House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The Euros in 2028 will be an amazing opportunity to showcase the UK’s strengths in holding major events. That is why my Department is already working with numerous organisations across the football pyramid as we develop plans for the community programme to ensure the benefits are spread as far as possible across the whole country.
Kevin Bonavia
Our fantastic English Football League club, Stevenage FC, is pushing for promotion to the championship, and its community foundation has delivered nearly £10.7 million of social value to my constituents in the last year alone. Communities outside of host cities have not always felt the benefits of hosting major international tournaments. Can my right hon. Friend explain how the legacy of Euro 2028 will be felt beyond host cities, particularly EFL clubs and communities in constituencies like mine?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I could not agree with him more. Given that he has raised this point here in the Chamber, I will ask my officials to design the programme to ensure that the benefits are felt not just in Stevenage, but across the whole country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that answer and for her enthusiasm for what it is being brought forward. I want to ensure that Northern Ireland is very much a part of this; hopefully, the Minister will confirm that it will. With Northern Ireland being part of the host nations of Euro 2028, will the Minister confirm what steps have been taken to ensure that we in Northern Ireland are an intrinsic part of the event and not simply an afterthought? After all, we are part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so we want to be part of it.
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member will remember that when we were first elected to government back in 2024, the Northern Ireland Secretary and I worked very hard to try to ensure that Northern Ireland was able to host part of the games. Because of the timescales and the lack of action under the previous Government, we were not able to do that, but we made a firm commitment that Northern Ireland would feel the full benefit of these games, and we are still deeply committed to that.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The successful bid to host the Euros in 2028 made under the previous Conservative Government has enormous potential to economically and culturally benefit the UK, giving fans lifelong memories as football comes home. But to deliver a truly lasting legacy, the Government must commit to protect pitches, properly fund grassroots sports and stop taxing clubs into oblivion. I ask the Minister again: will the Government finally U-turn on their proposed watering down of Sport England’s crucial role in protecting grassroots pitches?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that the Euros should be a cross-party endeavour that commands the support of the whole House and that it will have significant economic benefits for the UK; we believe that it will generate socioeconomic benefits of £3.2 billion across the UK. He is also right to say that there has to be a legacy for young people growing up in this country to have the opportunity to access sport. We have learned the lessons from the way in which the last Conservative Government squandered the legacy of the London 2012 Olympics and refused to cascade those benefits across the country. We are ensuring that we are investing in grassroots sport. He will know that the Sports Minister and I recently announced £400 million of investment to that end.
Mr French
The Secretary of State criticises the previous Conservative Government, but national sports bodies are fully aware that this Labour Government have cut sports funding, and increased regulation and taxes on clubs, and are putting at risk sports pitches across the country. Alongside these major own goals, the ongoing Whitehall ruck over how PE is funded risks reducing participation rates even further. This Labour Government have already cut millions from the likes of the opening schools facilities fund, and are overseeing huge uncertainty for the schools games organisers network. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with other Departments to ensure that children can continue playing sport, both at school and in their community?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member will know that after the vandalism of the last Conservative Government, where sports, art, music, dance and drama—all those things that give young people the opportunities to live a richer, larger life—were downgraded on the curriculum and shamefully branded as Mickey Mouse subjects by a number of leading members of his Government, we have put them back at the centre of the curriculum. I think he referred to school sport partnerships, which we are strongly committed to. I have had discussions with the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary to ensure that we continue to fund those—it is something that the Prime Minister feels strongly about—to make sure that every young person has the opportunity to participate in sports.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The UK Government have consistently backed Glasgow 2026 as a positive outcome for the games movement and for the UK. The Government are engaging partners to explore trade and investment opportunities around the games in order to support the games and maximise the benefits for the whole UK.
Martin Rhodes
Having recently visited the Scottish Event Campus in my constituency, which will host the opening ceremony along with a number of sports during the games, I have seen at first hand the opportunity these games represent for tourism, hospitality and local businesses. Given the importance of these events for Scotland and Glasgow’s economy, what conversations is the Minister having with the Scottish Government and the Scotland Office to ensure that the games are a success for Glasgow and that Glasgow is well placed to attract further cultural and sporting events in the years ahead?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. I have met regularly with the Scottish Government, the Scotland Office, the organising company and, of course, Commonwealth Sport, most recently in January this year. I also attended events in December and August last year. My Department is in regular contact with the organisers and all partners to support the games and ensure they build on Glasgow’s world-class reputation for hosting major events. He is absolutely right: there is a huge opportunity for not just sport but the economic legacy and the tourism industry.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Many of our Commonwealth hopefuls started their careers in community events like parkruns and local sports clubs, and yet the sport and recreation sector is in a state of utter confusion because of the Government’s chaotic roll-out of the new rules on medical provision. The Government have said that they do not want small events to be “overregulated”. What does that even mean? There is a wholesale lack of information from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Care Quality Commission about who will be impacted and what it will cost, and there has been no meaningful impact assessment. The Government have warm words about local sport provision, but their actions never stand up to the test. Can this Minister please give us a definitive answer?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. We are obviously keen to make this a success, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss it further.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
We are committed to ensuring the UK remains the world’s leading destination for film and television production. That ambition sits at the core of the Government’s industrial strategy and the creative industries sector plan, which recognises the sector’s strength as a driver of growth. Every single best visual effects Oscar nominee this year had work done in UK studios, including Bournemouth’s own Outpost VFX for its work on “Sinners”.
Jessica Toale
As the Minister says, Outpost VFX is a world-leading VFX company based in my Bournemouth West constituency. It recently convened a meeting of sector leaders, and the message was clear: the UK faces significant competitive disadvantage because of our relatively low net value incentive rates and the 10% total spend rule. As a result, we are missing out on work to overseas facilities, and undermining job creation and skills retention here in the UK. Will the Minister commit to meeting Outpost VFX and other sector representatives to discuss their proposals to boost the UK’s competitiveness?
Ian Murray
I am very happy to meet representatives of the VFX industry, including Outpost VFX in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is worth bearing in mind that there are a whole host of visual effects tax reliefs in place, including a 39% rate on VFX costs, to make it as competitive as possible in this country. I meet regularly and engage with the sector, including the UK Screen Alliance. Protecting our world-leading VFX sector base means ensuring that skills keep pace with artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. We understand and acknowledge the significant implications for the sector of various pressures at the moment, but there is £10 million being invested in the National Film and Television School to expand apprenticeships and £25 million of funding for five new CoSTAR—Convergent Screen Technologies and performance in Realtime—labs, and the Chancellor’s £725 million for the next phase of the growth and skills levy will also deliver new digital skills. That package of measures sits alongside the tax reliefs.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
We recognise that incidents of undue attention and harassment from the media cause significant distress to the public. We will always defend media freedom, but with this freedom comes big responsibilities. Publishers must operate ethically and within the bounds of the law. The Secretary of State has met families who have experienced press intrusion. We are now carefully considering the next steps to determine how to ensure that public trust and accountability in news media is maintained and improved.
Siân Berry
Last month, a national newspaper intruded on the privacy of one of the families bereaved by the meningitis outbreak, publishing information that the family had asked to be kept private. In opposition, Labour promised independent regulation of the press to curb this awful behaviour, so when exactly will the Secretary of State keep that promise?
Ian Murray
The Secretary of State has been clear about this. In March she said, at the Society of Editors future of news conference, that the Government will
“will tread carefully and cautiously about regulation…as any right-minded Government should.”
Fearless journalists must be able to hold the Government to account, but there are also concerns that people are turning away from news and losing trust in issues that, as the hon. Member said, are very serious. I am happy to meet her to discuss such issues. The Government are closely following trends in media consumption. In an age of considerable increasing misinformation and disinformation, including press intrusion, we want to get this right.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
This Government believe strongly in the BBC. I recently announced at the Society of Editors event that the charter review period, which is incredibly important, will be the last of its kind. We intend to ensure through the charter process, subject to Parliament’s approval, that the charter puts the BBC on a permanent footing, so while the funding and terms of the BBC will continue to be renegotiated by successive Governments, its right to exist will never again be called into question.
Cameron Thomas
Trump donor Larry Ellison and his son David own CBS News, will soon own CNN, and part-own TikTok. In 2024, Ellison senior’s Oracle paid a six-figure sum to Hanover Communications, for whom Michael Prescott was a managing director. One year later, Prescott’s leaked internal memo landed the BBC a $5 billion lawsuit from Donald Trump. Rupert Murdoch and GB News founder Robbie Gibb know that when you own the news, you own the people. I believe that our independent news broadcaster is under attack from within and without. How are the Government going to protect it?
Lisa Nandy
As I said, we intend to put the BBC on a permanent charter, precisely because we believe it is a vital and essential part of our democracy, and it must be able to hold us all to account without fear or favour, free from political interference. The hon. Gentleman alludes to particular appointments to the board. I do not have the power to change those appointments, but I do have the ability to review them through the charter review, which I will do. When it comes to Governments overseas, we will always defend the BBC’s right to hold those in power to account, whoever they are.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Thankfully, the BBC is nothing like the public service broadcaster in Hungary—I was there monitoring elections; the winner, Péter Magyar, said that it is like North Korean propaganda. To protect Auntie Beeb, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the anomaly that, despite being a fixed-income public body—I am ex-staff myself—the BBC has not been given relief from the 2% rise in employer national insurance contributions, unlike schools and hospitals, leaving a yearly £20 million black hole at a time of falling licence fee income? Can the BBC be granted a partial or total waiver, so that we can keep getting good quality output and stop staff cuts?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend alludes to the fact that many countries around the world are investing heavily in propaganda. The BBC is a light on the hill for people in many parts of the world through its World Service, and other international services. We want to ensure that we safeguard that through the charter review. She talked about financial pressures on the BBC. Colleagues will know that yesterday the BBC interim director general announced significant cuts to staffing, which I know has had a strong effect on staff and is of real concern to people out in the country. I had the pleasure of meeting the new incoming director general of the BBC yesterday, and one of the first things we discussed was how we put the BBC on a sound financial footing going forward. I will of course look into the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
The Government are providing up to £30 million through the music growth package. That will further provide support to grassroots venues by fostering domestic growth, talent development and music exports. We are fully committed to supporting the live music industry’s introduction of a voluntary ticket contribution for stadium and arena shows, to help safeguard the future of the grassroots music sector, and this has already contributed half a million pounds to the live music sector.
Josh Babarinde
Eastbourne’s historical bandstand is set to reopen this summer after a refurbishment programme. Mr Speaker, I would like to invite you to come and celebrate with us as our guest of honour at our famous Motown night in July; I know you are a big fan of Motown, so I will give you the invitation later on. We could have even more to celebrate at the bandstand if the Minister were able to review the criteria for the heritage at risk fund, which was announced earlier this year. The fund currently does not seem to cover local authority-run music venues, like Eastbourne bandstand, but we want it to do so, so that we can protect the bandstand for future generations. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will review the criteria?
Ian Murray
Oh, Mr Speaker—you did not steal my line, unfortunately. I congratulate Eastbourne on reopening the bandstand. I am disappointed that I did not receive an invitation—I can throw a few shapes as well and I am very happy to come down and dance the night away with Mr Speaker.
The Government very much care about these venues. The hon. Gentleman will know that on Tuesday we announced that 130 cultural venues, museums, libraries and live music venues will receive a share of nearly £130 million. That includes nearly a £1 million for Music Venue Properties, a charity that helps to conserve venues through community ownership, and Eastbourne bandstand could be part of that. The funding is part of our £1.5 billion investment through the arts everywhere scheme to support 1,000 cultural projects with that kind of infrastructure. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the local authority to discuss what more we can do for Eastbourne bandstand.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On 19 November, the Secretary of State made the welcome announcement that we would end the abuse of ticket resale. Since then, gig goers at grassroots music venues have been ripped off by tens of millions of pounds. With the new Session coming, will that Bill be in the King’s Speech? Can gig goers look forward to the end of being ripped off by touts?
Ian Murray
We are determined to end ticket touting in this country. It has been ripping off fans for too long. We have a very strong policy to deal with that and we will bring the legislation forward as soon as we possibly can.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The Government and policing partners are in regular contact with FIFA and with host country counterparts on a range of issues, including security and public safety planning for the world cup. Since I saw the hon. Gentleman’s question appear on the Order Paper, I have asked officials to ensure that those arrangements are robust.
Shockat Adam
I am sure that we are all looking forward to the world cup this summer, and that we all want the home nations to do well. When England finally brings it home, I am sure that we will all be delighted, including our friends from north of the border— I know my office staff member will be.
On a serious note, I am deeply concerned about the number of British citizens who have already been impacted by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement detentions and the threat of visa restrictions for international teams, amid lots of illegal wars—started by the FIFA peace prize winner, ironically. Furthermore, we have now learned that UK nationals may be required to surrender five years of personal social media data simply to obtain entry into the United States. Will the Secretary of State tell us urgently what she doing to ensure that British fans can travel to America safely, enjoy the games safely and get back home safely?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman raises some particular concerns. I am more than happy to look into them for him and ensure that everybody has the opportunity to go and participate in what should be a really positive and global sporting event. I have to say, though, that he has sparked some controversy on the Labour Front Bench with his desire for England to bring football home, because while the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and I strongly agree with him, I am afraid that the Arts Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), has a different view.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Football fans in my area are looking forward to the world cup and many hope to travel, but before we get to that competition, many are very concerned by reports of a potential points deduction for West Bromwich Albion due to allegations of financial rule breaches, which the club has strongly rejected. Given Albion’s recent run of seven unbeaten games, keeping us just above the relegation zone, a points deduction sending us down would be heartbreaking for fans, particular because the source of the issue seems to be a loan from the previous owners. Does the Secretary of State agree that such a situation is awful for fans and can she urge that it is resolved as quickly as possible?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend will know that having been through some very difficult times with my own superb football club, Wigan Athletic, I know how much this matters to people in West Brom, and I know what a great champion she is for them. This is precisely why we delivered the Football Governance Act 2025, which clearly sets out the need to protect the integrity and sporting competitiveness of existing competitions. I am sure that the regulator will be looking at this situation closely.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Thousands of people across the country—although possibly not the Arts Minister—are very excited for the world cup this summer, but that excitement is being ruined by the prospect of fans, not football, coming home. Under new US border directives, fans face having their social media history weaponised against them, with the threat of being turned away at the gates for as little as sharing an unflattering meme of President Trump. Will the Secretary of State urgently meet with US counterparts to ensure British fans are not denied entry at the border, and will she demand that the US embassy picks up the tab for tickets and travel for any fan unfairly denied entry?
Lisa Nandy
In the notes that I was given, it says that security and safety arrangements for major international sporting events are a matter for the host authorities. That is true, but the Government can play a role. I reassure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) that I will personally ensure that we as a Government are involved to ensure that fans are not deterred from being able to participate in what should be a really positive experience.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
My hon. Friend is a great champion for young people in her constituency. She and I have had many discussions over the last 18 months, as we have delivered the first national youth strategy in a generation, led and written by young people, to ensure that every young person in this country has somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares.
Sonia Kumar
Youth centres such as High Oak in Dudley, run by Angela Edwards, are finding it harder each year to stay open because of insecure funding, despite Dudley having some of the highest levels of young people not in education, employment or training. More youth centres and more secure long-term funding are desperately needed. What support can my right hon. Friend provide to these youth centres to ensure that the youth of today and of the future are supported?
Lisa Nandy
We have put £500 million behind the national youth strategy, and a major element of that will be to deliver the next generation of youth clubs and youth workers. Too many youth clubs exist around this country that are closed because there are not people to run them, and there are too many parts of the country where there is no facility at all. The Youth Minister is very happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend to ensure that Dudley’s young people are well served and have the provision that they need.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government recognise that community spaces are hugely important, whether it be for social networks, community participation or civic pride. We debated community centres and small charities in Westminster Hall last month.
Dr Chambers
The charity St John’s Winchester runs a brilliant community space for people with dementia; I have attended it myself and sung songs with them, including Motown. It is also one of the oldest charities in the UK and provides almshouses for vulnerable people. It has been running for 900 years and has survived the plague and the civil war, which was particularly ferocious in Winchester. It has specifically cited the increase in employment costs as a reason why it has had to deregister from the Care Quality Commission. What are the Government doing to support charities that provide social care and healthcare? We know that if these charities struggle, the costs will go on to councils and the NHS.
Stephanie Peacock
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to his local charity—indeed, I am a patron of a dementia charity in Barnsley. I recognise the challenges faced by charities, which is why I hosted a number of them at No. 10 with a Treasury Minister. I would be delighted to speak to the hon. Gentleman about this matter.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
As part of our creative industries, video games are identified as a priority sector in the industrial strategy. On Monday, we rolled out the games growth package, with a £30 million investment over three years, expanding the UK games fund and investing in the London games festival. We continue to maintain our stable and generous tax reliefs, recognising their role in supporting growth in the games sector, in industry and in wider creative industries. According to estimates from the body Ukie, the value of the UK video game consumer market in 2025 was £8.8 billion.
Ben Goldsborough
Norfolk is home to a thriving games development community, with Norfolk games developers supporting over 500 members through mentoring, skills and business growth, contributing to a survival rate of small and medium-sized enterprises that is way above the UK average. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that areas such as Norfolk can access and shape the video games growth package? Will the Minister meet with me to discuss this matter further?
Ian Murray
It looks as if I am meeting with my hon. Friend about games, rather than going to the Motown dancing in Eastbourne, but never mind. [Laughter.]
Delivering for all the nations and regions remains a priority for this Government. The UK games fund, which is based in Dundee, is a UK-wide programme available to studios and teams across the country, wherever they are. The funding provided to the London games festival includes showcasing support for regional studios, enabling exposure to a greater audience. I am more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend to discuss the opportunities for Norfolk in more detail.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As the Minister knows, the video games industry is huge in Scotland. In fact, it is huge worldwide—it is now bigger than the film and television industries put together. The Scottish industry is worth £188 million, but we have reached a point where we have identified a lack of business acumen among growing companies. We need something like business hubs specifically for video games, with centres of video game excellence, so will the Minister perhaps speak to the Scottish Government about how this can be achieved in order to continue the massive growth we have seen?
Ian Murray
My friend the hon. Member, my almost-neighbouring MP in Edinburgh, is absolutely right: Scotland is one of the world leaders in video games, and we have to make sure we are harnessing that. The games growth fund that I announced on Monday at the London games festival will make sure that we are nurturing new talent, helping people to get to the prototype stage, and growing the sector to get those projects to commercialisation. That will be spread across the country, of course, but Dundee is the key part of that. Rockstar in Edinburgh will be launching “Grand Theft Auto VI” later this year, which will be the biggest launch of any audiovisual package in the world. We are looking forward to that, but the hon. Member is absolutely right that we have to nurture that talent and bring the pipeline of talent through.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government believe in the power of grassroots sport. We have committed £400 million over the next four years, and £85 million in this coming year. Of course, Sport England invests £250 million annually through Exchequer and lottery funding.
Nick Smith
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on parkrun. As the Minister knows, parkrun is a global phenomenon, and it has just celebrated its 21st birthday this year. Currently, over 1,300 parkrun events take place across the UK every Saturday morning, including two in my constituency of Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney. Given its benefits in terms of health and wellbeing—many of my constituents are NHS couch to 5K graduates—will the Minister please outline what discussions she has had with parkrun to support that excellent initiative?
Stephanie Peacock
I was pleased to meet representatives of parkrun alongside my hon. Friend a few months ago to mark its 21st anniversary, and I pay tribute to the huge impact it has. Indeed, last year, I joined my hon. Friend for the relaunch of parkwalk, which is a great example of how inclusive parkrun is—of course, it would not be possible without all the volunteers. If I may, I would like to mention Oliver Smith from my constituency. I was pleased to run the Barnsley parkrun with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis) alongside Oliver Smith, aged nine, who is running nine marathons in four months to raise money for the Brain Tumour Charity following his dad’s diagnosis. I wish him luck in completing his challenge next weekend at the mini London marathon.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Sydenham amateur boxing club does an incredible job, working with young people in and around Bridgwater. It helps teach not just boxing, but discipline and control. In order to help more young people, it wants to expand and build a purpose-built gym, so will the Minister outline what support is available for grassroots boxing clubs such as Sydenham to help them improve their facilities and help more young people?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question—it was a pleasure to meet him on a different subject earlier this week. I met the all-party parliamentary group on boxing recently. I welcome the points he makes and agree with them, and I am keen to work with him to help deliver that goal.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
As a Government, we are committed to ensuring that tourism drives growth and jobs across the country, including in rural Buckinghamshire. The hon. Gentleman may have seen VisitBritain’s “Starring GREAT Britain” campaign, through which we have showcased the UK’s film and TV locations to global audiences, and our upcoming visitor economic growth strategy will provide a long-term vision for boosting visitor numbers and delivering sustainable growth nationwide.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. With people coming to Buckinghamshire to enjoy the beauty of our countryside walking in the Chilterns, the tourism sector is important, but with the punitive levels of business tax hitting all those businesses—such as camping at Orchard View and country retreats at Starveall farm—talk of a tourist tax and an overnight levy could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she is actively lobbying the Chancellor not to bring in such a levy?
Lisa Nandy
The tourism Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), has of course discussed these issues with the industry. She has held several meetings with the industry as part of English Tourism Week, and has also discussed this issue with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and in the Treasury. However, the idea behind a tourism levy is that it would be locally driven and led. It would enable local areas to decide how they wanted to apply it, so that would be a matter for Buckinghamshire itself.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
In the heart of Weymouth, the Rectory is an iconic building, but it has stood empty for over a decade. We want to transform the Rectory building into a cultural and visitor centre, hosting art, boosting the local tourism economy and welcoming visitors to Weymouth all year round. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State meet me and all the key stakeholders so that we can finally crack on and deliver the exciting Rectory proposals?
Lisa Nandy
It does sound very exciting. The tourism Minister and/or I would be happy to follow that up with my hon. Friend and make sure that we can deliver on that exciting project.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Tourism and hospitality businesses across the UK are struggling. Once profitable businesses are now letting people go, not hiring or closing altogether as a direct result of Labour’s policies, in particular the national insurance increases. That has led to 100,000 job losses in the UK in hospitality and tourism alone over the last two years. The Government have cut funding to our tourism bodies and are now planning on imposing more regulations and a whole new tourism tax. Can the Minister please explain how on earth less support, more regulations and higher taxes are meant to help the tourism industry?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support for the tourism industry. I recognise that it has had significant pressures in recent years, particularly with the pandemic, but I am proud of our tourism industry; it is second to none and delivering in every part of the country. We have put the tourism industry at the centre of our attention with the visitor economy growth strategy. We see it as an area of great potential, and the tourism Minister is working closely with the industry to unlock the benefits for the whole country.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Since we last met, we have been delighted to celebrate the sporting success of our incredible Paralympic athletes, and we have welcomed the Brits to Manchester for the first time. We have made a multimillion-pound investment in the iconic Crucible theatre in Sheffield, securing its future as a world-class venue for generations to come. Just this week, I announced almost £130 million to protect world-class theatres, museums and libraries in every part of our country. Taken together, this Government are delivering on our promise that arts, culture, sports, dance, drama and music are not a luxury for the privileged or something to be consigned to a few postcodes—they must be for everyone, everywhere.
Mr Brash
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Swim England recently launched its report into the state of the nation’s swimming facilities. The report, “The Deep End”, clearly shows the crisis facing community swimming, largely due to issues with funding and infrastructure. While Hartlepool’s brilliant Labour council is delivering amazing new facilities in the form of the Highlight leisure centre opening in June, not every constituency is so lucky. What steps is the Secretary of State’s Department taking to improve access to swimming facilities where those facilities have been lost or are in danger of disappearing?
Lisa Nandy
I share my hon. Friend’s passion on this issue. We are intensely aware that, as well as the sweeping cuts to local authorities that were made under the last Government, the rise in energy costs has significantly affected swimming facilities in every part of the country. We have committed £400 million to transform sports facilities over the next four years, and swimming ought to be a beneficiary of that—I will certainly make sure that it is. I have also discussed these issues with the Energy Secretary to make sure that we are pulling every lever at our disposal to ensure that swimming facilities are protected from some of the impacts, in particular of war in the middle east.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
William Hill announced that it is closing 200 betting shops as a result of Labour’s tax policies making them unsustainable. That is Labour’s decisions creating yet more unemployment and undermining sponsorship opportunities and the finances of the horseracing industry overall. Labour may not be as bad as the Greens or Plaid, which I understand want to ban altogether horseracing—a £4 billion industry—and I think greyhound racing, too. Can the Minister assure the racing and gambling communities that the Government will not do any more damage to these sectors, which bring joy to millions of Brits every week?
Lisa Nandy
In a rare moment of agreement, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the gambling industry brings joy to a lot of people. He and I have discussed the harms that affect a minority of people. They are significant and important, but the industry as a whole brings positive benefits to the United Kingdom. I think he is underplaying the significant pressures on high street businesses that have existed over the last couple of decades—something that, frankly, his Government did absolutely nothing about over the 14 years that they were in government. We are dealing with those.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
May I start by paying tribute to all at the Bathgate Band who were responsible for the Bathgate Music Hub, particularly Derek Brown? Co-operative live music venues have benefited from the Government’s £150 million community ownership fund, enabling communities to take ownership of valued local cultural assets, but in England, not Scotland. We have the Pride in Place programme, which is supporting 244 neighbourhoods across the UK, and yesterday we announced that the Creative Foundations Fund—a charity that is helping to conserve music venues through community ownership—has awarded £999,000 to music venue properties in England. I have to say that the Scottish Government, through the Barnett formula, have received money in the spending review settlement. It is not clear how much they are spending in this particular area.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Lisa Nandy
A moment ago, we discussed the importance of such facilities. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has approached this issue by securing and demonstrating community consent. He will know that this Government have changed the way we fund so that it is community driven and led, rather than imposed from the centre, and it is very welcome that he has taken that approach. In addition to the answer that I gave a moment ago, we have backed local authorities, which lead on funding on these issues, with the first multi-year settlement in a decade. That will help them to ensure that they can better plan and better prepare to deliver on community needs.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Church remains steadfast in its support for Palestinians. The Bishops of Southwark, Gloucester, Chelmsford and Norwich have publicly highlighted their concerns by condemning the increased settler violence and calling for the reopening of holy places. They have joined His Holiness the Pope and the local heads of Churches, who have called for the protection of innocent civilians. They are offering sanctuary, working for peace and reconciliation, and building intercommunity trust.
Kate Osamor
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. For the first time in centuries, Catholic leaders were prohibited from entering the Church of Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem to celebrate a private mass on Palm Sunday. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem called this a
“manifestly unreasonable and grossly disproportionate measure.”
In the light of this incident, what concrete steps will the Church take to ensure that Christians and other religious groups are able to worship freely in Jerusalem?
Marsha De Cordova
The closure of the Holy Sepulchre by the Israeli Government was totally unacceptable. It was an unprecedented step, and representations by all Churches were made at the highest level. The treatment of pilgrims and worshippers by the Israel Defence Forces, and the additional movement restrictions across both western and Orthodox Easter, were deplorable, particularly in what is the holiest of weeks.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
Parishes across England run tens of thousands of community projects, including parent and toddler groups, holiday clubs, and breakfast and after-school provision. Under its vision 2020 strategy, the Church of England aims to double the number of children and young people in congregations by 2030. This is backed by £236 million over three years to support youth opportunities, particularly in low-income communities.
Shaun Davies
In Telford, the Church—through Rev. Laura Lenander at Telford Minster, Rev. Andy Ackroyd at St Michael’s church and Rev. Jo Farnworth at St Leonard’s church—plays a key role in supporting families, including by offering pastoral support and providing spaces for volunteers. What more will the Church do to support these churches and parishes in fast-growing areas such as Telford?
Marsha De Cordova
I express my thanks to all the churches in my hon. Friend’s constituency for their work in supporting families and young people in Telford, and I especially congratulate Rev. Laura Lenander, Rev. Jo Farnworth and Rev. Andy Ackroyd. By opening their facilities throughout the week, they provide safe and welcoming spaces where young people can receive support and build strong relationships, demonstrating that the church is at the heart of its community. I am pleased to learn that Rev. Jo Farnworth has been made the independent chair of the South Telford Pride in Place programme, and I look forward to hearing more about the work it is doing in the area.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady write to the Local Government Minister, because I think some councils are a little bit timid when it comes to faith-based organisations? The dioceses of Lichfield and Hereford, which fall under The Wrekin constituency and are partly in the Telford constituency, do a fantastic job, but I think there is a problem between central Government, local government and the Church of England in communicating, sharing resources and actually delivering new services for young people together.
Marsha De Cordova
The right hon. Member highlights the true value of what can happen in our local communities when churches, local authorities and all other stakeholders work together. Yes, I will take him up on that, and write to the Local Government Minister to encourage such a co-working relationship in his constituency.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Marsha De Cordova
The Church engages with the Charity Commission on a range of issues, and the Church Commissioners have held informal discussions with it on Project Spire, which is the Church’s response to address its historical connections to the transatlantic enslavement of Africans.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Is the Church going to launch a new charity? If so, when, and why the delay?
Marsha De Cordova
I could refer the right hon. Member to the many answers I have given to written and oral questions on this issue. As I have said, the Church is having informal discussions with the Charity Commission, and it is currently preparing an application, but it has not yet been submitted.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Marsha De Cordova
The Church is concerned about the growth of extremism, including Christian nationalism, and bishops have established a working group to promote unity and support parishes with theological, practical and pastoral resources to counter extremism locally.
Mr Forster
I regularly meet church leaders in my constituency of Woking, and they often raise the plight of Christians abroad. Please can the hon. Member assure me that one of the Church’s top priorities is to tackle extremism and the persecution of Christians abroad?
Marsha De Cordova
As the hon. Member will know, the issue of the persecution of Christians abroad has come up before, and the Church obviously takes it seriously. As I highlighted in my initial answer, last year the Church established a working group that seeks to provide support for bishops and senior clergy, with relevant experience and reflection and with time for discussion. The group is also assessing the impact of the use—or, I should say, misuse—of Christian language and imagery in political campaigning. He is absolutely right to raise that important issue.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
Mr Speaker, it always feels like I am getting my exercise in at Church questions!
Through community programmes, the Church provides a significant contribution to the local economy, amounting to around £55 billion. That includes food banks, warm spaces, credit unions, school clubs and other forms of family support. The Church recently welcomed the Government’s decision to end the two-child benefit cap, and I know that in my hon. Friend’s constituency 6,200 children will be lifted out of poverty as a result.
James Asser
Child poverty is a major concern in my east London constituency, and faith and community organisations play an incredibly important part in providing support. While my constituency is very much multi-faith, the Church continues to play a hugely important part through its churches, schools, community facilities and experience. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Church will continue to work across faiths, and with community and charity organisations, to make sure that that network of support, on which so many families in need in my constituency rely, remains strong and is there when they need it?
Marsha De Cordova
That is an excellent question from my hon. Friend. Yes, the Church works continuously to develop local churches together and interfaith networks, encouraging all faith communities to work collaboratively to support local communities, and building support and strong networks. A good example of that is Church schools, such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. They are community schools that offer opportunities to thousands of children each day through their vision for education, “life in all its fullness”, which is about ensuring that all children are supported to study, discover their talents, and grow and meet their full potential.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Church Commissioner for her energetic contributions in answering all the questions this morning. They are appreciated by every one of us.
To tackle child poverty, St Mark’s parish church in Newtownards in my constituency has a raft of programmes, but I know that the volunteers take a well-deserved break in the summer. Are there any plans for specialised youth clubs during the summer holidays to provide a safe, welcoming place for young people to meet that parents can afford to utilise, so addressing the issue of child poverty?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his contributions at Church questions. I hope he does not mind if I write to update him on what takes place over the summer.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
It is good to see my hon. Friend back in his place after his injury. I understand that he was running with his children when it happened.
Marsha De Cordova
He couldn’t keep up with his children, obviously! [Laughter.] Apologies, Mr Speaker.
The new places of worship renewal fund will be managed by Historic England on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The fund totals £92 million over four years and will support capital repairs to listed places of worship. Priority will be given to buildings in areas of high deprivation or community need. Applications are expected to start with an expression of interest, followed by a full application, with efforts made to minimise administrative burdens on smaller parishes.
Peter Prinsley
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Church leaders in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket are rightly concerned about the cancellation of the listed places of worship grant scheme. Will the Church Commissioner outline what conversations she has had with the Government regarding the support and guidance given to those people who are concerned with the upkeep of churches in my constituency and across the country? It is surely for our generation to preserve the legacy bequeathed to us by our forefathers.
Marsha De Cordova
I can confirm that I have met colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on numerous occasions, most recently the Minister for Heritage just before Easter recess. We are still waiting for the Government to publish more detail on this vital scheme. As I said in my meeting with the Minister, I urge the Government to get on and publish that detail at pace so that we can give our churches certainty. In the meantime, while we await the guidance, my hon. Friend’s constituency churches can reach out to their diocesan Church Buildings Council adviser for further advice, support and guidance on this issue.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that Lib Dems are great at fixing the church roof. In Sturminster Marshall, the community is going further with Project Welcome, which will repair and modernise the space, creating a warm, safe and accessible church that is integral to the community. However, the closure of the listed places of worship grant scheme means that costs have gone through the roof. The community has raised £275,000 of a £360,000 target, which, without the VAT, they would have achieved. Can the hon. Lady confirm whether projects already under way will be eligible for the renewal scheme?
Marsha De Cordova
I will just put it on the record that we are all, across the House, keen advocates for our local churches; we recognise that they are the cornerstones of our community, so we are all hugely supportive of efforts to fix roofs, or whatever needs to be done to them. The hon. Lady highlights an important point about the scheme, and I will be happy to write to her about it.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
We are still awaiting details of the replacement scheme, following the confirmation of the end of the listed places of worship grant scheme in January. As I mentioned in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), I recently met the Minister for Heritage and impressed upon her how important it is that details of the scheme are published at pace. Church officials are working with Historic England on operational and policy issues, but we are still waiting for the Government to publish the guidance.
Daniel Francis
St Paulinus church in Crayford and Christ church in Bexleyheath are both grade II listed churches that are desperately in need of investment to restore their buildings. In line with previous questions, I ask my hon. Friend to outline what further news we might have on future capital funding schemes to help to support churches like these.
Marsha De Cordova
I hope that both St Paulinus church and Christ church will be eligible for the new places of worship renewal fund. While we await publication of further guidance, I again advise my hon. Friend that churches can also contact their local diocesan office for further advice and support. I would also be happy to write to him about any additional support that may be available to the churches in his constituency. Once again, I thank all colleagues for raising this important issue.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
St Mary’s church in Old Town in Eastbourne is a grade I listed church that was built in the 12th century. A recent survey has revealed that the roof and east window are in urgent need of repair with a half-a-million pound restoration. Mother Arwen, the vicar, therefore needs to know when the places of worship renewal fund will open. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), who is sitting on the Front Bench, might be able to help us all in answering that question.
In the meantime, the church is launching a fundraising appeal to try to bring together community funds to restore the church. Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner come down to Eastbourne—the sunniest town in the UK—to visit the church and back our appeal, of which I am a patron, to restore St Mary’s church?
Marsha De Cordova
How could I turn down such a wonderful offer to visit Eastbourne? I will certainly try to do so. Let us try to do it around the tennis—that would be even better.
In all seriousness, it is important that churches are given that certainty. I hope the Government are hearing the wishes of so many Members across the House; it is so important that they publish the guidance for the scheme so that people can continue to plan and raise those vital funds to repair the churches. These are historic buildings; they are vital not just for now, but to future generations beyond ours. It is really important that the Government get on and publish the guidance for this scheme at pace.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
I am delighted to give the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), a short rest this morning.
The possibility of the House of Lords being temporarily based in the neighbouring QEII centre during restoration and renewal is being considered. The R and R programme has worked closely with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government—the freehold owner of the centre—and with wider Government to understand the implications of using the QEII centre during in the programme. Direct engagement with the events sector has, to date, been restricted because of commercial sensitivities, but available information suggests that conference centres across Westminster and the wider London area have sufficient spare capacity to accommodate displaced events.
Martin Rhodes
I declare my interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for events. Given the importance of the QEII centre for hosting many major international events, and its direct economic value—we are talking about hundreds of jobs, thousands of hotel rooms, and significant spend and investment across the wider supply chain—does my hon. Friend have concerns that significantly reducing capacity could negatively affect the ability to attract major business events to the UK and give our international competitors an advantage?
Nick Smith
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the QEII centre’s value to the UK events sector. However, I am advised that the evidence indicates that any displaced events could be accommodated by other conference centres in London, given the available spare capacity. Events, visitor spending and associated economic activity would be expected to transfer to alternative venues and their supply chains, rather than being lost to international competitors. Given his expertise, may I suggest a meeting with R and R officials who have looked deeper into this, so that they can hear his concerns in more detail and share their analysis of the matter?
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The installation of the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury was a truly historic moment; she is the first woman archbishop. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for representing the House at that important and momentous occasion, alongside the Prime Minister.
Adam Jogee
The people of Newcastle-under-Lyme join me in welcoming Archbishop Sarah to her new responsibilities and in wishing her well. We also give thanks to Bishop Michael, who has announced his intention to stand down in September, for his service. The new archbishop will have a long to-do list, but what steps will be taken to ensure that vacancies at parish churches, including St Mark’s, Basford, and St Margaret’s, Wolstanton, will be filled quickly?
Marsha De Cordova
The Archbishop of Canterbury sees herself as a shepherd of the flock, with five broad priorities: bringing confidence in the gospel; pastoral work; showing Christian hope; offering hospitality; and being a faith and prophetic voice. Given her previous experience as a nurse, she cares deeply about pastoral ministry, and she is committed to growing the Church and to supporting parishes and ministries throughout her leadership.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Many rural areas are served by clergy who are responsible for multiple parishes. Will the hon. Lady urge the archbishop to focus on providing more priests for rural parishes?
Marsha De Cordova
I will certainly raise that issue on the hon. Member’s behalf.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
The Church of England supports small, often rural, churches through targeted grants, practical tools and locally focused support. That includes the minor repairs and improvements fund, net zero grants, free digital tools such as the MyFundAccounting software, and the parish giving scheme. The Buildings for Mission funding also supports minor church repairs.
Amanda Martin
St Nicholas, Hilsea, in Portsmouth is not a rural church; is a low-income parish in a city. It is trying to replace a much-loved community hub that had to be demolished in 2020, but it faces a shortfall of £20,000 because of rising construction costs. What steps is the Second Church Estates Commissioner taking to ensure that small parishes in deprived areas with no other community facilities available are not left unable to fulfil promises made to the local community?
Marsha De Cordova
The diocese of Portsmouth has £2 million to support parishes in low-income areas, and a further £4 million for clergy, lay leadership and church development. Parishes such as St Nicholas, Hilsea, can access the funding and support from the diocese and the national Church institutions team, and I understand that the local archdeacon has been in touch with my hon. Friend’s office about this case. I am also happy to follow up with her on it, but more broadly, the Church has committed £4.6 billion between 2026 and 2034 to strengthen parish ministries and resources.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
indicated dissent.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
The Church Commissioner gets another rest.
In February, the Restoration and Renewal Client Board reported costed proposals for the programme and a recommended way forward. The key recommendations are a phase 1 works package and the preparation of temporary accommodation, including a long-term resilience Commons Chamber, and reducing the number of delivery options from four to two, with a decision on a preferred option required by 2030. Also, the R and R team has engaged with Members of both Houses in party group meetings, Committees and briefings, and has had stands in Portcullis House and the Royal Gallery; the team has had almost 400 interactions with fellow parliamentarians. The next step is for parliamentary debates on the subject, in which Members of both Houses can consider the Client Board’s recommendations and decide how to make progress.
Charlie Dewhirst
What assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the so-called waterside option, which would see a floating pontoon with temporary Chambers built on the Thames? That would allow Parliament to access the rest of the estate during the refurbishment of this Palace. Why has that not been included in the options, and why instead are we being left to choose between two lengthier and more costly options?
Nick Smith
I, too, read the waterside options. The issue is that there is a preferred option, which is that the Commons moves to the northern estate and the House of Lords moves to the QEII centre. That has been proposed for safety and value-for-money reasons.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 20 April will include:
Monday 20 April—Consideration of Lords message on the Victims and Courts Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message on the Crime and Policing Bill.
Tuesday 21 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
Wednesday 22 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Crime and Policing Bill.
Thursday 23 April—General debate on the contribution of allied health professionals, followed by general debate on reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 24 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 27 April includes:
Monday 27 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords messages.
Tuesday 28 April—Consideration of Lords messages.
Wednesday 29 April—Consideration of Lords messages.
Jesse Norman
As the House will know, this has been a week of sporting triumph. I think of the Lionesses’ 1-0 world cup qualifier against the world champions, Italy—or former world champions, I should say—and Rory McIlroy defending his Masters title, which was another great moment. Whether or not we play, watch, or even like golf, it was an extraordinary, gripping achievement.
Jesse Norman
And he is from Northern Ireland to boot. He is an honest man facing his demons and triumphing. What a contrast with the Prime Minister’s failure to answer, or even to engage with, the question at Prime Minister’s questions. The last four Prime Minister’s questions have focused on the Iran war, fuel duty, North sea oil and gas, and the defence review. Of the 24 responses given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, 23 have ignored the question and changed the subject. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, we even saw the Prime Minister hectoring you in your Chair, on live television, just for doing your job. That is a shameful record, for which the Prime Minister should write to you—and therefore by implication to this House—and apologise. This behaviour is contemptuous—of you, Mr Speaker, of the Leader of the Opposition, and of all MPs, now and in years gone by.
Our job, however imperfectly we may do it, is to pursue the truth on behalf of those we represent. If we give that up, then heaven help us. It is the Prime Minister’s job to answer, and to hold himself accountable for those answers. No Prime Minister likes to do that, but those are the rules. If the Prime Minister does not like the rules, does not want to offer honest answers, or is not up to it, he should step back and let someone else do the job instead. I thank you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us for maintaining the traditions of this House. I have three questions for the Leader of the House today, and I ask him first if he shares my view that the Prime Minister’s behaviour is wholly inappropriate and disrespectful of this House.
This is just part of a wider problem to do with accountability and disrespect for Parliament. My noble Friend Lord Gilbert’s parliamentary question of 16 March asked the Government about authorised Budget briefings to the media. Lord Livermore replied on the Government’s behalf:
“Consistent with these principles, there are occasions where the Government will trail and/or announce policy ahead of a Budget to provide context and help the public understand major fiscal events.”
This is nonsense. The rules are perfectly clear: major events must be announced first to this House. To do otherwise is a breach of the rules of this House, a flagrant violation of the ministerial code and contempt of Parliament. Previous Governments, as we all know, have done this on occasion, since 1997 at least, and previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have been fired for inadvertent briefings to the media before a Budget, but never before has it been a Government’s declared policy to ignore Parliament.
The deeper constitutional point is, of course, that in our representative system of government, the people are Parliament, and Parliament is the people. Nothing good can come of an attempt to undermine the British constitution by this means. I ask the Leader of the House, secondly, to comment on this, and to set out what he will do to get this policy of non-announcement of major measures withdrawn and revoked.
Finally, Lord Robertson spoke of the “corrosive complacency” of current political leadership, and of putting our country at risk. He said,
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”
No one has more experience and expertise on defence across the whole of Parliament, in both Chambers. This man, the noble Lord Robertson, was a political activist for Labour since 1961. Just think. He is the last person one could imagine wanting to offer public criticism of a Labour Prime Minister, let alone in these terms—a man Labour to his boots, but a patriot first.
It is impossible to blame previous Governments for this. This Government and this Prime Minister created the defence review and the defence investment plan—no one else. It is their choice and their decision. It matters because in every constituency across the country there are companies wanting to know what the Government have decided. They are waiting for leadership. They need to know the numbers and the commitment, and, of course, our adversaries need to know that we are serious in our resolve, and they need to see the measure of that seriousness. My great fear—perhaps it is also Lord Robertson’s great fear—is that the Government will never publish this document, or they will do so in a completely insubstantial and lightweight way, and that 10 months of delay will end in nothing, and it will all have been a colossal waste of time and energy. The Prime Minister has been utterly hopeless on this. He told the Liaison Committee weeks ago that the document was on his desk, yet nothing has happened. I leave it to colleagues to judge the truth of his remarks.
I ask the Leader of the House, thirdly, if he will give this House a cast-iron guarantee on behalf of the Government that the defence investment plan will be published, and not simply shelved and forgotten. The one-year anniversary is in July.
Sir Alan Campbell
First, my thoughts are with our servicemen and women currently serving in the middle east. As the as the situation unfolds, our highest priority is to ensure the safety of our people in the region. My thoughts are also with those affected by the terrible attempted attack on the Finchley Reform synagogue. I am sure that the House will join me in thanking the police and emergency services for their swift action.
This week has seen the 37th anniversary of the disaster at Hillsborough. My thoughts are with the family and friends of those who died. As the Prime Minister reaffirmed yesterday, the Government are committed to delivering legislation and introducing a duty of candour across all public services.
I also want to pay tribute to Lord Jeremy Beecham. Lord Beecham was an incredibly influential and dedicated politician who was respected across the political divide. His dedication to the city of Newcastle changed the city into what it is today. I know that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his family and friends.
During recess, we published our plan to halve knife crime. At the core of that plan is prevention, providing safe spaces in communities and supporting schools and families to address root causes. That means giving an alternative path to young people, which will literally save lives.
We have also announced our intention to invest £237 million to expand community diagnostic centres across England. Four CDCs will open, 17 will be expanded and 15 will receive enhancements to boost diagnostic capacity and get patients seen quicker. That means patients will be able to get swifter results, which is really important, and get them closer to home, which again is important. This week, over 500 new free breakfast clubs also began to open their doors, helping parents with the cost of living and giving children a healthy start to the day.
