The Government fundamentally disagree that this gives protection, because it does not give victims the right to object to the publication of sentencing remarks. Instead, it limits victims to requesting anonymisation ahead of publication and does so within a relatively narrow window of 14 days from the point at which the request is received.
How is this to work in practice when the police and/or the CPS would have to locate the victims—probably quite a number of them—explain the request to them and give them time to consider the request? Then the victims would need to respond, and then redactions would need to be carried out sufficiently in what in some cases will be a long and complicated document. Following sentence, many victims will be traumatised and will just want to start putting what has happened behind them. What would happen should a victim of a horrifying crime request that their sentencing remarks not be published at all?
By denying victims a right to determine whether remarks relevant to their case, often containing highly personal and sensitive information, are published online for the world to see, this loss of agency significantly risks being distressing rather than empowering. It is unlikely to feel like an improvement in transparency or experience and may in fact compound the harm caused by the offence. This Government believe that transparency is not served by measures that risk causing further distress to victims or undermining confidence in the justice system. The Government do not accept that this amendment strikes the right balance between openness and protection and believe it would in practice do more harm than good.
I have made the point already that we are focused on delivering the substantial commitment made earlier this year, that by spring 2027, we will provide all victims with Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case, free of charge, upon request. I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House from all parties and groups, including the Opposition Front Bench, for their constructive engagement during the debates on that amendment during the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026. The significant expansion will deliver meaningful benefits and represents an important step forward in helping many victims better understand their case. It will, we accept, genuinely enhance transparency in the justice system.
That said, we recognise that there remains a need to consider what more can be done to support victims’ access to information about court proceedings relevant to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. That is why I am pleased to confirm that the Government are undertaking a study to explore the use of AI transcription in the criminal courts. This is another step towards greater transparency and improving access to court transcripts by examining how artificial intelligence transcription could support the production of court records more quickly and at a lower cost. Many of these cases involve sensitive personal information, and we must ensure that the use of AI transcription delivers high levels of accuracy, upholds the integrity of court proceedings and protects information where necessary.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister, her ministerial colleagues in the justice department, officials and staff, who have been available for conversations both during the passage of the Bill, especially since Report, and the helpful discussions reflected in the Government’s Motions in front of us today.
My Motion B1 on the horrendous issue of homicide abroad differs from the amendment that I laid at earlier stages of the Bill, because I listened carefully to the Minister, both in the Chamber and in our meetings. I have accordingly removed the element about enshrining the rights of bereaved families—of course, they are also victims, because their loved one was murdered—in the victims’ code. I still believe that it is possible to draft something that reflects that, but time is not on our side.
I pay tribute to the Government in that the new code of practice—just brought in for use by the Home Office, the Foreign Office and other government departments and officials such as coroners—is much more comprehensive and should, as it is now being implemented, improve the experience of families found in this horrendous position.
The one area that I do not want us to lose is the ability to review how the new code of practice is actually working. My amendments today set out a mechanism to ensure that within 18 months of the section on these arrangements coming into force,
“the Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of how the victims’ code applies to victims … who are close family members of a British National resident in England and Wales”
who is murdered or a victim of manslaughter or infanticide, and that the Secretary of State must lay a report of that review before both Houses of Parliament. However, I am very grateful to the Minister for our discussions and note what she has said at the Dispatch Box, that the Government will set up a joint review with the FCDO and the Home Office that will focus on access and experience for the families of those murdered abroad, to be published next year. It is especially welcome that the Government will work with the Victims’ Commissioner and, I hope, with victims’ organisations that help these families too.
The Minister knows that from these Benches we will continue to talk to victims’ groups and that if concerns remain in the future, we will raise questions and, as appropriate, amendments in future legislation, but until then we look forward to seeing the Government’s review next year. I will not take my Motion any further today.
I now turn to Motion A on court transcripts. Over the years, we have tabled amendments about the ability of victims to access parts of court transcripts. It has been too easy to gloss over why too many victims feel excluded from the court process, whether by accident or worse. This can be through poor advice. For example, victims are told—far too frequently, I am afraid—that if they sit in the court after they have given evidence, it is a bad look and it might harm the views of the jury, because victims are seen as ghoulish or, worse, vindictive.
Also, too many victims are not aware of what they are entitled to. Here, I pay my respects to the Minister for her outrage at the Dispatch Box during an earlier stage of the Bill when she outlined her fury about when arrangements for victims are not followed properly in court. In theory, this should not happen, but it does. For those who also do not have the support of professionals to guide them through what is happening in a court case, there is bemusement and often a lack of knowledge. It really affects whether they feel that the process has been as fair to them as it has been to the defendant.
The amendments on court transcripts are invisibly but inextricably linked to the amendments on reforms to unduly lenient sentences, but because of parliamentary procedure and the way the Bill is laid out, they are separated. However, access to information and support to understand it is at the heart of whether a victim feels the need to submit an appeal to the Attorney-General for a sentence to be considered unduly lenient. I will talk about this more on the next group, but that link is there, so getting both matters right is vital.
I am very grateful to the Minister for her helpful discussions on the practicality of making court transcripts available to victims, and for the announcement yesterday, which she has just outlined in her contribution, that the Government will conduct a study to look at how AI transcription can be used accurately—including, importantly, appropriate redactions for the safety of victims and witnesses—and considerably more cheaply than the vastly expensive current arrangements. From these Benches, we understand the pressure on the court system from imposing the current expensive system further.
We will watch for the outcomes of this study and any consequential actions. As the Minister knows, we will hold the Government to account from our Benches in both this House and the Commons. This includes an amendment that my honourable colleagues have already tabled to the Courts and Tribunals Bill, but I am very grateful for the progress we have made. That is why I did not retable my original amendment today.
Motion C1 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is for sentencing remarks to be published online within 14 days of a request being received by anyone. On Report, we were very concerned that this particular action would lead to victims and witnesses being much more vulnerable than they would under the proposals we have been discussing on other amendments, where the transcripts are specifically for the victims and would have to be carefully redacted to keep them safe. This amendment would take us back a complete step, leaving a victim having to receive notification within a short period of time—we know this fails on other issues—and having to formally request anonymity. This makes victims the afterthought in the process rather than putting their safety, as judged by experts, at the heart of publication of any information. I am afraid that is why we cannot support it today.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Motion C1 in my name would insist on my amendment from Report regarding the publication of court transcripts. It would require sentencing remarks by the Crown Court to be freely published online, while also informing applicants of their right to request anonymity if they wish it.
Open justice is a fundamental principle of the institution of democracy and the public confidence in that institution. This Motion would make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to understand exactly what is happening in the court system. This is of particular relevance regarding grooming gangs and the formal inquiry that the Government launched just this week. It would help to facilitate the transparency required to hold the guilty accountable.
As faith and confidence in public institutions continue to dwindle, many believe that the state does not operate to serve their best interests. The Sentencing Act now has the effect of an automatic presumption of short sentences—a policy that in practice effectively abolishes custodial sentences of one year or less. It is more important than ever that the public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, so that confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of judicial decision-making is preserved.
In the other place, a Labour MP said she was confused about why the Minister was not accepting Lords Amendments 1 and 3 at that point. The Minister said in reply that the Government
“are willing to go further, and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 326.]
Yet the Government have taken no action on this issue other than to reject my amendment in its entirety. I therefore feel compelled to move Motion C1.
I thank the Liberal Democrats for their consistent support of this amendment and the principle that it upholds. It was the combined effort of 160 Conservative and 55 Liberal Democrat Peers that saw this amendment’s successful passage. I also thank the 56 Liberal Democrat MPs who supported the amendment in the other place. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat Justice spokesman said:
“I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 337.]