I turn now to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. If I may, I will deal broadly with his first two questions together. He referred first to the way in which the Prime Minister addressed the questions put to him yesterday, and secondly announcements made outside the House and whether the House should be the first to hear. The right hon. Gentleman has been here a very, very long time—[Interruption.] Well, a long time—let me put it that way. Not as long as me, but a long time. Frankly, we have both been here long enough to know better than to ask the questions he did. I know why he did so, and I understand exactly what the point is at the heart of it, but all Prime Ministers deal with Prime Minister’s questions in their own way. It is not unusual for any Prime Minister or any Minister not to give the answer that the Opposition want on a particular day, so let us not kid ourselves that we are entering a new chapter on that.
The shadow Leader of the House talked about announcements to the House. He actually said that the previous Government “on occasion” made announcements outside the House. On occasion? I think it was on occasion that they actually made the announcements in the House.
But there is a serious point, which I will address. I am absolutely clear, and I have said from the Dispatch Box before, that serious announcements should be made at the earliest convenience in the House. But we understand that politics is done in a different environment from how it was done a decade or two decades before: to some extent, it is a moving environment, and Government is working in that environment, too. However, I do take the shadow Leader of the House’s point, and I have said that announcements should be made in the House at the earliest opportunity.
Let me turn to the comments of Lord Robertson. The Prime Minister made his and the Government’s view clear on that. The shadow Leader of the House asked about the defence plan. It will be delivered, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the plan. I do accept that perhaps it has taken longer than any of us would have wished; let me give the House three reasons why that is so. The first is that we inherited a defence budget that was totally out of control and which had been mismanaged for the past 14 years. It had been, in the words of a previous Defence Secretary, hollowed out—and that was not a previous Labour Defence Secretary but a previous Conservative Defence Secretary. That is the first reason why it takes time to put this right and turn it around.
The second reason, and I think the shadow Leader of the House knows this because he is a distinguished member of the Defence Committee, is that we inherited an economic mess. If we are going to put defence right, we have to have the money to do that. Again, the right hon. Gentleman understands that, because he has all but admitted in this place that he is a secret Keynesian at heart. [Interruption.] He has admitted to it. Don’t worry; he has owned up to it. The point is that he understands, as do most people, that our economic inheritance was absolutely appalling, and we have to get that right too before we can press ahead with our commitments to properly fund defence.
The third point that is relevant here is that the botched Brexit deal left us diplomatically isolated, and the Prime Minister has personally invested a great deal of his time and energy to build alliances with our allies, not least in Europe. Those alliances are important as we look at the question of defence in a moving international situation and of where defence will be as we move forward. I cannot accept the analysis or the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that somehow, at the election, it was day zero and nothing that happened before that has any impact on the way in which this Government are forced to face up to those difficult decisions. We will publish the plan and there will be an opportunity to debate it.
Let me finish on this: I understand the shadow Leader of the House’s point about companies, and obviously there needs to be some certainty. However, let me just rid him of the suggestion that everyone is waiting for announcements and nothing is happening. Contracts are being issued all the time, and more than 80% of contracts in the last two years have gone to British companies, which is in stark contrast to the performance of the previous Government.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is urging his followers to behave ahead of the “Unite the Kingdom” march on 16 May. The Met police have allowed the fascists the freedom to march in central London. By contrast, the organisers of the annual Nakba march, who provided the Met with details last December, are still waiting to have their route approved. The previous “Unite the Kingdom” march erupted in unacceptable levels of violence, unlike the hugely popular and peaceful anti-genocide marches. The treatment of the two groups by the Met is stark and biased. Will the Leader of the House find the time for a debate on the alarming rise of far-right activity on our streets?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that my hon. Friend is a keen campaigner on these matters. I am sure that the Met police will have heard her comments. Where there is the threat of a demonstration turning to violence or disorder, the Met police have a responsibility to take that very seriously indeed, even if it takes a while to agree how, or indeed whether, that march will take place. It does not matter which part of the political spectrum it comes from; what matters is security on our streets, and we trust the Met police to get on with that.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I start by wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) all the best for his parental leave. Sadly, and particularly for his wife, I have no news to update the House with, but I hope to be able to do so in due course.
I draw the House’s attention to the devastating civil war in Sudan, which sadly entered its fourth year yesterday. This is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with over 29 million Sudanese facing acute food insecurity. Earlier in the parliamentary Session, the Prime Minister said in response to a question on Sudan from the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), that he does
“not think we discuss it enough in this House.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 806.]
Will the Leader of the House act in the spirit of those words and ask the Foreign Secretary to give a statement on the conflict next week and include an update to the House on her discussions at this week’s Berlin conference?
We continue to reel from the news emerging from the Oval Office. I must confess that I did not have the President of the United States labelling the Pope as “weak on crime” on my 2026 bingo card, but given recent events, perhaps I should have done. His latest AI image released last night of him embracing Jesus Christ reminded me of the immortal words of Brenda from Bristol in April 2017: “Not another one!” In all seriousness, Trump’s chaos is having real impacts here in the UK and in my own constituency of North East Fife. His reckless war in the middle east is hitting families up and down the country in the pocket and at the fuel pumps. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on the economic impact of Trump’s war and include a consideration of Liberal Democrat proposals for a 10p fuel duty cut? Other countries are providing that certainty on fuel duty now. Is it not time that the Government did likewise?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Member in wishing the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) well, and we await news with bated breath—at least he might get the nursery finished by the time of the arrival.
The hon. Member makes a serious point about the Sudan civil war. The Government are doing everything we can, not just to help to address the humanitarian situation, but to try to get an end to that war. We have committed £146 million in aid to Sudan and have sanctioned Rapid Support Forces commanders. We are doing everything we can, but I join her in hoping that the conflict ends soon. We are not shy in updating the House on this matter and will continue to do so. I will draw her remarks to the attention of the Foreign Secretary.
I will not comment on the President of the United States’ comments and the effect they are having, because I think we can see that play out not just in the hon. Member’s constituency but elsewhere. The real answer from the Government is that we are absolutely focused on doing everything we can in the national interest to see if we can ensure the ceasefire continues, but also to bring an end to the conflict. She is right to point out that the economic situation is very serious, too—possibly the most serious energy crisis in the last half century. The economic impact may well be beginning to be felt and may continue for some time. Again, there are lots of suggestions about what we might do. The Government are absolutely focused on this. We will not rush to judgment about action that we need to take now—we have already taken some targeted measures, not least on heating oil—but we are absolutely focused on that, and I reassure the House that we will continue to do so.
We are looking at all of that, and I am sure that, again, because we are not shy of doing so, when the opportunity arises, there will be an opportunity for further statements on these matters. I hope the House can come together not just to ensure that we have a firm view going forward in the international situation, but on how we can combat the economic issues that I am afraid are likely to continue for some time.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On 28 April, it will be Staffordshire Day across the Houses of Parliament. There will be a marketplace in the Jubilee Room from 12 pm till 2 pm, and there will be Staffordshire oatcakes in the Tea Room for breakfast. Could I, through a question to the Leader of the House, invite the whole House to come and sample some of the delicacies of what I think is the greatest county—after Lancashire, of course, Mr Speaker—in the country? On a serious note, would he consider holding a debate in Government time on the importance of county identities? Given local government reorganisation, county identities are important, as is how we bolster them as we look to the future with our new councils.
Sir Alan Campbell
It is a tempting offer, and I encourage the House to support my hon. Friend’s efforts to demonstrate what a fantastic part of the country he represents. I share his view about counties and county days—they are, indeed, important. I cannot offer him Government time to do this, but if he seeks an application for a Backbench Business or Westminster Hall debate, I am sure that people who represent counties right across the country will come and share his view about the importance of county identities.
Mr Speaker
And they will fly the flag for Staffordshire. I call Bob Blackman, Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Bring back Middlesex, I say.
On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I remind the Leader of the House that we await the promised motion to change the Standing Orders for the election of the Backbench Business Committee for the new Session.
In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House, next Thursday in the Chamber there will be Select Committee statements from the Environmental Audit Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Turning to the business in Westminster Hall. on Tuesday 21 April there will be a debate on the need for an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision. On Thursday 23 April there will be a debate on access to education and training for young adult carers, followed by a debate on gambling advertising. On Tuesday 28 April there will be a debate on Government support for park home owners.
I managed to get a private Member’s Bill through this place, which became the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. We are still awaiting the implementation of that Act, which means that vulnerable people are being exploited by rogue landlords. I understand that the Department has completed the consultation on the regulations to implement the Act, but it is likely that we will not see it implemented until 2027. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement in this place next week on what exactly the Government are doing to implement the Act, which has cross-party support? If there is no statement, Mr Speaker, may I urge you to allow me an Adjournment debate on the subject?
Sir Alan Campbell
That is quite a bid, Mr Speaker— I have not heard that one before. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and the work of the Committee and for updating us on the business.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Standing Orders. As he knows, we are bringing forward a number of Standing Orders relating to the work of his Committee. I made a commitment that we would do that before the end of this Session, and we are committed to sticking with that. I cannot tell him the exact day, but I am committed to doing that, so that is what we will do.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he got his private Member’s Bill through this place, because it was quite an achievement. I am sorry to hear that the Act has not yet had the anticipated effect. I know that he remains an assiduous campaigner on these matters—I think he has met Ministers and continues to press them. I cannot guarantee him Government time, so I hope that you will listen carefully to his plea, Mr Speaker, and then he can hear directly from the relevant Minister about what the plan is. In the meantime, I will take it up with the Minister because, as the hon. Gentleman points out, his concern is shared by Members across the House.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
This week, Telford experienced a major fuel tanker fire near a primary school in Newdale, which affected many children, families and staff. I thank Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service for its swift action, together with other blue light services. In particular, I thank Rachel Cook, the headteacher of Newdale primary school, I thank the children for their fast action, and I thank the community for the way in which it rallied around those children to get them away from danger, including PureGym, the Grazing Cow public house, Lawley village academy, Lawley nursery and Morrisons. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of community resilience, and will the Leader of the House join me in thanking everybody for supporting that community effort to ensure that those children were safe?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring this matter to the House, and I join him in congratulating and thanking everyone who supported the response to the fire and ensured the safety of the local community, including Miss Cook and all the others he mentioned. The contribution of emergency first responders has been raised with me on a number of occasions, and I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall debate, where I am sure others will join him, so that he can raise these matters in greater detail.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
In Wick in my constituency, over 1,000 local residents have raised with me their concerns about unfair and confusing parking charges, which are deterring shoppers and damaging local businesses. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State on the delay to the revised private parking code of practice?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is a frustrating issue for a lot of people, not least in my constituency, and it is a bit of a moving target for legislation. I will draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State and see where we can get.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Last month I attended a celebration to mark the 40th anniversary of the reopening of Bathgate railway station in 1986, as part of efforts to regenerate the local economy. More than 80 passenger trains now travel through Bathgate railway station every day between Edinburgh and Glasgow, playing an important role in supporting connectivity and economic growth. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those who campaigned for the reopening of the station, and commend the volunteers, including Bathgate community council, which brought people together to celebrate the occasion?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Bathgate railway station, its staff and the volunteers who helped to bring the celebration together. I particularly mention volunteers because they play such an important role in our local communities. It is vital that communities have access to joined-up transport systems. The Government have recently announced the “Better Connected” strategy for England, so we are on the side of the people she is talking about.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Many Members of the House, possibly including you, Mr Speaker, will have received communications from retired civil servants who are facing personal and financial distress as a result of the failure of Capita—the company handling the pensions—to deliver properly. Will the Leader of the House be good enough to write to the Cabinet Secretary and ask her to get a grip and sort out this mess, and seek to ensure that Capita receives no further Government contracts of any kind until this matter is fully, finally and satisfactorily resolved?
Sir Alan Campbell
As has been said on a number of occasions in Business questions and beyond, the Government are absolutely of the view that such delays are unacceptable. This is not the service that people deserve, and resolving it is a matter of the utmost urgency. An urgent recovery plan is under way, and loans are available in the meantime to provide immediate financial support where it is needed. As the right hon. Gentleman reasonably requests, I will write to the Cabinet Secretary and make her aware of the situation, and get an update for him.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I recently met an incredible woman, Rachel Liew, a constituent of mine who joins us today in the Gallery. Following the devastating loss of her five-year-old son Sam in 2021, she has channelled unimaginable grief into extraordinary action. Sam’s death was due to FIRES—febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome. That is a rare condition within NORSE—new onset refractory status epilepticus—which can suddenly strike previously healthy children and remains poorly understood. Through her charity, Sam’s Superheroes, Rachel supports families, raises awareness and funds vital research. Will the Leader of the House help to secure a meeting with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to discuss increasing funding, improving research co-ordination and strengthening clinical support for families facing this catastrophic condition?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very serious matter, and I join her in thanking Rachel for her dedication to this issue following her tragic loss, and for the work of Sam’s Superheroes. I join my hon. Friend in awe, as I simply do not know how parents cope with the loss of a child, let alone then to go on and campaign—it is remarkable what some people are able to do. Through the UK rare diseases framework, the Government remain committed to improving the lives of people with rare diseases, including conditions such as FIRES, and I commit to helping my hon. Friend arrange that meeting with the Secretary of State so that they can discuss the matter in detail.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Next week sees the funeral of my constituent Bob Humphrey-Taylor. Bob was a pillar of our community, and the driving force behind so many projects across Mellor and Marple, especially those with links to our industrial heritage. He was often dressed as the 18th-century industrialist Samuel Oldknow, and he was the owner of the most remarkable moustache I have ever seen out in the wild. He was a champion of our campaign to seek world heritage site status for our canals, our famous lock flight, and England’s highest aqueduct. May we have a debate in Government time, setting us up for the next round of world heritage site applications? That would be a fitting legacy for Bob and all those who have done so much in my community to celebrate our industrial heritage.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to Mr Humphrey-Taylor and everyone involved in the work that she talked about. These people are the backbone of our community and we rightly celebrate our industrial heritage, which is so important. I will write to the Secretary of State and find out what the plan is going forward, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady is updated.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Hundreds of constituents on Acanthus Drive, Abercorn Way and Achilles Close face eviction threats, rent hikes and pressure to sign weaker tenancy agreements from their landlord Freshview and the freeholder BMR St James. Thankfully, they have the support of Andy Bates, in my south Bermondsey team, our Labour council, Southwark Law Centre and myself, but will the Government provide time to debate penalising rogue landlords and practices such as this, especially given the new rights for renters coming from our Government in May?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this regard. We celebrate the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which is the biggest reform to renting in a generation, but we realise that there is still more that can be done. The Government stand firmly on the side of renters and I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has heard my hon. Friend’s concerns. I will certainly give consideration to his request for a debate at some point in the future, but I also point out that excellent work has been done not only by him but by Southwark council, which I hope residents appreciate.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Chapter 4, paragraph 23 of the North Tyneside local plan, which covers an area that includes the Leader of the House’s constituency, talks about protecting the green belt. As there is green-belt land in the north of his constituency, I am sure that he shares my concerns about over-development, which is referred to in that chapter, so will he join me in supporting my constituents in Albrighton in Shropshire, where a speculative development for 800 houses on green-belt land was recently thrown out by Shropshire council but is now going to appeal? Is it not the case that my constituents, like his and those of many Members of the House, are not against housing? They are just against housing on the green belt. Housing has to be built in the right place and at the right scale, but unfortunately this Government seem more concerned about sitting on a bulldozer and bulldozing through Shropshire’s green belt than getting that housing balance right?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not always disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I disagree with his analysis of where we have got to with this matter. I agree that there should be a voice for residents, but there should also be rights and responsibilities for local authorities, who walk a difficult line. We need to protect our environment wherever we can but, as he recognises, we walk a difficult line because our residents need more houses. Housing is a good thing in driving the economy, provided that the protections in place are available to protect the areas he talks about. I understand that can be frustrating for residents, including, as he points out, my own constituents. At the same time, they realise that there is a housing shortage in our country and that housing is at a premium in many areas, so frankly we need to get on with it and build some new houses.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I know that you, like me, are incredibly passionate about youth services. My constituents are very concerned that under the previous Conservative-led local authority, Staffordshire faced the third worst youth service cuts in the country. While I welcome the new Government report, the national youth strategy and the £500 million being invested in youth services, the first wave of those hubs announced is concentrated on cities. Will the Leader of the House guarantee a debate in Government time on youth services in towns, which have been so decimated under Conservative-led authorities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend will have heard, her remarks were well received by Members on the Labour Benches, because there is an acceptance that youth services are vital for the future of young people. The reality is that there was no youth strategy when we came into office, but we now have one that has been drawn up by young people. We are doing everything we can to tackle what has effectively been the closure of more than 1,000 youth centres under the previous Government. I will raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and ensure that my hon. Friend gets a response.
May I also put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend for her brilliant work as my Parliamentary Private Secretary? I understand her motivation and her reason for not wanting to continue—I hope it was nothing I said—but I put on the record my sincere thanks. She was absolutely fantastic.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Anyone who attended the national emergency briefing on 27 November, as I did, could not help being captivated by the international expertise on show about the effects of the climate and nature crisis on everything from food security and national security to all other aspects of British life. Is it not time that the Prime Minister responded to the cross-party call for a nationally televised national emergency briefing? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the Prime Minister in this House to accept the need for the public to really understand and hear about the genuine effects of the climate and nature crisis?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman mentions food security and the climate crisis, and he will know that the effects of the current instability in the international situation have brought these issues into starker focus. I will give consideration to what he says, but the Prime Minister is absolutely focused on matters such as food security, because we understand that this is a particularly turbulent time. He is entirely focused on ensuring that we are resilient and emerge from the current situation not by getting back to some kind of normality, but by being in a much stronger position than we have when coming out of previous crises.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
There are almost 26,000 unpaid carers in Bolton, providing vital support to individuals across the borough who would otherwise struggle to manage. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the hard-working staff and volunteers at the local charity Bolton Carers Support? They include Melanie and Georgette, who provide much-needed support to carers and who I met in Horwich earlier in the month. Will he also acknowledge the vital work done by unpaid carers to support my constituents across Bolton, Blackrod, Horwich and Westhoughton?
Sir Alan Campbell
This Government recognise the vital role of unpaid carers and are absolutely committed to ensuring that they have the support they need, not least through increasing the weekly carer’s allowance limit. I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking Georgette, Melanie and all the hard-working staff and volunteers at Bolton Carers Support and across the country.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It has just been announced that the last NHS dentist provision in Towcester in my constituency will be withdrawn on 1 August 2026. That represents a significant loss, especially in a rapidly expanding town, with no other NHS dentistry provision around for miles. I have written to the integrated care board, but I am also writing to Health Ministers to ask for a meeting and to ask what other NHS services are available. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could see that the Department pays due attention to that letter.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady raises issues that have affected a number of constituencies across the country, not least my own. This Government are doing everything we can to ensure that there is provision and access to services, not least through dental hubs. She has done the right thing in writing to a Minister, and I will follow that up by raising it with them.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a cap on student loan interest rates for plan 2 borrowers. That is an important step towards easing the financial burden on graduates, but my constituents continue to raise with me how unfair the system is, with significant financial pressure from the repayment terms and thresholds that have continued to increase despite the rising costs. Will the Leader of the House ensure that time is made for further debate on student loan reform so that we can consider further action to ensure that the system is fair?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have taken action to improve the system that we inherited and to try to make it fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers. Interest on plan 2 and plan 3 student loans will be capped at 6% from this September until August 2027. In the long term, we are looking for ways to improve the system and make it fairer, particularly for students and graduates from low-income backgrounds. The Treasury Committee is looking into this matter, and I will certainly give consideration to my hon. Friend’s plea to ensure that it is debated when that report comes out.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The residents of Cheddar suffer the weekend misery of thoughtless, antisocial drivers who come from across the country to meet in Cheddar Gorge. Not all the drivers are careless, but I have been contacted by well over 100 residents, many of whom fear for their lives as a result of often dangerous driving when drivers leave or come into the village. Can the Leader of the House ask Ministers—perhaps the Ministers for policing, transport and local government, and anyone else who might be able to do something—to consider how their agencies might work together to enable the various authorities to bring peace to the residents of this village? It is a beautiful place, but it is ruined by dangerous driving most weekends.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear about the experiences of residents in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The Government have brought forward a road safety strategy, but as she points out, this is more than just a question of road safety; it is about policing too, so I will draw it to the attention of the relevant Ministers and see if there is a way forward.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent Lisa Theobald suffered the unimaginable loss of her son Ryan, who was killed at just 20 years old when he was stabbed in Doncaster city centre one evening in January 2022. Lisa has shown extraordinary courage in the face of this grief and has channelled her energies into being a campaigner for stronger action on knife crime. Does the Leader of the House agree that more needs to be done to make sure our communities have the ability to deal with these kinds of emergencies, and will he meet me to talk about making time for a debate on the idea of introducing bleed kits to night-time venues, so that those places and their staff are better equipped to deal with those initial moments when somebody is stabbed, and potentially save lives?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of what happened to Ryan—no family should have to go through that. My hon. Friend raises an important matter; the Government have just announced a knife crime strategy, and I will bring to the attention of the relevant Minister my hon. Friend’s comments about bleed kits, because they have an important role to play. First aid can save lives in these situations, so I will make sure that the relevant Minister hears her concerns.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Yesterday, we learned that 600 jobs could be lost across the North Tees and South Tees NHS trusts, including nurses and clinical staff. This is devastating news for hard-working NHS staff and for residents worried about local services. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on these job losses, and will he join me in urging the NHS to ensure that the staff affected are properly supported?
Sir Alan Campbell
Where there are job losses, if they are inevitable, it is important that staff are supported. This is a local matter, and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman seeks an Adjournment debate, he will get a response directly from a Minister.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Last week, I visited our youth hub in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, and heard at first hand some fantastic success stories of young people being supported into work through this Labour Government’s prioritisation. Can we have a ministerial statement on the work of these hubs and how they will integrate with the new youth jobs grant to help even more young people into jobs?
Sir Alan Campbell
Given the legacy that we inherited—the number of people not in employment, education or training—access to work is a big priority for this Government, and through the Milburn review we are looking at what further steps we can take. Should my hon. Friend seek a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss how this can be done in a joined-up way, I will certainly support him in trying to get that meeting.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I want to continue to highlight the importance of local railways—an issue that has already been raised by the hon. Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan). This year is the 200th anniversary of Scotland’s first modern railway, the Monkland and Kirkintilloch line. It opened in 1826, just months after Stockton and Darlington became the first passenger railway in the world to use steam trains, and it is the first railway in Scotland to be authorised by Act of Parliament to use steam trains for both passengers and goods. The community in my constituency is celebrating with exhibitions, talks and a guided walk in Whitegates Park, which is named after the level crossing where the line approached the Forth and Clyde canal, delivering Monkland coal to barges destined for Edinburgh. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Don Martin, an eminent local historian who has researched and championed the heritage of the line for decades, and will he consider coming north—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that questions cannot be that long.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly congratulate everyone involved in the commemoration of the Monkland railway. It is, from the hon. Lady’s account, one of the oldest lines, and I know how important such lines are from knowledge of my region, where the first railways were developed—similarly to hers—for work on the coalfield. I congratulate everybody involved in that railway, and I hope that their celebrations are successful.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Following 14 years of severe austerity under the coalition Government and Conservative Governments, this Labour Government allocated a record £7.3 billion in December to English councils to fix potholes and improve roads. Sadly, Liberal Democrat-run Stockport council has a self-imposed policy of not filling potholes under 40 mm, meaning that some of the roads in my constituency are in truly shocking condition. I am running a survey on my website on this issue, and an overwhelming majority of residents have raised Edgeley as a concern. Many of my constituents feel that there is a challenging disparity between the road conditions in more affluent areas and those in my constituency. I thank Mike Naylor, the Labour candidate in Edgeley, for his work on that. May we have a debate in Government time on how councils such as Stockport can better use the increased funding?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to point to our record investment in local highways maintenance over the next four years and the £7.3 billion to tackle the scourge of potholes. I am astonished to hear that his Lib Dem council is not prepared to use that money. I encourage residents to take part in his survey to see the extent of the issue. When they get the opportunity, I am sure that his residents will make their voices heard at the ballot box.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Over the past 12 months or so, a lot of residents and businesses across Fylde and Wyre have reported significant delays to, and times of entire absence of, Royal Mail deliveries to their properties and businesses, with some lucky to get post once a week, or twice a week at best. I have experienced that myself. With local government elections on the horizon, will the Leader of the House provide a statement or some reassurance on the work being done among the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Royal Mail and local councils to ensure that people’s access to democracy through their postal votes is not diminished?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman will know, because he is an assiduous attender at these sessions, that the shortcomings of Royal Mail have been raised on a number of occasions. He refers specifically to the forthcoming local elections, and I can reassure him that the defending democracy taskforce has this issue clearly in its sights. As far as is possible, the taskforce gives reassurance that this is a priority in the run-up to the local elections.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of attending a mixed rugby tournament at Thurrock rugby club, hosted by the Acers mixed rugby team and in which my daughter took part. The absolute joy and chaos of the event cannot be overstated, but it was a pure pleasure to be part of it. Opportunities for disabled children to take part in sport are unfortunately few and far between and are generally down to the likes of fantastic individuals such as Leah Knight, who runs Acers, or the indomitable Ally Gavin, who runs SouthSEND rugby. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the importance of sporting opportunities for disabled children and young people, so that they can truly grasp how joyous it is to be part of occasions like that one in January?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are clear that access to sport is important for young people, irrespective of their circumstances and their disability. I thank Thurrock rugby club and the people mentioned by my hon. Friend for their efforts in this regard. I think this topic would be ideal for an Adjournment debate, where my hon. Friend could give further weight to the case that she is making.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
A constituent recently contacted me to say that she is concerned that her son, who is a member of the armed forces, is finding it impossible to get a driving test. The well-documented concerns about delays are compounded by the fact that he is posted abroad, his timing is difficult to anticipate, and military personnel have been redeployed to support civilian instructors and testers. Can we have a statement, perhaps from either the Secretary of State for Defence or the Secretary of State for Transport, to clarify how we are going to get through the impasse that has been created?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is important that military personnel have access to driving tests, and the hon. Lady is right: the action the Government have taken means that resources are spread slightly thinner than they might otherwise be. We need to make sure that there are no delays due to administrative issues. If my memory serves me correctly, there is a Backbench Business debate next week about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The hon. Lady might want to raise her concerns and bring in the defence side that she has talked about.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Many thousands of children in Derby will be lifted out of poverty by this Labour Government through the changes that came in earlier this month, but there is no complacency in a city that has some of the highest salaries outside London yet a high number of children living in poverty too. That is why the Tale of 2 Cities charity has been set up. It is working with businesses to create an improved life chances fund for around 500 children in our community nurseries—children who will be eligible for free school meals once they start school. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the next steps in tackling child poverty, so that all children have the chance to thrive?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter and for championing the work of Tale of 2 Cities. Local charities are the golden thread that runs through our communities, and they do a fantastic job. The Government are keen to support them, not least because we are taking action on child poverty, scrapping the two-child limit and focusing on the cost of living. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall debate, so that she can ask the Minister who responds what the next steps in the Government’s plan are.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I am sure the Leader of the House will share my delight at the news of two new dental contracts, worth £6 million, in Bridlington, which will double NHS dental provision in the town. However, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. I am extremely frustrated by the news that the local NHS trust has announced the proposed closure of the care unit at Bridlington hospital this summer. Will he join me in thanking the 1,200 residents who have already signed my petition against the closure, and can we have a debate in Government time on the provision of health services in coastal communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman will know that I am very keen— not least because I have a coastal constituency—to ensure that coastal communities get the support that they need. The reality is that the Government are putting a great deal more resource into the NHS. There are still difficult decisions to be made, and I encourage people to make their voices heard. I am sure that as the NHS deliberates on the best way forward for his hospital, those voices will be heard.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Queen Elizabeth II was and still is held in the highest esteem by the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire, and next Tuesday is the 100th anniversary of her birth. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Her late Majesty’s long life of service to our United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, and will he encourage all colleagues to sign early-day motion 3129, which I have tabled to mark that milestone?
[That this House notes, with affection and respect, the 100th anniversary, on 21 April 2026 of the birth of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; reflects on the sense of loss that people throughout the United Kingdom, the realms, territories and Commonwealth still feel following Her late Majesty’s death on 8 September 2022; expresses its grateful thanks for Her late Majesty’s long life of service and her reign of 70 years and 214 days, unparalleled in history; remembers a monarch driven by purpose, commitment, love of country and an unmatched dedication to the Commonwealth; recognises the many visits, meetings and receptions, over seven decades, through which the people of this country were able to meet Her late Majesty, and she them, in communities right across the UK and the world; acknowledges that this milestone in history will be a very personal day of reflection, love and remembrance for His Majesty the King and his family as they remember a mother, grandmother, aunt, cousin and great-grandmother; and gives thanks for Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s long life of service and the example she set to all of us and sings with one voice, God Save the King.]
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in saying that Her late Majesty was a remarkable individual, not simply because of the time that she gave to public service but because of the way that she conducted herself, and I think she would be immensely proud of the way in which the current sovereign is working. It is the 100th anniversary of her birth, as my hon. Friend says, and I think it appropriate that we pay tribute to her and mark the occasion in some way. I encourage colleagues to sign his early-day motion.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
A report by the charity MYTIME Young Carers, which is based in Broadstone but works across the country, found that young carers are twice as likely as their classmates to be persistently absent and, shockingly, more than twice as likely to face school suspensions. Young carers are now included in the school census, but 69% of schools do not have a young carers champion. Given the opportunity presented by the upcoming schools Bill, which is expected in the next Session, can we have a debate in Government time on how we support young carers in the classroom through the creation of young carers champions in every secondary school?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady will know that the Government are keen to ensure that schools have the resources they need to tackle the issues their children face. I do understand the difficulty of young people who are carers in ensuring they can fully commit to school life. She is right, and there is a Bill going through Parliament currently, but I will raise the issue she mentions with the relevant Minister, because I think she has an important point.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Public service is about dedication, resilience and delivering for those who need it most, and as she prepares to retire next week, Denise McGuckin, the chief executive of Hartlepool borough council, has exemplified those qualities throughout an outstanding career. It has been my privilege to work with Denise for two decades, during which time she has shown unwavering commitment to the people of Hartlepool. From starting as a recycling officer 30 years ago to leading the council through the pandemic, securing over £160 million of investment, delivering outstanding children’s services and bringing the tall ships back to our town, her calm, compassionate and decisive leadership has left a lasting legacy. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Denise for her remarkable service to the people of Hartlepool, and in wishing her a long and happy retirement?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to Denise McGuckin. Civil servants work tirelessly to serve our local communities, and they are the very foundations of local government. Chief executives have a tremendously important role to play in leadership, so I join him in wishing Denise a well-deserved retirement after years of dedicated service.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Last Friday, along with the leader of North Lincolnshire council, I visited the carers support centre in Brigg, and met the staff and volunteers who do such an excellent job. I also heard from individual carers about the challenges they face, one of which, incidentally, is the complexity of the Government forms they have to complete for various benefits. Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate to explore how we can better support carers up and down the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of the role played not only by carers, but by carers support centres in what are often very challenging situations. I would be interested to receive his feedback from the meeting, and I will ensure we get it to Ministers, so that we can build on the commitment we have given to support carers in every way possible.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Consett is full of great community-focused organisations. Recently, I met those at Shadows of Light CIC, which offers dog-assisted therapy for care homes, young people, those at risk of suicide and veterans. I met them at the Foundation For Good, another charity in Consett, which focuses on wellbeing and support across the community. Can we have a debate in Government time on the vital role that social enterprises and charities play in strengthening and building our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion community-based organisations, not least those in the fine town of Consett, of which I am a son and very grateful for that. Social enterprises and charities provide essential support to the most vulnerable, and they are the golden thread that tie our communities together. I am delighted to hear of the work of the Foundation For Good and others. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall debate or, indeed, an Adjournment debate, so she can highlight the good work being done not just in Consett, but in other areas.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
In February, it was announced in the national cancer plan that a rare cancers clinical lead and a rare cancers research lead would be appointed, but no time frame was given for these appointments. These new positions are key to progressing outcomes for people with rare cancers, who have been left out of previous cancer plans. Can the Leader of the House make time for a Health Minister to update the House on progress with these appointments?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not know where we are with the appointments, but I will certainly take that up with a Minister and find out, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
We have a pothole epidemic in Hastings, Rye and the villages, and that is why the Government gave East Sussex county council a record £21 million to tackle it—more money than ever before. So, I was absolutely furious when I uncovered figures that showed that it actually planned to spend £18 million in the same year, £3 million less, on filling potholes—absolutely shocking. The drivers and residents I represent are fed up with this Conservative council dodging its responsibilities and wasting our taxpayers’ money, such as £5 million overspent on the shambolic Queensway Gateway project. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that there are now no more excuses, and that East Sussex county council must crack on and fill the potholes?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the action taken by the Government to ensure that councils have the necessary resources to tackle potholes, so it is inexplicable that the performance of Conservative-run councils such as East Sussex on potholes, which has been raised with me on a number of occasions, is falling below the standards we would expect. If they get the resources, they should spend the resources. I hope that residents are making their voices very clear on these matters.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
My constituency has two railway stations, one in Highbridge and one in Bridgwater. Sadly, neither station is accessible. There is no step-free access to enable wheelchair users and those with mobility impairments to move easily from one platform to another. To do so at both stations involves travelling a circuitous route, leaving the station and crossing a busy road. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on improving accessibility across our rail network?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration if there are railways stations and a railway service that some people are unable to access. The Government have announced an investment of £303 million over four years, via Access for All. I will get him an update from the relevant Minister on what that means for his constituency.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend share my profound disappointment that the Conservative party selected a candidate for the local elections in Harrow who thinks that British-born Asian MPs such as the former Prime Minister and the current Home Secretary are not British, should go back to Pakistan, supports discrimination against Romanians, and thinks there should be mass deportations? May we have a statement on what more can be done to tackle online hatred and curb racism more generally in our politics?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very concerning matter. We stand for unity, not division. Racism or any other form of discrimination has absolutely no place in our society. There is a real political choice at these local elections. Pride in Britain and our communities up and down the country stand united against those who would exploit division for their own ends. Where political parties are aware of this situation, they should have the courage to stand up to individuals and they should, even at this late stage in the process of local elections, distance themselves from them.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
A wife of a civil servant in my constituency gave up work to look after her husband when he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. She found herself in severe financial difficulties after significant delays in the processing of her husband’s civil service pension. He sadly died last year and she only started receiving support a couple of weeks ago. As this is not an isolated case, will the Leader of the House please guarantee a debate in Government time, so that MPs can scrutinise the mess that is civil service pensions?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am genuinely very sorry to hear of the constituency case the hon. Gentleman raises. If he will let me have details—I know it has been resolved to some extent—I will make the Minister aware of them. We are busy trying to get on and resolve the situation, but I am sure that when the time is appropriate we will want to return to this issue, debate what has happened and learn lessons from it.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Last month it was brilliant to see Derby, the home of rail, host the Community Rail Network awards, recognising the fantastic work people do on behalf of their communities and the railways, and welcoming over 600 people to our city. I saw that dedication at first hand when I went litter picking with volunteers at Peartree station. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending not only the work of those hard-working volunteers in Derby, but the invaluable contribution that volunteers make across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to champion the work of Community Rail Network and the dedication of its volunteers. As I said earlier, community groups and volunteers are the golden thread that tie our communities together. I absolutely thank the people he is talking about in Derby, and indeed those in other parts of our country.
Jim Shannon
I wish to raise concerns regarding the detention of Roy Silva, a British citizen who has reportedly been held in Sri Lanka after attending a discussion at a local Roman Catholic church where he spoke about his Christian faith. Since the end of January, he has been held in atrocious conditions, mostly in a room with 200 other prisoners and more recently in a room of 25 prisoners. Mr Silva, who lives in Chingford with his family, had travelled to Sri Lanka to attend his sister’s funeral. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what steps have been taken to secure his immediate release and safe return to the UK, and what representations have been made to the Sri Lankan authorities regarding his detention?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such a serious and concerning case. As he knows, the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, and I can assure him that we are treating this case with the seriousness that it deserves. I will ensure that he gets a response from the Foreign Secretary that sets out the actions we are taking.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
This Saturday, the streets of Gravesend will be filled with vibrancy and colour with the Vaisakhi celebration and religious procession through the town. British Sikhs, the cornerstone of whose faith is selfless service, have made such a positive contribution to Gravesham and across the UK. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all involved in this celebration and grant a debate in Government time about the contribution of British Sikhs, as well as the needed and promised inquiry into the 1984 storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the vital contribution of British Sikhs in our communities, which has been raised regularly in these sessions. They are such an important part of the diversity and strength of our communities. I think this would be a great topic for a Backbench Business or Adjournment debate; there are Sikh communities across our country, and I am sure that other Members would also like to praise the work being done in communities in their patch.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Academics in York, a human rights city, drew my attention to the Government consultation, “Family Returns: Reforming Asylum Support and Enforcing Family Returns”, which seeks to extend the use of constraints, including physical restraint, to children. This is extremely chilling. The consultation is ongoing but closes soon. Will the Leader of the House speak to the Home Secretary about withdrawing these extreme measures, as academics have highlighted how physical restraint traumatises children?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend says, the Home Office is consulting on people’s views of changes more widely. I can reassure her that no decision has been made and that children’s welfare and safeguarding duties remain central to this process, as does our compliance with our domestic and international obligations. Any concerns raised by hon. Members will be considered in the consultation, but I will also ensure that the Home Secretary hears my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Following a decision last year to outsource care provision at Tygetshaugh Court in Dunipace, the community, residents and families have campaigned to highlight the significant stress and uncertainty it has caused. Following their persistent efforts, the ombudsman found serious operational failures in the consultation process, options appraisal and information given to decision makers, and compelled health and social care partnership officers to apologise to Tygetshaugh Court residents last week. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the Denny and Dunipace community for their tireless campaigning alongside the residents?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate for his constituents on a range of issues, and I join him in commending the work of those who have campaigned on this important issue. I understand that his local Labour councillors have been at the forefront of that. As I have said on many occasions, we have delivered Scotland’s biggest devolution settlement since devolution. I hope that the SNP has heard my hon. Friend’s contribution today and will take note, because his constituents deserve better than the serious failures that he has raised.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
On the doorsteps of Mow Cop, Harriseahead and Newchapel, residents tell me time and again that they are fed up with Reform-led Staffordshire county council ignoring their very real concerns about vehicles speeding through their beautiful villages and putting lives at risk. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on road safety and how we can assure that communities like ours are properly heard when decisions are being taken—or, indeed, not?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is not the first time that hon. Members have raised concerns about Reform-led Staffordshire county council, which has clearly overpromised and underdelivered. These business question sessions have made it clear to me that Reform is failing in local government and is seeking—perhaps as an excuse—to divide our local communities. We have published our road safety strategy, but I encourage my hon. Friend to seek a Westminster Hall debate on that particular topic, because his concerns are shared by a number of colleagues, not least on the Labour Benches.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in a couple of weeks’ time, Sir David Attenborough will celebrate his 100th birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my admiration for this national treasure and living legend, who has for decades brought the wonder of the natural world into our homes. Will the Government and Parliament consider how we might celebrate that moment as a nation, perhaps by instituting a David Attenborough day for us all to celebrate the natural world and the man who has enabled us to understand it better than we ever could have done without him?
Sir Alan Campbell
Sir David has done wonders in introducing us to, and captivating us with, the natural world. As my hon. Friend will know, we celebrate Earth Day next week, which will also be a great opportunity to better understand our environment and perhaps to appreciate Sir David’s work. I am sure that many Members and communities would welcome the opportunity to celebrate his impressive 100 years and to highlight his many achievements, so I will give my hon. Friend’s suggestion some thought.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Council tax arrears can be devastating for people’s finances and mental health, so I warmly welcome the Government’s changes to the debt collection rules today, which mean that people will not be tipped further into poverty by a single missed payment. In Rochdale and wider Greater Manchester, Jo Barker-Marsh and other anti-poverty campaigners have been exposing how the use of bailiffs in cases of genuine hardship is not just cruel and counterproductive, but a waste of public money. Might we have a debate in Government time to highlight the scandal of aggressive council tax debt collection, and will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the work of Jo, Debt Justice and, of course, Martin Lewis?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend is welcoming the change. As he rightly points out, it will help to protect vulnerable people in our communities. I join him in thanking Jo, Debt Justice and, indeed, Martin Lewis for their work. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for an Adjournment debate on the topic so that he can give further consideration to, and hear from Ministers on, those important points.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
My constituent recently applied to renew his passport. As requested, he returned his old passport to His Majesty’s Passport Office. He then received two consecutive messages advising him that he had sent the wrong passport—he had not. Subsequently, he received from HMPO a package purporting to contain his old passport, but it contained instead a passport belonging to another individual. He is concerned about where his old passport is, and about a potential data breach given that he now has access to another individual’s name, address, date of birth and travel information from the past 10 years. Does the Leader of the House share my constituent’s concerns and mine, and will he raise them with the appropriate Minister?
Sir Alan Campbell
That really is a catalogue of errors. I understand how concerned my hon. Friend’s constituent will be. If my hon. Friend provides me with the details, I will raise the matter with the appropriate Minister.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Under the former Conservative leader of Southend city council, who is now the leader of the Reform group, £4 million was budgeted for road and pothole resurfacing works, even though highways engineers had estimated that £6 million was needed just to keep them in the poor condition they were in. I am therefore delighted that the now Labour-led council has increased that funding to £13 million over the past two years, with the help of the Government’s pothole fund, and has put in a full programme of resurfacing works. Does the Leader of the House agree that the council team should be congratulated on getting Southend’s roads and pavements back on track?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Labour-led Southend city council on its exceptional work in turning that situation around. We are providing £7.3 billion over the next four years for councils to fix potholes, and I am glad that Labour councils are using that money to improve their communities—unlike, as he points out, some Tory and Reform councils.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The whole House will have cheered on Rory McIlroy’s historic back-to-back Masters victory at the weekend. However, when 60 courses have closed across the country over the last five years, and when courses such as Dalmuir in my West Dunbartonshire constituency remain open only because of a community-led takeover, can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the future of golf in this country, so that we can ensure that the courses, clubs and community facilities that will inspire and create the next generation of British champions are still there to do so?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a champion for the great sport of golf, and I commend him for that. We are investing £400 million in grassroots sports facilities in communities across the UK to support the champions of tomorrow. I encourage him to apply for a Westminster Hall or Backbench Business debate, so that hon. Members across the House can raise their voices in support of community sport as he has, but also hear about the excellent work that the Government are undertaking.
British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on industrial energy costs.
When I became Business Secretary, I said that we needed to be bolder, to go further and to move faster to support British enterprise. Today, I want to set out what that means for reduced electricity costs for British industry. The events of recent days and weeks serve to demonstrate the strategic weaknesses and the economic threats inherent in Britain’s over-dependence on the geopolitics of the global oil market. It is high time that Britain gained energy independence by ending that dangerous over-reliance and instead transitioned to become a clean energy superpower.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is overseeing that transition; however, British manufacturing continues to have some of the highest electricity costs in Europe. That undermines our manufacturing base, impacts our manufacturing jobs, and damages the lives and livelihoods of cherished communities across the country. The Government were elected to halt and reverse Britain’s industrial decline. That is why our modern industrial strategy addresses high electricity costs for British businesses.
As part of our British industry supercharger package, I have already increased support for over 550 of the UK’s most energy-intensive businesses—those in our heavy industries. We have increased the network charging compensation scheme discount from 60% to 90%, saving companies up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills, and we have started building the UK’s first small modular reactor in north Wales, laying the groundwork for manufacturers to benefit from reliable, low-carbon electricity.
Last year, I launched the consultation on the British industrial competitiveness scheme, or BICS—our plan to bring industrial electricity costs more closely in line with those in other European economies. I am grateful for the support of the Chancellor in establishing BICS. The response to our consultation, which we are publishing today, shows overwhelming business support for BICS. The scheme has been endorsed by the Confederation of British Industry and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Our partners have done more than just support the policy; they have been co-creators, helping us to shape the scope and scale of the scheme. BICS is bigger, bolder and better as a result of their hard work and partnership.
I am announcing today that BICS will benefit 10,000 electricity-intensive manufacturing businesses—those best equipped to drive growth in our economy. Those 10,000 businesses will save up to £40 per megawatt-hour from next year. They will be exempt from paying the indirect costs of three other schemes: the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the capacity market. BICS is designed to support eligible businesses across all regions of Great Britain. The eligible sectors collectively employ 900,000 people, of whom 700,000 live outside London and the south-east. That is a real advantage for working families and communities around the country, and it gives British businesses a real competitive advantage in the global economy. That is the difference that a Labour Government with an activist industrial strategy makes. This is not just about high hopes or warm words; it is real action to reduce energy costs and increase industrial competitiveness.
I pledged not just to be bolder and to go further, but to act faster in the interests of British businesses. Business is keen, as I am sure the whole House is, for the benefits of BICS to take into account the challenging economic reality that we face. I can announce a one-off payment for businesses eligible for BICS, covering the 2026-27 period, and reflecting the support that businesses would have received had the scheme been in place this year. It will be delivered next year, and my Department will set out more details shortly.
Our focus now is on making sure that BICS is as strong and significant as possible, and that it delivers for our car industry, aerospace and defence—the best of British manufacturing. My Department is inviting businesses to help us finalise the operational details of BICS. I invite all companies that can benefit from it to go to the Department for Business and Trade’s website, submit their views, and help us prepare for this final phase together.
This is a major industrial intervention and financial commitment by this Government. I am determined to get it absolutely right from the start. We said that our industrial strategy was never about a single publication or a single moment in time. It is a marked departure from the old economic orthodoxies of Thatcherite de-industrialisation and a failed free market ideology that let whole towns, regions and communities go to the wall. Ours is an activist industrial strategy, supporting British businesses when they need it, intervening when circumstances demand it, and investing in wealth creation and opportunity for all.
We recognise the instability in the global economy. As the Prime Minister has said, the conflict in Iran is not our war, but we must do everything in our power to shield British businesses from the worst effects of it. Businesses are rightly concerned about the impact of the conflict in the middle east. The Chancellor will set out the principles guiding the Government’s thinking as we consider our response.
Today’s announcement of our bigger, bolder scheme is proof positive of our commitment to backing British businesses for the long term. It sits alongside our continued focus on short-term impacts, on which we will not hesitate to act where needed. We will continue using our activist industrial strategy to create the right conditions for British firms to succeed and grow. We do so because we know that when the Government and enterprise work in partnership, we can make Britain stronger, wealthier and more resilient. I commend this statement to the House.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for coming to the House proactively this morning. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my former career in asset management.
I very much welcome the Government’s recognition that industrial energy bills remain incredibly high. This is an issue that businesses across the country have been raising for many months. I have heard what the Secretary of State has to say, and there are a number of areas where I would appreciate further clarity. First, according to the Government’s figures, at least 99% of companies will not benefit from the scheme, even after the announced expansion. Pubs, restaurants, farmers and retailers also face energy cost challenges, and innovative companies such as OpenAI have halted planned multibillion-pound investments in our country. What action will the Government take to address those businesses’ concerns?
Secondly, although businesses are being told today that they will be supported and that their energy bills will be reduced, no relief will actually come their way until next year, so what plan is there to provide a more timely relief for businesses who have to pay their energy bills right now? Finally, I am not clear on how this one-off additional payment next year will be funded. Just this week, the International Monetary Fund has expressed concern about the UK economy, saying that we are the most exposed of all major advanced economies, so can the Secretary of State provide clarity to the markets this morning about how this will be paid for?
High energy costs for British businesses did not start with the conflict in Iran. We all know that energy prices have been far too high for far too long, and we now have the highest industrial energy prices in the whole G7. We should look at the root of the issue at hand: the structural energy challenges that we face as a country. I am pleased that in the regulatory consultation launched today the Government have committed to the removal of carbon price support from April 2028. That is adopting one of the key provisions of the Conservatives’ cheap power plan, so I very much welcome that, but why wait until 2028, and why stop there? The Secretary of State could go further and adopt the plan in full, ending the carbon tax and green levies right now, as well as scrapping the 78% tax on North sea oil and gas companies. Those pragmatic and sensible steps are actionable right now, today. If he does those things, he will have our full support.
Peter Kyle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the scheme. I know it is qualified support, but where that qualified support exists, I am grateful for it. Let us be very clear about the scheme, which I have been designing for quite some time: it is a competitiveness scheme, and it is targeted; it is not a general scheme for the entire economy. It is to increase the competitiveness of businesses, so that they can compete globally and be more profitable domestically. The scheme will be highly impactful for those businesses. Many of them are already profitable and doing great work. Through the scheme, we can turbocharge their ability to be competitive, both domestically and internationally. I have announced a range of other schemes, including the supercharger for energy-intensive sectors, and I have made other interventions, just in the six months that I have been Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman was gracious in praising parts of the scheme. He could have also mentioned that the growth figures that came out today show that we approached the challenges in the middle east by busting the forecasts and exceeding expectations for growth. That is good for every single business in the entire country. Growth is the No. 1 mission of the Government, and that is what we have been getting on with. That, of course, means that, going into this challenging period, we have more resilience and success in the British economy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. As I said in my statement, the scheme is being funded through reliefs on three schemes, and through support from the Exchequer. It is fully funded and within the fiscal rules, and that is fully set out. More details will flow as we work with business to ensure that we get the implementation absolutely right.
The hon. Gentleman went on to call for a whole set of measures that he would like to see. I would like him to hold himself to the standard to which he holds me, and to set out how he will fund all the commitments he is making.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Let us start with the positives. I am glad that there is now some form of recognition that there is an industrial energy crisis, and that the Secretary of State has brought forward something that helps some sectors.
The bad news for the sector that I and many colleagues in the Chamber represent is that the ceramics sector is not included. There is nothing for tableware or giftware, nothing for ceramic tiles, clay pipes or clay tiles, and nothing for bricks. We have a Government with an objective of building 1.5 million homes, but there is no support for bricks in the scheme, which means that we will have to import bricks from Pakistan, on diesel-chugging super-tankers—bricks made by indentured labour in coal-fired kilns. We will not make them in Walsall, north Staffordshire or your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The same applies for sanitaryware. This sector has seen exports of half a billion pounds, employs 20,000 people directly across the supply chain, and puts £1 billion back into the UK economy. We have spoken to the Chancellor, to the Secretary of State’s predecessor, to the Energy Secretary, to Ministers across all Departments, and to the Treasury. They promised us help in the Budget, in the industrial strategy, in another Budget, and in the autumn statement. Then we were told, “Wait for BICS.” I suspect that the line from the Secretary of State will be, “The sector is gas-intensive, so wait for the supercharger scheme.” Frankly, that is not good enough. Factories will close and jobs will be lost as a result of this announcement. Bluntly and directly, may I ask the Secretary of State how many job losses and factory closures it will take, and how many brick kilns need to be mothballed, before the Government step in and do something for the ceramics sector? Is it now the Government’s policy objective to oversee the end of UK ceramics production?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his passionate intervention. I came into Parliament 10 years ago, and he came here just a short time afterwards. He has been raising these issues in Parliament for a very long time, about a sector that has long been under stress for various reasons, both global and domestic. I have been determined to ensure that my Department is connected, and as open as possible to listening, and to seeing how we can support the sector. There are monthly meetings with officials. There was a meeting just last week, attended by my hon. Friend, other MPs and industry figures from the sector. I have just discovered that no Secretary of State for Business has visited Stoke to meet ceramic industry figures for over five years. I am willing to do that, and in the coming days, my Department will reach out to the people running those companies to see if my going there, listening to the concerns and seeing what could be done would be of interest to them. If they would like that, I will be there.
I want to stress that my hon. Friend has listed a whole series of very different components of the ceramics industry. It is a diverse industry with diverse inputs. Some of them—I admit, a minority—could be eligible for the BIC scheme that I have announced today. That diversity means that there needs to be a very focused, comprehensive look at the sector. I am willing to go there and meet the industry figures myself.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Our country is in a very fragile state. We cannot defend ourselves, we cannot feed ourselves and we cannot power ourselves. Our national security, our food security and our energy security are deeply interconnected, and the Government’s response is far too sluggish. The CBI and others are very clear: their response to the announcement is that industry cannot wait until next year. A back payment in 12 months will not cut it; businesses are negotiating their energy deals now, they need support now, and the failure to provide that will mean that jobs will be lost, companies will close and our sovereign capabilities will collapse. I urge the Secretary of State to come back to the House next week, and to make then whatever announcement about the back payment he was going to make in 12 months’ time.
There is a significant gap in the Government’s industrial strategy: we Liberal Democrats believe that the food and farming sector should have been included. Will the Government confirm whether the backdated payment in 12 months’ time and the BIC scheme will apply to the food and farming industry, including agri-tech businesses? Reports in The Times today suggest that the UK may face food shortages due to the Iran conflict. That would impact farming and the hospitality sector, and increase food bills for families. For months, the Liberal Democrats have highlighted that many non-domestic energy retailers refuse to offer good energy deals to hospitality businesses. The broken business rates system also penalises firms for investing in energy-saving measures. May I urge the Government for the umpteenth time to please instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate the energy retail market for hospitality businesses? Will the Government create an energy security bank, which would offer low-interest loans that enabled households and small and medium-sized enterprises to take up energy-saving measures? Will they exclude energy-saving investments from business rates—
Peter Kyle
I could have listened to the hon. Lady for much longer, because she is listing important areas across the sector. I am very aware of the challenges and opportunities in an economy that is full of great enterprise and a lot of highly profitable businesses doing great things with great entrepreneurs. Listening to her, we would think that the economy was not full of people and businesses that are thriving. She only focuses on the challenges.
Let me be clear on how BICS happened. It came about through consultation with the very businesses that the hon. Lady is asking us to listen to. They have been part of designing the system. We will release and implement a targeted scheme that will have maximum benefit. We will announce over the summer an eligibility checker, so that businesses can see their eligibility for the scheme. Of course, as we move forward, we will make payments for costs that may have been incurred this year.
Let me be really clear, however, about how those businesses are working. Most of the businesses—I include the business that was on the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning; Sharon from Tees Components up in Teesside was on the programme—have entered into a contract with fixed prices for the coming year. Most companies in the categories that we are targeting, which have manufacturing processes in which electricity is a high-component cost, are either hedging, or are in contracts, so that they have some stability into the future. We have designed a scheme that takes that into account, will be there when they need it, and supplies support for costs that they would have had this year.
On CO2 and the issues that are in the news, six months ago, within days of becoming Secretary of State, I mothballed Ensus up in Teesside—a fantastic company. I have had to un-mothball it, and I did so in the first couple of days of the strikes in Iran to ensure resilience in key parts of our economy. That was leaked; we do not normally comment on leaks, but that is out there now. These are the things that I am doing. I am being bold and creative, and am acting in the interests of the whole of society and the economy to make sure that we have the resilience to carry on doing business, and come out of this with growth in our economy.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
We will not prosper as a nation without a lot of support for the manufacturing sector—vital for our security and our resilience—so I welcome today’s statement. I notice with some irony that the fertiliser sector is included. A producer in my constituency closed under the previous Government, and as the Secretary of State has already referred to, several hundred million pounds have already been spent correcting the failure to foresee the risks of such a move.
It is good to see that a number of sectors in my constituency are covered by the scheme, including automotive. The Secretary of State will be aware that the automotive sector faces multifaceted issues, not least on the supply side, but also to do with competition and European proposals. Will he say a little bit more about what else he can do to support the wider challenges facing automotive and manufacturing more generally?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work when he was in my Department, upon which I seek to continue. He is right to point to the closure of the fertiliser plant in, I believe, 2023. Those are the sorts of things that have stripped out resilience from our economy and society and which I have sought to rebuild in turbulent times. The automotive sector will qualify for the BIC scheme and other high energy- intensive industries outside automotive will also benefit from the supercharger before it does. I regularly meet automotive industry figures, and the Department is deeply engaged with the sector. He will know some of the outcomes of those conversations and that it is a sector that has this Government and me on its side.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The buzzword this morning is “bold”. Yet the reality is that, though this plan might be bolder than what went before, it remains with all the oomph of a 40W bulb. When electricity in Dumfries in my constituency is four times the price in Dumfries in Virginia, in the United States, this country has a major problem with competitiveness— I have a problem saying it. What industry in this country needs is the decommissioning—the unplugging—of the Energy Secretary and his dogmatic carbon taxes, which really lie behind the electricity prices that we face. Today’s announcement does nothing to address that.
Peter Kyle
I have done more in six months than his Government did in 14 years. If I am not bold, what the heck was his Government?
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to give the statement. I also welcome the expansion of the scheme; I know it is desperately needed across our manufacturing sectors. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has already highlighted, there is a missing sector, in that ceramics does not feature heavily. It is not just pottery—not that potteries are not very important in Staffordshire—but our brick-making factories need support because as a Government we are committed to building homes. We are also committed to buying British, backing British and building British. How does the Secretary of State intend to support a sector that is a linchpin for our wider economy?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s thoughtful words. I can assure her that the ceramics sector and the subsectors she mentions are in my mind. I said in my statement that the Chancellor will set out in the near future the approach that we will take for industries that have been put into distress as a result of the action in the middle east—a war that we did not start, but a war that we are having to respond to. I am happy to stay closely in touch with her and the industries for which she is being a magnificent voice to ensure that we get any response right.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We were promised a statement on the British industrial competitiveness scheme; we got the Secretary of State talking about foutering around with the energy bills of less than 1% of UK companies and compensating them to some undetermined extent at some period in the next year. That will come as the coldest of comfort for industries across the UK, such as the ScanStone industrial equipment manufacturers in my constituency, which is already burdened with extraordinary energy bills but is not an “intensive” energy user, so it will get no help from this. It will be similarly encumbered by the same Secretary of State’s quotas on steel imports, which stockholders and manufacturers are already saying will risk output. Will he meet me to discuss my constituents’ concerns about his plans? We support the supporting of British steel in theory, but British manufacturing cannot be put out of work in the process.
Peter Kyle
The scheme we have designed is aimed at manufacturing. The figure the hon. Member quotes is for all businesses in the UK, whereas this is one scheme aimed at competitiveness within the manufacturing sector. I hope that when he reflects on his comments, he does not expect us to announce a scheme for every business in all circumstances. That is what Liz Truss did, wasting enormous amounts of money—a third of those billions went into the pockets of high earners. We need to be targeted and growth orientated and support the great businesses out there.
I have invested £2.5 billion into steel. I am modernising steel and protecting it where I have to. I am proud of the strategy we have. There has never been a steel strategy or a quality piece of strategic thinking from the previous Government, which is why the strategy I announced was universally welcomed by the sector.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am a proud Stoke-on-Trent MP, and the clue is in the name “the Potteries”—we make pots, we always have done. It is my family’s and our community’s source of pride. Sadly, despite the good engagement I have had with Ministers on the matter, this particular scheme does nothing for ceramics companies in my constituency. I was recently asked a direct question on BBC Radio Stoke, “Do the Government get and understand it?” I do believe that our Government understand the issues faced, but action is not coming forward quickly enough, and our companies are at risk. They are on the brink and need support now. They have incredibly high energy bills and need Government support. If the BICS is not the right scheme for ceramics, we know there is the supercharger scheme. Can I gently encourage my colleagues to please meet us as a matter of urgency because our ceramics sector absolutely needs and deserves our support?
Peter Kyle
I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate intervention. I understand the pressing needs and am fully aware of the issues facing Denby, which is partly, I believe, in his constituency. I have been in touch with the regional mayor about it numerous times since that situation unfolded. I certainly wish the workforce well and hope that the interventions and the partnership that the Government have been providing alongside the regional mayor will mean that a buyer can be found, which I am convinced is perfectly possible. When it comes to the long-term regeneration of the Potteries and the ceramics industry, as I have said already, I am willing to meet the industry itself to listen to and learn from their insight and the challenges they face, but also the opportunities they have as we rebuild our economy after the damage caused by the previous Administration and ensure that we get growth back into our economy.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Is that it, Secretary of State? It has taken five months for the Secretary of State to come up with an energy price scheme which he has admitted here in the House today only supports 10,000 businesses. He seems to forget that there are millions of small businesses up and down the country—restaurants, fish and chip shops, pubs, ceramics or farmers. When will the Secretary of State admit that the reality is the reason this country’s economy has no growth is because of high energy prices? When will the Secretary of State do the right thing and scrap net zero so we can bring our electricity prices down?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the shadowy Business Minister for his greatest hits performance for the House today. He says that supporting 10,000 businesses is nothing. I can tell him that it means a hell of a lot for those businesses getting that support, because it will mean a 25% reduction in their energy costs. It is being paid for, of course, by reducing some of the tariff charges and by some of the other Government schemes that offer relief. It is also paid for partly by the Exchequer, which is funded by people who pay their taxes.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I hosted a meeting of small and medium-sized manufacturers in Derby about the challenges of energy costs as part of a manufacturing commission inquiry on SMEs and growth. I welcome the expansion of Government support for British business in energy-intensive sectors by slashing their electricity charges. Can the Business Secretary assure us that the scheme will support smaller manufacturers as well as the largest, and can he tell us more about how this Government will continue to work proactively, hand in hand, with businesses to meet challenges, rather than sitting on their hands like the last Government?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s representations and reflections. I can assure her that the BIC scheme is being calculated on the electricity intensity threshold. It is for those manufacturing businesses that have electricity as a significant part of their costs of doing business. In the summer, we will announce an eligibility checker so that every business can go and check their own eligibility for the scheme going forward. I am keen to stay in touch with her because her area around Derby, of course, is part of the manufacturing renaissance, creating great opportunities for not just her region, but the whole country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister’s comments about the potential of energy production in north Wales are to be welcomed because we have been waiting for a very long time. He will also know that energy markets have a direct impact on agriculture, and farmers are facing agflation at 7.6%. That hits Welsh farmers hard because many have to hold back on buying fertiliser until livestock can be turned out, and that is happening now—those prices are hitting them now. They face fertiliser price increases of up to 80% as a direct result of Trump’s warmongering. NFU Cymru leaders met the Secretary of State’s Wales Office colleagues in London this week. Could he tell me whether there was a solid result that farmers can see a benefit from following that meeting?
Peter Kyle
I am thankful for the right hon. Member’s acknowledgment of the work we are doing to invest in Wales—not only the small modular reactor, which we are already starting to construct the site for, but the investment in two AI growth zones. This is a Government that, since we came into office, take investment into Wales and the reindustrialisation of Wales incredibly seriously, and both those things are starting now.
On food and agriculture, I spoke just yesterday with the Environment Secretary. We are in touch over these issues and sit in the same committees where we talk about all the specific challenges as we scenario plan for impacts that may or may not result from the conflict in the middle east. That work will continue, and she can rest assured that farmers, alongside other key sectors in our economy, are at the forefront of our mind.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for this statement and, importantly, for recognising the energy-intensive industries, especially those that are essential for growth and without which we cannot prosper. It is a start, but can I make a plea for consideration of the sectors of our economy that do not so obviously sit in a globally competitive environment but are still vital for our economy, especially hospitality? Our restaurants and cafés are not able to move elsewhere, but are caught in a situation where there is no current help to support them to shift to clean or cheaper energy so that they can keep doing what they do well: making people happy. Would he agree to meet me and colleagues who are seeking to secure a stable future for this important sector?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend gives voice to the hospitality sector, and she is absolutely right: the hospitality sector is important for so many reasons. For many people, it is the most interaction they have with the frontline of the economy. It is the place people go for light relief and fun—and, my goodness, we deserve more fun as a country more often. It is also often the first part of the pathway into the economy, because many people’s first job is in hospitality. I recognise that hospitality is an incredibly important part of our economy, for all those reasons.
What the hospitality sector needs first and foremost is economic growth, so that people have more money in their pockets to spend. That is why today’s news that we reached economic growth of 0.5% in the quarter leading up to the end of February is so significant. Embedding the foundations for growth in our economy is what hospitality needs more than anything else. Of course, I meet UKHospitality regularly and I have roundtables with the sector. I represent Hove, which has a thriving hospitality sector, where I meet people on the frontline all the time. I always enjoy engaging with my hon. Friend on these issues too.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for all his hard work, which should be recognised. I welcome the statement, which outlines support for Thales, Spirit AeroSystems, Boeing and Bombardier, which are all big employers in the aerospace and defence sectors in my constituency. However, I also think of manufacturers such as Magellan Aerospace in Greyabbey; T.G. Eakin, a pharmaceutical company in Comber; and Mash Direct, a food and farming business in Ards. I am not sure that they will be eligible for this help. Small businesses are the backbone of the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland, and they are struggling. What help and hope can the Government give to them?
Peter Kyle
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a friend, for his kind words. We have designed a scheme that is for Great Britain, but we have not forgotten Northern Ireland—I do not think he would expect me to forget Northern Ireland in any aspect of my work. We are working with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we have a scheme that is appropriate and matches the scale of the opportunities that BICS presents to Great Britain, so that all parts of the United Kingdom can benefit in one way or another and the benefits are felt by those fantastic manufacturers he mentioned.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Carlisle of my childhood was a thriving industrial hub of textiles, engineering and food manufacturing sectors, which were all sadly decimated by successive Conservative Governments. We do, however, remain home to the world’s oldest biscuit factory and the UK’s last tyre manufacturing facility in Pirelli. Can the Secretary of State set out how the scheme announced today will ensure that those businesses that remain in Carlisle and across the UK will continue to be able to export their products abroad?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend speaks eloquently about the challenges that industry has faced in the de-industrialising period of a previous Conservative Government but also the opportunities that are there for the re-industrialising purpose of this Labour Government. Some of the companies she mentioned are, I imagine, in sectors that BICS will be very meaningfully able to support. I hope those companies will work with my Department to ensure that implementation is as effective as possible, and the eligibility checker, which will go live before too long, will mean that those companies can check their eligibility directly.
In general terms, we are investing in industry in our country. We are working tirelessly with aerospace, automotive and other key parts of the industrial landscape. The fact that Ensus was mothballed and not allowed to go bust shows that we are thinking very deeply and carefully about resilience and economic growth, and not just for today but for the long term.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that the south-west and Exeter is home to a nationally significant cluster of high-value manufacturing businesses and is identified in the Government’s industrial strategy as a key region for advanced manufacturing, with critical clusters in nuclear, green energy, defence and critical minerals. The last Government had some choice words for business—I will not repeat them here, Madam Deputy Speaker, because they are unparliamentary—but can the Secretary of State set out how this Government are working in partnership with businesses, including those in my region of the south-west, to ensure that they can prosper and succeed into the future?
Peter Kyle
I was down in the south-west just last week at Agratas, one of the largest battery production plants for electric vehicles in the whole of Europe. The sheer scale of manufacturing development in the south-west is typical of the renaissance and the capability of the region. The Agratas plant also shows the Government’s securonomics approach in action, with 230 tonnes of British steel being used in the production. From the roof, we can look across and see Europe’s largest nuclear power station being built. It is a real testament to the vibrancy, ambition and capabilities that we see right across the south-west.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Erewash has a proud manufacturing history, from the ironworks, whose grates cover almost every manhole in the country, to our high-end furniture manufacturing industry, whose sofas adorn palaces, to our advanced manufacturing firms and the concrete makers building the tunnels for High Speed 2. As a former manufacturing engineering researcher, I am very proud of this Government’s investment across the advanced manufacturing sector. Can the Secretary of State elaborate on how the action he has announced today will help Erewash’s manufacturers sell their goods to the world?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend mentioned palaces—is he living in a palace, I wonder? Given the success he has outlined in his career in manufacturing, who knows? I can assure him that manufacturers across his constituency will benefit from the BIC scheme. In the summer, the eligibility checker will confirm which businesses can benefit, but this is about competitiveness. He is describing businesses that are already competitive and will become more competitive on the back of the BIC scheme and therefore be able to export and be a real credit to our country and economy.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I start by declaring that before coming to this place, I worked in the head office of a retail business that sells internationally. I know from my experience there and from businesses in Kettering that when British businesses export, they grow, become more productive and create good, well-paid jobs. Can the Secretary of State outline how the measures he has announced today will support businesses to sell their goods around the world?
Peter Kyle
I am highly aware of my hon. Friend’s advocacy for those sectors; she is a true credit to them. The BIC scheme is about competitiveness. It has been designed in co-operation and partnership with business. Only one in 10 businesses in our country is exporting, but we have secured great trade deals with South Korea through to India, as well as the economic prosperity deal with America, and of course we are continuously rebuilding the relationship and creating new opportunities with the European Union—the most important trading bloc. I can assure her that the BIC scheme is part of making us even more competitive and more able to prosper on the global trading scene.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The font of this statement is so small that it is super difficult to read, which made it even more difficult for me to look for the word “ceramics”, which I have yet to find. The Secretary of State said in his statement that he wants to “move faster” to support British manufacturing. He has heard from a number of my colleagues, and now he will hear from me, that we want to meet him. We have met Ministers—we had an excellent visit with the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—but we want to see the Secretary of State, so that we can talk about this scheme and the ceramics industry. We need to have that meeting quickly, because this is about the jobs, livelihoods and future of my community and many others across our country.
Peter Kyle
I know that my hon. Friend has had meetings with several of my Ministers, and of course I am always available for him too.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I am very proud to represent a strong industrial constituency with hundreds of excellent manufacturing businesses, and I was very grateful to the Secretary of State for his visit to one of them before Christmas. This Government back British manufacturing, and the BIC scheme will be game changing for the 10,000 businesses that benefit from it. Can the Secretary of State ensure that it is not too onerous to prove eligibility, and that we look after the many excellent businesses in the metal-forming sector in my constituency, which are impacted not just by the historically high industrial prices we inherited, but by the steel safeguarding changes?
Peter Kyle
I remember that visit well, and I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s words, as I always do. The eligibility checker will go live in the summer, and the businesses she refers to will be able to check their ability to benefit from what she correctly describes as a highly impactful scheme.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I welcome the extension of the BIC scheme and the difference it will make to manufacturing businesses in my constituency. I wish to make a brief representation on behalf of the Lea Valley Growers, who are based in Nazeing in my constituency. As the Secretary of State will know, glasshouse and greenhouse growers use a lot of electricity and gas, but they are not recognised as energy intensive. Will he reflect on what steps the Government can take to support vital food producers such as the Lea Valley Growers, and may I request an urgent meeting to discuss that with him further?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for getting the Lea Valley Growers on the record, and I am keen to meet him to hear more about it.
Women’s Health Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s renewed women’s health strategy.
The NHS was founded on the principle of equality and the right care for everyone, whenever they need it, but there is no getting away from the fact that it has failed to live up to that founding promise. For too long, women have been left to navigate a confusing system, fighting to get the basic care they deserve, and under-represented in health research. Above all, women’s voices and choices have been dismissed, and it is truly shocking how often women have been ignored when telling medical professionals about their pain. From pelvic mesh to endometriosis, we are expected to put up with pain as our lot in life, as if it were normal. But it is not normal, and since coming into office this Government have taken a number of measures to improve women’s health.
We have taken action to bring down gynaecology waiting lists, introduced menopause questions into routine health checks, made the morning-after pill available for free at high street pharmacies, stood up a rapid and independent investigation into maternity services, and introduced Jess’s rule, so that GP teams have to “reflect, review and rethink” if a patient presents three times with the same or escalating symptoms.
The blunt reality is that the NHS is failing women and girls on even the most basic measures of healthcare. Indeed, we do not treat all women equally either. The wealthiest 10% of women live almost 10 years longer than the poorest 10%, while the most deprived spend over a third of their lives in bad health—something I see starkly in my constituency of Bristol South. Disabled women experience poorer outcomes, and we should recognise the additional disadvantage faced by black and Asian women, who face the double discrimination of racism and misogyny all at once.
Our renewed women’s health strategy will address those and other glaring injustices. It will give women and girls faster care from a health system that actually listens. It will make it simpler and faster for them to access the care they need the first time they ask for it, and it will make sure that the latest innovations work for women, ranging from reproductive and maternal health to menopause and chronic conditions. Of course, every day women are receiving outstanding, compassionate care from our dedicated NHS staff, but being ignored, gaslit, humiliated and disrespected are all-too-common experiences for far too many. More than eight women in 10 say there have been times when healthcare professionals did not listen to them. Our mission is to dismantle the culture and ingrained behaviours that allow that medical misogyny to fester and grow, and that starts by listening to women.
Women’s voices and choices are the golden thread that runs through this renewed strategy. Their voices will be heard, as we work to reduce variation in how GPs listen to and respond to women, using patient survey data in a quality improvement programme. Their voices will be heard as we capture whether women have been treated with respect, kept informed, and involved in decisions about their own care. Their voices will be heard, as we co-develop new standards of care for procedures such as hysteroscopy, so that every woman has informed consent and a real choice over her pain relief.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we will do the first trial of a scheme known as patient power payments, which will cover gynaecology services. Women will get a say on whether the NHS provider should get full payment for the services women receive, based on the quality of their experience. It means that if a woman is not happy with her experience, a portion of the tariff paid to that provider would be redirected to fund improvements in the same services instead. In other words, women will have the power to kick medical misogyny where it hurts: in the budget.
All this is building on the evidence and expertise that informed the original strategy. I wish to acknowledge the intended ambition of that work, not least because it was based on the contributions of thousands of women. However, the changes that were promised have not translated into consistent improvements in access, quality of care or outcomes. Take gynaecology services. The waiting list for gynae care was north of 600,000 when we took office. Today that figure is finally moving in the right direction, but we cannot make as much progress as we would like because the system simply was not designed with women in mind.
I pay tribute to Baroness Merron, who has led this work on behalf of the Government. As she made clear in her foreword, this system was not designed in such a way—to be fair to Nye Bevan, in 1948 he was largely thinking about working men who were dying early in their sixties from the awful consequences of poor work, with some support for maternity services. We need to change that. We will support integrated care boards to introduce a single point of access for all non-urgent referrals to gynaecology and women’s health services, to speed up access. We will redesign the most common clinical pathways for heavy periods, menopause and urogynaecology, to remove unnecessary delays. Women with fibroids and endometriosis will be listened to at first presentation. They will be seen faster, and offered clear information through our new virtual hospital, NHS Online.
Women’s health pathways are being prioritised in NHS Online, and menopause and menstrual health services will be among the first to go live when it becomes operational this year. There will be a relentless focus on reducing women’s pain, improving standards, and reducing variation in both procedural and chronic pain management, including for chronic pelvic pain. We will launch a new programme to help young girls grow up understanding their menstrual health and know when to seek help.
From gynaecology to pain relief, our renewed strategy takes forward the work of the previous Government, and goes further and faster to fill the holes they left. It has only been made possible by the record £26 billion in funding for the NHS that was secured by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the first woman to hold that office. All that will be underpinned by an NHS that finally listens with respect, dignity and compassion to the voices and choices of every woman and every girl, every time. That is not least with the creation of the women’s voices partnership, which is a new space for organisations representing women, giving them a direct line to Whitehall to inform national decision-making. The partnership will have a particular focus on those women who are most excluded from traditional services, and through it we will ensure that women’s voices help to shape the long-term direction of NHS reform.
Unlike the original strategy that was based on an outdated model of care, this renewed strategy maps across the three shifts in our 10-year plan for health. The shift from sickness to prevention will mean that women can better understand and act on their risk of conditions such as breast cancer and diabetes. The shift from hospital to community will mean services designed around women’s lives, with much faster access to diagnosis and treatment. The shift from analogue to digital will mean that women will avoid long waiting lists for painful conditions through NHS Online. Within two years we will launch a new challenge fund, backing the most promising women’s health technology start-ups, with a focus on tackling health inequalities in community settings. We are embedding new sex and gender policies into studies through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, so that findings are genuinely representative and no woman is left behind by science.
As every woman hearing this statement knows, to fully exercise power over our lives we need to be at the top of our game, both mentally and physically. We also know that women’s health has been neglected for too long. It therefore falls to this Government to restore the founding promise of our national health service, and to deliver the right care for everyone when they need it. From the classroom to the clinic, our renewed women’s health strategy promises a fairer, healthier future for women and girls everywhere, acting on women’s voices and choices, transforming NHS performance in services that matter most to women, supporting all women to live healthier lives, and creating an approach to research and development that works for and empowers women. We are designing the system to fit around women’s lives. This will not be a strategy that sits around gathering dust on a shelf, because women are counting on us, and we will not let them down.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I am glad to see that the much-delayed women’s health strategy is finally here, and I thank the Minister for her work on that and for advance sight of her statement. I am particularly pleased that Ministers have pledged to prioritise medical health conditions such as endometriosis and to continue the roll-out of the HPV testing that we piloted.
Today it is one year since the For Women Scotland judgment in the Supreme Court confirmed that sex is biological sex. At the time the Secretary of State told the public:
“We will be issuing guidance in the coming weeks before the summer”.
To be fair to him, he did not say which summer. This week, a Minister told the House that the guidance on single-sex spaces could not be published under purdah rules until after the local elections. Will the Minister explain why it is okay to announce policy on other aspects of women’s health but not on single-sex provision in the NHS?
I find it remarkable that the Minister has the audacity to talk about women harmed by pelvic mesh when, after almost two years in office, the Government have still not responded to the Hughes report. When do they intend to do so?
I was disappointed not to find a commitment in the strategy to the lobular breast cancer moon shot project. Will the Minister give us a timeline for what I understand is a commitment to that project by the Government?
The Minister talked about waiting lists. While it is welcome that gynaecology waiting lists have fallen in the past year by 1.9%, for those requiring some sort of procedure or admission, waiting lists are 4.5% higher than they were a year ago. One way to make waiting lists shorter is to not start counting until someone has been waiting for a few days already—more targets can certainly be hit that way—so will the Minister clear something up for me? The Government have decided to prevent GPs from directly referring patients to consultants, insisting that they request advice from consultant-led teams instead. If the consultant then decides to offer an appointment, the clock starts, but that will be a few days after the original request is received, making the waiting time a few days shorter. This is where it gets really confusing: the Minister for Care said that the rules are going to change so that the clock will start when the advice request is received, so that patient waiting times are accurately reflected, but the Minister for Secondary Care has said that that will only happen from October.
Who is right? Do the Government intend to try and fiddle the figures by making people’s waits look shorter between now and the autumn? Given that we have heard different answers from two different Ministers, do they not know what is going on? Or can they confirm that with their new process and with immediate effect waiting times will be calculated from the moment that the advice and guidance request is received, in the same way as happens with referrals now?
The first chapter of the strategy is about acting on women’s voices and listening to women, which of course is welcome, but the Government plan to abolish Healthwatch in favour of listening to organisations. Why are the views of organisations that may or may not accurately represent the voices of women more generally being prioritised, and the voices of women themselves being somewhat deprioritised?
In the strategy, the Government commit to increasing capacity for surgical—in other words, later—abortions. They commit to making the morning after pill available free from pharmacies; they have made the oral contraceptive pill available from pharmacies too, and they have said that they will improve workforce capacity to provide long-acting reversible contraception. At a time when sexually transmitted infections are on the rise, with potential significant short-term and long-term consequences for women, there is no mention of condoms in the strategy. Given that some men can be reluctant to use condoms and there is discussion of eliminating misogyny throughout the document, will the Minister explain the choice not to include those too?
Another issue I want to raise is that of fracture liaison services. On entering Government, the Secretary of State said that one of his first jobs would be to establish universal fracture liaison services by 2030, yet that is moving at such a slow pace that he will not meet his target. Will the Minister set out how many of the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry—DEXA—scanners are new, how many are replacements and how many will be used to set up new fracture liaison services?
There are many more questions that I can ask, but I understand that I have run out of time. In summary, while there are a few good points, it has taken a long time to produce a strategy that is rather disappointing. Women deserve much better.
Karin Smyth
It is hard to know where to start. I heard the word “welcome” somewhere in the hon. Lady’s remarks, so thanks for that.
In launching what we call a “renewed strategy” we have given credit to the previous strategy, which we welcomed when we were in opposition. However, on issues where there could be cross-party agreement, from going to war to the women’s health strategy, the Conservatives’ modus operandi is now to give nothing for us to work on together on behalf of the people who we represent. It is disappointing that they choose to start on a negative and really they could have done better.
In opposition, we welcomed the initiative to have a women’s health strategy and we supported that work going forward, which has led to the publication of this renewed strategy, because the diagnosis of many of the issues was right. However, as I have made clear, we are upending the system because for decades the health service was built around the work and health needs of men and the predominance of men working in the system, despite the fact that 77% of our nursing staff are women. We are upending that to put women’s voices and choices front and centre, including control of the budget and through NHS Online. Those are the game changers.
The Conservatives do not recognise the total game-changing nature of NHS Online in facilitating services for women wherever they live across the country, whether they live near highly specialised centres, such as those that I am privileged to have in my city of Bristol, in the coastal and rural communities represented by Members from across the House, or near tertiary centres. Any woman, from any part of our country, can access NHS Online and have that specialist service. We are trialling that with gynaecology. They will then get support from our rapidly expanding community diagnostic centres, about whose expansion we made an announcement this week, in order to get quicker diagnosis and the support that they need, closer to home in their neighbourhood health services.
I am happy to respond to the other issues that the hon. Lady raises, including the For Women Scotland judgment, and to set out the work that we have had to do to clear up the mess that the Conservatives left. Everything that happened to women under that system happened on the watch of the Conservative Government, from self ID to the issues at the Tavistock and everything else. There was a lack of rules, a lack of governance and a lack of clarity, and they did not take control. That is the mess that we inherited from the Conservative Government.
The Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), is doing an excellent job: she is made of steel and good experience, and she has had to navigate a difficult landscape. The Conservatives understand the rules of purdah like the rest of us, so let us not pretend that they do not. My right hon. Friend will be laying that guidance as soon as she can after the election.
I will go on to talk about the DEXA scanners that we are investing in and fracture liaison services bringing people together, which were promises in our manifesto. This strategy is about specialists coming together and working together in fracture liaison services and women’s health hubs. Those have led the way among clinicians about how we can work better for women. That is why we are building on and expanding them, and it is disappointing that the Conservatives do not want to work with us on that.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the women’s health strategy. I recently visited the Navigating Our Womanhood Together bus in Dudley, which supports women’s health from menstruation to menopause, and I look forward to more such initiatives being delivered as part of the strategy in my constituency. Will the Minister set out how the strategy will harness allied health professionals, including specialist physiotherapists, to support pelvic health, such as incontinence, prolapse and post-natal care?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion in this area. We are so pleased to have her clinical experience and no day goes past without her representing her own speciality of physiotherapy and AHPs more generally. She is absolutely right that those professionals have led the way in looking at women’s care and it is important that women feel confident with that physiotherapy advice. I think that she will be pleased to see the developments that will come from the women’s health strategy and those that will come when we bring forward our workforce plan, which will have AHPs front and centre working in women’s neighbourhood healthcare.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the strategy, and its specific recognition of the socioeconomic and racial disparities in women’s healthcare, which it is important to put front and centre. We also appreciate the specific recognition of endometriosis and similar conditions. My partner, Emma, suffers from endometriosis, and on many occasions I have seen her unable to stand up or barely get off the sofa, having been told for years that her symptoms are completely normal and that there is nothing wrong with her. Given that at least one in 10 women suffer from endometriosis and there are over 500,000 people on gynaecology waiting lists, clearly her experience is not unique.
The picture around maternity safety is deeply troubling. Maternal mortality has increased by over 20% in the past 15 years, and there have recently been some high-profile media discussions about women and babies being let down, sometimes with devastating consequences. That is why the Liberal Democrats have been calling for one-to-one midwifery care and specialist doctors on every unit.
I welcome the Government’s specific commitment on treatments for morning sickness. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) has campaigned on that issue for a long time, and it is right that we end the postcode lottery for these medicines. The condition can be debilitating for some people, and it is not fair that women have different experiences simply because of where they live.
Given that this is not the first women’s health strategy to be brought to this place—the previous Government brought one through in 2022—and the fact that many women we speak to do not feel that there has been any meaningful change, a lot of people are saying that we cannot just keep announcing strategies while women are waiting for basic care. Given the failure of the last Government to deliver meaningful change, can we have reassurances that this will not simply be another strategy announcement and that women will feel a difference in the care that they receive?
Karin Smyth
I thank the Liberal Democrat representative for his comments—frankly, that is the way it is done.
Let me turn to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. May I take the opportunity to mention endometriosis in particular? There have long been campaigns on that issue in this place from many women and men such as him talking not on behalf of their partners, but for them about the suffering. That is all very welcome.
I commend the work of Sir David Amess, a former Member of the House whose plaque is behind us, and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis. When in opposition in 2017 or 2018, I had a member of staff—I hope she does not mind my saying so—who opened my eyes to this issue. Persistence works. We have got to where we are by supporting women’s voices across the country, and that is front and centre in this strategy.
On the hon. Gentleman’s wider point, I am sure that when he gets all the way through the strategy, he will see that there is a list of 102 actions—if I remember rightly—with dates aligned to them. I am sure that all hon. Members will look at that. I notice that my friend Baroness Merron is in the Gallery; she will be keeping everybody’s feet to the fire, including the Secretary of State’s, to deliver on this work. That list is in the strategy, and we wanted to set it out very clearly. We are waiting for the roll-out of NHS Online during the summer, and seeing how that works will be a litmus test for us, so I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s challenging us on that.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the women’s health strategy, and I congratulate both Baroness Merron and my hon. Friend the Minister on their work on it. Since its publication yesterday, my inbox has received a number of emails from women in my constituency who suffer from endometriosis.
I wanted to highlight that, because it is very rare that constituents contact us on the publication of a Government report to comment on its contents so quickly. That shows what an absolute hotbed this issue is and how profoundly it affects people. They speak of sometimes having decades of debilitating pain, going into debt while looking for treatment, losing housing, and suffering from relationships being impacted, their jobs being undermined and experiencing a loss of income, but overall they talk about how the condition is just not recognised and how their pain goes unheard.
One of my constituents said that women need better understanding, better support and better options, and seeing that set out in black and white in a Government report has really meant so much to women. Will the Minister join me in thanking these women for their bravery in continuing to raise their voices despite their continued experience?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is unusual to receive emails saying good things. There will be challenges in this work, but it speaks to a wider issue. Many of us as women experience much of this ourselves, and we have women in Parliament who are able to articulate that. There are some fantastic women clinicians whom we have been pleased to work with and who have really pushed forward those voices as they have become more senior in the medical and clinical professions to help us with those clinical pathways. We have been able to build on all that in bringing this strategy forward.
May I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? He was on various media yesterday and he has been working with people such as influencers to give voice to those women. I think that this is an important part of our democracy. It is worth emailing MPs—I am sorry if that elicits more emails to other Members and to my staff—because we listen and we are engaged. It matters when people raise these issues in our surgeries and come forward with them. Sometimes policy development and getting action is a struggle for all of us; it is tough and takes a long time. The process of politics sometimes takes too long, but those women have made this happen, and I thank them for it.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
I want to ask the Minister about a particular area of women’s health and how this strategy might impact on it. This is a very personal issue for me and my wife, regarding the pathways and support for women who have colostomies or ileostomies and have lifelong stoma care. I place on record my thanks to Mr Arnab Bhowmick, who is my wife’s very long-term consultant and has performed two major surgeries on Caroline—he is known as “the fantastic Mr B” in our house and to many of his patients. We know that on those pathways and in the decisions leading up to making the decision to have a stoma, putting it off can put people’s lives at risk. How people cope with a stoma afterwards has very unique elements for women—that can be around periods, fertility and pregnancy, or around the menopause later in life. How does the Minister think the strategy will help women like my wife, the friends she has met in hospital and others on those pathways?
Karin Smyth
I really thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the sometimes taboo subject of stoma and stoma care and for highlighting the complexity of that for women. I send my best wishes to his wife. I did not get the name of her clinician, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for getting their name on the record; that matters when people are dealing with such an intimate sort of care.
Again, bringing voices forward is a key part of this work. The thing to bear in mind in the development of this strategy is that it is predicated on the 10-year plan and on bringing care closer to home. For example, people who have stoma and stoma care sometimes have quick questions and do not need to make an appointment to go and see somebody else, with lots of rapid appointments to and from a hospital, and all the parking, travelling and so on.
There are ways in which we can use online services and particularly neighbourhood services, where people are closer to home, to facilitate the management of care of things like stoma after people have come through or are in ongoing care. That is the sort of place where we have voices and experience informing local care, which will look different in different geographies depending on the other facilities available. I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep working with us on how that experience works out.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome this strategy, having worked on maternity and medical misogyny on the Health and Social Care Committee. I will bring up the thorny issue of sexual health. In a recent sitting of the Committee, we heard that a third of sexual health doctors are set to retire in the next three years and that there are only 14 training places. The key to ensuring that we are looking after women’s sexual health is to have a pathway for new doctors. Will the Minister look at that issue and at what we can do to resolve the training blockages?
Karin Smyth
Yes, of course. The retirement age is a constant issue that we need to look at across a number of professions, and I am happy to come back to my hon. Friend on that. As part of our workforce plan, we are looking in particular at retaining the expertise that we have, as well as at recruiting people into new roles.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
On behalf of the newly established APPG on urinary tract infections, which I am proud to co-chair alongside the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and this strategy. The APPG welcomes the acknowledgement that women’s health has been neglected for far too long, and we cautiously welcome the commitments to redesign urogynaecology pathways and fund a specialist centre in each region.
On behalf of the many women and, heartbreakingly, children who suffer from chronic urinary tract infections, can the Minister confirm whether those commitments cover the treatment of acute, recurrent and chronic UTIs? Will she consider our requests for support to establish agreed clinical definitions for the different types of UTIs so that we can inform long-overdue updates to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and finally end the scandal of sufferers being ignored and gaslit by medical professionals, which has happened for far too long?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who I know cannot be here today. She has used her expertise to drive forward recognition of UTIs and incontinence—another taboo subject. We have previously had a very good debate in this Chamber on that issue, and that has all informed what we are saying.
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to move into some clinical definitions and clinical pathways. I am not going to do that, but I am very keen to hear about the work that the APPG is doing and its expertise. We will continue to hear from it and about the work that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South are leading to ensure that we make this work in reality. That is absolutely central to the strategy.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s renewed women’s health strategy and their efforts to tackle the ethnic disparities that still exist in the healthcare system. Placing women’s voices at the heart of the strategy is absolutely the right approach, but does my hon. Friend the Minister recognise that there are still persistent gaps that will require robust, targeted interventions if we are to truly address some of the racial barriers that black women still face within the healthcare system, and can she say a little bit about how the strategy will seek to address those gaps?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she has done, both on maternity and on sight loss, and for people generally. She is a great advocate for making sure that those voices are heard, both from her own experience and through her advocacy. We are bringing together a voices group—apologies, I cannot remember exactly what we called it in the end—so that there is direct representation in Whitehall at a national level. That is one of the things we wanted to make sure was included in the strategy, and my hon. Friend Baroness Merron has worked assiduously with stakeholder groups and their representatives to ensure that we make that work, as well as on the development of online services and the work to bring things into neighbourhoods. I am very committed to working with her to make sure that that happens.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I commend the Minister on this women’s health strategy, and particularly on action 59, which is to invest in the women’s maternity and neonatal estate. I am also grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet me next week about power cuts at Eastbourne district general hospital, which have knocked out the maternity unit at various times. I am really disappointed, though, that although the invitation was originally extended to me and two guests—who included our chief executive—that has been withdrawn. Can the Minister confirm that those guests can attend, so that we can discuss how to put this strategy into action in Eastbourne?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Member is referring to a meeting as part of my ministerial surgery, which is for Members. I will be happy to see him next week.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the noble Lady Merron on bringing forward this renewed strategy. My constituent Jodie Goodwin has recently been refused a hysterectomy for reasons of funding, despite the medical and surgical advice that that is what she requires to deal with her health issues. Can the Minister advise me on whether the strategy will deal with matters like this and with Jodie’s issue in particular, and would she perhaps make some time available to discuss this case in detail?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the case of her constituent Jodie and many others—such cases will be familiar to many people, and they are of course unacceptable. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that case further.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the strategy. I want to speak specifically about one constituent who has contacted me, who has waited over 200 days without receiving the results of a gynaecological test—200 days of anxiety, uncertainty and delays to her treatment. Please forgive me while I read her actual words:
“this complaint is not simply about one patient having an unfortunate experience. It concerns what I believe to be a broader and deeply concerning failure in the way menstrual and gynaecological pain is recognised, assessed, investigated, and acted upon”.