There may have been a little wobble since—I am not clear why—but I hope that our efforts in the voting Lobby today will compel the Government to act.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and for the thoughtful way in which they have engaged with this issue. I recognise the commitment and valuable contributions that all have made during the passage of the Bill. To those who spoke powerfully about the need for victims better to understand what has happened in court and why, I say that the Government are absolutely aligned with that objective. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising that point about victims being either explicitly told or made to feel that they should not attend court to hear the rest of the trial. It is a powerful point. I have had experience of it personally. I shall take it away and see what I can do to improve the situation.
As I have set out, Lords Amendments 1 and 3 would impose statutory duties that risk being unworkable, would create delay and have effects that would not serve victims well. Our priority must be to ensure that the commitments we make are ones that we can deliver. That is why the Government have focused on delivery through the Sentencing Act 2026 and why we are now going further through the study in artificial intelligence transcription, about which I spoke a moment or two ago.
Turning very briefly to support for victims of homicide abroad, I repeat my absolute assurance that the Government share the ambition of strengthening the support available to families bereaved by homicide abroad. The commitments that I have outlined today do go further. Cross-departmental work to improve consistency and support through a comprehensive review will put families at the centre so that we can ensure they get the support they need. I urge noble Lords to support Motions A, B and C.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Keen of Elie
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 3.”
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion D I shall speak also to Motions D1, E, F and G. This group concerns amendments made in your Lordships’ House relating to private prosecutions and the unduly lenient sentence scheme. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
Motions D and G relate to Amendments 4 and 7, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. These amendments would have removed Clause 12 from the Bill entirely, meaning that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of costs recoverable from central funds in private prosecutions.
In 2024-25, the Ministry of Justice spent £6.3 million on private prosecutions. Over the past decade, this figure has increased significantly and has proved to be highly variable. There is some evidence that the near certainty of substantial cost recovery can create incentives for prosecutors to pursue cases that are disproportionate or are an unsuitable remedy for the legal issues in the case. We have seen litigation charges far exceed what a privately paying client would consider reasonable and which are wholly out of proportion to any loss incurred. We have also seen private prosecutions used as a no-lose tactic in civil or commercial disputes—for example, in an effort to gain leverage in what is, in essence, a civil dispute by bringing a criminal prosecution. As the noble and learned Lord has said before, £6.3 million is a small proportion of overall Ministry of Justice spending. That may be so, but it is still a great deal of money, and this Government are committed to ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of taxpayers’ money, regardless of the scale of the expenditure.
Clause 12 will allow the Lord Chancellor to set rates recoverable in private prosecutions, but only when informed by extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation. We will set rates that are proportionate to the complexity and seriousness of the case, ensuring consistency, clarity and transparency, all the while safeguarding the vital right to bring a private prosecution. I make it absolutely clear that this Government have no intention of trying to curtail that right; that is not what the clause is intended to do.
Lord Keen of Elie
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 4B and 4C in lieu—
“(2AB) Before making any regulations giving effect to subsections (2ZA) or (2A), the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish an impact assessment evaluating the likely effects of the regulations, including, but not limited to, their impact on—
(i) the ability of private prosecutors to bring proceedings,
(ii) the charitable and voluntary sector, and
(iii) access to justice, and
(b) publish a response to that impact assessment.”
“(4) In section 29 (regulations), in subsection (1B) omit “or 19(4B)” and insert “, 19(4B) or 20(1A)(d) in relation to private prosecutions”.””
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion D1 as an amendment to Motion D. I begin by thanking the Minister for Motions E and F, which are an important step forward for victims. They provide for more time to submit an unduly lenient sentence application and create an exceptional circumstances clause when it is in the interest of justice to do so. Motion F will ensure that the victims’ code is amended to ensure that victims are notified of their right of access to the ULS scheme—an issue that unfortunately has acted as a barrier to the scheme in previous cases.
I must confess I am a little surprised to see Motion E in the name of the Minister. She said in response to my own amendment on Report:
“The victims asked us not to bring forward our amendment extending the time limit to 56 days, and so we have not done so”. —[Official Report, 10/3/26; col. 244.]
I wonder whether that is still the view of the victims now that we have an extension to six months.
Motion D1 in my name concerns the issue of private prosecutions and, while it is not my intention to repeat the debate in Committee and on Report on the importance of private prosecutions for charities or for dealing with the scourge of shoplifting, we on these Benches continue to harbour serious concerns about the manner in which Clause 12 is drafted. It was therefore unfortunate that the Government have not acted on any of the arguments raised by me, my noble friend Lord Sandhurst or the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with regard to these issues.
The Government have stated that, before any rates are set, there will be extensive engagement with stake- holders and a full public consultation, yet Clause 12 as drafted will give the Government the power to cap the amounts payable for prosecutors for their costs prior to any consultation actually taking place. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said on Report,
“that is the wrong way round”.—[Official Report, 10/3/26; col. 224.]
We on these Benches agree with that sentiment entirely.
However, as the Government have cited financial privilege as a reason for opposing our amendment to leave out Clause 12 from the Bill, I have instead tabled Motion D1, which contains two amendments in lieu. The effect of these amendments is threefold and seeks to mitigate the consequences of Clause 12. First, they would ensure that an impact assessment is launched on the potential effect of Clause 12, with particular regard to its consequences for charities and victims regarding access to justice. That need is underlined by the observations that the Minister made about there being some reservation about the way in which private prosecutions are being pursued. It is only appropriate, therefore, that these matters should be addressed. Secondly, my amendments would ensure that the Government publish a response to that impact assessment before they exercise the regulatory-making powers under Clause 12. Thirdly, the amendments would ensure that such regulation is subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses, which is entirely appropriate in these circumstances. The Government have said that they have no intention of exercising the regulatory powers under Clause 12 until after their own public consultation, so I see no reason why they should oppose these amendments. They have been drafted with transparency and open justice in mind. If it is the Government’s intention to resist these simple amendments, then I will seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I turn first to the issue of private prosecutions, which is the contentious area in this group. I say at the outset that we on these Benches agree with Motion D1, and the Amendments 4B and 4C in lieu, proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen.
I start with a brief general point that we have made before. Private prosecutions are important, particularly against a background that police and other prosecuting authorities often have insufficient resources, or in some cases insufficient will, to investigate and prosecute offences themselves. It is wrong that decisions to invoke the criminal law should be exclusively in the hands of the state and its agencies. Private prosecutions offer a way for commercial organisations and for charities and others to bring prosecutions. That is important in the cases of shop theft in particular, but also in cases of fraud against charities and in other criminal matters. It is essential, however, that those who bring such prosecution successfully should be able to recover their reasonable costs. Otherwise, we risk their being deterred from doing so by having to bear the whole cost themselves without the prospect of objectively reasonable reimbursement.
As it stands, Clause 12 looks like an attempt to give the Government power to bring in regulations to limit the costs to be reimbursed. It may be that there are some private prosecutions where lawyers are overcharging for those prosecutions, and if that is the case, and there is evidence to establish that, then there may be some need for further regulation. But as a general rule it is unwise for Parliament to give Ministers the power to make regulations without their first establishing that such regulations are necessary. In this case, there is no hard evidence that we have seen to establish that regulations limiting the recoverable costs of private prosecutions are necessary. Ministers should not be able to bring such regulations into effect to limit recovery of such costs without their first establishing the necessity for such regulations.
Hence, the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord are right, I suggest. They are right to insist that an impact assessment, considering the likely effect of the regulations, and a response by the Government to that impact assessment, are made public before any regulations can be brought into effect. That would mean that Parliament can be properly informed of the need for them. The accompanying amendment, requiring an affirmative resolution, is entirely consistent with that principle, so we will support those amendments in lieu.
I turn next to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We fully support the Government’s amendments in lieu, and we are very grateful to the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lady Brinton and me to consider our concern about the rights of victims and their families to refer sentences for consideration in circumstances where they have not been informed about the detail of the scheme or have not had reasonable time to consider making such a referral, at a time when circumstances for those victims are traumatic in the extreme.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, on the Motion that has been proposed as regards private prosecutions, it is very urgent that this is brought into effect as soon as possible. If the proposal goes ahead for an extensive consultation of the kind envisaged, together with impact assessments and responses, I fear this would be a regrettable move, given the tremendous impact on the criminal justice system of the loss of funds.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to make a virtual contribution.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks for his comments on private prosecutions, and for the discussions we have had with the Minister, and separately with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, over the course of the Bill.
I echo the two important points from our Benches made by my noble friend Lord Marks. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has helpfully reflected in his Motion, an impact assessment on these specific regulations is vital. It would assess how workable they are, especially for the charitable and voluntary sectors, as well as for access to justice. My noble friend’s second point was equally important, and one that we on these Benches often talk about: the risk of giving Ministers the power to use regulations—in this case, to recover costs—without any transparency or reference back to Parliament. The Government need to think hard before they bring that into force.
I now turn to Motion E on unduly lenient sentences. I repeat my thanks to the Minister and her officials, as well as to the late Helen Newlove, the current Victims’ Commissioner, the new Victims’ Commissioner for London, and all their staff over the many years that I and others have been laying amendments to improve the arrangements for victims to be able to submit a claim to the Attorney-General to review an unduly lenient sentence.
I want to pick up where I left off in the previous group, when I outlined how the criminal justice process can seriously let down victims, including on the occasions when they are left distraught by a sentence that really does not meet the level needed for the horrendous experience that they were put through. I am very grateful to the Minister for her comments about the extraordinary work that Tracey Hanson has done to ensure that, after her family’s experience, changes should be made. Her experience was an appalling failure of public service to victims like her and her family. Over 10 years ago, her 21 year-old son, Josh, was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack. In Josh’s case, it took four years for a conviction and sentencing to be reached. She said:
“At no stage during the trial or at the point of sentencing was I informed of the ULS scheme. I only learned of its existence from another bereaved parent, by which time I had just hours left to act within the strict 28-day limit. With no clear guidance available, I submitted an appeal late in the evening on the 28th day, only to be told it was ‘out of time’ because it arrived outside office hours. That decision was final. I had no right to appeal”.
I have heard a little of the energy that the indomitable Tracey Hanson, Claire Waxman and others found on that single day to try to get an appeal in, after being told of it by another bereaved parent, which was, as been mentioned, on deadline day. That formal notice did not give a notice of an hour by which an appeal had to be submitted. Frankly, it was appalling that the Attorney-General’s Office chose to reject it because its idea of the end of the day was Friday hours—namely, 4 pm—even though it was posted by hand through its doors after that deadline but on the Friday.
That is why, during the passage of this Bill, our amendments have consistently asked for special arrangements. First, there must be a duty on an official body to notify a victim as soon as possible after sentencing, and in the event that a victim has not been informed in that time, special arrangements should be made. That is why I am so grateful to the Minister for the government amendments in Motions E and F. Yes, the Minister and I have had extensive discussions and, yes, we have agreed on some things and disagreed on others, but I want to thank Ministers in the MoJ for the round-table meeting with a number of victims last month, when four Ministers were able to hear at first hand from victims about their experience. I hope that, too, played a part in the decision to change things.
Motions E and F are very helpful steps forward to resolve problems and change an intransigent process that has blocked access to justice for victims. We hope that this will now signify a real change to their experience.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I start by touching briefly on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Once again, I am grateful to your Lordships for the care and consideration brought to this debate, not only today but throughout the passage of this Bill. These measures matter; they will make a meaningful difference to those who have already endured so much.
I turn to the question of private prosecutions and reiterate that I recognise the concerns raised in relation to Clause 12. I want to make it clear again, as I have said before, that the vast majority of private prosecutions do not result in claims on central funds and will remain entirely unaffected by this measure. It is absolutely right that a number of respected charities make use of the private prosecution route to protect the public and prevent and pursue wrongdoing, but those cases account for only 10% to 15% of claims made on central funds. I make it absolutely crystal clear that we have no issue with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. This enabling power does not restrict who may bring a private prosecution, nor does it narrow the types of cases that may be pursued, and nothing in the clause alters the long-standing statutory right to bring a private prosecution.
It has been suggested that the Government must first consult in order to understand the landscape, but the need has already been established. The Justice Select Committee’s 2020 report published 42 accounts of written evidence and expressly recommended that the Government take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly when public money is involved. Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts also heard evidence of private prosecutions being misused and imposing significant burdens on the courts. Clause 12 responds to these findings, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his support.
Having said all that, we will engage thoroughly with stakeholders and we will hold a public consultation before any secondary legislation setting the rates is brought forward. As part of that process, we will undertake and publish an impact assessment.
I have stressed the importance of prescribing rates which address disproportionate costs without chilling the private prosecutions market. I bear in mind that, in recent years, your Lordships’ House has expressed concern about the quality of impact assessments, so we will work hard to develop an impact assessment which allows the Government to make good, evidence-based decisions. We believe that that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is referring to when he seeks to compel the Government to respond to an impact assessment in paragraph (b) of Amendment 4B. I would be grateful if he could let me know whether he means something else. Had he accepted my invitation to a meeting, we might have been able to resolve that in advance.
I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments on the ULS scheme and to support Motions D, E, F and G.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Lord Keen of Elie
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 4B and 4C in lieu—
“(2AB) Before making any regulations giving effect to subsections (2ZA) or (2A), the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish an impact assessment evaluating the likely effects of the regulations, including, but not limited to, their impact on—
(i) the ability of private prosecutors to bring proceedings,
(ii) the charitable and voluntary sector, and
(iii) access to justice, and
(b) publish a response to that impact assessment.”
“(4) In section 29 (regulations), in subsection (1B) omit “or 19(4B)” and insert “, 19(4B) or 20(1A)(d) in relation to private prosecutions”.””
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, in the light of what we have heard, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion D1.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A, and do propose Amendments 5B to 5F in lieu—
“(d) after sub-paragraph (4) (inserted by subsection (2)(c)) insert—
“(5) The Court of Appeal may allow notice of an application for leave to refer a case to be given after the expiry of the period in sub-paragraph (1) (and any extension of that period under sub-paragraph (2)) where the Court of Appeal is satisfied that—
(a) notice of the application is given pursuant to a request, by a person who is a victim in the case falling within section 1(1)(a) or (2)(c) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (meaning of “victim”), to review the sentencing of a person,
(b) notice of the application is given—
(i) within six months from the day on which the sentence, or the last of the sentences, in the case was passed, or
(ii) where the request is received by the Attorney General within the last 14 days of the six-month period mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), within 14 days from the day on which the request is received, and
(c) it is in the interests of justice to allow notice to be given after the expiry of the period in sub-paragraph (1) (and any extension of that period under sub-paragraph (2)).””
“(4) The amendment made by subsection (2)(d) applies only in relation to cases where the sentence, or the last of the sentences, was passed after it came into force.”
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A, and do propose Amendments 6B and 6C in lieu—
“Reviews of sentencing: duty to notify victims
(1) Section 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (victims’ code) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision about informing victims of the opportunity to ask the Attorney General to refer a case to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (unduly lenient sentences).
(3B) Subsection (3A) applies only in respect of—
(a) a person who is a victim by virtue of section 1(1)(a) or (2)(c), and
(b) cases relating to the criminal conduct as a result of which that person is such a victim.”
(3) In subsection (13), after “references in” insert “subsection (3A) and”.
(4) In section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in subsection (1), at the end insert “(for requests for referrals by victims of crime in England and Wales, see section 2(3A) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024)”.”