I completely agree with her. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that yesterday’s renewed women’s health strategy allows us to commit to streamlining and improving gynaecological care, and can she tell me more about how she believes this will make a real difference for my constituents?
Karin Smyth
Again, my hon. Friend raises a shocking case on behalf of her constituents, and I agree with her and her constituent. Access to diagnostics is a key part of our 10-year health plan, which is why, as we were able to announce this week, we are rolling out more community diagnostic centres to improve diagnostic capacity more generally. I am also working with the Minister for patient safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), to look at how clinical pathways can be streamlined. That work is informing how we are developing NHS Online and making sure that we shorten those pathways, as my hon. Friend has rightly called for. All those cases—including, unfortunately, her constituent’s experience—have informed that work. We are linking our work on the 10-year-plan with that work and putting women, gynaecology and menstrual health front and centre as trailblazers, because unfortunately, those are the areas in which this work is needed. That is what this strategy does.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned around mental health. The strategy highlights that women disproportionately have poor mental health, and I welcome that recognition. However, action 49 says:
“we will improve mental health support for women and girls”,
but it does not say what the Government will do. Will they produce a strategy for delivering on this, and how will progress against this document be measured, so that we can hold the Government to account?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The document contains a long list of actions, with clear dates alongside them, so that she and others—including her constituents—can see what we are saying, and can measure progress.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Ignored, humiliated and misdiagnosed—these are the experiences of far too many women, and far too often, those experiences have tragic consequences. There is no more depressing example of this than the women who were prescribed the banned anti-miscarriage drug diethylstilbestrol, or DES, and the struggle that they, their children and their grandchildren have had in accessing the care and support that they need and deserve. I welcome the steps this Government have taken to improve women’s health outcomes. Will the Minister consider meeting DES campaigners to ensure that their voices and experiences are part of this strategy?
Karin Smyth
As we know, and as is documented in the strategy, there is sadly a long list of issues that particularly affect women that have been ignored, and it has taken far too long for women to draw attention to those issues. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for patient safety has met DES campaigners, and we will continue to listen to and learn from their experiences as we develop the strategy.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, I thank the ministerial team and my honourable Friend in the other place, Baroness Merron, for the focus that they have placed on that condition in the strategy, and for putting women’s voices front and centre; too often, they have been ignored. I also commend the sterling efforts and work of the late Sir David Amess and my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) to establish the APPG in 2019 and put endometriosis firmly on the parliamentary agenda. I am delighted that a new programme to improve menstrual health education for girls is included in the strategy, but does the Minister agree that there must also be menstrual health education for all clinicians, so that symptoms can be recognised at the earliest opportunity, and women and girls can get the care they need, when they need it?
Karin Smyth
Again, I put on record my respect and thanks to Sir David Amess and my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar for the work that they started. I could not remember the exact year—I thought it was 2017, but my hon. Friend says that it was 2019. They raised awareness of what was a taboo only a few years ago. Many of us, including me, accepted it as normal to feel pain, whatever we did. Now, we are saying—that includes clinicians—that it is not normal. We look forward to joining in the great work that my hon. Friend and others are doing to make sure that this strategy becomes a reality, and that women see that happen very quickly.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I so welcome this strategy. I am quite ashamed to say that before being elected to this place, I did not know enough about women’s health issues, and in particular the issues with pelvic and vaginal mesh—the wait for treatment and the struggle to be heard—and endometriosis; people with that condition face a wait for diagnosis and a struggle for recognition. Since I was elected, I have been contacted by tens of women across Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield, who are fighting the fight for recognition of these topics on behalf of women across the country. It is because of that that I am educated enough to stand here today. Those women feel ignored and abandoned by a health service that does not care enough about women’s health issues. Will the Minister give a commitment to campaigners such as the women in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield who have approached me that because of this strategy, they will now be heard?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He should not apologise for not knowing before; my generation of women, and many before us, were told not to talk about this. We were told not to tell anybody, and to put up with it. We were told that every month, whatever happened to us was normal, and we should crack on. A generation of men, and all of us mothers, need to talk about this, too. We welcome all allies and spokespeople. Learning is a key part of being in this place, and my hon. Friend and others are bringing the experiences of women to this campaign. The proof is in the pudding, and we will make sure that what my hon. Friend has asked for happens.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her announcement of this strategy. In particular, I welcome the fact that the strategy says that it will be made simpler and faster for women to access the care that they need the first time they ask for it. More than eight in 10 women say that there have been times when healthcare professionals did not listen to them. One such woman was my constituent Daizy Bing, who, at the age of 17, came to me to raise her concerns. She had been told by her GP that she was too young to have an endometriosis diagnosis. Thanks to my intervention, she got a gynaecological appointment, but we all know that an MP’s surgery should not be the gateway to decent healthcare. Daizy has turned her experience into academic research. Will my hon. Friend meet her, so that her insights can inform the delivery of this ambitious and game-changing strategy?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend again raises younger women’s voices; we want to continue to hear from them. Part of this strategy is about working with the Department for Education to ensure that girls—and indeed boys—are made more aware of some of these issues. The women’s voices partnership—my apologies for not quite being able to remember its name earlier—will bring women together, including younger women and girls. If her constituent is keen to be one of those advocates, we would welcome that. We are talking about having new patient-reported experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures; we will develop those pathways over the years. Through that, women will have clear ways to navigate the system, and to put their voices forward.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Ministers for this renewed women’s health strategy for England. Two of my constituents in particular—Evie Solomon, who founded HER Circle, and Shelly Lynn—will welcome the focus on medical misogyny, and they will be watching to make sure that we deliver. It was great to hear that there were influencers at the launch of the strategy yesterday. I met one of them, Milly Evans, who is a sex educator. Is there space in the women’s health strategy and the men’s health strategy for the provision of lifelong sex education, so that we have consistent, relevant and appropriate sex education for everyone who needs it? Frankly, women who have health issues still want a fulfilling and happy sex life.
Karin Smyth
As I said, part of this strategy is about educating girls and boys on health and bringing together all parts of education. We are keen to work in new ways with new media, and with influencers who are positive about women and women’s health, and we will continue to do so.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and for her ongoing commitment to ensuring that women’s health is at the heart of this Government’s agenda, which is hugely important. A bit like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), I was shocked by the number of women from my constituency of Harlow who came forward to tell me about their terrible experiences of being gaslit, ignored and disrespected, particularly when it came to endometriosis and the pelvic mesh scandal. My constituent Belinda, when she was 36 years old, went to the GP complaining of head pains. She was told that it was nothing and was sent home. She had actually had a stroke. She was told by the GP that she could not possibly have had a stroke at the age of 36, which was obviously incorrect. What would the Minister say to women in my constituency who have long felt ignored, disrespected and gaslit because they are women?
Karin Smyth
Belinda’s story is shocking, and I hope that she is doing better. This strategy is, as I said, a total game changer. In particular, the renewal of this strategy, based on the previous strategy, sends a signal to the system that we will look at the experience of women and take it into account. We will look at the budgets and the return of money to the service to improve things. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, there is nothing quite like seeing chief executives and chief finance officers suddenly notice—perhaps they had not noticed it before; they are busy sometimes—women’s clear dissatisfaction with gynaecology. The strategy sends a positive signal to improve the service, and that puts power in the hands of women.
The other real game changer is the online service. As I said, women, wherever they live, be it in Harlow, Bristol, rural Lincolnshire or coastal areas like Thanet—I have heard from Members from so many places this afternoon—will have access to online specialist treatment. There will be a further roll-out of diagnostic services, to get that diagnostic record back into neighbourhood healthcare, so that people can be treated closer to home. Building an NHS around women, women’s needs, women’s experiences—that is the game changer promised by this Labour Government.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
As a trained science teacher, I welcome the Minister’s news that through the strategy, the Government are launching a new programme to improve education for girls about their menstrual health, with additional funding from this year to support targeted work in schools and community settings. Does the Minister agree that this programme will support girls’ knowledge of menstrual health, and when to seek healthcare?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise, and I agree that the programme will do that. When I was first told about menstrual cycles as a young girl, I was told to hide what happened, even from my father and my brother in the household, let alone my peers in school and so on. We have come a long way, and it is good to have so many good advocates to help us. Education in school is central to that.
Backbench Business
Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I point out that live British Sign Language interpretation of the debate is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the First Report of the Modernisation Committee, Access to the House of Commons and its Procedures, HC 755, and the House Administration response, HC 1726.
It is a pleasure to open this debate today, both in my capacity as Leader of the House of Commons and as Chair of the Modernisation Committee. I begin by extending the Committee’s thanks to all those who provided evidence. The Committee heard directly from Members of this House and the other place, as well as from members of staff, experts and academics. I thank former and current Committee members for their work on this inquiry. In particular, I thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell).
The Modernisation Committee embarked on this inquiry following a consultation that it held in autumn 2024, when it heard the views of hundreds of members of the parliamentary community about what it should prioritise. The resounding call was to consider the accessibility of the House—both physical accessibility of the parliamentary estate, and the accessibility of procedures and conventions in the Chamber, including the information that the House provides to the public about our work.
We all recognise that the Palace of Westminster is an iconic building and part of a UNESCO world heritage site, but that comes with challenges for accessibility. The Committee received sobering evidence about the negative impact that these challenges can have on Members, staff and visitors. They include inaccessible doors, toilets, lifts, lighting and signage, which impact on the daily lives of people trying to use the estate. The Committee has been encouraged by the House Administration’s efforts to address some of these issues, including before the inquiry concluded, but the tasks before it remain substantial.
To assist the House Administration, the Committee recommended that an external accessibility advisory group be established, so that the Administration can call upon its expertise when needed. I am pleased that the House of Commons Commission is undertaking work to set up that group. A key issue that the Committee identified was the lack of progress on issues raised in accessibility audits of the estate. The Committee therefore recommended that the House Administration publish a summary of progress against accessibility audit recommendations, and I am pleased that the House Administration’s progress will now be a regular feature of business plans and tracked throughout the year.
An overarching challenge for the House Administration is the culture around accessibility. The Committee concluded that although the aspiration of the Administration is to provide accessible services, there is a lack of central responsibility or clear lines of accountability to deliver it. The Committee believes that this must be addressed by introducing better training and practical guidance for staff, specific to their area of responsibility.
The Committee also recommended that the House Administration revise its strategic priorities to make it explicit, as part of the value of being inclusive, that accessibility is a priority for the organisation, alongside security and safety. I am pleased that the next three-year strategy for the House Administration includes an explicit commitment to improve accessibility.
I turn now to the House of Commons procedures and processes. Many of the procedures and processes that govern our proceedings have been in place for a long time, for very good reason. We are grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, for the care that you take in assisting Members who have access needs. To ensure that this support is clearly advertised to all Members, the Committee recommended that references to the routes available to MPs who require reasonable adjustments be made in the guidance for Members. The report also explored issues relating to seating in the Chamber and to Divisions, and made a series of recommendations. Work is currently under way to consider how deferred Divisions might be made more accessible, and the potential introduction of a reasonable adjustment card scheme for MPs who require certain seats for access reasons.
The final section of the report focused on communication. Ensuring that we communicate in an accessible way is key to ensuring that our constituents can stay informed about what happens here. That includes thinking about how we improve accessibility for visitors in the Public Gallery, and leading by example in ensuring that the documents we produce are accessible to the largest possible number of people. I know that the Administration Committee and the House Administration are considering what more can be done in these areas.
The Modernisation Committee received the House Administration’s response to our report, published on 19 March, which assured us that it would make progress on our recommendations. Today I look forward to hearing from Members across the House on their experiences. The Committee will draw on these when we hear about further progress from the House’s senior leadership team later this year.
Accessibility should never be an afterthought. It is a core part of what we do, and I commend this motion to the House.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for his remarks, and fully echo both their detail and their sentiment. As he says, accessibility should never be an afterthought. In the case of the House of Commons, there is not just the common decency that goes with trying to support anyone with a disability or another need. A vital aspect of being an effective parliamentarian is that every single Member of Parliament, whatever their background and personal needs, should be able to discharge their full capabilities on behalf of their constituents. That is why it is so central to what we do as a House.
Let me join the Leader of the House in welcoming the report. I also very much welcome the response from the House Administration, which is a very constructive document, by and large. We on the Committee are grateful for the constructive way in which the House Administration engaged with our concerns all the way through. I pay tribute not just to the current and previous members of the Committee, but to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and indeed to the current Leader of the House for steering this ship home to port.
I have a couple of reflections to add on this topic. Of course, when we think about accessibility, it is very easy just to think of physical changes to the structure of the House of Commons, but the Leader of House was absolutely right to think about not just Members but visitors, staff and people who use this building in many different ways, and about accessibility in relation to the public’s understanding of what we are trying to do.
There is a tradition in British political thought that the House of Commons should have not merely an efficient aspect to it, as Bagehot would put it, but a dignified aspect to it and even a certain mystique. I think there is some truth to that—as a Conservative, I would say that, wouldn’t I? There is some benefit to sticking with procedures that have proven their worth, even if it requires a little bit of effort to understand them. As a result, I would be very suspicious and concerned, on behalf of the House as an institution, about anything that I thought was dumbing down, but I do not think that is what is at stake here. What is at stake here are intelligent simplifications of language and presentation that allow Members to understand from the get-go how they can contribute constructively and effectively to what we are doing. Although the changes that were put through by previous House Administration officials in relation to the Order Paper did not come out of this process, I think that they were very constructive and helpful. The Order Paper is now unrecognisably better than what it was when I entered Parliament just a few years ago.
Let me say a couple of other things. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and it is important to keep these two things separate. The House will know that I am an extreme sceptic on the restoration and renewal process. The content of what is being proposed is poorly conceived, and there is a lack of a fixed budget. I am also sceptical about the process that has been followed and the lack of what I consider genuinely effective governance, but it is important to recognise that the report talks about that in order to reflect the importance of accessibility to that process. Whatever decision the House makes on restoration and renewal—I hope it will go for a drastically different version of what we are talking about—it will respect the need for full accessibility to this House and the House of Lords. I do not think that is on the table or up for negotiation at all, but one key point is that when we discuss this, we should not regard restoration and renewal as any substitute—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I gently point out to the shadow Leader of the House, and to anybody else planning on contributing, that this is not a debate on restoration and renewal. Although reference to it is of course acceptable, perhaps the substance of Members comments’ should not focus on that.
Jesse Norman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid you may have been slightly misled by your officials. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and specifically refers to it as something that the Committee was invited to look forward to. Therefore, it is not inappropriate to mention it.
The specific point that I am making, if I am allowed to make it, is that we should not defer changes out of an expectation that restoration and renewal, whatever it may be, will be a panacea; we should be getting on with changes as soon as they can be made. One of the things that is so attractive about the work that the House Administration did in responding to the report, and to the Committee, was the energetic way in which it started the process of making changes when they were pointed out. I remember the director general coming forward with several hundred potential changes that could be made, and on which the House Administration had started to make progress.
Whatever the future may bring, let there be no delay in making this House as genuinely open and accessible as it possibly can be. Let me congratulate everyone on all the work that has been done so far, the officials who have made it happen and the Committee.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of the Modernisation Committee, but also as the chair of both the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users and the APPG on access to disability equipment. I come at this issue from that perspective. As many Members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user and have campaigned on both accessibility and Changing Places toilets, and I will refer to those during my contribution.
Shortly after my election to this place, I asked a series of questions. I have twin daughters, one of whom can access the building, but the other cannot access it in the way that we all can. What if she were to come here, and what are the most easily defined routes around the building? I was very lucky, because I had an accessibility tour, but I will continue to say that those routes are not easily defined for staff or visitors. For visitors, what are the most accessible routes around the building to get from A to B? We need to continue to look at that. If a Member is arranging an event, what are the main access routes for somebody who is a wheelchair user or who has different access needs?
In the report—I was not a member of the Modernisation Committee when the report was undertaken, but I am now—there are recommendations about external accessibility. In my role as chair of both groups, but particularly as chair of the APPG for wheelchair users, we continue to have problems. A significant number of wheelchair users attend our meetings, but there is only a very small number of rooms in this building that we can book. The Chair of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith), is very aware of this—we have written and spoken to each other about it at length—but under the booking system’s current procedures, the APPG cannot be given priority over others, which proves very difficult when only a very small number of rooms are available. It also proves very difficult when we try to provisionally book a room, and the only room our users can use is booked by somebody else. We do need, through the Administration Committee, to look at our booking system procedures.
My hon. Friend is also aware that the APPG for wheelchair users held an event last month at which the majority of speakers were wheelchair users, yet we managed to set up a podium for the speakers to give their speeches from. Reluctantly, we then had to dismantle the podium in front of all the wheelchair users, because it was clearly a completely inappropriate layout for how the wheelchair users in question needed to address the event. As my hon. Friend is aware, and as I said in the Modernisation Committee when we considered this report recently, there continue to be external accessibility changes we need to make in the House.
I note the recommendations in the report on accessible formats. I was really glad when my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) had her East Kent Mencap group visit the building recently, and a number of Members with experience of this went to speak to them about their experiences—I was very privileged to do so. We clearly always need to look at those formats, and ask whether our information is available in an easy read format for them in the way it would be for any other visitors, and whether we can have the same discussions with those users.
Although she is not here today, I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her valuable work since her election to make this building far more accessible. From her viewpoint, the building certainly was not in such a place.
Lastly, I want to refer to Changing Places toilets. A few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney and I wandered down to the National Portrait Gallery to see what a more modern, accessible Changing Places toilet looks like. We have the issue that, when wheelchair users who attend the all-party groups I chair come to Portcullis House, there is no Changing Places toilet there. The Changing Places toilet we have is in the Lower Waiting Hall, and I would say it is to the original Changing Places standard of about 20 years ago. I have used it with my own daughter, and the hoist is a mobile hoist. The ceiling is very low, and an adult trying to get on it will most probably hit their head on the ceiling. It does not have a moveable sink to get a wheelchair underneath. It is not to the current standards we would expect of a Changing Places toilet. It is the one place where the people who attend the all-party groups I chair can use the toilet, yet it still is not to modern standards. As my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House know, I will continue to lobby to have one of a modern standard in Portcullis House and equally for the existing toilet to be of a modern standard.
As I said in my Changing Places debate last year, we have seen great improvements. My daughter, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, will be 13 this year, and I remember how few Changing Places toilets there were in this part of London 10 years ago. There has been great progress, including under the previous Government, in making sure that local railway stations and tourist destinations have Changing Places toilets. There are the ones at the National Portrait Gallery and the National Gallery down the road; there is the one in IKEA in Oxford Street, which I had to work very hard for and lobby to get its standard up to spec; and, just yesterday, the one at St Paul’s cathedral finally opened. Those places, where visitors are welcome to access the history and culture of our amazing city, do have such facilities, yet this place does not. We need those facilities both in Portcullis House and, to a more modern standard, in the Palace itself.
I thank the Committee for its work. I will continue to press on these areas, including in my role as a member of the Modernisation Committee, but while other workplaces have brought themselves into the 21st century, we must acknowledge that there is work that we still need to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I rise to speak, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both as a member of the Modernisation Committee and, at one point during this inquiry, as a witness. That is also true of the Leader of the House, who gave evidence to the Committee before he became its Chair.
The work we do in this place is complicated, but sometimes it is more complicated than it needs to be, and sometimes we revel in that. I am very conscious that we are having this debate during the final stages of the parliamentary Session and ping-pong, and I as an opposition MP have been leading my colleagues to vote No because we disagree with a Government motion to disagree with a Lords amendment, so we sometimes make this place overly complicated, and the whats and whys of how we do things do not often make sense externally.
I maintain and agree with the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and indeed the Leader of the House, that once we are here, we see that while there are definitely things that could be done better or differently, that is absolutely not the case for all things. We must always be aware of the need not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when considering what we should do. I came into Parliament in December 2019, and over the last two Parliaments—in both 2019 and 2024—we have had a huge turnover of legislators, and understanding why things are the way they are, and what needs to be improved, does take time.
I want to make my remarks in line with the three sections of the Modernisation Committee’s report, and I echo others in commending the House Administration for its constructive response. The reality is that in many circumstances, but particularly in relation to accessibility more generally, it knows fine well what the issues are in this place, and it is as keen to ensure that it makes visible progress on those issues as are we on the Committee and parliamentarians more widely.
However, the report summary talked about clear and prompt action, but we need to acknowledge that it will not be quick. I want to mention our experience yesterday. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on PANS PANDAS, a paediatric condition—have I mentioned that I am running the London marathon for it a week on Sunday?—and yesterday some young people came in for a roundtable in advance of the Backbench Business debate we are hoping to have in a few weeks’ time, because it was important to hear directly from those young people about their experience of the condition. However, one of them was using a wheelchair.
My fantastic team in Westminster, Kathryn and Claudia, incorporated a tour into those young people’s experience as part of their day, but the reality was that the one young person in a wheelchair had a completely different experience from everybody else. There is no access to St Stephen’s Hall or the top of the Westminster steps, which meant she could not see that part of the tour. A moveable ramp for the few steps from Central Lobby to St Stephen’s Hall, which could be used when needed, would be an option. The lift on the accessible lift route is really small. The young person yesterday had one of those quite mobile wheelchairs, but I have been doing bus journeys with wheelchair users in my constituency recently, and the technology is advancing significantly, but the necessary space and access are not. There are also very simple things like the fact that the carpet outside the accessible lift has a really deep pile, which makes it difficult to move across.
Among the evidence that the Committee heard, what we heard from people working on the estate, about the difficulties they face, was pretty arresting. There is the Clerk who cannot progress in his career because he is no longer able to sit at the Table in front of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and therefore his development opportunities are restricted. There is the member of staff for an MP who started on a Speaker’s internship for 12 months—a way of getting people from different backgrounds into Parliament—and was fortunate enough to go on and work for the same MP afterwards, but it took 15 months for the nearest wheelchair accessible toilet to be accessible to him, because he could not open the door before that point.
As a Committee, that was shameful for us to hear and it shows that we have so much more to do. It is important that we remember that Parliament is a place of work and a place of democracy, and when we consider the restoration and renewal proposals—I agree with the shadow Leader of the House—we need to keep accessibility at the forefront, regardless of what our overall opinions on R and R might be.
On procedure and processes, I remember meeting the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), to discuss the Committee when the Government were looking at setting it up. On how I thought about the Committee, the equivalent that I came up with, from my time in the police, was a tasking and co-ordinating group. The remit of the Committee is wide and our make-up is unique, with the Leader of the House as Chair. The decisions on some elements of the work that we have looked at belong to other Committees, so we should be able to task and co-ordinate with them accordingly. It is right that decisions and inquiries on call lists, electronic voting—we had issues with that this week—and proxies are being led and reported on by the Procedure Committee. Our Committee also recently looked at virtual Select Committee appearances.
The evidence we heard from disabled MPs demonstrates that there is absolutely more that can be done to accommodate them. Also—this has been my own experience of late as a Chief Whip—there are practices that we have utilised in the past that in some ways we have forgotten about, such as nodding through. I am not suggesting that we go back to what is depicted in the James Graham play “This House”, but there are accommodations that can and should be made. We should be constantly challenging ourselves in that regard. Certainly, I see it as part of my role as Chief Whip for my group to make those challenges and ask those questions.
On reading the report, I also thought about my own reflections on covid. As I said, I was a new MP in 2019. There is no doubt that there was an impact on how relationships were built here in Parliament as a result of the practices we had during covid. We participated in the Chamber virtually, which gave no opportunity to learn how to intervene, or to just have those conversations in the Tea Room and the Lobby. It was quite easy to become siloed in our parliamentary groups, and I think all of us here know well that this place is at its best when it works in a constructive, cross-party way to make things progress.
The last section is on communicating what the House does. Generally, the recommendations attempt to strike the right balance between the traditions of the House— I say that as a trustee of the History of Parliament Trust—and the need for Parliament and its processes to be understandable to the wider public. There is clearly more to do, but it is important that we continue to assess whether that balance is being struck correctly.
I want to highlight the work of the Education and Engagement Team. I recently attended an event here in Parliament. Sarah Donald, the headteacher of Dairsie primary school in my constituency, is on the UK Parliament teacher ambassador programme, which will give her the opportunity to be an accredited partner of the Education and Engagement Team. That education and understanding of our democracy and how it works is really important. We are currently having Scottish Parliament elections, so knowing the difference between what an MSP can do and MP can do is important. Indeed, last week I visited Busy Bees nursery in Strathkinness to talk on the topic of “People who help us”. It transpires that it is really quite difficult to explain to four-year-olds what the job of an MP is. I have to say that when I visited my child’s nursery school a number of years ago in the unfirm of a police officer, I was much more popular.
To conclude, the Modernisation Committee is an important feature of this current Parliament. We can and should be in a position to continue to review progress and we should continue to do so as this Parliament progresses. I am very pleased that the House Administration has engaged with the report so constructively and I look forward to revisiting this topic in due course.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip—I have no doubt that she will thrash me in the London marathon in 10 days’ time—for starting the debate. I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who chaired a number of the meetings when I had the pleasure of sitting on the Modernisation Committee. I recognise the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who often talks about this subject with such passion. He makes vital points, particularly with regard to Changing Places toilets. I hope the House Administration is listening. I am sure the Leader of the House is listening, too.
I would like to thank all hon. Members who participated in the evidence sessions, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Torbay (Steve Darling). I should also personally thank the former Member for Harlow for his contribution. He said during the evidence session that he found it so difficult to spend long periods of time in debates that he would come in, make an intervention and then leave—so I have learnt something from him! In all sincerity, he made a really important point.
The shadow Leader of the House made the important point that accessibility issues must not impact on the ability of MPs to do their job in this House. It is also vital that prospective MPs are not put off standing for election because they see this place as being inaccessible. Whatever my political differences might be with Robert, I recognise that he was a brilliant MP for Harlow, and I seek to emulate him in the work he did. It would have been a real tragedy if he had been put off standing for election in the first place because he felt that he could not access democracy in the way that he was able to do.
This matter, however, is not just about us MPs. It is important to recognise the contributions from Clerks, MPs’ staff, House staff and Members of the other place. There is a danger that those of us who do not have accessibility issues do not truly appreciate the challenges for those who do. I thank the Clerks who brought together this important report. Before I make specific reference to parts of the report, I would like to say that, like everybody in this House and the other place, I want us to get this right and for everyone who works in this place not to have barriers to doing their jobs as effectively as possible.
As many Members have mentioned, the report is in three parts: the built environment, procedures and communication. As it rightly recognises in the first instance, there is a realisation that the estate is comprised of a complex combination of buildings that were constructed in a patchwork manner, and that that built environment can create physical and psychological challenges for its users. It is important to recognise that.
One conclusion on accessibility is that we need to learn from disabled people about their experiences of visiting and engaging with Parliament. Again, I think we can have cross-party agreement on that. As briefly mentioned by the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge made reference to the challenges of opening doors, including in Portcullis House. Portcullis House is nowhere near as old as this building, so there is no excuse for such challenges, particularly in relation to toilet doors. We heard a lot about the toilet doors in Portcullis House.
I am pleased that there has been positive action to make the estate more accessible, but I urge, as the report does, the establishment of an accessibility group to include disabled MPs to consider the wider issues. I would add to that, on the back of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, the need to think about disabled visitors to this place and how their voices can be heard, too. On page 22, the report talks about safety and security being the main focus of the House of Commons administration. We would of course all agree with that, but it should not be at the expense of accessibility. Nor does it need to be if we think about how the space supports everybody in it.
On procedure—I promise I will not make my speech too long, Madam Deputy Speaker; I realise that I have gone on for quite a bit—I am someone who has grown to enjoy the procedures of this place. I am a relatively new MP, but as Members across the House will know, I spend quite a lot of time in the Chamber—my place on the Bench is slightly more worn than those around it. I have really enjoyed other MPs coming to me and asking questions about procedure—it has made me feel quite important. However, procedure and how this place works should not be a big secret. Making sure that everybody—particularly those who have accessibility and reasonable adjustment requirements—understands the procedures is really important. I echo what the report says about the importance of formal and informal routes for MPs who require reasonable adjustments, which is essential.
There has been a lot of talk about call lists. Actually, I have found a great solution to the issue of call lists, as has the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): if a Member talks a lot, they end up getting called last—although I have not been on this occasion. Although call lists do change, the compromise solution could be that Members who have reasonable adjustments can be told where they will be in the list, and then the rest of us can proceed as normal. I think that would be a fairer way to do it. It deals with the issues that those who do not want call lists have raised.
I agree with the usefulness of in-person voting—although I think the Health Secretary might not agree with me, as I have lobbied him during quite a number of votes about issues that affect Harlow—and I think it is important that we have it. However, I recognise that in situations where we have up to 12 votes in a row, as we had this week, there can be real challenges for people who need reasonable adjustments. I absolutely support the point that has been made about proxy voting, the potential use of a digital system and the recommendation about reasonable adjustment cards.
I turn finally to language. I do not want to sound like too much of a traditionalist, but I do like the fact that we have traditional parliamentary language. I think the shadow Leader of the House got it right earlier—and that is not just because he is a Conservative. We want to keep some of those traditions, but we want to make it accessible, too. There is absolutely an achievable compromise to be made between simplification and remembering the customs and history of this place.
I have spoken far more than I expected to on this issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is really important to me and to my constituents.
Chris Vince
Do you want more? Okay. [Laughter.]
To finish, I will say that it is hugely important that democracy is not just for the few. It is so important that everyone has the opportunity to take part in this country’s democracy, and this place is a beacon for democracy in this country like probably no other; actually, it is a beacon for democracy across the world, if we are honest. I do not want there to be barriers for anybody working here. That is hugely important for MPs as it is for Members of the other House, Clerks, House staff and the people who work for us as MPs.
I welcome this report. I think it is the start of a conversation, not the end. I hope we can move forward so that there can be more Members in this place like my predecessor who feel confident and comfortable to participate in the democracy of this country to the fullest amount.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Modernisation Committee has indeed put forward some excellent proposals with regard to accessibility and our procedures. It also refers to the recently published 125-page restoration and renewal proposals, which we at Reform have rebranded “ridiculous and ruinous”, as they are the wrong schemes at the wrong price, based on the wrong brief under the wrong governance structures.
Madam Deputy Speaker, your predecessor in the Chair informed us that this is not the time to debate the matter of restoration and renewal. Bearing in mind, though, that it is a multibillion-pound proposal—possibly up to £40 billion—and the fact that these proposals have been out for a number of weeks, can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or the Leader of the House confirm to hon. Members when these proposals will be debated in full, so that we can expand on our thoughts?
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for his pithy contribution to the debate—
Adam Jogee
Finishing too early is not always a good thing.
I start by extending my condolences to my constituent and great friend back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Rosi Monkman, whose mother died in County Waterford in the Republic of Ireland yesterday. I pay tribute to her mother, Mrs Morrissey, and to Rosi, her husband, their sons and all the family.
As there were so many pithy contributions before me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we have until 5 o’clock, I would like to place on the record my respect for Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As was discussed in business questions, next Tuesday will mark the 100th anniversary of Her late Majesty’s birth, which is a fitting opportunity for us to remember, reflect and give thanks for a long life of service to our United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
This is an important debate, and I hope people do not think that the number of colleagues present means that it is not taken seriously. I am grateful to all members of the Modernisation Committee from across the House for their work, and for taking on the most Herculean task of making this place fit for the 21st century and creating the best means for us to deliver for the people who sent us here. I will focus my comments on part 2 of the report on procedures and processes, and within that on pages 2, 25 and 30, as well as page 11 of the response.
I would like to acknowledge the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) while she served as Leader of the House— I suppose I should declare an interest as her former Parliamentary Private Secretary. I acknowledge the Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell), for picking up the baton and running with it.
As my office staff would tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as would my wife and family, I am in many ways an analogue politician in a digital age—or, now, an AI age. I much prefer the written word and signing letters by hand over putting some app on my phone to record 30 seconds of myself speaking into a screen. In many ways, it might seem odd that I have taken such a close interest in both this report and the recent report from the Procedure Committee on proxy voting, and, more generally, in the measures being taken to open our national Parliament to all who work here and bring it into the 21st century.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I broadly like the customs and practices of this place; they are age old and they broadly work. Indeed, they have been adopted by nations across the Commonwealth that have developed their own Westminster systems, such as in the Caribbean, Australia, Canada and on the African continent. I would not, therefore, advocate for radical changes that would change how we do things, but I am willing to advocate for sensible and respectful changes that would allow us to do our jobs more properly and effectively.
Everyone has good days and bad days at work and at home. That is the nature of the world that we live in. It has always been that way, and that is not going to change. At work, some things go well; in our case, sometimes we win, and then we hope to keep on winning. It is those victories that allow us to serve in this place—and what a pleasure and privilege it is to do so.
However, as we speak for our people, tackle injustices wherever we find them and work every day to get things done, no Member of this House should be forced to choose between family and doing our job of honouring the trust of the local people who sent us here and holding Ministers to account. The fact that I was forced to make such a choice on Friday 20 June 2025 is something that will stay with me forever. It remains, I am sad to say, the worst day I have had in this job.
My wife received a phone call on 15 June to tell her that her father had taken unwell after many years of living with Parkinson’s. By the following Tuesday, it appeared that he was reaching the end of his life, and that if we wanted to say goodbye, we had to get there as soon as possible—and so we did.
On Friday 20 June, this House was considering the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—an issue of the utmost importance to all of us and to our constituents. Whatever our views, we all wanted to have our voices heard and to be able to take part in this most important of debates. I asked my Whips if a proxy vote could be sorted so that I could represent my constituents and also be with my family, but was told that because it was a private Member’s Bill, a proxy would not be possible, and therefore the only option available to me was to seek my own pairing arrangement with a colleague in the House. To say I was cross is an understatement, but I took on board that response and went on my way to find my own pairing arrangement.
It was clear at that time that my father-in-law was not going to get better, so I asked colleagues in my party and on the Opposition Benches if they would pair with me. I asked the promoter of the Bill, who said that she was not able to help. I asked another colleague—whom I will not name, although I think it is important that I say this—who said that she could not help me because she was doing the numbers for the pro side, and she would therefore be “gleeful” that I could not be there, as it would be one less vote against the Bill.
Given the stress and hassle it causes, no colleague should be forced to find their own pair when a loved one is dying. That is insane and, frankly, inhumane. If a teacher cannot be at work, we get a supply teacher—we all remember the days when a supply teacher was in charge. How that cannot happen in the mother of Parliaments is inexplicable.
We must get a grip of the proxy voting system. Nobody wants to let people off or change how we do things in a radical way, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. We do not want to stop people being here to vote, but we need to be sensible, compassionate and respectful. We need to get a grip because nobody should be forced to experience what I had to.
Having failed to get a pair, despite trying really hard to do so given that my father-in-law was still on the journey to the end of his life, and having spoken to my family, I came to vote on that Friday, because if I had not, my constituents would not have been represented in that debate. As I left this place to go back to my wife and in-laws, my wife called to tell me that her father had died. I will never forget that phone call. I received it only because I was unable to get a proxy or a pair. That remains the worst day that I have had in this job.
The Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said that all Members should be able to do their jobs properly, and that is true, but it should not come at the expense of our family commitments—not least as a loved one reaches the end of their life. It is not lost on me that we were voting on assisted dying, but I was given no assistance by this House, or by the powerful people in it, to do my job and be with my family when they needed me most.
Nobody wants a sob story—I fully accept that—but this is my experience, and I hope that we will look at how we can do things differently so that nobody has to experience what we have. We need to consider the eligibility rules for Members seeking a proxy; in my view, the current rules are far too narrow. I read the Procedure Committee report, and I hope that, together, the Procedure and Modernisation Committees will be able to get us to the right place sooner rather than later. I say this not to seek sympathy but to be helpful, so that we finally make our Parliament compassionate and fit for purpose.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for that powerful speech. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the need for reform of the proxy voting system and for some humanity to be introduced for such circumstances.
I was proud to serve on the Modernisation Committee and to take part in gathering evidence for the report. The Committee very much appreciated all those who took the time and effort to submit evidence and to give oral evidence, including Mr Speaker and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as the wider team, many members of House staff, and campaigners. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), who has already been mentioned. She is a tireless advocate for disability rights and access. It is thanks to her advocacy that the door handles across the estate are now properly usable by those with disabilities. Before, as we heard earlier, many disabled people were unable to go to the toilet unaided, which was scandalous.
In this place, many people often talk up a tension between modernisation and tradition, which does undoubtedly exist, but the Committee’s role is to find a way through that does justice to those who have every right to be properly represented here. As has been mentioned, this Parliament is unique in that over half of MPs were new in 2024. I think that is the highest turnover of MPs in any Parliament. Many of us came here from modern workplaces in which the accessibility, inclusivity, hybrid working, productivity and efficiency standards far exceed those in this place. In coming to work here, a lot of us felt that we were walking back in time, not just because of the ancient building, but because of the way some of the processes here work.
The Committee’s report is comprehensive. We have heard excellent speeches about the accessibility of the building, but I will build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said about the accessibility of parliamentary procedures, particularly speaking, bobbing and voting. I will also mention gender representation among speakers. Before I go through those points, let me say that the staff here do excellent work and are very considerate; they work with MPs to help us do our jobs and speak for our constituents.
I wanted to put on the record in this debate some of the powerful and eye-opening evidence we heard from current and former Members during the report process. I will not speak for other members of the Committee, but I honestly found some of the evidence we heard shocking. It is hard for those who are not MPs to understand how speaking in this Chamber—our No. 1 job as Members of Parliament—works. For those listening who do not quite understand how it works, an MP informs the Speaker’s Office of their desire to speak. They then come to the Chamber, “bob” and wait until they are called to speak. That can mean waiting for three or four hours—and sometimes up to six hours.
I have learned much sitting in this Chamber and listening to other Members speak, but the process certainly does have a disproportionate impact on some MPs. Let me mention a few examples from our evidence sessions that stayed with me. One MP with severe physical disabilities told us how difficult they found waiting hours and hours to speak in a debate. They felt physically exhausted by the time they were called to speak many hours later, and felt that they just could not do justice to what they had hoped to say on behalf of their constituents. Another MP with musculoskeletal issues sat on these Benches and waited to speak for so long that they were in agony for days afterwards. Another told us that voting 10-plus times over hours left them practically unable to walk in the days afterwards.
One woman MP in the very early stages of pregnancy felt extremely ill but waited hours to speak. In all fairness, she did not want to confide in the Speaker’s team about the situation. Another woman MP told me about experiencing pregnancy loss in this House, and feeling that she had to disclose it to her Whips. I do not think anybody would want that.
We had an evidence session with disabled MPs. A Member of the House of Lords who was in attendance said that he was completely shocked by the disparity in reasonable adjustments between this House and the other place. I am very glad that many of those issues were addressed by the recommendations in the report, including the recommendation that a reasonable adjustments card be introduced, which would allow a seat to be saved for disabled Members. That has been an ongoing issue. Other recommendations include potentially using the Reasons Room for voting in a way that is inclusive and not so exhausting; and a new disabled toilet near the Chamber.
I hope that wider issues continue to be considered, however. The evidence we heard strongly suggested that the best processes are accessible by design; that is preferable to forcing disabled people or those with conditions to ask constantly for exemptions, or to explain themselves. I know that many of those who submitted evidence to our inquiry were disappointed by the outcome of the Procedure Committee report on call lists, which could have made a significant difference by providing more certainty to those who have conditions but do not want to disclose them, or to people who have to take medicine at mealtimes, for example.
Voting is at the heart of what we do in this House. Surely more can be done in 2026 to preserve all the good bits of MPs physically voting together, while speeding up proceedings enormously through the use of tech, particularly on days with 10, 12 or 14 votes, such as those we have experienced lately.
I also want to address the gender split of speakers. The one thing that MPs can do that no one else can is speak in this House on behalf of our constituents, but if we consider the speaking statistics, all is not equal. Women make up 41% of all MPs, but a rough calculation —such as the one the House of Commons Library has done for me—shows that just 35% of contributions made in this Chamber are from women. In the Lords, where 34% of Members are women, 41% of all contributions are from women Members. I wonder what we can learn from the structure for speaking in the Lords. I note that the Lords have a form of call list for some proceedings, and it seems to benefit women’s voices.
I realise that I am still a relative newbie in this House, and I am sure that the views of MPs change over time as they experience different iterations of Parliaments, but I hope that, in addition to the good changes that have already been made as a result of the report, there will be further progress in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Leader of the House to speak, with the leave of the House.
Jesse Norman
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a couple of words about the excellent contributions to the debate.
I will, if I may, pick up on a couple of points. I do not think that anything more needs to be added to what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) said about properly accessible toilets; he was absolutely right about that. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made a well observed point about the diversity of experience and views among wheelchair users. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his gracious words about his predecessor, the brilliant Robert Halfon.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for the sceptic’s view on restoration and renewal. I ask the Leader of the House whether it might be possible to have two debates on that. We could first have what one might call a digestive debate, to discuss the actual process of R and R, how it will work and what might be involved, and then a second debate on the motion. The figure of £40 billion is so big that it would be helpful for the House to pre-consider the matter, before considering the motion.
I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) very much for his moving remarks about his experience on the assisted dying private Member’s Bill. Finally, the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) reminded us how difficult it is to replicate the specific experience of individual disabled MPs, and how important it is to listen to what they have said. With all that in mind, I thank the Committee and the Leader of the House for all the work they have done, and the Administration for its response.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I hope to take a little bit of time responding to them, because although this has been a relatively short debate, it has been a very useful one.
Let me first comment on the shadow Leader of the House’s speech. I thank him for his remarks and the way that he made them. It is abundantly evident from the time that we have worked together that he cares deeply about this place, as do I, as he knows. We are, to some extent, adversaries in a system that is adversarial; but at heart, we share a deep respect and love for this place, not least because, as he knows, we are both passing through. It was here before we got here, and it will be here after we leave.
That means that we work well on the Committee. What has struck me, in the relatively short time that I chaired the Committee, is that it works in a cross-party way; in fact, it works in a non-party way. Given the varied experience and the varied party labels of people around the room, it is amazing how often we actually understand the problem, analyse it and get to the right conclusion. That is not as rare in this place as people think; indeed, it is why it works very well indeed.
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s concern that dumbing down can be a problem if we are not careful. This is not about dumbing down; it is about making this place more accessible, but also about how we do things. Where I do not agree with him, as he knows, is on restoration and renewal; on that, we are on different sides. However, as has been pointed out, today’s short debate is about now. It is about how we conduct ourselves now and for the foreseeable future, because even if the House takes a particular view on R and R and moves forward, it will still be quite a long time before some of the issues come to fruition. I believe that accessibility must be at the core of what we are doing now, but it must also be at the core of what happens after a decision is made on R and R.
Let me turn to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). I commend him on the excellent work that he does on his all-party groups, which I know comes from his deep personal interest in these matters, his experience and his commitment. The personal experience of these issues that he brings to this debate is important; it is abundantly clear that instead of observing these things from a distance and seeing them in our own way, we should learn from a position of experience. I very much value his contribution to modernisation. He is a strong advocate; if he has a strong view, he will voice it, and I absolutely commend him for that.
The issues with booking that my hon. Friend spoke about are not acceptable. I give him a commitment that we will look into that and see what more can be done. The story of what happened at that recent event illustrates the problem, and shows how important this investigation and report are. However—I will return to this point in my closing remarks—this is a work in progress. The report is a step along the way, not the end point.
Like other Members, my hon. Friend paid tribute to the work of our hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). As I know from personal experience, on matters of policy and everything else, she is a very strong advocate. I value her contribution and her knowledge on these matters very much indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford raised the issue of changing places and toilet facilities and, interestingly, pointed to the National Portrait Gallery. I have found out that, as Leader of the House, I am a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery— I have more than found it out; I have actually participated in the trustee role, to some extent. The next time I visit, I will once again remind them that there is a portrait of a former Member for Tynemouth—Dame Irene Ward, who was also the longest-serving woman MP—in the gallery, and I recently surpassed the length of time that she served in that seat. I am just letting them know that there is a certain logical conclusion that follows, but so far, they have not taken the hint—although I will not be wearing the hat that she is wearing in her photograph. [Interruption.] Well, it will be very popular.
Let me turn to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), the Lib Dem spokesperson, who drew on her experience of this period of the Session, when there is ping-pong and Lords amendments. It is a difficult course that we have to navigate. I do not want to stress this too much, but I have been around quite a long time, and I can assure hon. Members that every time we get to Lords amendments, I have to go to the Clerks and ask whether I am right in what I think. I am not going to say that every time I navigate this, I get a different answer, but it is notoriously difficult. However, she is right; there are things that we should be able to do to inform Members of where we have got to.
I agree with the hon. Lady’s remarks about thinking about how and why we do things, because it is really important—other Members also picked this up—that the way we conduct our affairs in this place evolves, although we should also be careful about how that happens. We need to be—if hon. Members do not mind me saying so on this occasion—conservative with a small c. There should be a good reason before we change things. I fear that she might be correct, in that some of the changes will not be quick, but that does not mean— I know that she accepts this—that we should not get on with them. We do get on with them; we knock down the barriers and, where we can, quicken things up.
The hon. Lady has mentioned on a number of occasions that she is running the London marathon. I commend her for that, and for her hard sell on sponsorship. I would encourage people to run it; most of us, not least me, will not be doing that, but she is, and that is great. She talked about how the Modernisation Committee works. It is right that we share a space with other Committees, but they bring an expertise to what we do. I think that works quite well, because we can and do work effectively with other Committees.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the impact of covid, which had a massive effect on the way that this place works. We have spent a great deal of time trying to get back some of the things that were lost during covid—and they were lost. It was not just the way that this place conducts its votes that changed; it was, for example, the way that speeches were made. When most people, apart from the Whips, vacated this place and we moved to virtual speeches, I for one expected that nobody would want to speak. In fact, everybody wanted to speak, because they were speaking from their kitchen and making a three-minute speech. As a result, and with all due respect to new Members, there are now far more people trying to get in on debates, and far more time limits. It is now quite unusual to listen to a speech like this, that lasts more than three minutes. There were lasting effects from that time. However, there are lessons here, not just on this issue, but on other things we do. I would say to the hon. Lady that we are not going back to what we regarded as normal. We need to move forward and make things better.