“(ca) section (Reviews of sentencing: duty to notify victims) (reviews of sentencing: duty to notify victims);”
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
Southport Inquiry
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for today’s Statement. There are many things to learn but our foremost concern must be with the victims and their families. This report is littered with evidence of institutional failure. Time and again, public bodies were presented with the evidence and given the chance to intercept Rudakubana, and yet they failed to act. It is, in retrospect, unfathomable that Rudakubana was referred to Prevent three times and each time the referral was closed. I am therefore delighted that the Government have now updated their Prevent assessment framework and that oversight of repeat Prevent referrals has been strengthened. That basis must now be built upon, beginning by reviewing Sir Adrian Fulford’s Prevent recommendations. The importance of investigating online activity and ensuring that neurodivergence has a place within practitioner training must now be prioritised. When can this House expect an update from the new Prevent commissioner on incorporating these suggestions into the system?
There is also evidence that shortfalls in information sharing between agencies represented one of the key failures among public services, particularly on behalf of the police. Sir Adrian has outlined that the police should have progressed Rudakubana to the multi-agency Channel programme and has made several other important suggestions on general police practice. Given that the Secretary of State acknowledges that this step should have been taken, can the Minister offer a timescale in which we can expect to see measures to ensure that guidance on Channel referrals is followed consistently?
It was also noted that Rudakubana’s autism was a key factor in the police not taking action on early warning signs. Following a report by his parents in 2021, the police concluded that the
“suspect suffers with autism and it is not in [the] public interest to prosecute”.
The report found that Lancashire Constabulary, despite responding appropriately to calls, did so
“without any real consideration or understanding of what”
his autism
“might mean for his criminal responsibility or risk”.
This approach was mirrored by the social services. The child and youth justice service reduced its contact time with Rudakubana and later began to accept his attendance at school as qualifying contact time due to his autism. This was despite the fact that he had failed to adequately engage with his social worker.
It is clear that there exists an institutionalised practice to defer to disabilities as an explanation for misconduct and to focus on the individual’s vulnerability over the risk they may pose. In this case, inaction on behalf of the authorities was in part caused by the attacker’s autism diagnosis. Can the Minister say whether, in the light of this report, the Government are now reviewing their position on sectioning and whether there are lessons to be learned that should be applied to our approach relating to neurodivergent people more generally?
Another important revelation of this report—one that was missing from the Home Secretary’s Statement—was a similarly institutionalised practice to consider race as an important factor in agency work. Rudakubana’s head teacher, Joanne Hodson, was encouraged to water down his education, health and care plan by both his father and social services. His social worker at the time even went so far as to accuse Mrs Hodson of “racially stereotyping” Axel Rudakubana as
“a black boy with a knife”.
This is becoming a worrying trend. The same practices were made apparent in the inquiry into the tragic murders in Nottingham in 2023. Mental health care professionals had not sectioned Valdo Calocane due to the concern they placed on the “over-representation” of young Black men in detention. This mindset within institutions filters through into the public conscience. A security guard present at the Manchester Arena suicide bombing avoided confronting Salman Abedi for fear of being called a racist, despite having a “bad feeling” about the soon-to-be suicide bomber.
The institutional obsession with ethnic or racial parity must end. Immutable identity cannot play a role in agency work concerned with protecting the public. Public bodies must act if and when there is ample evidence to suggest a risk to the individual or to the public, as was the case with Rudakubana, regardless of who they are. If that leads to disproportionality then so be it. If outcomes suggest an overrepresentation of this or that community then I am afraid the responsibility must lie with the individuals in question, not the public bodies reacting to their actions. We cannot continue with this current mindset; the consequences are far too dire. That much has been made tragically clear. I hope the Minister can agree on this specific point.
I hope that, in the light of these findings, the relevant agencies will now be spurred on to making the necessary changes to their operations to ensure that an atrocity like this will not result from their failings again. In particular, information-sharing must be made a priority. I hope the Minister will make this assurance today.
I also acknowledge the monumental shortcomings of the attacker’s parents. Past the failure to seek adequate help regarding Rudakubana’s behaviour, the refusal to alert the police of his purchase of weapons and the lack of accountability that Sir Adrian Fulford highlighted in their testimonies, their actions in the week leading up to the attack are unforgivable. The report leaves no doubt that the parents had the express knowledge that Rudakubana was planning to commit an attack, yet they did nothing to prevent it. It will do little to prompt criminal proceedings, nor will it offer much comfort to the families of the victims, but it is an important point to place on the record.
This report must serve as an inflection point. We owe it to the victims, survivors, families and communities affected by this atrocity. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I commend the Statement made in the other place. Our thoughts remain with the families of Elsie Dot, Bebe and Alice, and with those still living with the physical and psychological scars of Southport.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the first phase of Sir Adrian Fulford’s inquiry. Its findings are indeed unsparing but, tragically, not unsurprising. How often have we stood here after inquests and inquiries, hearing once again of the same systemic failures, poor information sharing and missed opportunities?
The report describes the state’s failure as belonging to everyone and therefore to no one. In the five years before the attack, the perpetrator came into contact with almost every arm of the state: mental health services, children’s social care, three schools, Lancashire Police and the Prevent programme, three times. No comprehensive risk assessment was ever made and each agency assumed someone else would take the lead. This was a failure not only to join up the dots but to share life-saving information. As Sir Adrian warns, that culture must end—because until it does, tragedies like this will happen again.
The Government now say that they will legislate to strengthen accountability between agencies. This is welcome, but it is hard to understand why they are overlooking an opportunity already before them in the Crime and Policing Bill—a Bill which, ironically, could help deliver exactly what the inquiry calls for. The Bill proposes youth diversion orders to support young people who pose a risk of serious violence or radicalisation—precisely the cohort at the centre of this inquiry. Properly framed, these orders could address the very gap Sir Adrian identifies.
When the police apply for an order, the court should be able to see all the relevant information, from schools, social care, health services and the police, to build a complete picture of the child’s needs and risks. However, as drafted in the Bill, that will not happen. The police will consult only the youth offending team. There will be no legal duty to involve schools, health professionals or social services, and no guarantee that the court will ever hear from them. Judges will not see the full picture that could mean the difference between prevention and disaster. That is why I tabled an amendment to introduce a clear multi-agency consultation duty, which would build exactly the structured accountability that Sir Adrian said is essential.
Had such a duty existed before the Southport attack, the perpetrator’s autism might not have been repeatedly misunderstood as an explanation for his behaviour. The police might have known more about the support available, and agencies might have felt obliged to share vital information. I made these points on Report, but the Government resisted the amendment, preferring to rely on guidance. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity at all, but we risk once again seeing fine words followed by inaction.
It is not too late. The Bill will return to this House tomorrow. I urge Ministers to look again, in the light of the inquiry’s finding, and to act swiftly to ensure that the law reflects what Sir Adrian has so clearly set out: lives depend on joined up responsibility and real accountability.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made in the House of Commons yesterday. My thoughts and, I know, those of the whole House will be with the families of the three girls who were killed and with the victims who are still suffering the trauma of those events. The events in Southport on 29 July 2024 were completely shocking, and I welcome Sir Adrian Fulford’s report on his findings. I thank him and his team, who I have met on a number of occasions during the first stage of the inquiry. I say to the House as a whole that the Government will consider the recommendations in full, and we will respond to phase 1 of the report by the summer. I thank Sir Adrian again for his work.
Sir Adrian’s inquiry identified five main areas of failings, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, highlighted. Those failings are clear and are very strong criticisms, which we need to examine and address in the response to those recommendations. Sir Adrian indicated that there was a failure of organisation and ownership of risk with the perpetrator themselves. There was poor information management and sharing, there were excuses for the behaviour of the perpetrator due to the diagnosed autism spectrum disorder and there was a failure to oversee and intervene in the perpetrator’s online behaviours. The role of the perpetrator’s parents, as the noble Lord identified, was a major failure. As I said, we will consider those recommendations and formally respond to the inquiry in the summer.
I note and appreciate the comments and the pressure put on me by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but it is important that we get this right and consider the recommendations in full. The Crime and Policing Bill is coming back tomorrow. It will potentially, subject to its passage in the Commons, complete its passage by the end of the Session. I do not want to use that week to rush to a decision, which is why we have said that we will respond to the inquiry by the summer.
As the House will know, we have also established phase 2 of the inquiry, which will begin immediately. We have issued terms of reference for phase 2, which will look at whether multi-agency systems are fit to assess and address the risk posed by young people who are fascinated by extreme violence. I expect to receive the recommendations from Sir Adrian in due course. It is certainly important to look not just at the case of the individual—who, I remind the House, faces a 52-year minimum term sentence in prison for his horrific crimes—but at whether there are other systemic issues that need to be examined. The inquiry has made 67 recommendations in full, and we will respond to those. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not wish to rush those responses today.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, also mentioned Prevent. Since the attack, we have already made improvements to the Prevent programme. This was the most likely framework that could have addressed the risk that the perpetrator posed. To strengthen Prevent, we have launched a new Prevent risk assessment tool, changed the approach to repeat referrals, looked at new guidance to individuals working with people under the Prevent framework and expanded the range of interventions available. We have also introduced the role of the Independent Prevent Commissioner, which was initially held by a colleague—a noble Lord in this House—but has now been approved on a permanent basis, with Tim Jacques being appointed as the Prevent commissioner.
The Government will examine those issues in detail and continue to learn, and will look at the responses to the recommendations in due course. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who holds that role at the moment. I welcome his contribution to date in helping us to improve the Prevent response.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the question of autism. That was identified by Fulford’s initial recommendations. The perpetrator was autistic and clearly this increased the risk he posed to people in the community. However, autism itself did not necessarily cause the events that happened on 29 July 2024. Risk needs to be assessed on an individual basis. In the case of the Southport perpetrator, autism spectrum disorder clearly added to the risk he posed. The inquiry found that too many professionals were willing to excuse his behaviour because of this. We will make sure that practitioners, particularly those working in Prevent, understand that a referral should not be dismissed and that action should be taken. This behaviour should not have been excused because of autism. The inquiry highlights serious concerns.
For the noble Lord’s information, independently of this inquiry, the Government are committed to developing a new autism strategy following recent House of Lords reports on the Autism Act 2009. Work is under way to develop a cross-government national autism strategy. The inquiry’s findings will be carefully considered as part of this proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the parents. The inquiry examined the role of the perpetrator’s family and has been extremely critical of them. Sir Adrian makes clear findings on moral failings that should have been reported regarding the perpetrator’s behaviour, his collecting of weapons, and his approach to family life and the community around him. It is a matter ultimately for the police whether any criminal action is taken in relation to the parents. The parents are British citizens and have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, as does the perpetrator. There are certainly lessons to be learned from that and we will respond to the recommendations in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the question of race. In this case, that may be a factor, where people have not taken the action that they should have because of the individual’s race. However, I want to make it clear to the House that the action taken by the perpetrator, who is now serving 52 years in prison, could have been taken by anybody, regardless of race. I do not want to bring the issue of race into this, but I understand the point that the noble Lord has made—namely, that professionals need to ignore race when they look at the actions of an individual. That is the important point that has come out of this report.
Finally, the Government have already taken further action to ensure that we establish an internal working group to look at the recommendations that have been made. As I have said to the House, we will report back by the summer on those initial recommendations. Phase 2 has begun now and it has our full support. As the Minister sponsoring the inquiry, I will continue to meet Sir Adrian to ensure that he has the resource and support to achieve his final recommendations.
It is clear to the House that the individual concerned undertook appalling acts. Our thoughts remain with the families of the victims. It is our duty as the Government to look at where failures existed that contributed to this attack. The responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator, but there are factors that contributed to the attack. With due respect to all Members of the House, we need to reflect on the recommendations. We will bring back government proposals in due course for phases 1 and 2.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive answers. He is of course absolutely right that, for many of the recommendations, the Government must take the time to think through their response to get it right. However, people looking at the Fulford report will have noticed the systemic failures. One of the things they will be concerned about is whether there are currently people who present a risk to the community, who may not have been referred to Prevent, who are going to fall through the cracks. That is an urgent matter.
Is the Minister confident that the welcome steps that the Government have already taken to strengthen the way Prevent works, and the other changes they have made, will capture any of those individuals in the system? Can he provide that assurance to the House—or is there more in a short-term way that the Government need to do to check that no-one has already fallen through the cracks who may present a risk to the public?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an absolutely fair point. Again I put to the House that Sir Adrian’s recommendations are clear. There are five areas of failing. We are looking at those recommendations and will report on them in the summer. The second phase is looking at the wider picture. We will look at those recommendations in due course.
However, the Home Office is not complacent. We have established a violence fixation taskforce, which is looking at a range of issues in the Home Office: the recommendations, the Government’s response and the development of the very issue that the noble Lord mentions, which is identifying individuals at risk who are fascinated by violence, managing that risk and looking with other agencies at what we need to do, pending a formal response to the recommendations in due course.
It is very difficult sometimes if individuals appear from nowhere. We cannot necessarily legislate against that, but it is important that we review now what the priority approaches are to make sure that, if there are people in the system, we examine that very clearly and quickly. The Home Office taskforce is now being commissioned by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to establish some general examination of the very issues that the noble Lord mentions. I hope to report back to the House in due course.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and Southport. In the immediate days after this unspeakable tragedy, additional resources were put into Southport in terms of policing and counselling for young people in the local community and local schools. The support provided by the local community after this tragedy was immense: the local authority, schools and the voluntary sector. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister what his plans are to ensure that this support is continued to a community in Southport that is still in mourning and in shock?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes the valid point that the whole community in Southport and in Merseyside, and the religious community in the area, came together to give support to the families. This happened two weeks after the general election. The local MP, Patrick Hurley, had just been elected. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has helped support the local community in Southport. The churches, the imams and the local Jewish community have all come together to give that support. The Government recognised the needs of Southport by putting additional resources into the local council and the local community and will continue to monitor that.
This is a major, traumatic event for the families and for the community as a whole. It is important that we do what we can to maintain community cohesion and support the local community. The Government stand ready to continue to give help and support where required, during both the second stage of these recommendations and the whole process of Southport healing and remembering the victims of this despicable crime.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I cannot imagine what it is like for the parents of those three little girls and the other injured children to hear the key word that was used in relation to the inquiry: that these events were “preventable”. That is the most chilling idea: they could have been stopped. The butcher behind the slaughter was hiding in plain sight—a known risk since 13—but, somehow, state bodies did nothing, zilch. So how will those state agencies that failed here be held to account? Will people be sacked? Surely, there must be some consequences. It cannot just be a vague, “Lessons must be learned”.
The Minister said that we should not bring race in to this. I do not think anyone did, except the state agencies that said action should not be taken because of the race of the individual. I am referring as well to the ongoing Nottingham inquiry—I am sure the Minister is following it—where Calocane also murdered three innocent people. Nobody wants to talk about race but, as Emma, the mother of Barnaby, one of the murdered people, said, “I don’t want to talk about race”, but mental health treatment was not given to him because it might be seen as being because he was Black. A bastardised anti-racism has not helped us here and will not help us hold people to account, either. We must be honest and frank. We are not bringing race into this; the institutions and state bodies did.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope I was clear and I thought I made it clear to the House when I talked about the issue of race and said that the characteristics that led to the individual perpetrating this awful attack were mental health issues, obsession and a range of other issues that were identified in the report. There was an element of people using the issue of race to not necessarily follow through on some of the points that they could have done, but the race of the perpetrator is an issue that we need to be very careful about examining per se. There are obviously issues within that.