I also endorse what the hon. Lady said about the great job that the education team does, particularly with younger children, and the daunting experience of trying to explain to them how this place works. I had that experience when children from Marine Park first school came down recently. Before I spoke to them, they had been in St James’s Park, having their packed lunch. I expected the first question to be, “Have you ever met the King?”, or “How much do you get paid?,” but it was, “Have you ever had your sandwich stolen by a duck?”, which brought politics down to a different level. I had not, actually, but unfortunately the child had, and she clearly remembered it.
Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I agree with his appreciation of the work of the previous Member for Harlow. We did not agree along political lines, but I learned a great deal from him; he was an excellent Member of Parliament.
I also agree with my hon. Friend about accessibility for all. It is not just about making this place accessible but making politics accessible. It is also not just about the people who are here now, who often had a greater struggle than some of us to get here, but the people in future who might want to get here but think that there are literally physical barriers in their way. Everybody has the right to get here, or at least to aspire to—it is up to the electorate to decide whether they are coming or not.
My hon. Friend also made an interesting point about Portcullis House. To some of us, Portcullis House is very new, yet it was the very place that was identified as being inaccessible. This is a battle that will continue over a long period of time. I echo the point that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) made that procedure is important, and the history of this place is important. It is quite interesting what happens when new Members turn up—I know because I was one once. We think that things are going to change rapidly and that the House is going to change, but when we settle in a bit we realise why we do what we do. That is why we need to proceed at speed with some of these changes, but—if it is not the opposite—we also need to proceed with a degree of caution.
Turning to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), I look forward to his contribution when the debate on R and R comes around. I think he thought that that is what this debate was going to be about. I cannot tell him when it will be, but there will be a debate. To some extent it has already been postponed, but that has been done for the right reason. He and I are on opposite sides on this, but I want Members to have absorbed the report. It is a big, far-reaching and powerful report, and I want Members to have the time for it to sink in.
I am very conscious that the situation is going to be brought into greater focus in the difficult international and economic situation we are living through. Considerations about how we spend taxpayers’ money will come into greater focus, so it is absolutely right that the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office are looking at this. It is right that we get reports from them and are able to see in a more authoritative way—it is their job to do this—whether the proposals on the table are ones that we want to back or change. I can say to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and the House two things: first, there will be a debate, and, secondly, Members in this place and in the Lords will make the decision on this. It will not be a decision taken behind closed doors.
Jesse Norman
The Leader of the House may not have been in his place, but I suggested that it might be possible to have two debates—a digestive debate and then a debate with a decision. Even if one of those is a Backbench debate, would that be something that he would support?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly support people having their say and being informed by debates. I will give it some thought; I am not rejecting it out of hand. But there will be a moment and there will be a motion, and then we will have to decide. As I say, I will be on a different side because, going back to what I have said about this remarkable place, this is an iconic building. It is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. Despite how legalistic the terms are, it is not owned by the Government but by the nation.
People will look at the numbers, and the numbers are eye-watering—I give them that—and the timescale is eye-watering too, but we will not save any money by delaying the vote to decide to either get on with it or not. Time and again when people were asked, they said that they want to see this place survive. It is the crucible of their politics. They want to be able to access it safely, and currently it is not safe in many ways. We are going to have to address this, but I give the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and the House my word that we will have a vote at some point in time.
Let me turn to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I do remember the event that he talked about. I am sorry that we were not able to find a way through that situation. He raised the different aspects of why he felt that he was in that situation, and I do think that we need to go away and reflect on that. The proxy system is evolving, but we should take away examples and see whether we need to make some changes.
This is not an excuse for what happened, but it was a set of unusual circumstances in the sense that it was not just a private Member’s Bill but a hotly contested private Member’s Bill. People felt personally committed to it, and I remember a huge number of emails about. There was also an expectation that people would be here. Therefore, the thing that we can do—to decide not to be here and not to vote—was not really an option for many people. When it came to trying to get someone to pair or finding some other way, I could not find a way through it at that time.
Briefly, I want to say that this is not just about changing a system—for example, proxy voting, which I would be open to looking at, and I think the Modernisation Committee would be too. I am a great advocate of the usual channels. I am a great advocate of the bit that people think is very suspicious and that makes them wonder why on earth we have such a system. Actually, it makes this place work. It is the oil that makes the engine of this place work. There are things that can be done through the usual channels that are never seen but that make life better for people—for MPs.
I will not go into the realm of the divisive politics that we have just lived through, but I will say that it is not just about covid. Covid is one part of it, but I have lived through recent times where politics has been more divisive. Therefore, it has been more difficult to get Opposition parties to accept the Government position, and the Government are finding it difficult to accept the perspective of the Opposition parties. I have to say, if this place is going to work better, we have to do it better. That is not to say that we have to resurrect the usual channels as it always was, but we have to find ways of better working, and that includes—I am not ashamed to say this—the personal relationships that make the usual channels work. That is certainly my approach, and it will continue to be so as long as I have the opportunity to contribute.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) was right to say that there was a huge turnover at the general election. In fact, it was said to me that 80% of Members now have less than seven years’ experience. Even when there was a massive change in 1997 and, indeed, 2010, it was not on that scale. The effect is that we have lost some of the institutional memory of this place, and that, as far as I am concerned, is a deficit.
On the other hand, we have a great number of new MPs with varied backgrounds, with all sorts of experiences, and also with varied needs. That is good, because we need to keep moving through that generational change. There is always a bit of a price to pay, but there is always an advantage to getting there as well. It is important that we take that into account. There are solutions to many of the issues that have been raised, but as I say, this report is not the end of the story. We will continue to work on this.
I understand the points that have been made about lots of votes, the time it takes and how exhausting it can be—and that is not to trivialise the experience of people who have additional needs. But going back to what I just said about the usual channels, I cannot remember a time when we had as many votes. When it comes to the responsibility of this place and the relationship between us and the other place, yes, they have every right to send lots back, and we have every right to kick it back too, but at some point they have to start giving something and the Government have to start giving something too. It is how Parliament works. It is how democracy works.
We do not have to have as many votes in this place as we do. They do not have as many votes down the corridor as we do here on a day-to-day basis. We do not have to have a vote at the end of Second Reading. Even if Members do not agree with a Bill, they do not have to vote against it on Second Reading. They can vote it down on Third Reading. The point of listening and making a speech against a Bill on Second Reading is that it will go to Committee, where changes can be made. If hon. Members do not like it, they can have a go on Report, and if they still do not like it they can vote it down on Third Reading. We spend a great deal of time on Divisions when we pretty well know what the results will be in most of them. [Interruption.] I am wandering a bit now, I can see that, but these are all issues where there are different solutions from those that might appear obvious. However, I will take that away and think about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich also made an important point about gender. Long may she continue to do so, because that is very important indeed.
We clearly have a long way to go on modernisation. We have seen some encouraging progress, and the report is part of that. We will continue to monitor all sorts of issues, including accessibility. I look forward to working in a collegiate way with colleagues to make progress and to make this an even greater place to work and for visitors to visit. I thank the House authorities for their ongoing work and commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the First Report of the Modernisation Committee, Access to the House of Commons and its Procedures, HC 755, and the House Administration response, HC 1726.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Tuesday evening, in the midst of a succession of votes, the technology supporting the world’s oldest continuous Parliament failed. I thank the Clerks and support staff for their speedy response and the quick transition to the old paper system, and the Whips for the effective communication. The Microsoft technology that runs our electronic voting system did not communicate effectively and displayed the message, “Cannot connect to essential module” or something similar. Despite successive reboots and the window of doom, that was all we could get out of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, can we expect a report on the reasons for the failure, whether Microsoft provided speedy and appropriate support, how resilient the technology is and whether other providers are available? The failure was time consuming for Members, but more importantly it reduced confidence in the democratic process.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for notice of her point of order. The issue that caused the fault on the pass reader voting system on Tuesday was quickly identified by the Parliamentary Digital Service later that evening and rectified. PDS and other House officials are now looking at the lessons learned from the incident and what additional resilience measures can be put in place to support the voting system. I put on record my thanks to all House officials involved for quickly facilitating the paper Division system on Tuesday so that proceedings could continue with minimal delay.
Upton Heath
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD) [R]
I rise to present a petition about Upton Heath in my constituency and note my personal interest as a regular user and contributor to the fundraiser. Alongside helping to raise almost £110,000 in two weeks via a crowdfunder, the 1,763 petitioners and I note the importance of Upton Heath as a natural asset for the wide range of species that call it home and for those who spend time there for their wellbeing. Heath restoration needs to be prioritised and mineral extraction prevented. I thank everyone who donated to bring the site back into public ownership this week. The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action to secure the preservation of the whole of Upton Heath as a public natural asset.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Upton Heath is a vital natural asset to the people of Mid Dorset and North Poole; notes that Upton Heathland is a protected Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation; and further declares that local people oppose the use of Upton Heath for mineral extraction, which could damage biodiversity in the area.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action to secure the preservation of the whole of Upton Heath as a public natural asset.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
Neuroendocrine Cancer
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this vital issue to the House. The term neuroendocrine cancer may not be familiar to many, but tens of thousands of people across the United Kingdom have had to educate themselves after receiving a diagnosis. As with any rare cancer, this is often an uphill struggle marked by delays, misdiagnosis and a persistent struggle for visibility in our healthcare system.
Hon. Members, possibly including the Minister, will have heard me make this point before: a cancer being considered rare does not stop it from impacting many thousands of people right across the UK. Indeed, about 6,000 people are diagnosed with neuroendocrine cancer each year in the UK, which works out at roughly one person every 90 minutes. Today, more than 36,000 people in the UK are living with the condition. To put that into perspective, it is now more prevalent than stomach or pancreatic cancer. The rate of growth is incredibly alarming. Between 1995 and 2018, the incidence of neuroendocrine cancer increased by a staggering 371%. This is not a niche health concern; it is a rapidly growing challenge that our NHS must be equipped to meet.
Statistics can often feel abstract in the Chamber, which is why I want to share the story of a meeting I recently held with three neuroendocrine cancer patients, Liz, Carolyn and Craig, at my office in Fountainbridge in Edinburgh South West. Their stories were both moving and illuminating. We have just been talking about modernising the House of Commons. Given that that meeting took place just four weeks ago, I find it incredible that in four weeks I can meet someone, request a debate and then have that debate, with my favourite Minister answering my questions—it restores my faith in democracy.
Craig, whom I met that day, is in the unique and challenging position of being both a professional advocate and a patient himself. He and the others I met expressed immense gratitude for the care they eventually received, describing it as nothing short of fantastic once they were in the right hands. However, they also spoke about the exhausting battle it took to access specialists who properly understood their condition. They described a system where specialist doctors and centres of excellence are too often hidden behind a wall of referral delays and low clinical awareness. That is particularly in evidence in Scotland, where patients currently face the worst waiting times since records began, but it is also true—albeit possibly to a lesser extent—in our health systems south of the border and in Wales and Northern Ireland.
One of the most powerful parts of our conversation centred on a symptom that is often difficult to discuss yet utterly debilitating: the frequent and urgent need to access a toilet. This is not a minor inconvenience but a symptom that robs people of their autonomy and their dignity. They spoke of how that invisible burden prevents many patients from working, from attending social events and even from leaving their homes for long periods of time. It is a barrier to a normal, fulfilling life.
They also brought a message of hope regarding the drug telotristat. They described how that treatment has quite literally given them back their lives. By managing the symptoms and stopping the cycle of incontinence, the drug has allowed them to return to work, to contribute to their communities, to pay their taxes—that is quite important—and, most importantly, to enjoy a fulfilling family life. This is a clear example of where the right medication does not just treat a disease but restores a person’s dignity and their place in society. It is a powerful reminder that when we invest in the right treatments and pathways, the system burden is reduced because patients are empowered to live independently.
Despite those successes, the single biggest driver of poor outcomes remains the time it takes to get the initial diagnosis. At a meeting I attended at the Royal College of General Practitioners in December, bringing together UK-based healthcare professionals involved in trials, patient care and leading research into neuroendocrine cancer, I heard that, on average, it takes four-and-a-half years for a patient with a tumour to be correctly diagnosed. During that time, the average patient visits their GP 11 times.
Because the cancers can occur anywhere in the body and the symptoms are often non-specific, they are frequently dismissed as more common conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, asthma, the menopause or anxiety. I hope somebody somewhere is taking a list of all the conditions that get confused with menopause, because I think it is quite a long one. Many patients, including the three who came to visit my office, look perfectly well, even while harbouring the disease. The consequences are severe, however. Over half of all patients are diagnosed at stage 3 or 4, when treatment options are more limited and the cost to the NHS is significantly higher. Neuroendocrine Cancer UK estimates that it costs between £200,000 and £300,000 more per patient when treating at a later stage rather than at an early one.
Currently, the UK has 13 accredited centres of excellence, including a specialist team in Edinburgh and an accredited centre in Glasgow. Those hubs deliver multidisciplinary, evidence-based care that is proven to improve survival rates—yet access remains a postcode lottery. Whether a patient is in rural Scotland or in a coastal town in England, the quality of care they receive should not depend on whether their local hospital happens to have a neuroendocrine lead. In Scotland we see a stark divide between our urban hubs and our rural communities, whereas in England the access issue is more related to the divergent priorities of different cancer alliances. In both cases, patients suffer because we do not have a standardised diagnostic pathway for everyone.
The closest we have to a standardised service, which all neuroendocrine patients can access, is the one that is offered by Neuroendocrine Cancer UK. It provides a critical safety net, offering helplines, counselling and peer support, and it regularly steps up to fund the small-scale, early-stage studies or trials that are needed to get research off the ground. It is sobering that 95% of Neuroendocrine Cancer UK’s income comes from community generosity. It delivers system-critical services that support the NHS, yet it does so with almost no statutory resourcing.
In closing, I ask the Minister to address five specific priority areas. The first is clinical awareness. May we embed neuroendocrine cancer into primary care training and early diagnosis initiatives to stop these patients being lost in the system for years, perhaps reducing the number of GP appointments needed before a diagnosis?
The second area is clear pathways. As I mentioned previously, we need to tackle the postcode lottery when it comes to treatment, and the only way to do that is through a nationally recognised diagnostic and referral pathway to centres of excellence. Will that be considered?
The third area is the guidance gap. Currently, the NG12 guidance is critical to cancer diagnoses in England and Wales. Neuroendocrine cancer is not included in that guidance. May we review whether there could be a way to include it?
The fourth area is data and visibility. Neuroendocrine-specific cancer data is not routinely published. We need that to accurately track the incredible rate at which cases are rising and our response to that. May we also ensure that more data is published more regularly?
The fifth area is research equity. The issue of funding for research into rare cancers was one of the key asks that charities raised with me when I was consulting on my Bill, which is now the Rare Cancers Act 2026. What more can we do to ensure that the Government are using all the mechanisms at their disposal to stimulate research in this rare cancer and all the others that currently fall through the cracks of major funding streams?
In summary, earlier recognition, clearer routes to specialist care and access to life-changing drugs have the protentional to transform outcomes. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans to make that a reality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for securing this important debate. I am not sure if he is aware, but we could actually go on until about 5.30 pm, so we have hours at our disposal if we want to continue this conversation for that long. We do not want to test your patience too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we do not have to be too speedy. We can cover this properly and in depth.
I also must congratulate my hon. Friend on his huge achievement with the Rare Cancers Act 2026, which received Royal Assent, as he knows, on 5 March this year, with support from right across this House and in the other place. This Government are proud to have supported the Rare Cancers Act. During its parliamentary passage, it was described as “a Bill of hope”, and it does give hope to all those who face a diagnosis with a rare cancer, such as those with neuroendocrine cancer.
As set out in our national cancer plan, we will implement the Rare Cancers Act to make it easier for rare cancer patients to be contacted about clinical trials. This Act will help accelerate the clinical trials needed to deliver the most effective, cutting-edge treatments and the highest-quality care for patients facing a rare cancer diagnosis.
Since this Government took office, around 228,000 more people are getting a cancer diagnosis on time, around 40,000 more are starting treatment on time, and rates of early diagnosis are hitting record highs. Despite those vital signs of recovery, the NHS is still failing far too many cancer patients and their families. We know that improving outcomes for rare cancer patients is key to ensuring that we make the NHS fit for the future.
In February, this Government published our much-lauded national cancer plan. We now have a blueprint to shift the dial on rare and challenging cancers, including neuroendocrine cancers, underpinned by three key targets. The first is to save 320,000 more lives by 2035, ensuring that three in four people diagnosed in 2035 will be cancer free or living well with cancer after five years. Secondly, we will achieve the three cancer performance targets by the end of March 2029. Finally, we will improve the quality of life for people with cancer.
As we have heard, neuroendocrine cancer is a rare type of cancer that can develop in various organs in the body, including the pancreas, lungs and intestines. The National Disease Registration Service collects patient data on cancer, congenital anomalies and rare diseases, and provides expert analysis to support clinical teams, academics, charities and policymakers to help plan and improve treatment and healthcare in England. The NDRS understands the need for statistics on neuroendocrine neoplasms and has worked with an expert working group to identify these cases in the cancer registry data. The working group has included clinical experts and charity engagement, and the first statistics on these groupings are expected to be published as part of Get Data Out in a few months.
Furthermore, in the national cancer plan, we have committed to improving data on rare cancers to ensure transparency and to support the NHS to speed up diagnosis and treatment. To help cut cancer waiting times, we will give trusts and cancer alliances the detailed, practical information they need, from more granular data for individual cancer types to real-time pathway insights through the federated data platform. By streamlining cancer metrics, we will shine a much brighter light on unwarranted variation in care, so that issues cannot be hidden and action can be taken quickly.
Rare and less common cancers, including neuroendocrine cancers, are a priority for this Government, and this is the first ever national cancer plan with a dedicated chapter on rare cancers. We know that one of the most effective ways to improve survival from cancers, including neuroendocrine cancers, is to catch them early and treat them quickly. We know that raising awareness of symptoms is an essential part of that, which is why the NHS in England runs campaigns to increase knowledge of cancer symptoms and address barriers to acting on them. My hon. Friend mentioned the number of women who are told that it is menopause symptoms when they first present to their GPs. As a woman who has been in that position myself, I think he made a good point about how many different conditions are blamed on the menopause.
The campaigns have focused on recognising a range of symptoms, as well as on encouraging general body awareness to help people spot symptoms across a wide range of cancers at an earlier point. Cancer alliances across the country are also engaging with their local communities to deliver campaigns, community engagement and partnership activity to increase symptom knowledge and encourage people to come forward as soon as possible if they notice a change in their health.
I want to be clear that I have never had a cancer diagnosis blamed on the menopause, but there are lots of other things I might have gone to my GP about that have been blamed on the menopause. I know that my hon. Friend has done work on ovarian cancer as well—he took over the hosting of an event on ovarian cancer from me when I was made a Minister—and the symptoms of ovarian cancer are constantly blamed on irritable bowel syndrome, constipation or a bad back. It happens with so many cancers, so he made a really important point.
In addition to improving awareness of neuroendocrine cancers, we are targeting improvements to support diagnosis. The NHS in England has rolled out non-specific symptom pathways nationally, designed to speed up the diagnosis of cancer. Those pathways are intended to cover the cohort of patients who do not fit clearly into a single urgent cancer referral pathway but who are none the less at risk of being diagnosed with cancer. They benefit the detection of all cancers, including rarer cancers such as neuroendocrine cancers.
As announced in the national cancer plan earlier this year, we are prioritising access to specialist treatment and multidisciplinary teams for all patients diagnosed with rare cancers, which will ensure that patients with neuroendocrine cancer and other rare cancers benefit from the best evidence-based care. Furthermore, we have invested £70 million in 28 new LINAC—linear accelerator—radiotherapy machines to replace older, less efficient machines. Those new machines will reduce waiting times, provide 15% more treatments and enable 27,500 more patients to be treated each year. Going forward, the NHS is also harnessing the power of artificial intelligence to support oncologists to plan radiotherapy more quickly and accurately, improving contouring, reducing the risk of damage to healthy tissue and minimising complications.
We know that research and innovation are crucial to tackling cancer, which is why we remain committed to investing in cancer research. Cancer is a major area of National Institute for Health and Care Research spending, totalling £141.6 million in 2024-25, which reflects its high priority. The NIHR supports research into neuroendocrine cancers, spanning research to better understand and diagnose them through to research to advance treatment options for patients. Between 2020-21 and 2024-25, the NIHR has committed £3.5 million to new research projects, alongside supporting infrastructure, into neuroendocrine cancer.
Activity is under way through the NIHR James Lind Alliance, in partnership with the UK and Ireland Neuroendocrine Tumour Society and Neuroendocrine Cancer UK, to identify priority research questions regarding neuroendocrine cancer care and treatment. That will ensure that future research focuses on the areas that matter most to patients, families and clinicians. Our research investments have the potential to shift the dial and position the UK as a leading location for cancer research.
As set out in our 10-year health plan, we will make the UK a global leader in clinical research. Clinical research is one of the most powerful tools we have to improve healthcare. It helps us prevent, diagnose and treat cancer more effectively. Our vision is to embed research across the NHS, giving patients greater choice and control over their healthcare. To hold us accountable across these commitments and drive forward progress for rare cancer patients, we will appoint a national clinical lead for rare cancers, who will provide independent advice on improving outcomes.
The actions I have listed make up just a small part of our plan, which will turn cancer from one of the biggest killers into a chronic condition that is treatable. That will fulfil our desire to improve outcomes for all cancer patients, including neuroendocrine cancer patients.
In closing, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for securing this important debate. It looks like we are going to finish early after all, but I do not want anybody to think that that is through lack of interest in this important topic. It is Thursday, and Members have their constituencies to get back to, so I will not delay the House any further. I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does on rare cancers.
Question put and agreed to.
Post Office on Uxbridge High Street
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 39, in clause 3, page 5, line 26, at end insert—
“or,
(c) the defendant demonstrates to the court that the circumstances of his case are such that to be tried without a jury would amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice.”
This amendment would ensure that trials by jury continue for indictable offences carrying a sentence of less than three years in prison if the defendant can demonstrate that it would be in the interests of natural justice.
Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) The conditions in this subsection are met in relation to a defendant if—
(a) the defendant, if convicted of the offence or offences for which the defendant is to be tried, would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years for the offence or offences (taken together);
(b) the defendant is of good character;
(c) the defendant has not previously been convicted of an imprisonable offence;
(d) the defendant would be treated as a rehabilitated person under section 1 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974;
(e) if convicted of the offence or offences for which the defendant is to be tried, would likely suffer significant reputational damage or have their employment or professional qualifications adversely affected;
(f) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the gravity or complexity of the case may increase; or
(g) other exceptional circumstances pertain to the case.”
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
I speak in support of amendments 23, 39 and 24 which, taken together, would do something simple but important: they would build a measure of flexibility back into the clause, so that jury trial is still available where the cause of justice requires it. The Minister should think carefully. As drafted, the clause creates a very blunt regime: unless the court predicts a sentence of more than three years, the trial is to be conducted without a jury. The amendments would go a small way towards softening that rigidity and making the system less arbitrary, more proportionate and hence more just.
With the amendments, two different Committee members take two different approaches to delivering the same outcome of additional flexibility in the clause. Amendment 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, is broad in nature, setting out an additional condition for jury trial when needed to ensure natural justice, whereas the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden takes a more granular approach to the problem by listing the specific circumstances that might warrant the need for jury trial, again to ensure fairness. Both approaches seek to achieve the same thing.
I will speak to each amendment in a little more detail, starting with amendment 23. Clause 3 is currently built on one single condition for preserving jury trial in relevant cases: whether the defendant is likely to receive a sentence of more than three years if convicted. Amendment 23 would change the wording from “the condition” to
“one or more of the conditions”.
This is the gateway to allow amendment 24, which lists various conditions, to work.
The amendment matters because it opens the door to a more sensible approach, in which sentence is not the only thing that counts. That is exactly the right approach. When we deal with a constitutional safeguard as important as jury trial, the Committee should be wary of a system that turns entirely on a single mechanistic threshold. Human beings and criminal cases are not that neat, and Parliament should not pretend that they are. The amendment is therefore modest, tidy, entirely sensible and the necessary first step to add judgment, flexibility and common sense to a clause that has far too little of all three.
On amendment 24 and its list of conditions, the Government’s model under the clause is to ask the court at an early stage to forecast the sentence that would likely be imposed if the defendant were convicted. If the forecast is more than three years, there is a jury; if it is not, there is none. That is far too crude a test to bear the full constitutional weight that the Government want to place on it. The Bill itself exposes the weakness in the logic, because although the allocation decision turns on a prediction about a sentence above or below three years, the Bill also expressly states that nothing prevents a court sitting without a jury from later imposing a sentence of more than three years. In other words, even the Bill recognises that the initial prediction may not tell the whole story; if that is so, why should that prediction be the sole basis on which a person loses the right to jury trial?
Amendment 24 is so worth while because it states that in deciding whether a defendant should still have a jury, the court should not only look at the likely sentence but be able to consider whether: the defendant is of good character; they have previously been convicted of an imprisonable offence; they are treated as rehabilitated; conviction would cause significant reputational or professional harm; the gravity or complexity of the case might increase; and other exceptional circumstances. That does not strike me as radical. It is simply an attempt to make the law reflect reality and be less prescriptive. Additional flexibility makes for better outcomes.
One of the strongest parts of amendment 24 is the recognition it gives to good character and to those who have not previously been convicted of an imprisonable offence. I raise this because the Government’s crude threshold risks producing perverse results. The people who may be hit hardest by clause 3 are precisely those who are newer to the justice system, those of previous good character and those for whom a conviction would be utterly life-changing.
The Bar Council illustrated the point starkly in written evidence with the example of a 19-year-old student charged with possession with intent to supply after a small amount of Spice was found in their room—I am sure Members will remember my reciting that specific example in Committee on Tuesday. Because they are of good character, the likely sentence under the guidelines may be low enough that they lose jury trial altogether, even though the charge could destroy their future. Meanwhile, someone with previous convictions may be more likely to cross the sentencing threshold and so keep the right to a jury. That is exactly the sort of absurdity that amendment 24 tries to avoid.
That is wholly consistent with the broader critique of the Bill. Conservative Members have repeatedly argued that the Government are treating this as an administrative exercise, when in fact people’s lives are at stake. The shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), put it clearly on Second Reading when he said that the Government were proposing to remove fundamental rights
“without a mandate, without a case and without any evidence”.—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 207.]
The Opposition also challenged Ministers on taking away jury trial for offences that cost defendants their jobs, their homes and their families. Amendment 24 responds precisely to that point.
I note the inclusion in amendment 24 of cases in which the defendant would likely suffer significant reputational damage or have their employment or professional qualifications adversely affected. That is important because the seriousness of a case cannot be measured by custody alone. A sentence of under three years can still destroy a person’s livelihood, strip them of professional standing, end a career built over decades and permanently alter family life. The Government keep speaking as though anything beneath their threshold is somehow low level. The Opposition have rightly made the point that even where a sentence is below three years, the consequences can be catastrophic. Amendment 24 simply recognises that reality.
There is an obvious point of fairness here, too. If the state wishes to prosecute a person in circumstances where conviction may ruin their livelihood or reputation for life, it is hardly excessive to say that jury trials should at least remain available. That is an ancient constitutional right and the Government should, even now, think very hard before removing it.
I also support paragraph (f) in amendment 24, which deals with cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the gravity or complexity might increase. Again, this is simply common sense. Criminal cases often evolve, evidence changes, witnesses come forward, and issues that initially looked straightforward become anything but in the crucible that is the courtroom.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent point about the complexity of cases changing throughout. A legal professional recently shared with me the story of what was an assault case, but the victim passed away during the trial, so they are now dealing with hearing evidence of potential brain trauma injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that that case deserves the complexity of a full Crown court trial because the case has changed as the trail has developed?
Rebecca Paul
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. She has set out a good example of the type of things that happen in reality. Life is not tidy, and unexpected things happen. As we look at the Bill and whether a sentence is over or under three years, it is easy to think in simple terms but, in reality, people who work in the justice system—I have not done so, but I have spoken to people who do—understand the movement and flexibility that is required. That is why amendment 24 works really well by taking that into account. The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden, who drafted it, clearly has real-world experience of what actually happens in a courtroom.
The Bill already recognises elsewhere that there can be a relevant change of circumstances requiring the court to revisit allocation, so the Government’s own drafting accepts that these matters are dynamic rather than static. If that is so, why would we not want to build in a bit more foresight at the front end as well? Paragraph (f) in amendment 24 is not some wild departure from the structure of the Bill; it sits comfortably with the Government’s own recognition that allocation decisions can become unsound as a case develops. It is simply a more prudent and realistic approach to cases in which the true seriousness may emerge only over time.
Finally, the reference in amendment 24 to “other exceptional circumstances” is extremely important. No statute, however carefully drafted, can predict every factual scenario. That is especially true in criminal justice, where the facts and human consequences of a case can vary enormously. A residual exceptional circumstances test is therefore not a weakness; it is a mark of maturity in the law. It recognises that Parliament should not force judges into injustice. If the Government truly believe in justice rather than mere throughput, they should have no objection to preserving a narrow, exceptional route to jury trial where justice plainly demands it.
Amendment 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, deals with the alternative, broader approach to building flexibility into clause 3. It is an especially important amendment because it puts the issue in the clearest possible terms: those of natural justice. The amendment says that a trial should still be conducted with a jury where the defendant demonstrates that to be tried without one
“would amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice.”
That is an extremely modest safeguard. It would not wreck the clause; it would merely build in additional protection through allowing an element of judgment to decide the mode of trial. It would not restore the right to a jury trial in every either-way case; it simply says that where the injustice is plain, a jury trial must remain available. I struggle to see how any Government serious about fairness could object to that.
This is an issue of paramount importance on our side, and I hope on the Government’s side too. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle tabled amendment 39, as well as amendments elsewhere in the Bill—in relation to clause 1, in relation to reallocation under clause 3, and in relation to clause 4—to seek to protect natural justice. We will keep making these points. If Ministers insist on creating judge-only routes, they must at the very least accept a residual safeguard based on natural justice.
For all the reasons I have outlined, I support amendments 23, 39 and 24. They would deliver the additional safeguards needed, so I urge the Government to adopt either the Opposition’s amendment or the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is great to have you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am looking forward to today’s debates. I have not tabled any amendments to clause 3, but I want to talk about some necessary changes to the clause that fit in with this group of amendments. I hope the Committee will have patience with me.
I want to raise again the principle of jury equity, which the Government are effectively abolishing by abolishing the right to elect a jury trial completely. I previously asked whether the Minister had considered the Bill’s impact on jury equity when drafting it, but she did not answer. I also asked whether the Minister could tell us whether we can honestly expect a judge triaging a case under the provisions in the Bill ever to allow a jury trial on the grounds on which some people currently choose one, which is to allow for the possibility of jury equity to achieve real and proportionate justice, rather than the criteria in clause 3.
This issue is complicated, and trying to fix it in the context of a Bill that includes clause 1, which abolishes the defendant’s right to choose, is tricky, which is why I spoke so strongly against it. The principle and the right of juries in respect of jury equity comes out of common law. I mentioned the 1670 case, and the High Court has commented that it has been a well-established principle in common law ever since then. As it is not in statute it is, by tradition, relatively unspoken. I spoke of the case of Trudi Warner, who tested the principle through her desire to make sure that the information about jury equity was seen by people taking part in a protest. She did that not just in case they spotted the plaque in the Old Bailey, but through the demonstration that she passively took part in.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
I want to begin by touching again on the question of necessity. One of the key arguments for clause 3, and one of the reasons why the Opposition think there is a debate to be had, is that we do not feel that the new provisions are entirely necessary to bring down the backlog, and that there might be other means by which we might do so.
We have had a debate about what the figures say, and I have laid out why I think they are important. They are important because the Government accept that, quite plainly, they have not yet implemented the reforms that they think are absolutely necessary to bring down the backlog. While the Government and the Opposition recognise that some steps that might help have been taken, such as the lifting of the cap on sitting days, the Minister herself accepts that even that measure will not have had full effect yet. On other measures, such as on prison transport, there has not been any significant reform or undertakings to do things differently. We are at a very early stage of the approach to bringing down the backlogs in the significant way that the Minister and the Opposition would like to achieve.
In that scenario, given that so little has been done in comparison with what we would hope to achieve—with or without the Bill—if there were some suggestion that backlogs were falling, that would be incredibly important for the Committee to understand. It would give us the confidence to question whether, at this early stage, there is an alternative approach. If we are managing to bring the backlogs down in some parts of the country, we could base that approach on understanding what is happening in those areas and expanding on it before taking the unprecedented step of restricting jury trial rights.
The Minister and I had an exchange about this in an earlier debate. I suggested that there have been positive developments and a reduction of the backlog in some areas. I want to be clear about what I said to the Minister:
“What is happening right now with the backlogs is extremely important to this debate. If the backlogs are coming down in some places without these changes being introduced, it is vital to know and understand that.”
I echoed those points in other parts of the debate. The Minister responded:
“I checked this during the adjournment of the sitting: the CBA’s point relates to new receipts in certain courts, rather than the state of the backlogs, which, as I said, continue to rise. I absolutely welcome the progress in some parts of the country in lowering receipts, which is obviously good news for the courts, but that does not yet reflect any lowering of the backlogs. As we would expect, the investment will take time to kick in.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2026; c. 159.]
In response to my question as to whether the backlogs were coming down in some parts of the country, the Minister told the Committee—on the record—that they were not.
As Members might imagine, I went away and had a further look at the data to ensure that that was the case. My understanding of the latest available published statistics is that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the Committee in stating that the backlogs were not coming down in certain parts of the country. As of December 2025—the latest period for which we have this data is from quarter 3 to quarter 4—there has been a drop in the backlogs in the south-east, the north-west and Wales. We have seen a drop in the backlogs in the quarter-on-quarter data in three parts of the country, and it is extremely important that the Committee understands that.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
As the shadow Minister has the backlog data to hand—I do not—would he mind sharing with the Committee the data for all the other regions and the overall backlog picture for the whole country?
Dr Mullan
In all the other regions and overall, the backlogs are going up. That is why we have to understand what is happening regionally and why I asked the Minister about that. Throughout this Committee, one of the main arguments from Opposition Members, the Criminal Bar Association and other opponents of the Bill has been that if we are able to replicate what is happening in the best parts of the system, we should be prioritising that.
For example, Liverpool Crown court does not have what might be called unacceptable levels of backlog. As Sir Brian and others have pointed out, every Crown court has a backlog in the sense of a trail of cases that are due to be heard. That is a normal and needed part of the process of case management, and no one argues that there is an unsustainable and unacceptable backlog in Liverpool Crown court. If Liverpool and whole regions can get it right, surely we should be prioritising trying to replicate that.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is talking about the north-west, and I am an MP for that region. The numbers are going down in Preston, Liverpool and even Bolton Crown courts, and one reason for that is that they have taken a proactive approach to case management. They are regularly monitoring cases, and going into courts to judge whether cases are trial ready. That is unlike in some parts of the country, where a case is set for trial in two or three years’ time and nobody looks at it or tries to sort out problems until literally two days beforehand, which then leads to a delay.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member has articulated extremely well that these things can be done differently and have a different outcome. I heard about case management directly from Liverpool Crown court. It has an aggressive approach to case management: it swept the cases and was clear whether it needed to be hearing a case or whether it could do any work to get a plea. It does a lot of work, and if every court was doing that, it would deliver different outcomes. The Minister might rightly point out that different courts have different circumstances, but surely the goal should be to correct those circumstances so that the positive things enabling some courts to bring the backlogs down can be done everywhere.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
My point follows on from the powerful point the hon. Member is making about the need to look at good practice, which is something we should all get behind. Over my many years of working for the Crown Prosecution Service, I saw various schemes aimed at doing just that, but unfortunately, given that we are here today, they did not sort out the issue entirely.
Does the hon. Member recognise the evidence Sir Brian Leveson gave specifically about Liverpool Crown court, in which he cautioned against suggesting that that case could simply be replicated across the whole country? Liverpool Crown court deals with a single police force and Crown Prosecution Service, and has a very small local Bar that work together well. Although we would like it to be, that is not necessarily the case across the country. Does the hon. Member recognise that those circumstances are unique and may not be possible for the whole country?
Dr Mullan
Yes, absolutely. In the NHS, I worked on what we might call change and improvement programmes or quality improvement programmes. We worked hard to replicate the best clinical practice everywhere, but it is simply not possible to directly replicate everything that goes on in every unit, although that is not to say that we cannot do some of what goes on. As the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden pointed out, we are not talking about a single court; that is why I was clear about looking at this on a regional basis. I do not think that the data in any of these regions is getting better because of one court that has specific circumstances that cannot be replicated. That is why we have to show a high degree of interest in understanding what can be replicated and in trying those measures.
As we heard from the representatives of the criminal Bar and the circuit, we should give them a chance to try some of these things before we do something so unprecedented that will lead to a curtailment of rights. Nobody thinks that the other, positive parts of the Bill, or the measures that do not even require legislation, take away from anything else; they are just exceptionally positive things we could be doing where we do not pay some kind of price. Surely, we should try those before taking the step proposed in the Bill. Whether or not we think this step is reasonable—Labour Members have made it clear that they do—I doubt they think it will not lead to a loss in relation to jury trial rights.
Rebecca Paul
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the existing backlog starting to go down, and why it is important that we look at that and understand the impact that other measures are having. Does he agree that the recent change to suspensions for three-year sentences, which went live only a few weeks ago on 22 March, will decrease receipts to court, as it will increase guilty pleas? Whether that is good or bad is a totally separate debate, but it will surely reduce the backlog further.
Dr Mullan
Yes, and my hon. Friend did an excellent job of pointing out that although that might have been in some non-statutory documents, we do not know, because we do not have the details. We do not know whether that was included in the impact statement or the modelling that the Government have relied so heavily on to make their case. As I have said, it is extremely important that the Minister said, on the record, that there was no lowering of the backlogs in any of the regions. The data I can see suggests that there has been a quarter-on-quarter lowering of the backlog in three regions.
Alex McIntyre
For the sake of clarity for the whole Committee, is it not also true that quarter-on-quarter data generally shows a decrease in backlog between Q3 and Q4 in most years for which we have data, because there is a drop in receipts around that time of year? Does the hon. Member recognise that if we look at the data for the overall year, the backlog has been reduced only in the north-west, and by only 2%? If we reduced the backlog by 2% a year, it would take 50 years to clear.
Dr Mullan
I accept the first point. If the Minister had said, “Yes, there is a drop in the backlog in those three regions, but we tend to see that because of this,” citing the points the hon. Member made, we would be having a different discussion, but she did not say that; she said there was no drop.
On the second point, the hon. Member is also right: if that rate of drop was all we were ever going to get, it would not make a material difference to the backlog. That is why I was very clear that, if we are getting a drop, in a context where everybody agrees we are very early in the process and have done a fraction of the things we could do, it is important for us to look at it. If we were at the end of the process and had done all the things we all agree are positive and should be done, and that was the rate of return we were getting, we would be having a different debate. But we are not at the end of it; we are at the start.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister; I am listening to what he is saying and I am finding it really interesting. But let us not forget that, until 2019, we had a backlog of something like 40,000, and that has now doubled to nearly 80,000. The Tory party was in power at that time and presided over all this. We are trying to make a difference. It has been said that everything that has been done is wrong, but I ask the shadow Minister why he did not bring in at least some of the preliminary changes that he says we should have brought in. At least then we would have some of those statistics to work from now that we are trying to make changes in the system.
Dr Mullan
I draw the Committee’s attention to my remarks at the outset of our proceedings: our judicial system, victims and defendants and how we manage crime in this country are my personal priorities. That is primarily the reason why I sought to be elected to this place, so I will never disagree that justice should get a higher priority than it has historically. I also pointed out that Labour Members more broadly have accepted that justice getting insufficient priority in our political system has gone on for many decades.
The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington is right in pointing out the backlogs that existed prior to the pandemic, and they were actually lower than those we inherited from the previous Government. If we are talking purely about what happened with the backlogs, our record prior to the pandemic was an improvement on that of the previous Labour Government. That does not mean it is okay; that does not mean we say, “We did a great job,” but it is important, in balancing and understanding the debate, to know that.
In terms of what we did in relation to the covid pandemic and all the challenges it posed, we had uncapped sitting days and Nightingale courts, and we took steps to try to address the backlog. I served on the Justice Committee, scrutinising what the Government were doing at that time. I was very frustrated, because we would visit Nightingale courts and one of the biggest challenges they faced was the lack of certainty about whether they would be renewed in the future. I questioned Ministers at the time about that. To all of us on the Committee, on a cross-party basis, it was obvious that those courts would need to carry on for longer—why not just get on and agree that and let them run in that sustained way? There were many things we could and should have done better. That is not to say that we did not do anything or that, prior to the pandemic, our record did not compare favourably to that of the previous Labour Government.
As I said, in that particular example we introduced the innovation of making the provisional data available earlier. In June, given the challenges with that data being wrong on occasion, a decision was taken to temporarily stop publication, to see if we could close that gap. If that data is significantly different from the revised published data, there is sense in looking again at the methodology and seeing whether the gap between the provisional and final data can be closed. But here we are, almost a year later, and the Government have not chosen to reinstitute the publication of that provisional data. I think everyone on the Committee would benefit from seeing that data, so I would be interested to know whether that is the basis on which the Minister has said the backlogs in some regions are not going down, when in fact, from the evidence and data I have seen, they are.
Our amendments are aimed at delivering a fairer system. Amendment 23 also seeks to achieve that outcome, in a more specific but equally valid way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, human beings in criminal cases are not neat, so we need a degree of flexibility. There is not flexibility in all parts of the system at the moment, but allowing a judge, on their own, in these types of cases, to allocate, hear the case, determine guilt and issue a sentence is unprecedented in our judicial system—
Linsey Farnsworth
District judges in the magistrates courts sit alone every sitting day and hear cases and trials. They then go on to sentence if that person is convicted, or to release them if they are acquitted. That happens every day, so there is precedent within our criminal justice system. District judges hear the most serious and complicated cases that go to the magistrates courts. So there is already precedent for this, and indeed in the youth court as well.
Linsey Farnsworth
I am afraid I have to disagree with the hon. Member, because the youth court has powers to sentence people for up to two years, so it already has higher sentencing powers than magistrates. Many of the cases we are talking about in the Crown court bench division would command a sentence of perhaps two years.
Dr Mullan
I covered that in earlier remarks, when I pointed out that those people are not adults, so it is a different set of circumstances. If the hon. Member is asking me to be ultra-specific—I am happy to be—what is proposed is unprecedented for cases of this nature, with adults, with these sentence lengths. That is, of course, the vast bulk of our justice system. There are lots of things that we do differently for children than we do for adults in the justice system. I am not familiar with arguments suggesting that those distinctions cannot be made, and that something we do with the youth custodial element or judicial process must therefore be perfectly acceptable with the adult estate. We do not do that.
Linsey Farnsworth
But the hon. Member is happy that youths are treated fairly in the criminal justice system, even if a single judge hears their case.
Dr Mullan
Again, we talked about this before. There are degrees of fairness. Specifically on whether a defendant will get a judge who is as fair as possible in terms of representation, understanding their background and so on, I think it is less fair than a jury system. But I made it clear that other factors are given greater weight in the youth court. For example, the intimidation that a young defendant might feel in the adult court versus the youth court is given greater weight. I might think overall that the deal, so to speak, for the youth defendant is fair and reasonable, but that does not mean that I cannot say that the absence of a jury might be less fair for a youth defendant in some regards.
Linsey Farnsworth
I think the hon. Member is saying this is a balancing exercise. It is about having a fair trial, but one that is equipped within our criminal justice system. That is exactly what the Government are doing here. Of course we need fair trials, but we also need a criminal justice system that is fair, and justice delayed is justice denied. That is not fairness. Would the hon. Member recognise that?
Dr Mullan
To use the word that the hon. Member used at the start of her intervention, it is a balance. We in the Opposition are clear that the Government have that balance wrong, which is why we oppose the measures. As I said, the Government want to have this both ways: on the one hand, when it suits them, they say that it is a balancing exercise, but on the other hand, when we point out flaws in the balance, they say, “Everything’s fine. You would be just as happy in a trial with or without a jury.”
The Government should be consistent. If the Government just said, “This is a balancing exercise. There will be some detriment to people as a result, but we believe that it is right”, and then stuck to that line, at least it would be intellectually coherent. The Minister might think that makes it a debating point, but I think it is pretty important in politics to be intellectually coherent. We take a different view from the Government.
The other point that we think is different, too, is that the proposal will not achieve the desired outcome. Even if we agreed, in theory, that the balancing exercise was correct and that the trade-off that the Government seek to achieve were a reasonable one to make against the loss of the rights that we are talking about, we do not think that the Government will get those outcomes. We therefore think that the Government’s argument is fatally flawed in two respects, which is why we continue to oppose the Bill.
As I said, fairness is important. We focused on the example where a first-time offender might end up with fewer rights in our judicial system than a repeat offender; in respect of, for example, loss of respect, reputation, employment or income, the person who has more at stake has their rights removed. That is a point made clearly by JUSTICE, which supports our amendment 39. JUSTICE states that the three-year threshold is likely to lead to outcomes that are seen as unfair by those within the system and by the public. Repeat offenders are more likely to qualify for a jury trial, because their previous convictions would push the likely sentence above three years, while first-time offenders committing the same offence may be denied a jury trial.
When we put that to Ministers, as I said, they say that it is perfectly fine for those people to have a trial without a jury, and that is fair. Ministers also say, however, that they are keeping jury trials for the most serious cases—but if they are keeping it for the most serious cases, they must at some level accept that it is a superior system in some way. Otherwise, why keep it for the more serious cases, as they define them? The Government cannot hold both positions coherently.