When we look at Adrian Fulford’s recommendations in due course, there are obviously failures around the management of the individual. We will look at those recommendations. On the individuals who have been criticised, I am sure there will be discussion with local authorities and others about how they improve that performance. But I say to the noble Baroness that we had this report yesterday at noon. It is important that we look at and assess the recommendations. I have given a commitment that we will report back by the end of the summer, and that is one thing that we will do. So, if she will allow me, I will not comment on the issues she has raised pending the examination of the inquiry in detail.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, after what happened in Southport, is it fair to say that the parameters within which Prevent operates are too narrowly drawn? What I mean by that is that the perpetrator’s obsession with violence was drawn to the attention of Prevent three times, but Prevent’s response was, “Well, because he doesn’t fall within these narrow parameters, there is basically nothing we can do”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for making the very important point that there are issues that we need to examine in relation to obsession with serious violence that may be outside the Prevent programme but need to be examined as part of the characteristics of somebody referred to Prevent. Part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s inquiry has very clear terms of reference to look at the issues of how individuals are being radicalised and how they are becoming obsessed with violence. Sometimes that violence obsession is not linked not to an ideology but to the whole principle of, “I want to be involved in violence”. That is a new element that we need to examine, and part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s report is designed to look at that very issue.
We have already reviewed the Prevent agenda and widened its scope. The Independent Prevent Commissioner has already produced a report for us on those issues, and we are going to continue to look at how we improve Prevent. I say to my noble friend that Prevent has been a significant intervention in almost 6,000 cases to date and has turned many people’s lives around. It has had cross-government support and support from all parties, and I want to continue to use it. But there are certainly lessons to be learned, which is what we will do in relation to our examination of these issues.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister say what advice he has given or is planning to give to the Secretary of State for Education about managing the risk that, sadly, some young people present to their peers and to adults? I ask this because I read the Southport report and all the shocking findings it lays out immediately after reading a recently published Ofsted document on its areas of research interest, where there is an explicit statement that it is aligned with the Department for Education’s areas of interest. They are overwhelmingly about how to include more children who face additional barriers and need extra support and how to support them better. There is not a single question in the whole of it that acknowledges the risk that sometimes exists for other children when high-risk children are included, yet there are, to touch on points that others have made, a number of questions that express concern about stereotyping. It feels as though some departments are still going headlong down the route of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to as a sort of bastardised anti-racism and failing to be honest, open and transparent in the interests of all children—who can no longer include, sadly, the children who were murdered at Southport, but should include all their successors.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. Self-evidently, there are lessons to be learned by the health service, education and other agencies of government and at a regional level from the failures that occurred that Sir Adrian has identified. As part of our task force examining the recommendations, we will certainly be involving other government departments and discussing with them how we can help them to improve their performance. There may be lessons to be learned, as the noble Baroness said, in relation to education. I expect that when we respond to the recommendations, that will be a cross-government response. It will not just be a Home Office response. It will include the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and the Department of Health. I will, if she will let me, reflect on the points that she has made and feed them into my colleagues in education. We will continue to look at that as a cross-government approach to the recommendations that Sir Adrian has made.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, this has been one of the most horrendous cases that we have witnessed. I believe that the public have lost confidence in so many authorities which should be looking after our children, and all of us, frankly. I recall the Victoria Climbié case and the many children over the years who were murdered and tortured, and there were always lessons to be learned. This is not pointed at just one Government by the way; it is just a fact of life. Latterly, we had the Manchester Arena bomber and all those children who were murdered, and we have had rape gangs, a situation that has gone on for the past 20 or 30 years. Here we are now in Southport. My view is that the public have lost confidence because nobody is ever held to account. This is not about just pointing a finger and wanting to see somebody in authority end up in court, but the cover-ups that have gone on in some of these awful circumstances, with nobody brought to account or feeling the full force of the law, cannot continue. Until this is dealt with in a far more open manner and those who are accountable feel the full force of the law, I do not think we are going to get any further forward, and there will be no lessons learned because we will probably be having this sort of conversation in another year or two’s time. I know that the noble Lord is a good Minister and very thorough and that all of us in this House want to resolve these awful issues. He has our full support, but we need to regain the confidence of the public.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to give confidence to the public, and the purpose of the inquiry that the then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper launched was to ensure that we drew out some lessons. There will always be, in the cycle of any Government at any time, things thrown up that show failures. This inquiry has found that no single agency, or multi-agency arrangement, took ownership of the risk; that is unacceptable. There was poor information recording management and sharing of agencies and professions; that is unacceptable. The behaviour of the individual was excused based on his autism; that should not have happened. There was a failure to understand and intervene in online behaviours, both at home and at school, and his parents in particular had major failings in excusing his behaviour.
Can we make changes on those things? The recommendations that Sir Adrian has made are guidance for us. In answer to the earlier question of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, we are going to reflect on those in due course. A range of issues might come out of that, including how we hold individuals to account. The key thing, having had those recommendations at 12 noon yesterday, is that the Government have time to consider them properly, and to bring back a plan for both Houses of Parliament. As soon as those recommendations were received by Government, we brought them to this House, and the House of Commons, to share them in an open and public way, so that colleagues will know that we share those concerns. We have, I hope, the full support of the House to address them, and will do our best to ensure systemic failures are addressed and, if need be, individuals are held to account.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not usually call for bans, but I would like to call for a ban on the phrase “lessons must be learned”. That is what makes the public feel cynical. I have been here for a few years, and “lessons must be learned” has been said so often to me, but none has ever been learned, as far as I can see. Can we just stop saying that phrase, because everyone just rolls their eyes? That was a joke.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Excuse me, but it is not time for a joke. Statements should be about questions to the Minister.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me give the noble Baroness an answer. If she thinks that we are not going to take this issue seriously, bring forward a plan, respond to the recommendations and, yes, learn some lessons, then she is dealing with the wrong Minister in the wrong place. My job is to make sure that we respond to this in an effective and constructive way. I am trying to reach out to the whole House to say that there is, I hope, a unified approach to these recommendations. I will report back and, if lessons have to be learned—I will use that phrase again—the whole purpose of the Government’s actions will be to prevent this happening in the future as far as possible. That is what this Government are trying to do.
Knife Crime
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we meet at a time when too many people in this country still feel less safe in their streets and less confident in the criminal justice system. We know the threat of knife crime; in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, we on this side of the House pointed out that, in the year ending March 2025, there were 528,582 stop and searches in England and Wales, including 5,572 under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. In the year ending June 2025, there were 51,527 knife offences, and 1.1 million incidents of violence, with or without injury, recorded by the police.
The Government now say that they will halve knife crime in a decade, and we all want that, but targets without a clear plan are not enough. Can the Minister say how they are going to empower police to tackle knife crime with confidence? If the Government want officers to act decisively to prevent violence, they must also ensure that officers who act lawfully and proportionately feel properly backed. That is why we must prevent the Independent Office for Police Conduct from reopening an investigation into the same conduct after a police officer has been prosecuted and acquitted, unless there is substantial new evidence. We have made that argument forcefully in debates on the Crime and Policing Bill, and we will revisit that tomorrow.
The Government must not undermine police confidence when we need more proactive policing. Although the Government speak of neighbourhood policing expansion, the fact is that overall police officer numbers have fallen by more than 1,300 since the Government took office, including particularly sharp falls in the Metropolitan Police when knife crime is at its worst in London. What impact has the fall in police numbers had on overall crime levels and on perceptions of safety in communities? What steps are Ministers taking to expand the numbers of police officers, and when will they deliver on their manifesto commitment to recruit more police?
In Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, we proposed lowering the threshold for Section 60 from “anticipated serious violence” to “anticipated violence”. Unfortunately, the Government declined. What was their answer? The Minister said in response that
“if we wish to make an impact on knife crime, stop and search is a tool in extremis but better education, youth futures programmes and policing hot spots are more effective ways of reducing the problem overall”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 150.]
I can say with confidence that hotspot policing and targeted funds are all very well but hotspots cannot police themselves, and the Government have still not gone far enough in strengthening police powers or in giving forces the numbers they need.
We need stronger controls on dangerous weapons and tougher restrictions on knife sales. In government, we Conservatives banned zombie knives. Can the Minister tell the House what impact in measurable terms the new ban on ninja swords has had on knife crime? Disappointingly, the Government have also opposed a Conservative amendment that would have increased the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four years to 14 years. Of course prevention matters, but it is complementary to, not a replacement for, a tough sentencing policy.
That brings me to youth hubs, youth centres and the wider youth offer. We want there to be investment in youth outreach and early intervention. How will the money be spent, how will success be measured and how will resources be redirected if schemes do not work?
This matters all the more because the Government’s broader economic policy risks undermining the very stability that they claim to be building. Young men do not drift into gang culture and street violence in a vacuum. Where there are few opportunities to prosper, young people are more vulnerable to exploitation and more likely to join illegal gangs. That is why it is entirely proper for this House to ask whether the Government’s wider tax-and-spend choices are making matters worse. If you make it more expensive to hire and to take a chance on a younger worker, it is entry- level jobs that disappear first, and the vulnerable young person finds legitimate work just out of reach. Gangs do not recruit in prosperous conditions; they recruit where the formal economy has receded and the illicit economy looks, to a teenager, like the only market left.
I am not claiming that every unemployed young person turns to crime—that is not true; far from it—nor do I diminish the individual’s responsibility for their actions, but a weaker youth labour market creates more fertile ground for exploitation, including by county lines gangs and organised criminal networks. Indeed, we have consistently challenged Ministers directly on youth unemployment and the effect of the Government’s economic choices on hiring. The public deserve better and I believe this Government have some way to go yet.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s new strategy in broad terms. It is the right direction of travel. There is much in Protecting Lives, Building Hope to support the focus on prevention, early intervention and joined-up local action. These are principles that the Liberal Democrats have long championed, and it is good to see them reflected in national policy.
Knife crime continues to harm too many lives and too many communities. Many areas still feel the effects of reduced youth services and local support. Rebuilding these networks must be central, and I am encouraged that the strategy recognises that. The principle behind the plan is sound. If delivered well it can do lasting good, but success depends on sustained funding. Prevention cannot be turned on and off with budget cycles. Youth work and early intervention succeed only when they are steady and trusted.
Resources should be directed where fear and harm are greatest. Knife crime shapes how young people move about their area, how safe they feel and where they go. A data-driven approach is sensible, provided that it is used carefully and does not erode trust or concentrate suspicion unfairly. Real neighbourhood policing, visible, consistent and rooted in local knowledge, remains the best safeguard against that.
Technology and crime mapping can help, but that is not the whole answer. Ours is already one of the most surveilled countries in the world and London alone is the most heavily monitored city in Europe. Knife crime, however, is a human problem requiring human connection. Innovation should complement proper front-line presence and strong community partnerships but never replace them, and we must guard against technology that subtly changes the nature of society or erodes rights and freedoms.
The strategy rightly points to the role of social media in glamorising violence, spreading fear and helping criminal networks to recruit and communicate. But we have reached the stage where policing online platforms requires more than new laws and rhetoric; it demands sustained, visible enforcement. The Online Safety Act provides for serious criminal penalties. What the public want to know now is how often these powers are used.
One area which needs clarity is the future of serious violence reduction orders, which allow stop and search of known offenders without suspicion. The Liberal Democrats have long had concerns about their proportionality and impact on public confidence. Can the Minister confirm whether they will continue and when Parliament will see the pilot evaluation? If they are not to be extended, we should understand why, and if future use is being considered, the evidence should be published in full.
This strategy contains many of the right elements. The challenge now is delivery and ensuring that those commitments lead to genuine, lasting change on the ground. The Liberal Democrats will support that ambition and work constructively to make it happen.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the broad support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the Government’s approach. This was a manifesto commitment to ensure that we tackle knife crime and halve it in the period of the action plan that we have brought forward today.
I just want to say to the House as an opener that the success to date in the last two years has also seen a reduction in knife crime as a whole. In the year before the start of this Parliament—2023-24—knife crime rose by 4% and by 4% in the year before that. Since the start of this Parliament, overall knife crime is down 8% and knife-related homicides and hospital admissions for assault with a sharp object are at their lowest level in a decade, dropping 27% and 11% respectively. Knife-enabled assaults are down by 9%, knife-enabled robberies are down by 10%, and more than 63,000 knives have been taken out of circulation, including in ninja sword surrender schemes that that we introduced following the ban on ninja swords last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned London. Since this Government were elected, knife crime in London has fallen by 7%. There were 15,981 offences in the last year of his Government, compared with 14,860 offences in the first year of this Government. So there is success but there is still individual challenge and individual responsibility is still required.
The knife crime action plan is a very substantial document and I recommend that noble Lords look at it in detail. It reflects a number of the concerns mentioned by both Front Benches, including the fact that we need to look at prevention, targeted hotspot work and supporting young people, particularly to avoid them getting involved in gangs. That is not just an aspiration from this Government. We will launch 50 Young Futures hubs by the end of this Parliament; the initial eight opened last week. We are putting an extra £66 million into the serious violence reduction programme. We are rolling out 50 Young Futures panels. We have provided £1.2 million for safety through school partnerships in 250 schools in knife crime hotspots, and have put £26 million into the knife crime concentrations fund.
It might interest the House to know that 27 police force areas make up 90% of the total knife crime in this country. It makes sense, therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, to try to focus resources on those hotspot areas. In this plan, we have now put £34 million into funding the county lines programme. We have put money into the pupil premium to look at funding violence-reduction programmes in those hotspot areas. We have put £15 million through the Ministry of Justice into interventions for children who are approaching the cusp of the criminal justice system but who should be moved away from it; and we are putting money into safer research and safer streets as a whole. As can be seen, this involves the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Home Office: this is a cross-government strategy to try to ensure that we reduce knife crime by half, as in the plan before us.
The question of stop and search is important, and we need to use it proportionately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said. It may surprise the House, and I hope will not horrify it, to know that 15,955 knives were recovered last year alone through stop and search. Without stop and search, those 15,955 knives would have been in people’s pockets, potentially being used to additionally attack, in either a robbery or an assault, or being used for defensive purposes leading to injury or death as a result of knife crime. We certainly need to look at the challenges of stop and search to make sure that it is fairly approached and done in a proper, effective way. I cannot, however, get away from the fact that almost 16,000 knives were found on people through both random stop and search and through intelligence-led policing, where we know that individuals may be knife carriers. Finding some 15,955 knives in one year is a deterrent, but it is also an important issue.
The question of sentencing is also important. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. He knows that tomorrow we will deal with those amendments. The Government have reflected on the concerns that he put, legitimately, on behalf of HMG Opposition. Tomorrow, there will be amendments that will move some way towards increasing the level of sentence as a whole. He will also know that the Government have a range of issues to do with prohibiting the purchase of knives online, stricter laws on age verification, checks on sale and delivery—all of which are in the Crime and Policing Bill, which I hope will receive favourable consideration for Royal Assent shortly. By autumn of this year, we will begin to put into practice the measures that have been legislated for in both Houses to help increase the restriction on knives as a whole.
On 16 December last year, we also launched a public consultation on a licensing scheme for those who sell knives or bladed articles, including importers, retailers and private sellers. That follows recommendations made in the end-to-end review on online knife sales to introduce a registration scheme to ensure that we have a minimum standard and that we can monitor those issues. We also have a range of measures going forward on the police numbers issue that the noble Lord mentioned. One of the purposes of the Government’s action was to focus again on neighbourhood policing, local police in local hotspots, and we have put 3,100 additional police officers and police community support officers into neighbourhood roles in less than a year. We have a plan to bring forward 13,000 additional neighbourhood personnel by the end of this Parliament.