Absolutely, as I said, the core issue is fairness. The Government want to have it both ways in this argument, but of course the defendants will not get to have it both ways. The defendants will just have what they are told by the judge, without any ability to exercise their rights in the way that they think is fair or consistent with the broader point. We therefore continue to press our amendment 39 and that is why I ask Labour Members to think carefully; this might not be universal, but how many of them would feel happy if they—with their previous good character, and all the damage that could happen to their reputation and income from a conviction—were not allowed to have the option of a jury trial? I cannot say for sure, but potentially some of them might feel differently then.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for their amendments. I will address amendments 23 and 24 first.
The test for the clause is framed intentionally framed around a single condition: the likely sentence. We are ensuring that jury trials are preserved for the most serious offences. Under proposed new section 74A, indictable-only offences will always be tried by a jury. In all other triable either-way cases, the likely sentence provides the clearest and most objective way of identifying seriousness, ensuring that cases where the likely sentence exceeds three years’ imprisonment or detention are heard by a jury. That follows recommendation 30 of the independent review of the criminal courts.
That is already a feature of our system—every day, magistrates courts determine allocation by assessing the likely sentence on conviction. The clause applies that well-established approach in the Crown court; it is not, in that sense, a departure from the current system, but a consistent extension of it. We do not exclude broad categories of defendants from such an assessment in the existing system, and nor do we intend to do so under the reforms. Doing so would risk undermining the impact that the reforms are designed to deliver.
As such, the test does not introduce separate gateways based on the personal characteristics of the defendant; it is focused rather on the seriousness of the offending. Introducing such gateways would remove a significant number of cases from scope. Nearly a quarter of those convicted in the Crown court are first-time offenders, and these amendments would carve out even more cases than that, as they include wider defendant-specific factors, thereby undermining the purpose of the creation of the Crown court bench division, which is to ensure more efficient processing of cases to reduce the overall backlog on a sustainable basis.
As a general rule, those defendants are not given automatic priority in procedural decisions; case management decisions, such as on adjournments, disclosure directions and trial scheduling in the Crown court, do not tend to turn on the characteristics of the defendant. The amendments would change that approach by determining mode of trial by a number of independent defendant-specific factors. Every defendant in the Crown court will receive a fair trial, and that is not affected by the mode-of-trial decision. We have confidence in our judiciary, who take a formal judicial oath to act independently, impartially and fairly.
Sarah Sackman
As I have said consistently throughout this debate, we regard jury trials as a cornerstone of British justice. They are part of our legal culture, for all the reasons that Members on both sides of the House have articulated, and we do see a role for citizen participation in our justice system, not least to preserve its legitimacy. But what corrodes the legitimacy of our justice system is a backlog in which we see appalling delays, causing people to lose faith—whether they are witnesses, complainants or indeed defendants—and to pull out of trials. That is corrosive of trust in our justice system. We therefore of course want to preserve juries for our most serious cases. But trust in a system is built on many foundations, and the timeliness and proper administration of that system, including the proper resourcing of the system—which was not the case in the previous 14 years—is paramount when it comes to trust in the system.
Sarah Sackman
The premise of not just these amendments, but amendments that we have already debated, is that other tiers of the system, whether that be the magistrates court or the proposed Crown court bench division, somehow offend the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are essential; they are foundational. They are based on impartiality, freedom from bias and fair process. All those things are guaranteed under our current system in the magistrates court, and would be guaranteed in a judge-only trial, as articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley; district judges make those decisions on a daily basis.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle wants me to say that, somehow, this would be a lesser justice. I will not say that. I am recognising that there is something special about jury trials—of course there is; it is why I have said consistently that they are a cornerstone of our legal system—but we have to deploy what is a very particular resource that demands a great deal of jurors. We have not spoken about jurors all too often in this debate, but there is something called jury burden. That is why, as we will hear when we come to the clauses that deal with judge-only trials for long and complex cases, particularly for fraud, which place a huge burden on jurors, often with cases lasting months on end, we have to use that resource and deploy it carefully.
However, as I have said repeatedly, and I will say it again, the state’s obligation at every level of the justice system, at every level of seriousness, is to guarantee an individual defendant a fair trial that upholds the principles of natural justice, which is what the hon. Member’s amendment actually focuses on. I am firmly of the view, and the Government are firmly of the view, that, whether by lay magistrates, by judge alone or by a judge and jury, our system upholds those principles of natural justice and is therefore fair throughout.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I have listened patiently to the Minister’s arguments for two sittings. She said something that I really do want to ask her to reflect on. She has talked about jury burden, and about the fact that it is important for confidence that the citizenship takes part in the system. The Minister and the Government are seeking to halve the number of jury trials, and therefore halve the number of times that members of the citizenship will actually take part in juries and in the criminal justice process. Does she not see that that undermines the whole system? Many people will not now have a chance to take part in juries and that is a crucial thing. Talk to anyone who has been on a jury, and they will say that they hated the idea when they were called up for it and loved it afterwards because they have actually taken part in the system. The Government are halving the possibilities of people doing that.
Sarah Sackman
I do not accept the premise or assumption that everybody has a positive experience of the criminal justice system when they participate in a jury. As the Minister for Courts, I do thank all of those who perform their civic duty. However, when asking people to do that, we must ask them to do it in a way that is fair and proportionate to them, as well as to the other participants in the system—not least the defendants in indictable-only cases and those that, under these reforms, attract a sentence of three years or more.
Cases can and do sometimes evolve as they progress through the courts. Proposed new sections 74B and 74C of the Senior Courts Act 1981 make clear provision for cases to be re-allocated to a jury trial, where the seriousness increases even after a judge-only trial has begun. The basis of these reforms is to ensure that cases are allocated according to the seriousness of offending, with jury trial preserved for the most serious cases.
Paulette Hamilton
I am learning so much from these sessions. I have a question on choice. Many people feel that the removal of choice is a real problem. Can the Minister explain why that choice is not being given to people who feel that they need it because they feel that the system is working against them? How will they feel that they have that choice even without a jury present?
Sarah Sackman
It is a good question and one that we touched on in our earlier debate in the context of clause 1, where we were discussing the proposal to remove the defendant’s right to insist on their choice. When we step back and look at the entirety of the system, if a person is charged with a summary-only offence that will be considered by the magistrate, there is no choice; you are allocated directly to a trial by the magistrate’s jurisdiction. If a person is charged with an indictable-only offence—a more serious offence—there is again no choice and that person goes to the Crown court whether they like it or not.
Under our system we have this feature of triable either way, where we extend the choice to defendants in a category of cases that we, as a society, have chosen. As I have said, lots of other jurisdictions—and I use the Scottish one as an example because it is proximate—do not have this feature. In many ways, when I came to this debate and to reflect on the policy choices that we might make, driven by the critical—dare I say emergency—context in which we find ourselves, this feature of our system seemed to me quite strange. I cannot deny that it is a choice that people have obviously enjoyed and utilised, with many opting for Crown court trials even when the seriousness of their case meant that it could have been dealt with a lot more swiftly and efficiently in the magistrates court.
We know that people are making those choices, so there must be a reason for that the preference. It might be driven by lots of things: because of confidence and also presumably because people think that they will get some advantage and perhaps a better chance of being acquitted if the trial is heard in the Crown court. However, it is strange when thinking about public services and how we triage and ration what is ultimately a limited resource.
That is why I use the health analogy—and not just because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington is so experienced in that field. When we think about how we triage finite resources within the NHS, we give patients choices around their healthcare, but ultimately the triaging is done by the experts. In this context, the expert is the court. The court knows, based on the seriousness of the offence, what mode of trial is most suitable in the context. Under these reforms, we are saying that it is the court that should decide, rather than the defendant being able to insist on their choice, even if that choice comes at the expense of the complainant, who might end up being the victim in the case, and needlessly dragging things out.
We must be honest and pragmatic. It seems to me a quite unusual feature of our system that it is the defendant that always has the right to insist when, in lots of contexts, the defendant does not get a choice. It is only in this narrow cohort of cases that they do.
Dr Mullan
I have a background in healthcare. The Minister has talked about triage being led by healthcare professionals, but there is another side of healthcare where people can insist on choice. This Government have introduced Martha’s rule, where the family member can not only insist on choice, but override what the treating clinical team think is the right course of treatment. They are given a route to go around them, to call someone, to insist that they are wrong and that they fundamentally disagree with them, and to get somebody else in who will challenge what the consultant in charge of the patient thinks is right. The Minister points to one element of the healthcare system where the state has a greater degree of control, but does she accept that there are other aspects of the healthcare system where we allow people to override what the healthcare team want to do?
Sarah Sackman
I do not want to labour the analogy—forgive the pun—but in many senses, we do allow that. Under this system and the reformed system, we preserve the right of the defendant to appeal. Having allocated the trial to the venue, be it judge-only or the magistrates court, if the outcome is perverse in some way or the defendant takes issue with it, they can appeal the verdict, provided that there is a proper legal and rational basis for doing so.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Minister cited Scotland as a good example within the United Kingdom. Scotland has seen a significant drop in the backlog of cases over the last several years, partly as a result of the system that she has explained. Does she think that the modelling within our country—some of the best practice we have seen in Scotland—might be a solution for England and Wales?
Sarah Sackman
I think there is some consensus here. We are all extolling the virtues of our system. As the Minister with responsibility not just for courts, but for legal services more generally, promoting our legal services and courts around the world, I am very proud of that. Being proud of our system in England and Wales, however, does not mean that there are not things that we can learn from other jurisdictions, particularly where they are producing better outcomes in timeliness or in the treatment of minorities, women, rape and serious sexual offences. It is why I went to Canada to learn from practitioners and judges there. We will take the lessons from wherever we find them. I will pick up later on the point about regional differences, because we must always learn lessons, whether internationally or closer to home.
Jess Brown-Fuller
We heard oral evidence from Doug Downey, who talked about the Canadian system. He also talked about how the right to elect is a protected characteristic of their justice system. The difference is that they have the right to elect a judge-alone trial. Did the Minister explore the option of maintaining the right to elect, but allowing defendants to choose whether they would like to have their case heard in a Crown court bench division with a judge alone?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member asks a typically great question. We did think about it. I am well aware that the right to elect exists, once a defendant is in the superior court in Canada. We considered whether the right to elect to go before the Crown court bench division should be included as part of the reforms. The reason we did not, and the reason why these reforms are predicated on the consistent principle that it is for the court to determine mode of trial, is partly about the balance we wanted to achieve within the system between defendant rights and the rights of other participants—I am wary of using the word victim—or complainants within the system.
We received representations from many complainants and people who have been victims of crime, and those who represent their interests, such as the independent Victims’ Commissioner and London Victims’ Commissioner. Many felt that it was so often the defendant’s choice and right to insist on choice that was driving the process and was part of an imbalance in the process. There is both a pragmatic element to our choice, because we think that by introducing a new Crown court bench division we will save time and speed up the processing of trials, and a normative principle behind it, which is about who is in the driving seat in these decisions. We think it should be the court and not always the defendant.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
We have heard from Opposition Members this morning about how defendants should have confidence in the system and about choice and being fair, whether it is in magistrates courts or Crown courts. On the point the Minister has just made, is it not right that victims and witnesses should also feel confident in the system? The only way to achieve that is by levelling things up, because ultimately victims do not have a choice about which court cases are heard in. Witnesses do not have any choice in the matter whatsoever. By doing both, we could get better confidence among every member of society, rather than just defendants.
Sarah Sackman
We do think this is the right balance, which is why we brought it forward. It is the test that was recommended to us by the independent review and we think it is a considered, objective and balanced test. We are bringing it forward because we think it is the right one. Expanding the test for—
Sarah Sackman
I have to make progress. Expanding the test for eligibility beyond seriousness would dilute the focus and risk undermining both the clarity of the allocation framework and the savings these reforms are designed to deliver. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 39 would introduce a new route to jury trial, where the defendant demonstrates to the court that the circumstances of their case are such that to be tried without a jury would amount to a breach of principles of natural justice. As I have already said and sought to reassure the Committee, those principles of natural justice are, I believe, preserved in the reforms. Those include the right to a fair hearing, the rule against bias and the duty to act fairly and to give reasons where required. As such, I do not consider that the amendment would add substantive protection beyond the safeguards already in place.
I want to pick up on one or two of the points raised earlier in the debate. There was an exchange between the hon. Members for Reigate and for Chichester relating to change of circumstances. That is dealt with in clause 3, which makes provision that where a charge is added to an indictment—an indictable-only charge—the case would be reallocated to a jury trial. Similarly, there are change of circumstances provisions where there is material new evidence meaning that the judge can make a decision that a case should be more appropriately heard before a jury. That is provided for and is intended to meet the sorts of complex scenarios that both hon. Members raised.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion raised again with me the issue of jury equity. I have heard the arguments. I have listened carefully to her as she has raised them on a number of occasions and I listened to the witness who raised them as well, but we do not think it is appropriate to make a specific carve-out for a specific category of offences in this context.
Finally, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle raised again with me the argument that we either do not need to do any of this, or we should wait to see how our other measures pan out—the huge investment in lifting the cap on sitting days and in legal aid, the workforce and the efficiency drive.
Siân Berry
I appreciate the Minister’s comments, but will she clarify what she meant by a particular category of offence? I could not have been clearer in my speech that I did not want to make an exception for protesters. I spoke specifically about people being prosecuted in cases where it was the powerful versus the underdog. Will she clarify what it is she is rejecting?
Sarah Sackman
I am rejecting the addition of any other carve-outs or exceptions beyond the test of seriousness that we lay down in these measures, which is dictated by the likely sentence, the test proposed by the independent review of the criminal courts.
Dr Mullan
The Minister said earlier, and she just said again, that it was the test recommended by the independent review. But if we are being specific, the test that was recommended was two years. The Government have made the test three years, so it is not the test that was recommended. It is important that the Minister does not repeat that inaccurate phrase.
Sarah Sackman
The point that I was making is that it should be the seriousness of the case that is the sole dictator of the mode of trial, and that likely sentence is the best and most objective test that we have. We must also be mindful of how we administer a system. Sometimes, adding lots of tests not only leads to complexity and introduce uncertainty, but introduces one of the things that we are trying to eliminate—delay. If we have a straightforward, well-understood test that is consistent with the sorts of allocation decisions that magistrates routinely make, we can apply that test consistently.
Returning to another point that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made in relation to necessity, we maintain that we have a serious, nationwide problem. We maintain that that the national overall backlog of 80,203 outstanding cases in the Crown court, as it stood in December 2025, is an emergency. The central projection for the number of sitting days we are likely to need in very short order is 139,000. If I took an optimistic view that the central projection was too high, even in a low scenario we would need 130,000 sitting days. That is not to say that there are not, on a short snapshot basis, parts of the country that are doing better. I have given evidence to the Justice Committee where we have looked at that. Historically, there are parts of the country—Liverpool and Wales are often cited—that have lower backlogs. But there is no doubt that as a national picture—we do not want a postcode lottery in our justice system—the situation needs tackling.
Yasmin Qureshi
I think I am possibly the oldest person in this room. As somebody who was prosecuting, defending and dealing with criminal cases back in the late ’80s, ’90s, 2000s and so on, I saw the criminal justice system at first hand. When I started practising at the Bar, we had full legal aid at all levels, so whenever defendants appeared in the magistrates court they had proper advice. We had section 6(1) type of committals, where we could test the prosecution evidence and therefore get rid of a number of cases. We had full courtroom sittings; if Snaresbrook Crown court had 15 courtrooms, 14 or 15 of them were running. We had a full capacity of judges running and we did not have a backlog of jury cases. Will the Minister please rethink? The reason we have delays in our court system is not because of the juries.
Sarah Sackman
If I may say so, and as long as it is not indiscreet, my hon. Friend seems far younger and more energetic than she claims to be. She makes an important point because she does have long-standing experience in this area; before she came to this place she practised for a long time. I do not know when my hon. Friend finished practising, but we know that—it is one of the central insights of the independent review—the average jury Crown court trial is taking twice as long as it did in 2000.
That increase is driven by a greater complexity in cases and the changing profile of crime. As I have said before, we now have forensic and CCTV evidence, and also—this is something to commend people from previous Parliaments for—procedural safeguards put in place over time that rightly create a fairer system, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. All that is adding to the length of jury trials.
As Sir Brian Leveson himself said, juries are not the driver of the problem, but it is true that jury trials and Crown court trials are taking longer and longer. That is not about to change, and it will not be changed by whatever measures one may bring forward in relation to speeding up prisoner transfer or case progression. The fact that jury trials take up 60% of the hearing time within the Crown court is exactly why the independent review asked us to look at it. I understand the picture my hon. Friend paints of the world we want to live in, but the world we live in now has been transformed and it is the job, particularly of progressives, to move with the times and to build a system that is fit for the profile and technology that we now encounter.
Rebecca Paul
It is clear that the Minister honestly believes this change will address the backlog. I do not doubt her sincerity—we believe differently, but I understand that that is what she believes. What concerns me is this: how many miscarriages of justice is she happy to accept in order to bring down the backlog? Why on earth, when miscarriages of justice are clearly going to happen as a result of these measures, are they not mentioned in the impact assessment? It makes no mention of one downside being a potential miscarriage of justice. I find that astonishing.
Sarah Sackman
Miscarriage of justice should concern us all. That is why I am happy to see the responsibility for looking into miscarriages of justice being given to the Criminal Cases Review Commission under the leadership of Dame Vera Baird. She gave evidence to the Committee, and her support for these measures is notable. I am not sure why the hon. Member for Reigate thinks that miscarriages of justice will increase under them; there is no evidence for that. One miscarriage of justice is, of course, one too many, but I do not accept the premise of her question, which is that the reforms introduced by this aspect of clause 3 will somehow lead to an increase in the number of miscarriages of justice.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden highlighted the Post Office scandal. She talked about those involved in that case as an example of people who supported the defendants feeling that there was a risk of greater miscarriage of justice, so it is not a proposition that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate has plucked out of thin air. Other people with direct experience of these matters think that is a risk, so would the Minister at least accept that it is a valid concern?
Sarah Sackman
The circumstances of the Post Office Horizon scandal are incredibly serious. Part of the reason why they came about is because people were essentially fabricating evidence and using computer evidence in a way that was fundamentally dishonest. However, I do not think that the reform that we are talking about in this context, which is the allocation test, or mode of trial, and allocation to a Crown Court bench division should of itself reduce the confidence that the public can have in the integrity of our justice system. For all those reasons, and the way in which clause 3 is drafted with a focus on delivering swifter justice for victims, witnesses and defendants alike, I urge the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle not to press amendment 39.
Yasmin Qureshi
There has been a lot of discussion about the amendments. As I said on Tuesday, I will not be pushing my amendments to a vote. They are meant to be probing amendments, and I hope the Government will still look at them and consider what has been said.
I wish to talk about a few issues that have been raised. We have heard it mentioned that Scotland does not have a jury system, but it has never had a jury system, so we are measuring different things. Scotland also has its own unique system. For example, it has an in-between verdict: there is not guilty, guilty and something in between. Scotland has its own legal system, but our system has been the jury system for hundreds and hundreds of years. We either think the jury system is good and we keep it for either-way or indictable offences, or we think the jury system is so cumbersome and so bad that we should abolish it altogether. Then we can have a different argument, and we do not have to have it even for indictable offences. What we cannot have is indictable offences and either-way offences being dealt with differently. I respectfully disagree with the Minister.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member is doing a good job of highlighting the whole additional set of complexities of the new system. We cannot predict how those are going to pan out. She referenced the separation of what a judge will hear and what a jury will hear, to preserve the fairness of the jury’s sentiment. We are now going to be in a position to a much greater extent—it might happen in other courts and other circumstances—where the judge has to hear material that is not going to be deemed relevant to the finding, and then make a finding. I am sure that there is going to be a whole new set of case law, with challenges where defendants and potentially prosecutors will say, “That clouded the judgment. That made the judgment unsound.” There is unpredictability and greater complexity in using this system.
Yasmin Qureshi
Yes, absolutely. At the moment, one of the beautiful things we have is that the judge determines sentence and directs on law, and the jury decides on the innocence or guilt of a defendant. It is fantastic, because that also protects the judges.
In a system where judges are going to be dealing with Crown court cases—we will come on later to complex cases and fraud cases, where they are going to be spending months and months on cases—the judges are going to have to write very long decisions. This is not similar to a district judge in a magistrates court, where the average trial takes maybe half a day or a day, two or three at the most. That is normally the limit.
In the Crown court, the average trial date is two to three days or five days to a week. The judge is going to be writing up all that evidence; because he or she will have to make the decision at the end on innocence or guilt, they have to pencil their decision in a very detailed way, covering not just the law, but an assessment of each witness who gave evidence—for example, “I accept the evidence of that witness because of this, this and this; I don’t accept the evidence of that witness because of this, this and this; this witness is unreliable because of this, this and this.”
All of that will have to be included; if it is not, the defendant who is found guilty will want to appeal, and so the judge is going to spend ages writing decisions.
Sarah Sackman
I appreciate that my hon. Friend was not present for all the evidence sessions, but I wonder whether she would reflect on the evidence we heard from Clement Goldstone, who was the recorder at Liverpool. He said:
“I also do not accept that there will be additional time spent in the writing of judgments. The vast majority of decisions will follow the conclusion of the defence speech”.––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 76, Q161.]
Judges give a route to verdict in any event, so it is all part of the summing-up process.
Yasmin Qureshi
I understand that in some of the more simple, routine cases of two or three days, but for trials lasting eight, nine or 10 weeks, I respectfully disagree that judges can come to that judgment in just a few days, because they have to go through a whole load of evidence, comment on it and come to a decision.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The hon. Member speaks with eloquence and experience. I understand the Minister’s point: she has framed this as simply removing a choice from a defendant, as though this is a benefit that need not exist, but does the hon. Member agree with my analysis that this constitutes the removal of a right rather than a choice—the right to be tried in the Crown court, unless trial in a magistrates court is preferred?
Yasmin Qureshi
I do agree. It is important to remember which offences are kept in the magistrates court. There was discussion on Tuesday about burglaries and other offences making it to a magistrates court. With respect, burglaries have never been reduced to being tried in a magistrates court.
What happened was the way that motor theft offences were tried was tweaked. What used to happen is that people, particularly youngsters, would take away a car and were charged with the theft of a car, but as everybody knows, the definition of theft includes intention to permanently deprive. Those people never had the intention to permanently deprive; they were just taking the car for joyriding, and they were then going to leave it somewhere else.
That is why a new offence was introduced: it was initially called TWOC—taking without owner’s consent—and then it became TDA, or taking and driving away a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. That offence went down to the magistrates court, because it was seen as a misdemeanour—something that a young person might do—and was not the same as giving someone a theft conviction. We had to make some changes, which were very sensible changes. Look at all the cases being dealt with in magistrates courts at the moment: any charge that goes to the issue of honesty is still either-way or indictable.
Linsey Farnsworth
No, but it could very well come down to credibility. My hon. Friend is suggesting that no offences in the magistrates court would come down to credibility, or am I misunderstanding her point?
Yasmin Qureshi
I was giving the example of TDA and theft legislation. I was talking about offences involving dishonesty, such as theft and burglary or defrauding someone. Even producing a fraudulent insurance document is an either-way offence, because it involves dishonesty. Even now, producing a dodgy insurance certificate is not a magistrates court offence; it is still an either-way offence, because of the element of dishonesty—not in the sense of people saying different things but in terms of intent. That is what I am talking about—not what my hon. Friend was saying.
Linsey Farnsworth
I recently introduced the criminal offence of unauthorised entry of a football stadium. That is a summary-only offence. There are examples in the magistrates court where credibility and dishonesty are key points of summary-only offences.
Yasmin Qureshi
My hon. Friend is comparing apples and pears. Entry of a stadium that someone is not entitled to be in is not the same as being charged with stealing, even in minor instances, such as stealing a bottle of water. They are two different things. For example, entering enclosed premises is dealt with in a magistrates court. There are different elements involved. What is at stake if I steal a bottle of water? That is very different from entering a stadium that I am not meant to be in.
We have had a good discussion. I still ask the Government to look at my amendment. As I have said from the beginning, I will not put it to a vote, but I am asking them to consider it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 39, in clause 3, page 5, line 26, at end insert—
“or,
(c) the defendant demonstrates to the court that the circumstances of his case are such that to be tried without a jury would amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice.”—(Dr Mullan.)
This amendment would ensure that trials by jury continue for indictable offences carrying a sentence of less than three years in prison if the defendant can demonstrate that it would be in the interests of natural justice.
Siân Berry
On a point of order, Dr Huq. I alerted the Minister earlier to the fact that I was going to say this. I want to ask what can be done to correct the record in respect of the Minister’s comments about a case that I referred to in my speeches on Tuesday and that Tim Crosland referred to during evidence. On Tuesday, the Minister said that
“some of the cases he mentioned, including the Elbit Systems trial, which the hon. Lady mentioned, contained an indictable-only charge, meaning that the case would receive a jury trial, as that one did in fact.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2026; c. 140.]
I am afraid that the Minister was referring to a different case from the one I was referring to. The recent case that has been in the news surrounding a retrial was related to a break-in at Elbit Systems in August 2024. The November 2022 jury acquittal that I referred to was about protesters who threw red paint symbolising blood at the London headquarters of Elbit Systems in October 2020. In that case, none of the offences was indictable-only; they were all related to criminal damage. I just wanted to put that on the record, and I hope that the Minister will accept that correction to her comments.
Sarah Sackman
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I am happy to respond. We were probably at cross purposes. There was obviously a very high-profile case, which is the one that I thought the hon. Lady was referring to when she mentioned Elbit Systems. That did involve the indictable-only charges of aggravated burglary and grievous bodily harm with intent, but if she was referring to a different case and we were at cross purposes, I am happy to correct that aspect of the record.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning. Could everyone ensure that electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent? We will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website; this shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
A reminder: a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first, or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses or schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group—that includes grouped new clauses and schedules—to a vote, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear on the amendment paper.
Finally, for your information, the House’s official photographer will be present during this morning’s sitting—I hope you are all dressed in your best—in order to record the work of Hansard colleagues and to take some wide shots of the Committee in action. I hope no one has any objections.
Clause 70
Hostility towards officers and their staff
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, in clause 71, page 92, line 35, after “candidates,” insert “candidates’ relatives, candidates’ staff,”.
This amendment would, with NC55, include family members and staff of candidates as people towards whom hostility would be treated as an aggravating factor.
Clauses 71 to 74 stand part.
New clause 55—Hostility towards relatives and staff of candidates etc.
“(1) Part 5 of the Elections Act 2022 (disqualification of offenders for holding elective office etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (candidates etc.) insert—
‘32A Relatives and staff of candidates
(1) A person falls within this section if the person is—
(a) a relative; or
(b) a member of staff;
of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1a) “relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1b) “member of staff” means a person who is employed by or working under the direction of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).’”
This new clause would, with Amendment 38, add relatives and staff of candidates to the persons against which hostility may lead to a disqualification order and for the purposes of a statutory aggravating factor.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will speak to clauses 70 to 74 first, and we will come to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats later.
Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on the UK’s democratic processes. We know that electoral staff faced unacceptable abuse and intimidation during the 2024 general election. That is why we are extending the scope of the disqualification order to ensure that electoral staff are provided with the same protection as candidates, campaigners and elective office holders.
Clause 70 will enhance the disqualification order’s ability to protect those who participate in public life, and those who play a crucial part in the administration and delivery of elections. It will also act as a deterrent, signalling that intimidatory behaviour is a serious matter that must not be allowed to damage our democracy.
It is clear that more must be done to tackle the abuse and intimidation directed at those who participate in elections and political debate. While disqualification orders are a key part of tackling the unacceptable harassment and intimidation of those in public life, they do nothing to prevent those who have no interest in standing as a candidate from engaging in intimidatory or abusive behaviour. Clause 71 introduces a new statutory aggravating factor, which will empower courts to apply an uplift when passing sentence for an offence linked to intimidation. This is where the offender was motivated by hostility towards candidates, campaigners, elective office holders and electoral officials and their staff.
Clause 72 introduces this new statutory aggravating factor in Northern Ireland, and amends the location of the pre-existing Scottish aggravating factor. This is a significant new deterrent for those who seek to damage the UK’s democracy or intimidate those who uphold it, and will ensure that anyone who does so will be subject to appropriate criminal justice penalties.
Let us turn to clause 73. Disqualification orders were introduced in the Elections Act 2022, to be imposed on offenders throughout the UK who commit crimes of hostility against electoral candidates, campaigners and officer holders. Scotland introduced Scottish disqualification orders in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, which gave similar protection to a fourth category: Scottish electoral officials. The Bill extends the scope of the disqualification order in the Elections Act 2022 to protect electoral officials throughout the UK, but Scottish electoral officials will continue to be covered by the Scottish legislation.
To ensure that there is a fully reciprocal relationship between disqualification orders in Scotland and the rest of the UK, the Bill also applies the effect of Scottish disqualification orders to relevant elective offices throughout the UK. That ensures that if someone is disqualified from standing for or holding office in Scotland, they will also be unable to stand for or hold office in the rest of the UK, and vice versa.
That will ensure a consistent approach throughout the UK for intimidatory behaviour towards those who participate in public life. If a person is convicted of specific criminal offences, motivated by hostility towards candidates, future candidates, substitutes, nominees, campaigners, holders of relevant elective office or electoral officials, they will be prohibited from standing for or holding office for five years across the UK. Clause 74 builds on the measures introduced in clause73, and makes amendments to various pieces of legislation to apply the Scottish disqualification order to relevant elected offices across the UK.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Good morning, Dame Siobhain; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Thank you for the information about a photographer being present; had I known, I would have had a shave this morning. Normally, we can only be heard in audio and, as my mother says, I have a face that only a mother could love.
We welcome the Minister outlining the parameters of the clauses, and welcome the fact that the Government are taking the safety of election staff seriously. They are public facing, and work with us on an equal basis to ensure that democracy works. We therefore strongly welcome the fact that the Government are extending these protections to election staff. Officer teams across the whole country are very busy at the moment; we know that from our various involvements with election returning officers, and the election staff who are making sure that everybody who is entitled to vote can do so via different methods.
When an officer reads out the results on television, and faces an inquiry from somebody who they do not satisfy, that can spur on the kind of attacks and threats that we receive as publicly elected officials. It is therefore absolutely right that such officers should enjoy the same protections that we do. As I say, the Government should be congratulated on taking this matter seriously.
It therefore makes perfect sense to amend the sentencing code for England and Wales in clause 71 regarding offences that have been committed under the Elections Act 2022, so that going forward this can be treated as an aggravating factor. Of course, it is also perfectly sensible that the provisions apply to Northern Ireland, too.
We strongly welcome the Government’s action on this; it should be supported by everybody. I wanted to put it on the record that the Minister should be congratulated for it.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It was very good to hear from the Minister setting out this group of clauses. The Liberal Democrats are very pleased it seeks to address the hostility towards those who administer our elections. As colleagues on the Conservative Benches and the Minister have outlined, they play such an important part in our democracy.
Amendment 38 and new clause 55 in my name address the need for there also to be protection for the families and staff of candidates. I was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, and I would like to put it on record how pleased I am to see so many of its recommendations in the Bill. We considered in quite some depth the issue of abuse of candidates.
The survey of MPs and their staff highlighted the nature of the abuse and intimidation they experience, and the sad reality that it is not limited to them. Rather, where a bad actor is unsuccessful or unable to silence the candidate directly, they turn to the people around them. That can be partners, children or staff. We firmly believe that should not be deemed to be okay in the eyes of the law, and that it needs to be addressed.
New clause 55 amends the Elections Act 2022 so that relatives and staff of candidates are a protected category for the purposes of hostility-based disqualification and related provisions, defining “relative” by reference to the Family Law Act 1996, and “staff” as people
“employed by or working under the direction”
of a candidate. Amendment 38 amends clause 71 of the Bill to include candidates’ relatives and staff in the list for the hostility aggravating factor.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will support those important provisions. If they do not, could the Minister please outline how the Bill as drafted already covers candidates’ relatives and staff, or what the justification is for leaving such a gap?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I rise briefly to say that I fully support these measures, which are clearly welcomed across all parties. I also support the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford in relation to extending the measures further, because by definition, anybody who is essentially associated with the political process is potentially subject to the hostility that we have discussed. Extending those protections is clearly important.
Samantha Dixon
Those who are convicted of relevant offences motivated by hostility against a candidate, campaigner or elective office holder can be banned from standing for or holding elective office for five years. As I have set out, the Bill will also introduce a new aggravating factor for those same offences and extend the regime to include relevant offences motivated by hostility against electoral staff.
Amendment 38 and new clause 55 would extend the list of relevant persons to include candidates’ staff and their relatives. I am pleased to inform the Committee that the regime already covers those circumstances. The application of the existing disqualification order and new aggravating factor is based on the motivation behind the offence committed, regardless of precisely who the offence was committed against. For example, if it were found that a relevant offence was committed against a candidate’s relative for the purpose of intimidating the candidate, ultimately the offence was motivated by hostility towards the candidate, and thus a disqualification order or aggravating factor could be applied.
Regarding employees of candidates specifically, I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Guildford to the fact that campaigners employed by candidates are already directly protected under the regime by section 34 of the Elections Act 2022. Other employees would be covered indirectly in the same way that I have outlined for a candidate’s relatives. I hope the hon. Member is reassured by that and will consider not pressing the amendment.
Paul Holmes
On new clause 55 and amendment 38, I understand why the hon. Member for Guildford, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, is attempting to change the legislation.
The Minister may remember that we had a back-and-forth in relation to the security briefings being offered to candidates through Operation Ford, and the Government’s amendments. Has she given any more thought to a statutory timeline, and guidance on making sure that candidates are offered those briefings in a reasonable timeframe so that nobody slips through the net because the police force has not got around to it? That may inform the decision of the hon. Member for Guildford regarding whether to press the new clause and amendment to a vote.
Samantha Dixon
The Government’s view is that the Electoral Commission is working hard, and that to prescribe timetables would place a restriction on it that we do not feel is required. Given the good, proactive work that it already does in this area, with the Government working alongside it, we do not feel it necessary to place a statutory duty on the Electoral Commission. With JESP, the Department and the Electoral Commission working hard across the electoral landscape, we do not feel that the amendment and the new clause are necessary, so I respectfully ask the hon. Member not to push them to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 71 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 14
Removal of strategy and policy statement
“(1) In Part 1 of PPERA 2000 (the Electoral Commission) omit—
(a) sections 4A to 4E and the italic heading before those sections (strategy and policy statement);
(b) section 13ZA and the italic heading before that section (examination by the Speaker’s Committee of the Electoral Commission’s performance of duty to have regard to strategy and policy statement).
(2) Omit sections 16 and 17(1) of the Elections Act 2022 (which inserted the sections repealed by subsection (1)).
(3) The Electoral Commission is not required to publish a report under section 4B(4) of PPERA 2000 in relation to any 12-month period ending on or after the day on which this section comes into force.”—(Samantha Dixon.)
This new clause removes provision about the designation of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause removes provisions allowing the designation of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. For the health of our democracy, it is essential that the Electoral Commission is fearlessly independent, commands trust across the political spectrum and the public, and is seen to operate free from political influence. We have listened to stakeholders and recognise that re-establishing the principle of independence for our elections regulator is vital for public confidence in our electoral system.
That move is a response to the recommendations of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, parliamentary Committees, the Electoral Commission itself as well as civil society organisations such as Transparency International and Spotlight on Corruption, all of whom emphasised that Government powers to designate a statement are incompatible with the commission’s independence.
That is why we have taken clear action by tabling this new clause. Ministers will no longer have the power to designate a strategy and policy statement, and the Electoral Commission will no longer be required to have regard to one. The Electoral Commission will rightly remain accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee. The new clause would reinforce the foundational principles of the Electoral Commission’s independence, and it would restore confidence in its ability to oversee elections and regulate political finance, without fear or favour, into the future. For that reason, I urge Members to accept the new clause.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Lady very much.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 60
Power of Scottish Ministers to vary sums in Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000
“In section 155 of PPERA 2000 (power to vary specified sums or percentages), in subsection (1A)—
(a) after ‘vary’ insert ‘—
(a) ’;
(b) at the end insert
‘, or
(b) any sum for the time being specified in Schedule 7 so far as that sum applies in relation to a donation to a member of a local authority in Scotland who is not also a member of a registered party.’”—(Samantha Dixon.)
This new clause, which would be inserted after clause 62, amends section 155(1A) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to provide a power for the Scottish Ministers to vary the sums in Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and member associations), so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Permissible donors not to include individuals serving a foreign administration
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual is, or has been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to
a foreign administration.’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In subsection (2A)—
“foreign administration” means the government or state apparatus of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
“member” includes elected and appointed members.’”—(Lisa Smart.)
This new clause would ban those who are or have been members of a foreign administration, or advisers to a foreign administration, from donating money to a political party, think tank or campaigning body.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Permissible donors not to include persons who have promoted political violence—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3ZB) insert—
‘(3ZC) A person is not to be treated as a permissible donor in relation to a donation if the person has been convicted of a prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence.
(3ZD) The Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe the offences which fall within subsection (3ZC).’”
New clause 15—Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments
8A (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received in the past or are currently in receipt of any income or gifts from—
(a) the government of any foreign nation, or
(b) any person or organisation connected to the government of any foreign nation.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a person or organisation connected to the government of any foreign nation mean anyone who has at anytime been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to a foreign administration.’
(3) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
‘(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare any income or gifts from foreign nations or connected entities in order to be validly nominated. It also places a duty on political parties to ensure their candidates have made this declaration before authorising them to stand on behalf of the party.
New clause 16—Annual statements on foreign donation risks and independent investigations—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (Declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Annual statement on mitigation of foreign donation risks
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, in respect of each calendar year, prepare a statement setting out the steps taken by the party to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation.
(2) The statement must be delivered to the Commission alongside the party's statement of accounts for that year.
66B Annual independent investigation of donations by foreign-owned UK entities
(1) A registered party must, in respect of each calendar year, arrange for an independent investigation to be conducted into any donations received by the party from a foreign-owned UK entity.
(2) A report of the independent investigation must be submitted to the Commission by the treasurer of the party within six months of the end of the calendar year to which it relates.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) the appointment and qualifications of an independent investigator for the purposes of this section;
(b) the definition of a “foreign-owned UK entity”; and
(c) the required contents of the investigation report.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’”
This new clause requires registered political parties to produce an annual statement detailing how they have mitigated risks relating to donations from foreign nations. It also requires parties to commission an annual independent investigation into donations they receive from foreign-owned UK entities, with the findings submitted to the Electoral Commission.
New clause 17—Payments from foreign state broadcasters to politicians and candidates—
“(1) Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000 (control of donations to individuals and members associations) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments from foreign state broadcasters
6A (1) A regulated donor must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from a prescribed foreign state broadcaster.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations proscribe a foreign state broadcaster for the purposes of this paragraph where the Secretary of State considers the broadcaster is acting on behalf of, or producing propaganda for, a foreign power.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for appearing on, hosting, or contributing to broadcasts or programmes.’
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of past earnings from foreign state broadcasters
8A (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received any past or current earnings, payments or benefits from a foreign state broadcaster prescribed under paragraph 6A of Schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.’”
This new clause prohibits politicians (regulated donors) from receiving any payment from prescribed foreign state broadcasters. It also amends the parliamentary election rules to require candidates (including incumbent MPs) to formally declare any past earnings from these entities in order to be validly nominated to stand for election.
New clause 38—Permissible donors: foreign citizens—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section 54 after paragraph (2) insert—
‘(2AA) For the purposes of this section, subject to the exemptions in section (2AB), an “individual registered in an electoral register” does not include a person who is on a register by virtue of being a “qualifying foreign citizen” for the purposes of—
(a) Section 2 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, or
(b) Section 1 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020.
(2AB) The exemptions in this subsection are that the person is on an electoral register because they are—
(a) a qualified Commonwealth citizen,
(b) a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, or
(c) a citizen of the European Union who would be eligible to vote in local elections under the English and Northern Ireland franchise.’”
This new clause prevents people who are on electoral registers because they fulfil certain conditions in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 from being permissible donors but are not qualifying Commonwealth, Irish, or EU citizens.
New clause 39—Mitigating the risk of foreign interference in political donations—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a consultation paper on how Government will enhance information-sharing between relevant agencies and public bodies and registered political parties to help to identify and mitigate the risk of foreign interference in political donations that are regulated by electoral law.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on how to enhance information sharing between relevant public bodies or agencies and political parties to minimise the risk of foreign interference in political donations.
New clause 45—Permissible electors to include overseas electors with previous tax residence etc—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a), at end insert ‘(but this is subject to subsection (2ZA))’.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) An individual registered in an electoral register who at the date of a donation qualifies as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency is only a permissible donor for the purposes of this Part if—
(a) the individual was at any time resident in the UK for tax purposes,
(b) the individual has a Unique Taxpayer Reference, and
(c) the individual holds funds or assets that may be charged to tax in the United Kingdom that are at least equivalent to the value of the donation.
(2ZB) For the purposes of subsection (2ZA)—
(a) whether a person qualifies as an overseas elector is to be determined in accordance with section 1A of the Representation of the People Act 1985;
(b) whether a person was at any time resident in the UK for tax purposes is to be determined in accordance with Schedule 45 to the Finance Act 2013.’”
This new clause limits permissible donors who are overseas electors to those who have previously been resident in the UK for tax purposes, have a Unique Taxpayer Reference and holds funds or assets that may be taxed in the UK which have a value of at least the amount to be donated.
New clause 51—Annual report regarding foreign interference in political funding—
“(1) The Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency must each produce and publish an annual report about—
(a) the risk of foreign interference in relation to controlled donations, and
(b) the adequacy of any systems designed to address risks of foreign interference in relation to controlled donations.
(2) The Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament.
(3) In this section—
‘controlled donation’ means—
(i) a donation to a registered party, individual or members association that is subject to Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(ii) a donation to a candidate or their agent that is subject to Schedule 2A of the Representation of the People Act 1983;
‘foreign interference’ includes the commission of a relevant electoral offence to which section 16 of the National Security Act 2023 applies (foreign interference in elections).”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency to make annual reports about the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.
Lisa Smart
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. Trust in our democracy is not something that we can afford to take for granted; it is earned, and it is increasingly fragile. Years of scandals, sleaze and foreign money flooding into our politics have eroded that trust, and we must act to restore it. My new clauses are designed to restore transparency to our democracy, and to restore that trust.
New clause 2 would ban anyone who is or has been a member of, or a politically appointed advisor to, a foreign Administration from donating to a political party, think-tank or campaigning body. If a person has served in a foreign state in a political capacity, they should not be able to use their personal wealth to shape British politics—that is the reason behind the new clause. The resulting risk of strong potential conflicts of interest, and of foreign influence by proxy, is self-evident. The current permissible donor rules focus on nationality and residency; they do not ask whether a UK-registered donor has served a foreign Government in a political role, which is a gap that a determined adversary could drive a coach and horses through.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms to prevent foreign interference and increased transparency in political donations. We believe that protecting democracy is a national security policy priority. If Ministers are serious about closing the loopholes that exist, which allow foreign and dark money to shape British politics, they will welcome new clause 2.
Dr Chowns
I completely support the thrust of these new clauses tabled by the hon. Member, in terms of protecting British democracy. I have a specific question in relation to new clause 3. Last year the Government proscribed a protest organisation. That proscription has since been overturned in the High Court, and it is still being considered. Is the hon. Member concerned about her new clause might interact with that particular case? Is there a case for thinking carefully about that issue?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to wade into such a thorny political issue—and an issue where it is important to stay on the right side of what can be said in discussing a proscribed organisation. The Government should use their powers of proscription proportionately, in all cases, and should be able to robustly back up their decision to proscribe an organisation with very clear evidence that is made public. I am on the record many times as saying that.
The police and any authorities that we are asking to implement the law must do so according to the law as it is at the time. At the moment there is a live case where an organisation was proscribed and there are relevant court cases. The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight that. Over the weekend, arrests were made in relation to that proscription. New clause 3 is about donations to political parties. If an organisation is proscribed—and it is still proscribed—it would fall under the scope of new clause 3, even if there are ongoing legal processes that have not yet concluded.
Dr Chowns
Just to be clear, my concern is that literally hundreds of people have been arrested for holding placards in relation to that organisation. Potentially, under the hon. Member’s new clause 3, all those hundreds of people could be forbidden forever from donating to any political party. I am not sure that that is proportionate. It strikes me that there is complexity there, relating to the specific new clause. I am fully on board with excluding promotion of political violence and so forth, but that particular case highlights a complexity, particularly around the hundreds of people arrested for holding placards.
Lisa Smart
The arrests were made for support for a proscribed organisation via holding a placard that said the holder supports that organisation. I think we are talking about the same case. I understand the point that the hon. Member makes. Proscription of organisations is a tool that the Government rightly uses, although I have questioned the proportionality of the use of that tool. New clause 3 particularly mentions political violence; the hon. Member is talking about peaceful protest, if I understand her correctly. All hon. Members on this Committee, and everyone beyond it, should support the right for people to tell a Government that they think the Government have got it wrong. We should all support that and not make it harder for people to do it. If, however, someone is guilty of a
“prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence”,
I do not think that they should be able to financially support a political party. The promotion of an organisation is the same as supporting an organisation. There are ways of supporting organisations and causes that stay exactly the right side of the law. While I am not of the view that the Government have always used proscription rules proportionately in recent months, I do think that, if those rules exist, they should be able to be used in that way by those who are enforcing the law.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. Member is trying to make. I have listened carefully to what she said about new clauses 2 and 3. With respect to new clause 3, it would be helpful to consider the treatment of those who may have been opponents of an oppressive foreign political regime who have been convicted in this country of an offence that might be a proscribed offence under mutual recognition arrangements, but where they perhaps sought asylum in the UK. We have seen examples of people who were vocal opponents of the Putin regime in Russia coming to the UK and joining a political party. Those are people who we recognise as good citizens. How would they be treated should that offence be on that proscribed list?
In respect to new clause 2, again, I have sympathy, but I raise the issue of business people undertaking consular roles in other countries. It is quite common, for example, for a British business person who may be the British consul in a particular town to then be appointed by a series of other Governments to act for them as an agent in that respect. Subsequently, on returning to the UK that business person would be caught by the rules in new clause 2, even though those restrictions are in no way intended to target those types of activities. Has the hon. Member given some thought to how those types of roles would be captured and how they might be excluded?