That is the most important thing. Neighbourhood police officers know their flock, know the businesses and know the individuals in their community. They can gather intelligence, provide support to individuals, look at where gangs are operating and help co-ordinate interventions, along with the funding that we are providing in this plan. We will have a debate about police numbers, but the importance of having police in a neighbourhood is critical, and that is what the Government are trying to do with this proposal, in parallel to the action plan as a whole.
The House will know that this is an extremely difficult task. I will look at the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has mentioned, reflect on those and, if need be, respond to her by letter. This is an extremely thorough plan. It has new resource going to it to help meet its objectives, it is cross-government, it is paralleled with legislation currently before this House, and we will continue to work to improve neighbourhood policing over the course of this Parliament. Can we stop all knife crime? No, we cannot. Can we have an objective of achieving a halving of knife crime? Yes, we can. I pay tribute not just to Home Office officials but the police, community groups, campaigners and victims of knife crime who have helped formulate this plan. I hope that the House will give it its full support.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given a really scary figure of 16,000 knives having been confiscated—I take it that is what happened—as a result of stop and search. My noble friend may not have it available, but is there information on the ages of those who have been stopped? Is it just young men or have older men also been stopped? Does my noble friend have any information—he may need to research it, and I do not expect him to give me an answer right now—on what happened to those 16,000 persons who were found to be carrying a knife? It must have been in some form of illegal circumstances. What follow-through has been achieved out of this really scary figure of nearly 16,000 knives being confiscated following stop and search?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I gave that figure to the House because it is accurate and it shows the value of stop and search as a policing exercise for prevention. I do not have to hand the figures on age distribution but I can probably find those for my noble friend. If I can, I will write to him accordingly and place a copy of that letter in the House Library. I also do not have at my fingertips the criminal justice outcome information regarding the 16,000 individuals who have been found in possession of a knife, but, if it has been collated, I am sure that I can find it and give it to my noble friend. These are figures for last year. We know the stop and search outcomes: there are severe penalties for knife possession without a legitimate purpose. I will certainly examine the points my noble friend has made and, if I can, respond to him by letter.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome this good and comprehensive plan. However, the important thing is that it is sustained and is not just a flash in the pan where, in a few years’ time, we start cutting away the funding and looking at other approaches. It has to be maintained. I turn to the point about youth work that the Minister made. Youth work must be an important part of the package. Young people need to be able to relate to people—I think the Minister used the expression “human contact”—wherever they gather, whether it is in the park, the street corner, et cetera. That is why detached youth work is so important. Will the detached youth workers be qualified, and how many detached youth workers are we talking about?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s broad support for the action plan. It is an ambitious target to halve knife crime within a decade, but it is one that we think is worth achieving. As I said in what I outlined to the House, there are measures about legislation, about policing and about stop and search, but there is also a great emphasis on prevention. The prevention estimates are predominantly dealt with by my colleagues in the Department for Education. We are trying to open the 50 young future hubs by the end of this Parliament. The initial eight opened last week; they have long-term funding and back-up for the course of this Parliament.
The noble Lord makes an interesting point on the question of detached youth work. I do not have statistics on that in front of me, and I would not wish to second-guess what they may be, but I shall examine that issue and talk to colleagues in the Department for Education, and if I have information that I can share with the noble Lord I shall do so in writing. The important point is that in this measure that we have here there are the youth future hubs, £66 million for the violence reduction units, and the 50 youth future panels. There is the money going into schools in the hotspot areas and the diversion of £26 million of resources to the 27 police forces in the areas where 90% of knife crime occurs. That is a way of trying to focus it down. It is very important that we do what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, which is to use intelligent information to determine where this is a problem and therefore look, with neighbourhood police, youth workers and youth hubs, at what interventions are required. That is not for me to second-guess, but it is the direction of travel, and I hope that the noble Lord will welcome that. If I can give him the specific information, I shall do so.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I greatly admire the Minister and his approach to these subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised the issue of the 16,000 knives that had been taken. The dilemma that those responsible have to face is that, for some young people, they are set on a career of crime and they are dangerous people who need to be handled with the greatest severity. However, the House will also agree that many young people are terrified and, although they are by no means criminals, they carry a knife for protection. I would only say that trying to get that balance right is extraordinarily difficult, although we have all those preventive and youth support programmes. When my noble friend spoke at the beginning he talked of the importance of work and about keeping young people in school—anything to give young people gainful occupation and stop them slipping into the vicious cycle of knife crime. That is really important, but I for one do not think that every vulnerable young person who is picked up carrying a knife is necessarily a criminal.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness on that. As I said, as part of my general contribution, some of the work that the MoJ is doing and is for individuals who are on that cusp and who might well be getting involved in a gang and carrying a knife. There are resources in the knife crime action plan for the Ministry of Justice not to have a criminal justice outcome for those individuals but to try to find ways in which we can divert them and support them to choose a different lifestyle and break with that gang culture.
Interestingly, some 63,611 knives have been taken out of circulation since the general election through the surrender scheme; that includes weapons through the ninja sword surrender scheme, which had cross-party support, as well as the schemes for zombie knives and machetes, and knives seized by Border Force when they entered the country. We are trying to reduce the types of knife that can be carried or used for those offensive purposes. Every one of us will use a knife in our daily work or life; we have to look at what we do with the ninja knives that we have banned and with the import of the wrong type of knife and the measures that we have taken on registration. The noble Baroness makes a very important point that criminalising young people is not necessarily the best way in which to help them to have a lifetime free of criminal activity, which is key to the plan.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the strategy and specifically on the collaboration across government, which is fundamental to ensuring that this knife crime plan works, as I am sure it will. I draw attention to the big increase in school attendance that the DfE and Ministers there achieved in 2024-25. I know that they are building on that now—5 million extra days of school attendance in that single year, which must make a contribution. Can we encourage the DfE to focus specifically on the most persistent truants in the most dangerous hotspot areas? That would make a significant contribution to the strategy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The ambition of the Government through the Department for Education is to look at improving attendance at schools across the board. I have sat on a couple of Cabinet committees where that work has been shown to prove successful. That is a cross-government initiative to get children and young people into school. My noble friend makes a valuable point. I mentioned earlier, and I think it is worth mentioning again, that the pupil premium funding led by the Department for Education is now available to fund particular challenges in state schools that have disadvantaged children and where school attendance is down and there are interventions to support pupils’ social, emotional and behavioural needs. The pupil premium grant is £3.2 billion this year, and there is significant evidence that, as my noble friend has mentioned, it is an effective way to reduce the risk of serious violence, including knife crime. That is a Department for Education-led approach but, as I have said, the knife crime plan is a prime ministerial objective. The Home Office is leading this, but all departments involved—the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care—are playing a role to meet some objectives to help that ambitious target of halving knife crime.
Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)
Will the Minister comment on the fact that it seems that some of these youngsters are putting in orders with companies that are not asking enough questions of the people who are buying these weapons—they are likely to be e-commerce companies. Is anybody looking at the record of some of these companies and the fact that they do not ask sufficient questions about some of the people who are purchasing these dangerous weapons?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an extremely valuable point. In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is before the House now but requires Royal Assent, which I hope will be completed in the next couple of weeks, we are putting measures in place requiring online sellers of knives to include age verification controls, checks at sale and also checks at delivery. There are penalties in the Bill for organisations that fail to meet those objectives. The Bill recognises that there are legitimate uses for knives but, at the same time, age verification, checks at sale and delivery are key; they are not in place now but, subject to Royal Assent, will be in place by autumn 2026, when we hope to have rolled out any legislation that is finally passed by this House and the House of Commons before Prorogation.