Lisa Smart
New clause 3 talks specifically about political violence. While we can sometimes agree with the message that opponents of our adversaries use, it is right that we are against political violence and those who promote political violence. I think that covers his question on new clause 3.
Lisa Smart
We should all be against political violence. People who propose and promote political violence should not be permitted to donate to political parties in the UK. I am thinking about people who have various convictions in the UK for promoting political violence and about people who own tech platforms but are based on the west coast of the United States and have spoken at rallies that promote political violence. We should not be welcoming their interference in our politics and new clause 3 seeks to stop them from doing so.
On new clause 2, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talked about people who have been politically appointed to be an adviser for a foreign Administration, whether in a business ambassadorial or trade envoy role, and I see his point. I would have thought those are politically appointed, rather than on a civil service basis. However, there are people who are not political appointments who would not fall within new clause 2, so they could continue to operate both as an envoy or an ambassador in that informal business ambassadorial role and continue to donate. I do not think that is covered under new clause 2 as it is currently written.
Returning to new clause 3, the principle that our democratic institutions must command public confidence, and that those who seek to undermine them should face serious consequences, is one that we hold firmly.
On new clause 15, voters have a right to know who is financing the people seeking their vote. That is a basic condition of democratic accountability. Real-time disclosure of donations in a publicly searchable database of all online political ads and spending are commitments we have held for years. New clause 15 is entirely consistent with that agenda. There have been other amendments and proposals from other Members that have touched on some of those issues, which we also support.
New clause 16 would require the treasurer of each registered political party to prepare an annual statement setting out the steps taken to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation, to be delivered to the Electoral Commission alongside the party’s statement of accounts. We have heard a great deal throughout this Committee about the importance of transparency, and we agree.
This new clause makes transparency operational. It requires parties not simply to accept or reject donations, but to demonstrate annually that they have actively assessed and mitigated the risks of foreign money entering their finances through UK-registered vehicles. Foreign-owned UK entities are a known vector for influence. The public record of recent years—Russian money, oligarch links and opaque corporate structures—makes that plain. An independent annual audit is a proportionate and practical response.
New clause 17 is about prohibiting politicians from receiving payment from proscribed state broadcasters. State-controlled broadcasters have been used as instruments of foreign influence, disinformation and political interference for decades. It would be extraordinary to allow individuals seeking or holding elected office to receive financial benefit from those very organisations. That is not a blanket ban on media appearances—heaven forbid—it is a prohibition on financial relationships with broadcasters acting as foreign propaganda arms.
Moving on to new clauses 45 and 51 proposed by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the Joint Committee that he chairs noted potential risks around permissible donors being used as “conduits” to channel foreign money into UK politics. It further noted a discrepancy between corporations needing to have a UK connection—for example, generating enough revenue in the UK to cover their donation—and individuals, for whom there were apparently fewer such requirements. The report considered various options, balancing security interests against the risk of creating chilling effects.
New clause 45 would mean that overseas individuals wishing to donate would need to hold funds or assets that may be taxed in the UK, sufficient to cover the cost of their donation. That broadly mirrors the Government’s proposals for corporations to have generated sufficient UK-based revenue.
On new clause 51, the Joint Committee’s report also highlighted the resourcing challenges faced by the Electoral Commission and law enforcement bodies such as the National Crime Agency, and noted that legislative changes will be effective only if there is adequate resourcing to enforce the rules. New clause 51 would require the Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency to report annually on the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak briefly to Opposition new clauses 38 and 39 in my name. They are proportionate measures to enhance the legislation and assist the Government in their aim of tightening up on foreign political donations.
New clause 38 would prevent people who are on electoral registers because they fulfil certain conditions in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020, but are not qualifying Commonwealth citizens, from being permissible donors. We have tabled it because we are concerned that modern changes to devolved legislation have created loopholes in who can give money from foreign origins.
The Labour Government in Wales have given all foreigners the right to vote in local and devolved elections. The SNP Scottish Government have done the same in Scotland. Those Administrations have made those changes through section 2 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act and section 1 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act.
Such legislation has also given foreign residents the right to make unlimited donations to UK politicians and political parties. We contend that that opens the door to Russian, Chinese and Iranian foreign influence. For example, a Chinese “student” resident at a Scottish university can legally make political donations to any UK political entity. We have raised that issue in Parliament, but the current Government have declined to address it. The new clause would essentially ban that from happening, except where a person is a Commonwealth, Irish or EU citizen, as we believe those historical links are much more in keeping with the current electoral guidelines and legislation.
Samantha Dixon
The Government fully recognise the seriousness of the threat posed by foreign interference in our democracy. Protecting the integrity of UK elections is essential, which is why it is a criminal offence to accept or facilitate donations from foreign sources, and why the Bill seeks to strengthen the system further. However, while I can understand and appreciate the intention behind new clause 2, we do not believe that it is the right way to address this threat.
First, new clause 2 takes a broad and untargeted approach that would permanently bar any individual who
“is, or has been…a member of, or…adviser to a foreign administration”
from making political donations, regardless of how long ago that role was held, its nature or whether there is any ongoing connection to a foreign state. That risks excluding individuals who are entitled to participate in UK political life, and who pose no credible risk of foreign interference.
Secondly, there would be issues of enforceability. I will not spend much time on this particular point, because it is important that I set out our arguments on the principle, and what I think the right answer to this is, but following the approach of new clause 2 would mean relying on definitions of persons that are difficult to get right and can be unenforceable in practice. The amendment relies on concepts such as a “politically-appointed adviser”, which is opaque, legally speaking, and risks creating legal uncertainty for campaigners and regulators.
Thirdly, and more fundamentally, where the concern is hostile activity by, or on behalf of, foreign states, we already have robust and targeted tools in our national security legislation, which is complemented by safeguards in electoral law that we are seeking to enhance through the Bill. The National Security Act 2023 provides a clear criminal framework for tackling hostile state activity, including the foreign interference offence, which is specifically designed to capture conduct carried out on behalf of a foreign power to influence the UK’s political system.
Existing electoral law is designed to ensure that money can only come from permissible sources and criminalises the acceptance or facilitation of donations from impermissible foreign sources. The Bill significantly strengthens the existing rules so that in future even donations that are potentially risky are identified earlier, scrutinised more closely, and returned where necessary.
By introducing robust “know your donor” checks and requiring all donors to declare any benefits they have received in connection with their donation, we are reducing the space in which individuals who pose a real risk, or their proxies, can operate under the radar. Our new measures directly respond to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, as well as those of other key stakeholders, such as the Electoral Commission, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the National Crime Agency. With that, I hope she feels she can withdraw her amendment.
New clause 3 seeks to prevent those convicted of a prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence from making political donations. Currently, if an individual is convicted of such an offence, that conduct rightly affects their democratic rights, including their ability to stand for election or to hold elected office. This helps to deter those who would undermine the democratic rights of others, such as candidates contesting an election.
The Government are absolutely aligned with the intention behind this proposal. Political violence and its promotion or incitement have no place in our democracy, and we are clear that those who seek to undermine democratic participation through violence or intimidation should face serious consequences. The question, however, is not whether this behaviour is unacceptable—it plainly is—but whether this is the right legal mechanism to address it.
If this amendment were to be accepted, it would represent a significant shift in the purpose of political finance law, which is about ensuring only those individuals who have a legitimate interest in our elections can support candidates and campaigns through their vote, volunteering their time or offering financial support. Although I share the hon. Member’s concern, the Government believe that this amendment does not address a regulatory gap and would not further our shared aim of reducing harassment and intimidation in politics.
The harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners is unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democracy. That is why we are taking forward several interventions in the Bill to tackle this issue, which we have already discussed in great detail, and are doing so through criminal law, electoral offences and disqualification, rather than through political finance rules, which are not designed to address conduct. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.
Lisa Smart
I listened closely to what the Minister said, and I understand the thrust of her view that existing rules would cover the conduct that we are seeking to avoid. Will the Minister think of the specific case of Elon Musk, the owner of X? He spoke at a rally via video link and incited violence. He has also talked, at separate times, about donating to a UK political party. UK companies are part of his group; there would be a way for him to channel funding through a UK company. Will the Minister let me know what I am missing that would stop Elon Musk doing that?
Samantha Dixon
I have said this before and I will say it again: the Bill is not designed to prevent specific individuals from participating in or undermining elections. It is about the general regulatory framework and criminal law that we intend to implement, uphold and shore up to prevent certain behaviours in the future. It is not about specific individuals, so I decline to respond the hon. Member’s comments, except to say simply that the legislation, in its entirety, aims to root out political violence, harassment and intimidation.
New clause 15 proposes to require candidates at UK parliamentary elections, in order to be validly nominated, to complete a declaration on whether they have received any income or gifts from foreign nations or connected entities. A registered political party would be responsible for ensuring that such a declaration had been completed before allowing a candidate to be nominated as a candidate for that party. The Government are strengthening the rules around political finance to protect against foreign interference and have introduced several measures, which we have discussed, that will apply to candidates. The reforms will make it significantly more difficult for malign actors to interfere in our elections.
As hon. Members know, and as I have said many times, the Rycroft review has recommended that the Government look further at enhancing rules for candidates to ensure that money received previously and then used in campaigns comes from permitted sources. The Government are carefully—and I underline that point—considering that recommendation, among all the others. The Government share the concern of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove but, in light of that ongoing work, I ask her not to move new clause 15.
New clause 16 seeks to require registered parties to produce an annual risk mitigation statement relating to donations originating from foreign nations, and to commission an annual independent investigation into donations that they receive from foreign-owned UK entities. Foreign money has no place in the UK’s political system. We recognise the hon. Member’s concerns that the nature of foreign interference is evolving, with threats becoming increasingly sophisticated. That is precisely why the Government have introduced a package of measures that work together to close potential loopholes and address vulnerabilities to foreign interference.
Via secondary legislation we will require donors to declare any benefits linked to their donations and we will strengthen donation rules to ensure that companies must demonstrate a genuine and substantive UK connection. Those changes will help to ensure that political donations genuinely reflect UK-based interests and will prevent the use of shell companies to channel impermissible donations. In practice, where behaviour is not already criminal, the new “know your donor” regime already addresses much of the issue that new clause 16 seeks to tackle. However, the new clause’s approach of annual risk mitigation statements and retrospective investigations of foreign nation donations is less proactive than the risk-based duty that the Bill introduces.
As a reminder, rather than relying on parties to report annually about what they consider appropriate, the “know your donor” regime introduces risk-based due diligence on significant donations across the electoral regime. For the first time, recipients of donations will be required to adopt a risk-based framework for assessing the permissibility of donors, supported by Electoral Commission guidance, which will set out how donees can mitigate potential risks. That means that anyone receiving significant donations, not just parties, must carry out risk assessments, ensuring that the system as a whole is strengthened.
Paul Holmes
I understand why the Minister is concerned about some of the new clauses, and as I said before, she is right that the Government are trying to tighten up the regime. On her argument that the Electoral Commission does not currently have the responsibilities she outlined, however, does she not agree that there is still a problem with two-way information sharing?
The Minister is absolutely correct to say that the Electoral Commission has the power to access Companies House information and powers under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. However, if we look at past examples of registered Chinese Communist party spies giving money to political parties in this House, does she not think it would have been useful if the Labour party, in that case, had known about that via the security services and could have refused the donation? I am not sure whether the Government are filling the hole of two-way information sharing, and that concerns me.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a breather. As he knows, the Rycroft review considered this matter and—I mean this sincerely; it is not simply a form of words for the Committee —the Government are carefully considering those recommendations and will respond in due course. To give him that assurance: this is part of that consideration.
Alongside the measures I mentioned, enhanced company permissibility tests ensure that only organisations with a genuine and substantive UK connection can donate, closing off key vulnerabilities in our electoral framework. The Government are also committed to robust monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, and anticipate that this will include an impact evaluation assessing whether the policies introduced have achieved their intended aims.
We have discussed the Rycroft review, and I sincerely mean it when I say that we will respond fully in due course to all the measures in it, including on improved co-ordination between the Electoral Commission, the Government, the security services and the police. For those reasons, while I fully understand the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington to strengthening our defences against foreign interference, the Government do not consider this amendment to be the right mechanism to achieve that end.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to all who have contributed. I plan to press to a vote all the new clauses that I have spoken to.
Paul Holmes
In the interests of ensuring that you call the right votes, Dame Siobhain, there is no doubt in my mind when the Minister says she is genuinely looking at trying to fix this problem—I believe her; she is a Minister of integrity and I know the Government absolutely want to achieve that aim—but this is happening now and, with no commitment to timescales, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked for in relation to the Rycroft review, I am concerned that it will still be a problem.
I know the Minister will try to implement this carefully, but the lack of information sharing at this precise moment means that money is still being given, despite the fact that organisations that the Electoral Commission is not currently asking could provide that desperately needed clarity and transparency. Given the reassurance that the Minister has given to the Opposition on new clauses 38 and 39, however, I will not press them to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 12—Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After section 54 (permissible donors to registered parties) insert—
‘54A Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A donation received by a registered party by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the party must not be accepted by the party unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this section, section 52(2)(a) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this section;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a registered party;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of “cryptoasset” in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(3) In Schedule 7 (controls on donations to individuals and members associations), after paragraph 6 insert—
‘6ZA Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A controlled donation received by a regulated donee by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the donee must not be accepted by the donee unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(3)(b) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a regulated donee;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this paragraph, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of “cryptoasset” in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(4) In the Representation of the People Act 1983 in Schedule 2A (controls on donations to candidates), after paragraph 6 insert—
‘6A Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A relevant donation received by a candidate or his election agent by way of a transfer of cryptoassets must not be accepted unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(2) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a candidate or agent;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent (including information relating to any transactions between the original source of the funds and the transfer of those funds into the cryptoassets);
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of “cryptoasset” in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(5) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”
This new clause introduces controls on donations made by way of transfers of cryptoassets. Donations or transfers would have to comply with requirements set out in regulations made by the Electoral Commission in order to be accepted and would be prohibited until the Commission has made such regulations.
New clause 20—Disclosure of past donations in cryptoassets—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Report on past donations involving cryptoassets
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, prepare a report under this section.
(2) The report must record the relevant details in relation to each donation received by the party during the relevant 5-year period which was—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets; or
(b) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the “relevant 5-year period” means the period of 5 years ending with the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) In this section, “the relevant details” in relation to a donation means—
(a) the name and address of the donor;
(b) the amount or value of the donation;
(c) the date on which the donation was received; and
(d) the date on which, and the way in which, any necessary steps were taken regarding the donation under section 56 (acceptance or return of donations: general).
(5) The report must be delivered to the Commission within the period of 14 days beginning with the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1).
(6) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; “Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’”
This new clause amends PPERA 2000 to require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing the source, value, and dates of any donations made via cryptoassets, or accepted via crypto wallets/exchanges, over the past five years.
Dr Chowns
I rise to move new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). I will also speak briefly to new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, and new clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. She is here and I am sure she will speak.
This incredibly important group of new clauses responds to a glaring absence in the Bill relating to crypto donations. As I will get on to, Rycroft has talked about this and the Government have committed to bringing forward related amendments. I am pleased about that, but it is very important that, in Committee, we take the opportunity to discuss in detail what shape those amendments might take and what the issues are around this topic.
There is consensus across wide parts of the political spectrum that cryptocurrency poses particular risks in relation to political donations. Transparency International has highlighted a number of factors: cryptocurrencies are fast and borderless, there are various exchanges offering anonymity and they are increasingly used for money laundering. There are clear risks with crypto, which makes it a high-risk vehicle for political donations through which foreign actors, who would otherwise be unable to, might be able to donate to political parties and candidates and try to influence British politics. Again, as Transparency International points out,
“it is reasonable to assume there is a strong likelihood that this alternative payment method is being used by hostile actors, such as Russia, to destabilise Western political systems.”
We need to take these warning very seriously.
Indeed, the Royal United Services Institute says:
“Cryptocurrency donations to UK political parties present an urgent and under-addressed challenge to the UK’s electoral integrity and, by extension, to its national security.”
It points out that
“the Bill does not mention cryptocurrencies”,
and says:
“This leaves a critical gap in our foreign interference defences as the pseudonymous, cross-border and decentralised features of crypto enable it to be used as a political money laundering accelerant”.
There are clearly many risks associated with crypto.
Philip Rycroft pointed this out himself and recommended:
“The government should legislate in the Representation of the People Bill to introduce a moratorium on political donations made in cryptoassets, with a power to end the moratorium only once Parliament and the Electoral Commission are assured that relevant regulation is effective.”
There is some debate about whether we should have a blanket ban on cryptoassets or a moratorium with safeguards.
I am mainly concerned about the outcome, rather than the particular terminology that is used to deal with this. We must ensure that crypto is not used as a vehicle for the pollution of British politics. One of the key issues is the use of AI to split donations into lots of tiny fragments that go under the radar of any benchmarks or limits, and of the scrutiny of donations. That is a risk, but as RUSI points out, the more significant, under-recognised and under-dealt with risk is the indirect use of crypto.
It is very easy to translate crypto into a fiat currency at the point of donation, so although I am moving new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which would
“prevent parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets”,
we actually need a stronger regulatory environment and to recognise that there may be even bigger risks from the indirect use of crypto further down the chain, which could still be used to hide the provenance of funding, even though it may not be in the form of crypto when it enters the coffers of a political party or candidate.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The hon. Member is articulating very real concerns about cryptocurrency and the way it can manipulate our democratic processes. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that, when the Rycroft review was published before the Easter recess, the Government responded pretty swiftly on this, and particularly on a moratorium on political donations made through cryptocurrency. Does she welcome the Government’s urgent response in the Chamber?
It was clear from Ministers that they intend to get this right. The immediate response to the Rycroft review was about making sure that we get something in place straight away. From listening to Ministers inside and outside the Chamber, I know there is an enthusiasm to make sure this is done right. Does the hon. Member welcome that initial response and, like me, does she look to see how we can tighten up our defences against cryptocurrency in the longer term, however they may be used to try to infiltrate our democratic processes?
Dr Chowns
I welcome the commitment that the Government have made. I participated in that statement in the Chamber before Easter. As the hon. Member will have noticed, I even welcomed and congratulated the Government on their positive actions under the Bill without prompting from the Government Benches. It is important to give credit where it is due. It is also important to have the opportunity, in this Committee, to debate some of these details.
If the Government are to bring forward legislation to institute a moratorium, it is important to think about what conditions will be set under which any such moratorium might be lifted in future. That is crucial, because it could otherwise be overturned very easily. I suggest that, at a minimum, the criteria for lifting any such moratorium should be that an adequate regulatory environment is in place for controlling the ultimate risk and that there is triple positive approval from Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority—the three most important oversight organisations on this issue. It will be very difficult and complex to find a mechanism to regulate cryptocurrency; I hope that we just get rid of it from our politics completely. But if the Government are going to introduce a moratorium, the conditions under which that moratorium might be lifted must be included in the primary legislation that puts it in place.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I agree with every word she says about there being a very fine balance between a moratorium and a ban—a ban could, actually, be retrograde—but if we have a moratorium we should at least have a regulatory framework that makes sure that cryptocurrency cannot be moved upstream. Does she share my concern that, despite the good intentions of the Minister and the Government, and despite consistent pushing for a timescale for the implementation of the Rycroft review, we have not had that? She is therefore right that the Committee is the perfect opportunity to get the ideas of all political parties, and to hopefully get a better idea of the Government response.
Dr Chowns
I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm and sense of urgency about getting Rycroft implemented as soon as possible. In the spirit of giving credit where it is due, the Government did commission that review—which was good—the review was quite fast, there was an immediate statement, and the Bill is going through. I do not think that we are in a perfect place.
I would have liked the Bill to have longer in Committee to give the Government a chance to introduce amendments that we could properly scrutinise. It is deeply unfortunate that, for a Bill that is about the workings of our electoral system, we are not able to do that core scrutiny in Committee—the crucial line-by-line scrutiny in the Commons, which is the elected Chamber. We are being asked, basically, to take it on trust. It is not that I distrust Government, but it is important to have this discussion now. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points.
I have made the point about the importance of including in primary legislation the criteria under which any moratorium might be lifted in the future, and that there must be really strong safeguards. I have also made the point that a ban on crypto donations will not itself stop the risk, because of the downstream issues. We have to think carefully about how whatever mechanism is introduced deals with that.
We have already seen that Ben Delo, who has given £4.5 million to Reform in recent months, has said, “Oh dear, since I am going to be hit by this retrospective moratorium I am going to move back to the UK to evade it.” That is clear evidence of gaming the system by a guy who, by the way, was convicted in the US of impropriety in relation to political financing. He was subsequently pardoned by Donald Trump. We have to be really careful of how bad actors might manipulate any legislative proposals that are introduced.
A ban on cryptocurrency will not, in itself, stop the risks. We also need a cap on all political donations—we will discuss a group of new clauses relating to that in a bit, so I will save my arguments on that topic until then—plus a donor register, as I spoke about in Tuesday’s sitting. A donor register with donor registration numbers would address the issue of traceability and address the risk that donations are split into many tiny donations to hide the fact that they are all from the same place. Having to have a donor registration number that is associated with a particular, identified, allowable donor would go a long way to addressing that problem. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lisa Smart
I am happy to be speaking in support of new clause 4, and in favour of new clauses 12 and 20. New clause 20, which is in my name, would require parties to declare cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. I agree with pretty much everything that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, and I note my earlier comments about the sticky wicket on which the Minister is being asked to play.
The Government’s statement on the publication of the Rycroft review was a rare moment in which they nailed both the timing and politics of an issue, and it was absolutely right to ban crypto from that day to stop any further gaming of the system. However, I completely agree with the hon. Member that this Committee is the place to have a conversation about what that will look like. Future Government amendments will be tabled at a later, as of yet unspecified date. I believe that the Minister is working with officials on the issue, but this Committee is where we can talk about the Bill on a cross-party basis.
The Rycroft review recommended that a moratorium be placed on political donations made in cryptoassets. The Government responded to the review on the date of its publication, but, although other amendments to the Bill have been tabled, there has not yet been a clear indication of how quickly that recommendation will be integrated into it. The Liberal Democrats look forward to getting some further detail, dates and quick action, but we also want the measures introduced in this Bill to be effective in the long term.
Cryptoassets are extremely difficult to trace. The difficulty in tracing the ultimate ownership of cryptoassets, the proliferation of different kinds of cryptoassets and the advent of AI-assisted technologies that can break cryptoassets into small amounts, below any threshold at which donations may have to be declared, create serious risks for political finance transparency. There is also a real risk of cryptoassets being used as a vehicle to channel foreign money into the UK political system, and neither the Electoral Commission nor political parties currently have the capability and expertise to manage that risk adequately. New clause 20 would require parties to declare the cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. Given the clear issues with crypto donations, the public should surely expect transparency on them.
On new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy examined the merits and risks of allowing crypto donations, noting that benefits include the potential for greater transparency in some cases, and for regulations to gradually institutionalise alternative forms of payments. However, the Committee concluded:
“Crypto donations pose an unnecessary and unacceptably high risk to the integrity of the political finance system and public trust in it. We accept that future regulations may institutionalise the use of alternative payment systems for use in donations. At present, however, the opportunity to evade rules is too high, the adequacy of mitigations too low, and the resource cost of attempting to implement acceptable oversight is disproportionate. We see no democratic imperative to permit the use of crypto in political finance until adequate safeguards are in place.”
Crypto also poses wider upstream risks to the integrity of political finance, with the Committee report going on to say that
“donors can convert ‘dirty’ foreign crypto funds into ‘clean’ UK fiat and then donate it without arousing much suspicion. A ‘last mile’ ban on crypto donations is therefore not a panacea. Specialist capabilities to address upstream risks are underpowered and require further work.”
New clause 12 therefore calls for an immediate moratorium on crypto donations until the Electoral Commission produces statutory guidance, which should be made using the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to review its adequacy before it is accepted. That guidance could include measures regarding the donor’s identity and location, the original source of funds and maximum limits on the amount of crypto that may be donated.
It is also worth mentioning that, as we have seen in the press in the last couple of weeks, a leader of a UK political party has been promoting the use of cryptoassets and has gained financially from doing so. We should all spend a moment to reflect on why somebody would want to do that, particularly when cryptoassets are not risk-free. Promoting their use, and the use of gold bars as an investment tool, should be beyond what is acceptable for an elected Member of this House. I encourage anybody, particularly people who purport to lead a political party in this country, to really think about the impact of their actions, particularly when it is for financial gain. On that basis, I commend new clauses 12 and 20 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I will touch very briefly on the new clauses that have been tabled. I thank RUSI for the report that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined. I had a meeting with RUSI yesterday, and the fact that it was able to even start to break the ice of my understanding of cryptocurrency and the regulatory framework that is needed was a miracle. It has done a lot of work on this issue, and I congratulate it on coming up with quite sensible proposals and information that goes into detail about the benefits of a ban versus a moratorium.
It is very easy in this House to ban things, but we do not want a ban that creates a worse problem by moving that cryptocurrency upstream. Therefore, as the official Opposition we welcome the idea that there should be a moratorium. We also welcome the fact that the Government implemented an immediate ban pending a review. If a moratorium goes ahead, we need to make sure that an adequate regulatory framework is implemented to prevent some of the exploitative measures that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove outlined in her excellent contribution.
As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined, we are discussing in this Bill Committee probably the most important aspect of the integrity of the electoral process. There are plenty of others in that competition, but the most important aspect of that is foreign interference and donations, including cryptocurrency donations. We are being asked to give the Government our trust—and I do trust the Minister—that these changes are going to happen very soon. The hon. Member is absolutely correct to say that this is the most intense part of the parliamentary process. At the moment, we are being asked to debate new clauses put forward by Opposition parties. We are relying on the Government to give these matters just as much importance, yet they have not given that timescale.
I am torn on new clause 4. I understand the intention of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, but at the moment my feeling is that new clause 4 is really not worth agreeing to. That is because of the evidence given to me by RUSI, which shows that preventing parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets does not solve the issue of those cryptoassets getting through to candidates and parties, or interested parties, later down the line.
The briefing that was given to me by RUSI about the potential drawbacks of a ban mean that I am not satisfied that new clause 4 would do anything at this precise moment. I rose to speak because I want to sincerely give the official Opposition’s commitment to assist if the Minister wants to engage on a cross-party basis. That has my contention at other stages of the Bill Committee—we stand ready to assist on a cross-party basis to really speed up the passage of elements of the Bill, including on this matter. I would never speak on behalf of other parties, but I am sure that stands for them as well.
Lisa Smart
As the hon. Gentleman is mentioning other parties and as I represent one of those other parties, it is only appropriate that I stand up and agree with him wholeheartedly. Everybody in the Chamber and beyond wants us to get this issue right. It is not a party political point. As the hon. Gentleman is, I and we are ready to work cross-party to get it right. If that means us doing some extra work between the various stages of the Bill, I would be completely content to be part of that.
Paul Holmes
I thank both hon. Members. Who would have thought that I could get some agreement from the Liberal Democrats and the Green party? I entirely welcome it: they are absolutely correct. This is not a party political matter; it is a genuine attempt to fill the void that the Government have created through the lack of a timetable for ensuring that we tackle this issue.
The Minister is correct to say that this is a really complicated issue, so we must get it right in this legislation. Electoral reform legislation usually comes before the House only every decade and if we do not get it right, we will allow malign influences into the political process. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously. We stand ready, between stages of the Bill, to have a meeting on a cross-party basis, perhaps through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. The Opposition think that a moratorium is better than a ban, but the right regulatory framework has to be in place. We stand ready to assist.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 4 seeks to make donations made to a registered political party, candidate or agent impermissible if the donation is made wholly or in part with cryptoassets.
New clause 12 purports to take a power so that the Secretary of State may make regulations, drafted by the Electoral Commission, mandating various requirements relating to the political donation of cryptoassets. It seeks to establish that political donations made via cryptoassets would be deemed impermissible unless those regulations were met. It intends to create an effective moratorium on cryptoasset donations until those regulations would be in force. On 25 March, the Secretary of State published the report of the independent review by Sir Philip Rycroft—sorry, I keep knighting him.
Samantha Dixon
It is only a matter of time.
As Members know, we have accepted the review’s recommendation for a moratorium on the use of cryptoassets as political donations in order to safeguard the integrity of our political finance system from foreign interference, and we have been clear that the Government will bring forward their own amendment on this important matter in due course. In doing so, we will work closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that our proposals are robust and provide sufficient protection for our democracy.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire asked when the moratorium would end. We intend for it to end once the Electoral Commission and Parliament are confident that the regulatory environment around cryptoassets is robust enough to protect the integrity of our political finance system from foreign interference. I have noted her comment about the FCA. For those reasons, I ask that the hon. Member withdraw her new clause.
New clause 20 would require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing donations received by the party made in cryptoassets for the last five years. We agree that cryptoassets present a significant risk, different from other forms of donation. In line with the recommendations from Rycroft, the Secretary of State has announced the moratorium, which we will bring forward in an amendment to the Bill. I recognise that that amendment would result in the Electoral Commission examining donations already made via cryptoassets before the moratorium was in place.
We are reducing the risk going forward, but I should highlight that there have already been some safeguards in place with regards to donations made with cryptoassets before the moratorium. Both existing law and guidance from the Electoral Commission are clear that that the rules and regulations for political donations made in fiat currency also apply to donations made via cryptoassets. It is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations by concealing information, giving false information or facilitating an impermissible donation. It would be an offence to cash in cryptocurrency and then use the resulting funds to make a donation, if that were knowingly done to conceal or disguise a donation from an impermissible donor. As such, it is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations.
Guidance from the Electoral Commission also makes it clear that recipients must be alert to donors appearing to circumvent permissibility rules, such as by making multiple donations beneath reporting thresholds. I also highlight the fact that the Electoral Commission already has existing investigatory and enforcement powers when there are grounds to suspect illegal activity, including the power to request information or required documentation.
Samantha Dixon
He did. I invited him to come and talk to me about the Bill; other Members received their letters and came.
Putting that to one side—I am being slightly flippant—this has been a very fast-moving environment, and policy has been formulated very quickly in response to Rycroft. I undertake to work collaboratively with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and Members of all parties as we go forward with the Bill—this is not the end of its passage.
I note the comment made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about having a longer Committee stage, but I am mindful that the implementation of other areas of policy needs to continue—so that we can, for example, introduce votes at 16 in time for the next general election. Although we want to go longer, we also want to go quicker. We will work collaboratively as we go forward.
Paul Holmes
I think the Minister is being slightly sneaky, dare I suggest: she did write to me about having meetings, but there were no proposals in the Bill on cryptocurrency and there still are not. Therefore, that issue was perhaps not within the remit of the legislation. When it came to other aspects of the Bill, I presumed that we would have gone through the usual channels and passages in Committee. The Minister is absolutely right that we did not meet, but that did not include the issue of cryptocurrency in this legislation.
Samantha Dixon
However, had the hon. Gentleman come along, he would have had the opportunity to raise anything he wanted to discuss, as other Members did— I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Given the assurances I have provided, particularly that the Government intend to table an amendment on the moratorium period for cryptocurrencies, I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will consider withdrawing her new clause.
Dr Chowns
I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment, and I recognise that the Government have stated their intention to bring other amendments forward. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Government, not necessarily just in formal settings, on the specifics of the issues and concerns I raise. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Overseas electors: postal ballots
“(1) RPA 1985 is amended as follows.
(2) After section (12) insert—
‘12A Overseas electors: postal ballots
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, make provision regarding the casting of postal ballots by overseas electors.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must provide for overseas electors to be offered the ability—
(a) to request an electronic version of their ballot paper for elections to print using the elector’s own printing facilities; and
(b) in a relevant country, to return their completed ballot paper to a United Kingdom embassy, High Commission or consulate for onward delivery to the relevant returning officer by diplomatic mail to be counted.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “a relevant country” is one where the United Kingdom maintains an embassy, Hight Commission or consulate.
(4) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.
5) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’”— (Zöe Franklin.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Overseas electors: information on voter registration by the UK Passport Office—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report containing proposals to require the UK Passport Office to provide information on voter registration to United Kingdom residents overseas when they—
(a) apply for a passport; or
(b) apply to renew their passport.”
New clause 8—Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections.
(2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for—
(a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station asset out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983;
(b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers;
(c) voting by telephone;
(d) secure electronic voting;
(e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters;
(f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options;
(g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and
(h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) overseas electors;
(b) electoral administrators;
(c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate.
(4) For the purpose of this section, an ‘overseas elector’ is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election.
New clause 42—Overseas electors: reform to voting process—
“(1) The Secretary of State, must, by regulations, make provision to enable overseas voters to vote in person at a United Kingdom Embassy, High Commission or consulate at United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
(2) For the purpose of this section, an ‘overseas elector’ is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.
(4) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State make provision by regulations so that overseas electors can vote in person at United Kingdom embassies, consulates and high commissions for United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
New clause 43—Electoral Register: British Nationals Abroad—
“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, introduce a system to give overseas electors the option to register to vote when they renew their British passport online.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a system to allow overseas electors the ability to register to vote when they renew their passport online.
Amendment 3, in clause 80, page 100, line 35, at end insert—
“(ha) section (Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots)”
This amendment is consequential on NC8.
Zöe Franklin
New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), picks up on the 2024 voting reforms that expanded eligibility for around 1.4 million to 3.4 million people—yet of those individuals, only 191,000 overseas voters are registered. I suggest that that is not a lack of interest in democracy, but a failure of the system to make voting workable for those living abroad. What that means practically is that the UK is now near the bottom internationally for how effectively it enables our overseas citizens to vote.
One of the core problems is postal voting, as it does not work reliably for those living overseas. According to the Electoral Commission, only 52% of overseas postal ballots arrive in time to be counted. Following conversations between my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and other organisations—we took evidence on this during the Committee evidence sessions—it is clear that overseas voters are seeking practical changes that would enable them to reliably cast their votes securely and more easily and reliably. The proposed new clause sets out methods for doing so, including secure downloading and printing of ballots and returning ballots to embassies and consulates. It is worth noting that such a system is already used in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain.
I turn to new clause 7. Another part of the problem for overseas voters is that they are simply not aware that they can register to vote or of how they can do so. One option, discussed in the Committee evidence sessions, is to provide an opportunity at the passport renewal and application stage, when they could be given this information. When a UK citizen applies for or renews a passport, they already provide proof of identity, their overseas address and their last UK address: everything needed for voter registration.
Voters should be simply prompted and given the option to register at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot is not suggesting that they should be automatically registered, but given that the Bill seeks to roll out automatic voter registration and my hon. Friend has posed the question to the Government, providing an automatic moment to tell people they can register to vote and how to do so would be within the scope of the Bill and an opportunity the Bill could take.
I move on to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). New clause 8 and the associated amendment 3, which is consequential on the new clause and also tabled by my hon. Friend, would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024–25 and its review of the general election. With over 3.5 million British citizens abroad eligible to vote, it is important for the Government to use this Bill as an opportunity to break down barriers to voting so that citizens can be fairly represented.
In the last general election, fewer citizens abroad were registered to vote than in 2019, in spite of an historic expansion of eligibility to vote following the scrapping of the 10-year rule. I have already outlined in my comments on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot that ballots can end up arriving too late for overseas citizens to be able to cast their votes, and proxies can be problematic to arrange if they no longer have contacts here in the UK to cast votes for them.
It is estimated that only 25% of citizens abroad know their rights and that they can vote, and only 48% of postal votes were returned; of course, the number varies slightly depending on which organisation we reference. I have already outlined that there are other countries with systems in place that enable their citizens overseas to cast their vote in an easier, secure and reliable way.
So far it appears the Government have been unwilling to take the steps necessary to make things easier for overseas voters. The new clauses are designed to ensure that the Government take steps to investigate how to make overseas voting easier for our constituents. Can the Minister outline whether the Government will support any of the new clauses in the name of my colleagues? If not, can she outline how the Government intend to ensure that overseas voters are able to cast their ballot in a safe, secure and reliable way?
Paul Holmes
Forgive me, Dame Siobhain, but am I allowed to speak to new clauses 42 and 43?
Paul Holmes
Thank you very much for your nod of assent, Dame Siobhain, and to the Clerk.
This group of new clauses are integral to the Bill. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford, said they relate to one of the holes in this legislation. As I outlined earlier, electoral reform legislation generally comes to this House probably once every decade, and that is why we should treat it as important and use it to try to right some of the wrongs or deficiencies within our electoral system.
We seriously believe that the rights of overseas voters are important. Let us cast our minds back to what seems like an age ago, when we had the evidence sessions of this Bill Committee. Each of our respective political parties, including the governing party, has honourable volunteers trying to advocate the rights of voters living abroad. At the moment, there is no attempt from the Government to try to right some of the wrongs and include overseas voters in our democratic process as they should be.
New clause 43 is similar to the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Guildford in new clause 8. It would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a system to grant overseas electors the ability to register to vote when they renew their passports. New clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations so that overseas electors can vote in person at United Kingdom embassies, consulates and high commissions for United Kingdom parliamentary elections. We believe that those are proportionate and sensible measures to include some overseas voters.
I understand there may be an intervention that says, “What if people cannot get to consulates or embassies?” We believe new clause 42 would be the first step to ensure a full review of the overseas elector system. We understand that some people could be excluded because of geography, but we believe that it would be a step towards increasing the low engagement rate that we have seen in past elections.
On new clause 43, there is a democratic deficit with overseas voters. We think it should be made easier to register to vote as an overseas elector. Therefore, when people renew their passports, we believe that the new gov.uk one-stop-shop website that the Government set up—I used it the other day—would be a perfect online tool for that. That would help the participation rate of overseas electors, which, as the hon. Member for Guildford said, is notoriously low and something we all want to improve.
The Elections Act introduced a series of measures to support British citizens living overseas. That included votes for life, by removing the previous 15-year cap on being registered. However, the Electoral Commission’s evaluation of the 2024 general election found a series of practical obstacles in the way of overseas voters—we heard from them at the evidence session—especially for those who live a long way away and may be unable to send their postal votes back in time.
Only 52% of overseas postal ballots were returned in time to be counted, and the return rate in Australia was a mere 6%, as evidenced in the Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election. That is nothing less than tangible disenfranchisement, and that needs to be corrected.
In new clause 8, the hon. Member for Guildford is trying to do that by establishing at least a feasibility study on how we do that. This is very similar to discussions with regard to cryptocurrency; by using those organisations that gave evidence, every party can feed into the review and the feasibility study. That is perfectly admirable, but I argue that that is a longer-term thing. Our new clauses 42 and 43 would bring in practicable steps now to engage that participatory process. As I say, we perfectly accept that it would not solve every issue, but it would include those participation rates.
Samantha Dixon
It is not true that the Government do not have an eagerness to resolve issues for overseas voters. They are legitimate voters who should be able to exercise their right to vote without unnecessary barriers, and we recognise the difficulties that they face in trying to participate. Many choose to vote by post, and improvements are being made in the Bill to the postal voting system, which should be beneficial to overseas voters.
The purpose of new clause 6 is to allow for overseas electors to print their own ballot paper. They would then be able to deliver their completed ballot to the relevant consulate, embassy or high commission, to then be delivered to the relevant returning officers via diplomatic mail. That process could allow overseas ballot papers to be posted earlier and reduce the chance that they arrive too late to be counted.
I have already put forward a range of measures in the Bill to improve the resilience and responsiveness of the postal voting system, including changes to deadlines to allow swifter printing and delivery of postal vote packs. The Government welcome suggestions on further improvements that we could make to our postal voting system, but unfortunately we cannot support this new clause. All ballot papers must be uniformly printed and contain security markings to ensure the secrecy of the ballot and prevent fraud. It would not be possible to replicate that consistently if ballot papers were printed on home printers.
New clause 7 relates to using engagement with the UK Passport Office as a means of encouraging UK citizens living overseas to register to vote. It would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within six months of the passing of the Bill. The report would cover proposals requiring the UK Passport Office to provide UK citizens living overseas with information on voter registration for UK elections when they apply for a passport or renew their passport.
The Government are committed to improving electoral registration and are actively exploring ways to do so. We intend to explore and test a range of new, automated approaches that make better use of data and make the process easier and quicker for citizens. Separately to the Bill, we are exploring making better use of data that eligible citizens are already providing for other services, and helping to encourage people to register, vote or update their entries on the register. Our focus is on delivering on automated registration approaches, including those set out in the Bill, which allow us to improve voter registration for a greater range of electors.
The purpose of new clause 8 and amendment 3 is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing a range of options to support postal voting for overseas electors. We always welcome feedback and new ideas about how we can improve any aspect of our electoral system, and I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Guildford in this topic. As we have said, the Government recognise the challenges for those who live in remote areas overseas. However, I am afraid I do not believe that the costs of drafting and publishing this report could be justified.
Many of the proposals are frequently suggested and have been thoroughly considered already. Though it is possible that they could support the timely delivery of postal votes, they may come with considerable risks. For example, the use of online or telephone voting, or the digital transmission of ballot papers, would create unacceptable risks to the security and secrecy of those ballots. I note that the Bill already contains a number of measures specifically aimed at tackling those issues and improving the resilience and reliability of the postal voting system.
In particular, on the suggestion set out in subsection 2(e) of the new clause—that we should review deadlines and practices relating to the dispatching of postal ballots—the Government have already conducted a review on precisely that matter. The Bill will make a number of changes to improve the system, such as bringing forward the postal vote application deadline and formalising a postal vote determination date. I hope that Members will welcome and support those changes.
I now turn to new clauses 42 and 43 tabled by the Opposition. The purpose of new clause 42 is to require the Secretary of State to make a provision to enable overseas voters to vote in person at UK embassies, high commissions or consulates for parliamentary elections. The Government have considered the suggestion and feel it would be a significant logistical undertaking that would not yield sufficient benefits to overseas electors.
For example, embassies could need to run polling stations covering all 650 constituencies, and every returning officer would need to oversee the activity in every embassy. Each embassy would need to be equipped with all the relevant ballot papers, registers and other materials needed—and could need up to 650 variations of these. Any benefits of embassy voting would be limited to electors living close to diplomatic premises, and it is therefore difficult to justify the additional costs that would arise from the suggestion.
We have no plans to introduce such a system of voting. Instead, we are focused on improving the current systems for overseas electors—such as postal and proxy voting—so that they remain secure, reliable and accessible for everyone. There are a number of measures on postal and proxy voting in the Bill, and I hope Members will be supportive of them.
New clause 43 would introduce a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce a system to give overseas electors the option to register to vote when they renew their British passport online. The Government are committed to improving electoral registration and are actively exploring ways to do so. There are already existing powers that will allow us to explore and test a range of more automated approaches that involve integrating registering to vote with government services. They will make the process of voter registration easier and quicker for citizens. Our focus is on more automated registration methods that will benefit a greater range of electors.
Zöe Franklin
I thank the Minister for her comments, but I sadly remain unconvinced that we are addressing the significant problems that overseas voters are encountering when they seek to be involved with our democracy. They may live overseas, but they are still British citizens and deserve to be able to cast their vote. I will not press new clauses 6 and 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot, to a Division. However, I intend to press new clause 8 to a Division, if that is feasible, Dame Siobhain.
Zöe Franklin
I beg to ask leave to withdraw to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections.
(2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for—
(a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station asset out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983;
(b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers;
(c) voting by telephone;
(d) secure electronic voting;
(e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters;
(f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options;
(g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and
(h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) overseas electors;
(b) electoral administrators;
(c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate.
(4) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”.—(Zöe Franklin.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. I remind Members to switch electronic devices off or to silent, please, and that teas and coffees are not allowed during sittings.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 3, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(7) The preceding provisions on allocation for trial without a jury do not apply to cases where a defendant has already elected to be tried in the Crown Court prior to the commencement of this section.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 9, line 28, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
This amendment would prevent the provisions on trial on indictment without a jury applying retrospectively to cases where the defendant has elected trial by jury before these provisions become law.
Amendment 43, in clause 3, page 9, line 28, leave out
“trial on indictment of a person beginning on or”
and insert
“cases whose first hearing in the magistrates’ court takes place”.
This amendment would prevent the provisions on allowing judges to try all triable either-way offences with likely sentences of fewer than three years from applying retrospectively.
Yasmin Qureshi
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
Amendment 25 relates to the retrospective allocation of cases to the Crown court bench division. I am asking that provisions for the allocation for trial without jury do not apply when election has already happened. The point is that in all jurisprudence in the world, retrospective legislation is bad law and bad jurisprudence, going against the rules of natural justice. Why? Because there is a breach of legal certainty.
A core principle of the rule of law is that an individual should know the legal consequences of their actions. People also have a legitimate expectation of the procedural framework in place at the time of the commission of an offence. Retrospective allocation rules disrupt that expectation and weaken trust in our justice system. It is a selective tightening of procedures by the state, which risks an abuse of legislative power and an inconsistency.
Article 7 of the European convention on human rights argues against retrospective criminal law penalties. While it is correct that with this clause we are not talking about retrospective criminal penalty, I would say that article 7 is being breached, because even if penalties are not increased, legitimate expectations are being undermined. The defence and legal representatives prepare cases based on existing court structures, and on known procedures and practices. Suddenly to set new procedural rules and different evidential expectation is just not cricket.
The state is being given an advantage, because there should be an equality of arms. Administrative convenience should not override fundamental rights. The courts have repeatedly stressed that fairness is more important than efficiency, because it generates among people confidence in the state and in the criminal justice system. That is why—I repeat—our judicial system is recognised to be one of the best in the world.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak in support of amendment 43, tabled in my name, and to amendments 25 and 12. Again, on this issue the Opposition and the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden have alighted on the same challenge or issue—the same thing we think is unfair. We have gone about our amendments in different ways, but we recognise the same issue. As we heard, the amendments address the retrospectivity built into the Government’s approach.
The Bill makes it clear that the new allocation regime will apply not only to future cases, but to existing Crown court cases that are due to begin on or after the specified day on which the measures are implemented. In other words, cases that are already in the system, in which defendants may have made decisions on the basis that they expect a jury trial, could be reallocated to a judge-only trial. Our amendment 43 would prevent that by ensuring that the new regime applies only to cases in which the first magistrates court hearing takes place after the change, and not to cases already in the pipeline.
The Government say the change is merely procedural and can therefore be applied to ongoing cases, but that understates what is happening. To change the allocation part-way through proceedings would not simply be technical; it would alter the ground beneath the defendant’s feet. In written evidence, JUSTICE shared our concerns, saying:
“The retrospective application of the provisions is contrary to the rule of law.”
It pointed to the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s legislative standards, which state:
“Retrospective legislation is unacceptable other than in very exceptional circumstances”
and
“must have the strongest possible justification”.
It is worth considering that legislative guidance, which states, first, that enacting legislation with retrospective effect should be avoided. Secondly, provisions that have retrospective effect should be drafted as narrowly as possible. Thirdly, individuals should not be punished or penalised for contravening what was, at the time, a valid legal requirement. Fourthly, laws should not retrospectively interfere with obligations when the liberty or criminal liability of the citizen is at stake. Fifthly, laws should not deprive someone of the benefit of a judgment already obtained. Sixthly, laws should not prevent a court from deciding pending litigation according to its merits on the basis of the law in force at the time when proceedings were commenced. Seventhly, retrospective legislation should be used only when there is a compelling reason to do so. Eighthly, a legislative power to make a provision that has retrospective effect should be justified on the basis of necessity and not desirability.
Having heard those points, we can immediately see the issues. On the principle that laws should not retrospectively interfere with obligations when the liberty or criminal liability of the citizen is at stake, it is clear that that liberty is absolutely at stake in these matters.
On necessity, we have repeated throughout the debate that the Government, in our eyes, have completely failed to make the case successfully that the measures in the Bill are the only way to drive down the backlogs. This morning, we debated the fall in backlogs in some areas seen in the latest published data; that happened without the measures in the Bill, and without other measures that we all think are necessary to help to drive down the backlogs. To our eyes, the retrospective element clearly does not meet the test of exceptional circumstances or necessity.
JUSTICE says that, given that the curtailment of jury trials will have a marginal effect on the backlog, it cannot see how retrospective applications can be justified, and I agree. It argues that it is deeply unfair for defendants who elected for a Crown court trial in expectation of a jury to have their cases heard by a judge alone under a process that did not even exist when they made that choice. Defendants who have opted for a jury trial may be incarcerated on remand awaiting trial by jury. Had they known that this would never materialise, they may well have opted for a magistrates trial and already been released.
There is, then, a risk that the reallocation of cases that are already in the Crown court caseload to the bench division will be subjected to judicial review. There is clearly no ouster clause in the provisions. How do we know whether many of those affected might decide that they should challenge the decision in the courts? JUSTICE suggests that it could happen with each and every case in the backlog that is allocated to trial without jury. This would require additional hearings and the preparation of representatives for every affected case already in the backlog, creating further delays and placing unnecessary burdens on the defendants and the prosecution who, as we have all accepted, are already under significant pressure.
What did the Prime Minister say about retrospective measures? We have already covered what the Prime Minister previously thought about the importance of jury trials, which he seems to have forgotten, but what did he say about retrospective measures? He said that
“they are usually a very bad idea”.
That is a direct quote from our Prime Minister. He said they were usually a very bad idea, yet here is his own Government enacting one.
Of course, we know what the Deputy Prime Minister thought about this issue. He appeared before the Justice Committee on Tuesday 16 December last year. He was asked about this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who said:
“There are currently in the region of 17,500 prisoners on remand in this country. Will these reforms apply retrospectively?”
What did the Deputy Prime Minister say? He said: “No.” The Committee must have to assume that that was his view of the right thing to do at the time. Why else would he have said no? It is reasonable for us to ask the Minister to explain why the Deputy Prime Minister has changed his mind.
Of course, the Minister herself has already been asked about this in the Justice Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out that a defendant committed to trial in the Crown court will expect a jury trial. He said,
“you will relook at cases that have been committed for trial at the Crown court and push some of them through the swift court—that is what you are telling me.”
The Minister replied:
“I think that is something we have to look at.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said to her:
“So when the Lord Chancellor said it will not be retrospective, that was not a wholly accurate answer.”
The Minister replied:
“I think the answer he was giving was in the context of a question around the impact on remand hearings; I think that was the context in which he may have addressed that.”
My hon. Friend replied:
“No, he said the changes would not be retrospective, and now you are giving me a slightly different answer. If someone elects to go to the Crown court at the moment, it is on the assumption that there will be a trial by jury. What you are saying is that it might not be; they might be diverted to the swift court.”
The Minister agreed with that, saying: “That is right, yes.” That can be interpreted only as a suggestion that there was no difference with or without a jury as they are still in the Crown court—an extraordinary response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said:
“Minister, if you have been committed to trial in the Crown court at the moment, you are expecting to have a jury trial, and what you are telling me is that once these changes take effect, you will divert those people committed but whose trial has not started into the swift court.”
The Minister agreed, saying: “Yes”. My hon. Friend said to her:
“That is not what the Lord Chancellor said before Christmas.”
The exchange concluded with the Minister making this point:
“It is a change in relation to the procedure that applies to those cases. They are still getting a Crown court trial under the new proposals.”
We are back to an argument that we have revisited a number of times. When the Minister is pressed on a disadvantage in one form or another of having a trial without a jury, she insists that it does not make much of a difference as they will still get a trial that, in her view, has all the merits of a trial with a jury, to some extent. We made some progress on that earlier today, when the Minister acknowledged that there is something special about a jury trial. If there is something special about it, she must surely accept that those people who do not get one are missing something special and are therefore in some way disadvantaged.
JUSTICE is not alone in its criticism of the retrospective element of the proposals. As I have said previously, Mr Robertson, the founder of the chambers that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney General all practised at—someone they surely give some weight and credibility to—is critical about this. He writes:
“Those charged by police with offences currently carrying a right to elect a jury trial will go through newly devised ‘allocation proceedings’ where they will lose that right if it appears to the court to be more suitable to have a non-jury trial or if it appears to the court that the value of the property involved exceeds a sum to be set by the government.”
By that, I think he means in relation to the severity of the case.
Mr Robertson goes on:
“This means, for all 80,000 cases in the backlog, more time—days perhaps—will have to be set aside for novel pre-trial proceedings featuring arguments about suitability and value of stolen property. There will be legal challenges to the government’s proposal that such legislation should apply to defendants who have already been charged or are awaiting trial. Applying these changes retrospectively amounts to a fundamental injustice, undermining legal certainty and the long-standing principle that individuals should be tried according to the rules in place at the time of the alleged offence.”
He is right, is he not?
Mr Robertson is not alone. The Bar Council says:
“The application of this proposal retrospectively inevitably will face a constitutional challenge. The Criminal Bar Association estimates that up to 30,000 cases will be affected. Not only is this extraordinarily unfair to those who have already elected the Crown Court, understanding that it is a jury trial, it interferes with legal certainty and runs the risk of tying the courts up in appeals, further increasing the backlogs.”
I hope that the Minister can reflect, as always, on those clear views, as well as the views of thousands of other legal professionals, academics and former judges, that provisions in the Bill are not necessary to bring the backlog down, and therefore should not be enacted retrospectively. They are fundamentally unfair, unconstitutional and against the usual practices of this place when it comes to retrospective legislation. I hope the Minister will support our amendment to make sure that the measures are not applied retrospectively.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Although I have proposed the removal of clause 3 in its entirety—we will come to the arguments for that later in proceedings—I will speak to amendment 12, tabled in my name, which seeks to remove subsections (2) to (4) of the clause. Those subsections provide that cases can be assigned to be heard by a judge alone, even if the case has already been assigned to be heard in front of a jury.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am pleased to speak in support of amendments 25 and 12, and particularly in support of amendment 43, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle.
The amendments all engage with a simple point of fairness. Whatever one’s view of the Government’s wider proposals, it cannot be right to change the rules after a defendant has already elected for a Crown court trial. Such defendants made their choice under the current rules. They did not opt for Crown court for any reason other than the fact they would get a jury trial, so for the court to remove that choice from them without any hearing would frankly be shocking.
Let us keep in mind that some of these people will be innocent, and remember that some may have chosen the magistrates route if they had known that going to the Crown court would not give them the jury trial they seek. The retrospective application of new rules is deeply unfair. Whatever side of the jury trial argument we are on, surely we can all agree that those who have already opted for jury trial should have that decision respected.
The amendments differ slightly in drafting but all try to achieve the same thing: to ensure that where somebody has already elected for jury trial, that choice is respected and the new regime does not operate retrospectively. Amendment 25 would disapply the new allocation rules where a defendant has already elected Crown court trial before commencement. Amendment 12 would strip out the retrospective commencement provisions. Amendment 43 would instead tie the new regime to cases in which the first hearing in the magistrates court takes place after the change in the law. Those are different routes with the same fair and sensible objective.
This should not be controversial. If the state tells a defendant that they have a right to elect for a jury trial and they exercise that right, it is manifestly unfair to turn around later and say that the right has vanished and that their case will now be dealt with under a wholly different system. In fact, to call it unfair fails to make the point seriously enough. It would amount to a violation of one of the most foundational principles of our legal system: that retrospective legislation of this kind runs contrary to basic rule-of-law principles and requires the strongest possible justification.
As JUSTICE, the cross-party law reform and human rights organisation put it in written evidence:
“The retrospective application of the provisions is contrary to the rule of law.”
It went on to state:
“It is deeply unfair for defendants who elected Crown Court trial in expectation of a jury to have their cases heard by a judge alone under a process that did not…exist when they made that choice.”
I always endeavour to see all sides of a given issue, but in this case I honestly struggle to see any argument against those statements. I hope the Minister will agree that retrospective application is fundamentally unfair.
If the Government are not moved by appeals to basic fairness, they should at least be moved by their own stated objective of reducing delay. The Bar Council is unmistakeable in warning us:
“The retrospective provisions may also be subject to numerous legal challenges.”
That is exactly the opposite of what Ministers say they are trying to achieve. If the Government push ahead with retrospective application, they risk drawn-out legal challenge, more hearings and more uncertainty in cases that are already in the system. Measures explicitly brought in to help to reduce the court backlog will, perversely, multiply it. This is exactly the sort of illogical thinking that Committee stage is intended to weed out. I very much hope that the Minister will engage on this point.
Our concern is echoed elsewhere in the written evidence we received. Dr Samantha Fairclough’s detailed submission to the Justice Committee states clearly that the Government’s plan to give the Bill retrospective effect is
“unfair…will create significant additional work in allocating those cases…and likely result in appeals.”
JUSTICE makes a similar point, saying:
“Reallocation of cases already in the Crown Court caseload”
could lead to judicial review challenges, further hearings and additional
“burdens on both defendants and the prosecution”.
Even on a practical level, the amendments are eminently sensible. They seek to diffuse the legal landmine that the Government are in danger of stepping on, and would avoid yet more work for a system that is already under intense strain.
As I have stated, the amendments are nothing other than fair and reasonable—in fact, they are a minimal safeguard. My colleagues and I have been clear that we should not be going ahead with these reforms, but if Ministers insist, the very least they can do is to ensure that they operate prospectively rather than retrospectively. People should be judged and dealt with under the rules in force when they made their election, not have the rug pulled from beneath them halfway through proceedings. That is why I support amendments 25, 12 and 43, and I urge the Government and the Minister to accept at least one of them.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
To the extent that it is necessary, I declare an interest in that I used to be a solicitor regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered with the Law Society. I, too, support amendments 25, 12 and 43. They are not technical or political amendments, but constitutional amendments, and I hope that the Committee will consider them in that spirit.
Let me begin with some facts that I think we can all agree on. There are thousands of defendants who are currently part-way through the criminal justice process having made a formal, consequential and, they thought, irreversible election to be tried by jury in the Crown court. They made that election under the law as it existed when they made it—indeed, as it exists today. If the Bill passes unamended, that election, that choice, that right, which they have already exercised, will be taken away from them before they ever reach trial. It is a bitter irony that they have not yet reached trial because of the situation that the country is in. I accept that it is not this Government’s fault that we are where we are, but the state is the state, and the Government are responsible for it. For those people to be awaiting trial because of the state and then have their rights taken away from them by the state because of this Government’s actions goes far beyond disagreement on the Bill and on the principle of jury trial, no matter how important that is.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I am sure that we are all looking forward to a rather long afternoon listening to the hon. Member’s speech. Does he agree that this is also about the victims, some of whom the Committee heard evidence from, who did not have a right not to have their freedoms taken away, did not have a right not to be attacked, do not have a right to elect, do not have a right to speed up the process, and do not have a right to an earlier trial, before it collapses when other people pull out of the process? While he is making a very important point about ensuring that we have a just system for defendants, does he agree that we must also ensure that victims are centred in this?
Joe Robertson
I look forward to spending the afternoon exchanging ideas with the hon. Member. Let me begin by expanding a little on what I had intended to say. I do not agree with the narrative that it is either the defendant or the victim who wins out, not least because not every defendant is a guilty person. I would also say that victims of the worst crimes, when they are waiting for a guilty person to be found as such, already face the backlog. They will not have a choice to go to the magistrates court, because those are not either-way offences.
The jury system will always take longer, and the people who have suffered the worst will always be subject to the longer jury trial. There is a reason why that is right: a jury is asked to take a decision on whether something happened, and its decision could mean that someone loses their liberty for a very long time. The criminal system in this country is tilted in favour of the defendant, so I am afraid that it is tilted in favour of people who commit heinous crimes. However, in our system we must believe that those who commit heinous crimes will be found out, convicted and serve the very toughest sentences.
Yasmin Qureshi
Does the hon. Member agree that trying to divide our citizens into victims and defendants—the good and the bad—is not the best way forward? Defendants can themselves be victims, and victims can become defendants. It is important that we have a system of principle that applies to everyone. There is an assumption that we should favour of the victim and everything should be stacked against the defendant, but all of us, as individuals, could become defendants.
Joe Robertson
I do. Perhaps I could encourage a Tea Room conversation between the hon. Members for Gloucester and for Bolton South and Walkden, in the hope that her wisdom might rub off on her hon. Friend when it comes to pitching this as a contest between victim and defendant.
Of course, on a technical point, it is not the victim or complainant who brings the case; it is the Crown—the state. Yes, there is a victim who must see justice, but in criminal law, the offence is seen as a crime against the state. In countries where there is not a monarchy, it is the people versus the defendant, because the defendant’s crime is an affront to the people. We have a monarchy in this country, and we know it is the Crown against the defendant.
Dr Mullan
Further to the intervention from the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden, it might be helpful to remind the Committee of the letter written by dozens of organisations representing women and girls. I was very clear that that letter actually represented women and girls as victims, but it absolutely makes the hon. Lady’s point about the criminalisation that is sometimes attached to women and girls as a result of coercion and other circumstances that they might go through, so they have an interest in ensuring that they have access to a fair trial. As she said, the division between the two is not as black and white as some Government Members seem to want to make it.
Joe Robertson
Yes. Let us get back to principles here. I support what the Government are trying to do in reducing the backlog. Of course, that is the right thing to do, and it benefits both those awaiting trial and the victims and complaints who want to see justice.
On amendment 25, my particular issue here the retrospective application of the law. Even if Members agree with the Government that either-way offences should go and that people who commit or are accused of committing a crime in the future should no longer have the right that people used to, the clause will apply that new law to things that have already happened. That is highly controversial and an affront to the common law legal system in this country.
Alex McIntyre
It is refreshing to hear a Conservative Member defending the European convention on human rights. Can he confirm whether it is now the Conservative party’s position to support the ECHR, or is it for withdrawing from it, as it was last year?
Joe Robertson
I continue to be grateful to the hon. Member for hanging on my every word, and I am grateful for the opportunity to expand on that. As I said, it is a basic tenet of English common law, and the ECHR effectively replicates what is already in our legal system. I am very happy to engage in a wide-ranging debate on the ECHR, but I fear that you, Ms Jardine, are also hanging on my every word and may stop me.
Dr Mullan
I absolutely think that we should leave the ECHR, because I do not like the mechanism that it operates under, but I absolutely support some of the rights and protections in principle that it advocates. I am struggling to see why there is a contradiction. There are lots of times when we might support elements of proposals without supporting the manner in which they are handed down.
Joe Robertson
Again, I invite a Tea Room conversation —although we may have to meet somewhere geographically in the middle of the Tea Room.
Any measure that materially and detrimentally alters the regime to which a defendant is subject in a way not foreseeable at the relevant time engages article 7. The Government’s own ECHR memorandum on the Crime and Policing Bill of April this year acknowledged that article 7 is engaged where the defendant could not “reasonably have foreseen” the application of a measure “at the material time”. At least we can agree that article 7 is at least engaged. A defendant who elected Crown court trial under the existing law could not have foreseen that that election would be nullified, not least of all because some such defendants have been waiting rather a long time—and that is the issue this Government are trying to deal with. I say again that I support what they are trying to do, although I disagree with some of the means they are using to achieve those aims. This is precisely the kind of unforeseeable retrospective detriment that article 7 exists to prevent.
While we are on the ECHR, I turn to paragraph 2 of article 6, on the right to a fair trial, and pending proceedings. Paragraph 1 guarantees the right to a “fair and public hearing” before an “independent and impartial tribunal”. The European Court has repeatedly held that the principle of the rule of law and the notion of a fair trial preclude any interference by the legislature—that is, Parliament—other than on “compelling grounds of the general interest”, with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute. This principle was established in a number of cases and applied domestically in Reilly (No. 2), 2014.
Where a defendant has an existing elected case in train, the application to them of the new clause 3 regime is precisely the form of retrospective interference with pending proceedings that article 6 prohibits. The Government must demonstrate compelling grounds of the general interest. Processing efficiency—the rationale advanced for these reforms—does not satisfy that threshold, in my view. I say again that we are talking about cases that are already in proceedings.
The Government’s own Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 identify, as part of the overriding objective, the recognition of the rights of a defendant, particularly those under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Retrospective removal of the elected mode of trial is directly at odds with the overriding objective that the Government have enshrined in their own procedure rules.
I turn to the more recent Reilly litigation that went on between 2013 and 2015, because, although this is a historic principle, it is one that has been repeatedly upheld. The R (on the application of Reilly) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions litigation provides, in my view, the closest and most instructive domestic parallel.
In 2013, Parliament fast-tracked the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 to retrospectively validate regulations that the Court of Appeal had already found to be unlawful. The Act was introduced before the Supreme Court appeal was complete. That is a direct analogy to the present situation, in which the Bill would alter the mode of trial for defendants who are already part-way through criminal proceedings.
In Reilly (No. 2), Mrs Justice Lang held that the 2013 Act was incompatible with article 6(1) of the ECHR, in that it had interfered with—
The Chair
Order. I gently remind the hon. Member not to stray too far from the subject under discussion. We have a lot to get through.
Joe Robertson
I am grateful for that indication, Ms Jardine, and I understand. It had interfered with ongoing legal proceedings in favour of the state, which is exactly what is happening here: legal proceedings are being interrupted in order to favour the state, removing from appellants what would otherwise have been a conclusive ground of appeal without justification by compelling grounds of the general interest.
The Court of Appeal upheld this conclusion, with Lord Justice Underhill emphasising the importance to be attached to observance of the rule of law. Mrs Justice Lang further held that the absence of consultation with the representative organisations, which I say has happened here too, and the lack of scrutiny by relevant parliamentary Committees may have contributed to some misconceptions about the legal justification for the retrospective legislation. She said that the Government’s ECHR statement to Parliament failed to explain that a departure from the legal norm—exactly what is happening here, in my view—was being sought.
Those observations plainly apply with equal force to this Bill. The parallels are direct: the Government are introducing new legislation that will alter the legal position of defendants who are already engaged. As in Reilly, no compelling grounds of the general interest have been articulated for why existing elected cases must also be captured. Lots of arguments have been made about why either-way offences should no longer exist, but not why that must be the case for people who have already made an election in that way.
Joe Robertson
I will go on to my next bit, which is even more relevant than my previous bit.
The Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011 is Parliament’s most recent example of retrospective criminal legislation. It reversed the effect of the High Court’s decision in R (on the application of Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police) v. Salford Magistrates’ Court and Hookway on the calculation of detention time under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and did so by deeming the amendments always to have had effect. They had not.
The then Policing Minister described the matter as too urgent to await a Supreme Court appeal. This Government have made no case that the current backlog is so urgent that it must be all shifted to the magistrates court. It wants to tackle the backlog, yes, by changing the right to elect, but removing people who have made that election into a different court is something quite different. The Government have not argued that it is too urgent. That is unsurprising, because it is plainly not. Even in the emergency context of the Police (Detention and Bail) Act, when the Government faced systemic liability for unlawful detentions, the retrospective approach attracted intense criticism, just as I am criticising this Government. It was acknowledged in the explanatory notes that it was deliberately retrospective and it remains subject to potential ECHR challenge.
It is interesting to note that this legislation may also be subject to challenge, even if it leaves this place and passes into law. No equivalent emergency exists here; there is no systemic liability to reverse. The War Crimes Act 1991 is cited as a paradigm case of retrospective criminal legislation, allowing proceedings for war crimes committed in German-occupied territory in the second world war, notwithstanding that the defendants were not British at the time. Parliament considered that the exception was justified by the gravity of the crimes involved—they were heinous crimes—but even then the Act was controversial.
Alex McIntyre
I thank the hon. Member for giving possibly the longest wind-up in the history of wind-ups. I have two questions for him. First, does he recognise that both examples of retrospective legislation that he mentions were made by a Conservative Government? Secondly, what number does the backlog need to hit before he deems it urgent that the Government tackle it?
Joe Robertson
I think it is for the Government to set out the state of emergency. I do not accept that there is one; in fact, I do not think the Government are saying that there is one, when it comes to taking away a right that someone has already elected. We are not talking about getting rid of jury trials for a trial for either-way offences. I disagree with that; we have dealt with that, and we will go back to it. In this clause, we are talking about applying that to a number of people who have already made an election. It is for the Government to set out the emergency. I do not believe that there is one, and I think that they have not set it out because they do not believe that there is one.
Dr Mullan
As I pointed out, at some point in these proceedings, even the Justice Secretary did not think it necessary. When he was considering these matters, the Justice Secretary agreed that it was perfectly reasonable for it not to be retrospective. We are actually making an argument with which, at one point, the Justice Secretary agreed.
Joe Robertson
The shadow Minister is absolutely right. I invite the Minister to address that point head on in her speech. Even the Government themselves do not seem to be saying it is an emergency, whereas when any previous Government, Conservative or Labour, have tried to enact something retrospectively, they have at least made the case for an emergency. Heinous crimes committed during a war, loopholes that have left the state open to repeat, ongoing litigation into perpetuity—those are the sorts of threshold that have been met in previous times.
I hope that that goes some way to answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Gloucester. Let us hear from the Government why retrospective application in this case is so urgent. The answer cannot be about future cases; it must only be about those who have already elected trial.
I draw attention to a post on the UK Constitutional Law Association blog in July last year, which addresses and objects to the idea of using the Crown court backlog crisis to justify this provision. It is not an adequate justification that it is equivalent to wartime. Jury trials were not suspended even in the first world war, the second world war or the covid pandemic, all of which produced a more acute systemic issue than the one we have today. The present difficulties, however real they are—and I say again that they are real—do not plainly reach that threshold.
The Government’s own stated policy is that they must balance conflicting public interests and consider whether the general public interest in the law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public interest with regard to ECHR. The Solicitor General’s answer to a parliamentary question set that out explicitly. For the sake of brevity, I will not repeat that answer. However, whatever views are taken about that balancing exercise, there appears to have been no such exercise on which to take a view. It is apparent in the Bill’s explanatory notes. No compelling justification for retrospectivity is advanced. It should be in the notes, and it should have been done already, but at least the Minister can address it now.
This has not been a case of closing an unforeseeable loophole. It is not an emergency requiring same-day legislation. It is not a response to a systemic injustice in wartime. It is a policy reform that operates perfectly well on a prospective basis if that is what the Government want to do, although I do not agree with abolishing jury trials. But the retrospective reach of clause 3 appears—I hope—to be inadvertent. The amendments would correct it.
The Government’s reform agenda could be delivered even if the amendments are made. Future cases would be fully captured by the new regime applied prospectively. Where defendants have already elected—and there will be relatively few of those over the lifetime of this law, compared with all the crimes that it will capture in future—their cases can be resolved under the existing system. It raises the question of what happens when we take a number of cases and put them straight into the magistrates courts now, rather than allowing the natural wasting away of the election to trial by jury for those who face what, today, are either-way offences.
The cost of honouring the amendments is minimal, even to the Government. The cost of not honouring them is significant. I will not repeat the arguments that I have already made. In my view, the Committee should support amendments 25, 12 and 43. They are constitutionally proper and correct, legally secure and practically proportionate. The Government have offered no principled justification for the retrospective application of clause 3. In the absence of such justification, the presumption against retrospectivity must surely prevail. The Government can still achieve the aims of the Bill, no matter how much I disagree with a number of them.
The Chair
I gently remind Members that we have a lot to get through today. If they could keep their comments succinct and non-repetitive, that would be very helpful to everyone.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I will endeavour to do just that, Ms Jardine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden and the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle and for Chichester for their amendments. Albeit with slight variations in wording, the purpose of amendments 12, 25 and 43 is to prevent the new allocation test for the bench division set out in clause 3 from applying to any cases received in the Crown court prior to the commencement of the clause.
Two of the amendments refer to cases in which the defendant has elected for trial in the Crown court. The hon. Members did not think that judge-alone reforms should apply in such cases. To be absolutely clear, clause 3 does not apply to trials that are already under way. It provides that the new provisions will apply to trials on indictment beginning on or after the specified day, which must fall at least three months after commencement. That means that cases in the existing Crown court caseload in which a trial has not yet begun may be considered under the new allocation test for the bench division. Cases already assigned to the Crown court will not be returned to the magistrates court because of these reforms. Where a defendant has elected for their trial to be heard in the Crown court, that case will remain in the Crown court. Cases in which a jury trial has already begun will always proceed with a jury trial.
The question was asked, “Why did the Government choose, through this legislation, to apply the procedural changes to the existing caseload?” The answer is simple, and I regard it as compelling: it will enable us to start tackling the backlog sooner, delivering swifter justice for victims, defendants and witnesses alike, without compromising defendants’ rights or fairness. “Retrospectivity”, which is a word that we have heard a lot in this debate, is a misnomer here. Cases that have already been assigned to one court jurisdiction, whether that is the magistrates court or the Crown court, will not be allocated to another jurisdiction. We will not be returning cases to the magistrates court when a defendant has elected for a trial in the Crown court.
Trials should be tried in accordance with the law as it stands, as at the commencement of trial. Critically, the application of what are procedural changes to existing cases is consistent with long-standing legal practice, as can be seen from judge-only trials for jury tampering under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the application of the increase in magistrates court sentencing powers in 2024.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East: there is no application of article 7 in this context, because we are dealing with a procedural change. We are not engaging the criminal law as it applies to offences and to penalties. As a general principle, a trial should proceed in accordance with the procedural law in force at the time at which the trial begins. That is lawful and consistent with precedent. It is a practical step to ensure that courts can make best use of their available capacity, and it avoids two different procedures running in parallel in the Crown court as a result of arbitrary cut-off dates.
Implementing structural reform in our courts will take time. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the Justice Committee, we must pull every lever at our disposal to improve efficiency because the situation is urgent. Yes, on a number of occasions I have used the word “emergency”. A critique put to me by Members of the House, including the hon. Member for Bridgwater, and by the media is, “It is going to take you far too long to get this backlog down.” Well, that is why we must pull every lever, whether on investment, on efficiency or on these structural reforms. We cannot wait years for them to kick into effect. That is why we have made our choice. I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw her amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I will not say any more. I think we have discussed retrospectivity enough. As I have said from the beginning, retrospective legislation is always a bad idea, in any country. People are entitled to certainty about the law. If we start eroding that fundamental principle, God knows where we will stop. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Government will consider the issue further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I remind Members that amendments are voted on at the point they fall in the Bill, so any Divisions on amendments 12 and 43 will come later.
Dr Mullan
I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 3, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(7) Where a court has determined in accordance with this section that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the defendant may appeal that decision if he can demonstrate that the circumstances of their case are such that trial without a jury would amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice.
(8) An appeal made under subsection (7), must not be heard by the same judge who made the original determination.”
This amendment would allow a defendant to appeal the decision to have a judge-only trial on the basis that it is in the interests of natural justice for the trial to be with a jury.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 18, in clause 3, page 9, line 17, leave out “no” and insert “a”.
This amendment entitles a defendant to appeal against a judge’s decision to allocate the case for trial by judge alone.
Amendment 28, in clause 3, page 9, line 20, after “hearing” insert—
“only if the prosecution and defence have waived their right to the hearing”.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of amendment 40 in my name and to consider other related amendments. At this point, we are considering in more detail the allocation decisions, how they work in practice and the likely legal risks and pitfalls inherent in the new process.
I will begin by laying out the process that will exist. The Bill will introduce a Crown court bench division where cases are tried by a judge alone. To ensure that jury trials remain in place for certain crimes, only triable either-way cases that are assessed as likely to receive a custodial sentence of three years or less will be allocated for trial in a bench division. Indictable-only offences cannot be tried there.
To determine whether a triable either-way case should be allocated for trial in a Crown court bench division, a Crown court judge will assess whether the offence or offences to be tried are likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less. That decision will be taken at the first opportunity for the defendant to enter a plea in the Crown court using a plea and trial preparation hearing. If cases involve multiple defendants, judges must assess eligibility based on the highest likely sentence of any one defendant. Offences to which defendants have pled guilty are not included in the assessment of a likely sentence, and youth defendants are not exempt from the bench division.
The bench division will operate as a lower tier in the existing Crown court—that is important. The Bill will not create a separate jurisdiction or intermediate court. The usual Crown court procedures will apply in the bench division, including the appeal route from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal. Judges sitting in the bench division will also retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown court and may impose sentences of more than three years where appropriate, even if the allocation was initially based on the likelihood that they would not do that.
The Bill and explanatory notes are clear that no new appeal route is created for decisions to allocate a case to the bench division. It is important to set out the distinctions between different types of allocation decisions both now and in the future, if these proposals are passed. There are some elements of allocation decisions at present that we would all agree are not subjective, but based on offence classifications. I may be wrong, but I do not imagine there remains much debate about allocation decisions in those scenarios. Summary and indictable-only offences will be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court based on that classification, though there are some exceptions that I will ask the Minister to clarify later.
Under the Government’s proposed reforms, there are similar black and white scenarios, with summary-only remaining with the magistrates and indictable-only going before a judge and jury. However, we will continue to have decisions on either-way offences, which consider the subjective—the not black and white—consideration of what the likely sentence length is. The consequences for defendants are entirely new territory for criminal defendants for the offences concerned.
Of course, defendants may disagree with allocation decisions at present, and may want to stay in the magistrates court, but the court may decide that they must be heard in the Crown court. However, importantly, as I understand it, a defendant cannot actually legally challenge that decision through judicial review. I am not a legal expert, and if the Minister receives advice that that is wrong, I would welcome that clarification, but as I said, my understanding is that judicial review would not be possible in that scenario. I also understand that it would not be the case in relation to the Crown court where the allocation would take place. Importantly, as I pointed out at the start, this will be taken in the Crown court, not some new or different court, so we should read across the rights and procedures that already exist in the Crown court.
As I understand it, triable either-way offences, if heard in the Crown court, are then in legal terms considered to be a trial on indictment. If a triable either-way offence is tried in the Crown court, it becomes a trial on indictment as if it were an indictable offence as per the other offences that are always indictable. Again, I am happy for the Minister to say whether that is the case, but that is my understanding of it.
Why is it important? Because there are constraints on the use of judicial review in relation to a Crown court trial on indictment. Under sections 28 and 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, no appeal by way of case stated or judicial review is possible in respect of matters relating to trial on indictment, so it will not be available with regard to any decision relating to the conduct of a Crown court trial on indictment. These measures, in this important way, are specifically taking away an existing legal right: the right to challenge an allocation decision. That cannot be right, fair or reasonable, and I am not even confident, as it is not mentioned, that I have seen in any of the Government publications related to this that it is something the Government have recognised they are doing.
It is also potentially a mistake in another way: in relation to the efficiency and smooth running of the courts that the Minister is seeking to achieve. At conviction, the defendant can apply for leave to appeal in the Crown court. At that stage, is the proposal that the defendant will be prevented from appealing the allocation by the judge, so a defendant might argue that a judge could act unlawfully on allocation with no appeal safeguard?
I have not had my attention drawn to an ouster clause. More generally, there is the provision that there is no specific appeal to the decision in isolation, but not an ouster clause in terms of the appeals that are allowed in the Crown court. I am confident that there will be legal arguments about that, at least to start with, until common law settles the matter. It would be extraordinary for the Government to introduce such a clause. We might find examples where a judge in the Crown court has completely incorrectly and legally unjustifiably allocated a case, and when that is brought up as part of the appeal at the point of conviction, be told that that is not a matter on which the court can have an opinion. I think that would be extraordinary.
Does the Minister think it would be right, if it forms the basis of an appeal against allocation happening after conviction, for the Court of Appeal to be constrained from having the power to return the case for trial by jury if it agrees the allocation decision was unlawful? I cannot believe that she would think that was right. Therefore, we create the exact opposite effect of what we are seeking to do—to make the best possible use of Crown court time—particularly in relation to barristers and other people working across the courts, by not allowing an earlier appeal. That is with regard to both appeals that take place and, more importantly, where a whole new trial may have to be ordered before a jury because it is found that the initial allocation decision was wrong.
Consider the scale on which that may happen—hundreds of cases may suddenly have to be retried. If, for example, the measures are in place for seven, eight or nine months, there is no onus or expectation regarding at what point a defendant—a convicted criminal at that point—might seek legal advice and then successfully choose to challenge an allocation decision. That would then be heard by a court, and then that court of appeal will make a ruling as to whether the circumstances under which that person was allocated were unlawful and a retrial with a jury is required.
If any other case has been allocated under those same circumstances that the appeal court determines are unlawful, every single one of those who had been convicted would have the right to say that the precedent has been set that the way they were allocated was unlawful and has to be retried. That could happen six months, a year or two years in. We are talking about a huge potential reallocation and retrial of all cases if the Minister insists that there should not be an appeal on the right of the allocation decision.
A separate initial safeguard—an appeal against allocation at the stage that it happens—is not only the right thing to do to ensure that an existing right is not eroded, but the more efficient way to approach these things. The amendment is sensible, rational and will provide greater confidence in the new court that the Minister is insisting on creating, and its processes.
I ask the Minister to clarify an important matter of law in relation to the allocation decisions in the first place—just the sort of thing that might be appealed if it is not clarified by the Minister during the passage of the Bill or through amendments to the legislation. We are clear about the idea of summary offences that go to the magistrates court. Indictable-only offences will have a trial with a judge and jury. In a number of cases, however, the offence is triable either way, but provisions that this House has introduced mean that in particular circumstances it can be tried only on indictment.
Some examples of that are three-strikes class-A drug trafficking offences, three-strikes dwelling burglary offences, dwelling burglaries involving violence or threats of violence, and the minimum mandatory sentences for firearms offences. Those were decisions taken by Parliament to say that, while the offence more generally could be tried either way, these cases in those circumstances are too serious to be heard by a magistrates court; they must be heard by a judge and a jury.
What are the consequences of the Bill on those scenarios? Will the Government respect the will of Parliament in relation to considering those cases to be more serious, as the Government accept for those cases that retain a jury trial, and that they should therefore remain with a jury trial? It is important that we have clarity on this issue specifically because, as I said, it is something that would almost certainly be subject to appeal if clarity is not provided.
I finish by reiterating the point that, if the Government refuse to accept our amendment, they will be actively legislating away a right to appeal allocation decisions that currently exists in our system. They will be actively choosing to do that if they are unable to insert a similar right through other means, such as through our amendment or an amendment at a future stage. I think it is important that the Committee reflects on that, and I hope the Minister can agree.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I will speak to amendment 18, tabled in my name, which seeks to ensure that a defendant has the right to appeal against a judge’s decision to allocate a case for trial by judge alone, whether because of the likely sentence length or because the case is assessed to be complex or lengthy. I will also be supporting amendment 40, tabled in the name of the shadow Minister, and amendment 28, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden.
As stated, triable either-way offences, with potential sentences of up to three years, could be tried in the new Crown court bench division swift court. I argue that cases where a defendant may receive a sentence of up to three years are not minor offences; we are talking about life-changing sentences. Often in this category, we are talking about possession with intent to supply, actual bodily harm, death by careless driving, or section 20 unlawful wounding or grievous bodily harm, including where there is a grave injury. We must safeguard those sorts of cases against rough justice—an issue that much of the legal profession has warned could arise. It is vital that the Government provide an appeal system against decisions on whether to allocate a case for trial in front of a judge or jury.
I would like some clarification from the Minister: when we talk about summary offences, indictable offences and then triable either-way offences, are the measures being introduced in this Bill removing the concept of triable either-way offences? Are we then moving all those categories of offences into what are described as summary offences—these offences that carry long, life-changing sentences?
Briefly, amendment 28 would add a procedural requirement, but it is an important one because it would mean that the court could not simply decide, on the papers, to move a case to a judge-only trial; both parties would have to have first been given the opportunity to argue the point at a hearing, and only if both sides expressly gave up that right could the court proceed without one.
That goes back to the point that I raised earlier about the Canadian model, which I know the Government have been exploring and have spent time in Canada looking at. There, people have the right to elect a judge-only trial, so there is still an element of choosing what that looks like. That is not what this Government are proposing; they are proposing that there be no choice in the system, and that there be no legal precedent for it. I would appreciate the Minister’s answer to that.
Yasmin Qureshi
I will speak to amendment 28, regarding page 9, line 20 of the Bill. Essentially, the amendment states that, if the prosecution and defence waive their right to a hearing, the court can then make a determination under proposed new section 74AB of the Senior Courts Act 1981. That proposed new section, which will be introduced by clause 3, contains provisions regarding what the court must look at when determining allocation, such as whether a jury trial is to be declined. It is a fairly self-explanatory amendment, but a vital safeguard.
Rebecca Paul
I will speak in support of amendment 40, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, amendment 18, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester, and amendment 28, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden.
Before I get into my speech, I think that the hon. Member for Chichester raised a really interesting point about whether we will ever really talk about “triable either-way offences” going forward, if these changes go ahead. In effect, we will have the rather strange situation—to take the example of category 2 sexual assault or death by careless driving—of either summary offences or those with a full Crown court and jury. It will be interesting to see how that all flows through in the definitions. That is an interesting debate, but probably not one that everyone wants to have right now. I will move on from such interesting questions, and I can tell that the Minister is delighted that I have decided to do so.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
This is a decision that magistrates make every day. Every sitting day, they look at allocation, and they do not put their finger in the air to decide what the sentence might be. The Sentencing Council provides guidelines for each individual offence. I know that the Conservative party does not like the Sentencing Council and has at times called to get rid of it, or Conservative Members have, in particular the former shadow Justice Secretary who has now moved to the Reform party, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). The sentencing guidelines, however, are used by magistrates every day. Sentencing guidelines are also already available to Crown court judges. Does the hon. Lady accept that this is not something that judges will do willy-nilly? There are guidelines and factors that have to be taken into consideration, which is a safeguard in itself to ensure a fair decision.
Rebecca Paul
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that magistrates are doing that now, frequently and—as far as I am aware—fairly well, but we have to remember that they are doing it for low-level cases. In fact, their sentencing powers have increased only recently. The key point is that we will have an additional process. The magistrates do it, but now we will have this additional process at the Crown court level to decide between judge only and jury.
Obviously, the sentencing guidelines and all the things we have just set out would be entirely relevant to that process and will factor in. I will go through a that in a bit more detail, so I hope the hon. Lady will bear with me. I will of course let her intervene—that would be really helpful. She clearly has a huge amount of experience in this area, and I want everyone to feed in. I am asking questions about how this will work in reality, so it would be really good to draw on everyone’s experience. The Crown court deals with sexual assault and other more complex cases and, as she knows, the sentencing has to take into account things such as victim impact, so it is lot more difficult to estimate the sentence. Let us continue the debate, because it is very helpful to have this discussion.
To suggest that a judge in the plea and trial preparation hearing can undertake that assessment accurately and quickly off the back of the information that they have at that point, potentially on a paper determination without a hearing, is unrealistic. That could be very difficult for them. I will give a few examples, and again I am very happy for people to intervene or give their views, because we need to work through the nitty-gritty of how the measure will work in reality.
For category 2 sexual assault, the achieving best evidence full transcripts of the complainants’ evidence are often not available. Instead, the court has to rely on a written summary, but my understanding is that that information is needed to provide an accurate and realistic estimate of the likely sentence. How is it proposed that that will be done in practice for allocation? Will the judge watch the videos of the complainants’ evidence for an hour or two before deciding? If the case hinges on CCTV footage, is it proposed that the judge watch that before making the allocation decision? Those practical points do not appear to have been considered in preparation for the Bill, although the Minister may have all the answers and I obviously look forward to hearing how she thinks the process will work in practice.
It is not sufficient just to say that the judge will decide the likely sentence length without ensuring that they have the information they need to do that properly, particularly given the magnitude of the impact of the allocation decision. I therefore ask the Minister whether anyone has calculated how long it might take for the judge to go through the various videos and footage before the PTPH to get the information they need to make an allocation decision.
It is important to remember that victim impact is often a significant factor in sentencing. Is it proposed that victim impact statements will be relied upon at the point of determining an allocation? What happens if, at that point, the impact is not yet known? For example, the complainant might still be in hospital, medical evidence might remain outstanding or the psychological impact might not be known for many weeks or months.
On the face of it, we probably all thought that a judge deciding whether the likely sentence will be more than three years sounded straightforward. We would think that they just look at the sentencing guidelines, but I am not sure it is that straightforward. Once we start thinking it through and listening to those working in the justice system—I have spoken to people about this—we soon realise that it is far from simple, especially for complex cases such as sexual assault. The judge does not magically know the likely sentence; they need to understand the facts, the detail of the alleged offence and the impact on the victim before they can even begin to do that accurately. If they get it wrong, which is increasingly likely if insufficient information is available to them, that could result in defendants being denied a jury trial when they should have had one.
That brings me on to my next concern. How long will it take on average for the judge to do all this? Has that been factored into the Crown court saving of 27,000 sitting days? Has the increased time that the magistrates will need to spend on this, due to the complexity of cases, been factored into the increased demand of 8,500 sitting days? We also need to bear in mind that the allocation process that the magistrates undertake under the current rules will also get more complex once the sentencing powers increase up to two years. There will have to be allocation decisions for more complex offences such as sexual assault and death by careless driving. Do magistrates have the expertise to accurately assess the likely sentence in those types of cases to adequately assess victim impact?
The Government’s approach sounds simpler on paper, but I hope I have demonstrated that in reality I am not sure it is once we delve into it. These proposals add a not insubstantial amount of work simply to decide where to allocate the trial, essentially undertaking almost a mini trial to review the evidence before the allocation can even be decided. That does not sound time saving to me. It is the wrong way round. We expect the judge to make a judgment on sentence before the trial has even happened, which could change the type of trial the defendant is entitled to. That is fundamentally wrong. It is a flawed approach that will lead to bad outcomes for defendants and complainants.
Linsey Farnsworth
The magistrates court goes through that process. The process of allocation to the Crown court bench division essentially mirrors what already happens in the magistrates court, and that is quite a straightforward procedure. It often takes less than five minutes—virtually always less than five minutes. Because the prosecution makes its representations on the Crown’s case, it sits highest. For the most serious version of the offence, what would the likely sentence be, based on the sentencing guidelines that I have already mentioned? That will be the case in the Crown court. There will be a prosecutor in the Crown court standing up and saying, “The Crown’s case at its most serious does not warrant a sentence above three years. We therefore think it can stay in the Crown court bench division.”
For it to be a big argument, the defence advocate would need to argue that their client deserves a much longer sentence than the CPS says they deserve, if all the most serious elements of the case are proven. That strikes me as a very unusual argument for a defence barrister to make—that they would suggest their client deserves a longer sentence. That is what we are talking about here. How often is a barrister going to argue that their client deserves a longer sentence?
If the defence barrister convinces the judge, the judge might think, “Actually, maybe it does deserve a longer sentence; we will have a jury trial”, and that person is convicted after trial. Then there is the plea and mitigation stage. At that point, the defence barrister will try to argue, “I know the case is now proven, and I know that I said it deserved longer than three years, but actually, even though the case is proven, they deserve less.” That would be a very strange position for a barrister to be in, and I think they would be at risk of misleading the court at some point along the way, which is something they very much would not like to do. I can reassure the hon. Member that in my experience these arguments just do not happen.
Rebecca Paul
It is really helpful to hear the hon. Member’s perspective from her in-depth knowledge and experience, but I would challenge one aspect of her point: I might argue for a longer sentence if it meant I was more likely to get a jury trial and be found not guilty. Allow me to give an example. If I had created an offensive social media post, I would know that, if I could make my case to a jury, they would be much more likely to use their discretion and compassion and accept the human foibles that we have. They might well say, “This person did not intend to cause any harm—not guilty”. I therefore disagree with the hon. Member; I think she will find herself in a situation where—it sounds bizarre—people will argue that they should get a longer sentence in order to go to jury, so that they have a chance of being found not guilty and clearing their name.
Linsey Farnsworth
Please allow me to finish.
It is because barristers have a duty not to mislead the court. If they are saying to the judge, “I know my client is not really going to get more than three years, but I am going to argue that they are because I want the jury trial,” then that would be very much against the requirements on barristers.
Rebecca Paul
That is not the case. The hon. Lady has just set out that it is about setting out the worst possible cases with respect to the sentence—so they absolutely could do that. It is exactly what will happen. They will always be looking to achieve the best for their client—particularly if their client is not guilty. Let us remember that we are talking about some people who will not be guilty.
Again, they know that if they have done a social media post—and we have seen that people have gone to prison for these things—they are much more likely to not go to prison if they end up in front of a jury. However, if they end up in front of a judge—my goodness me—there is a much higher chance that they will go to prison.
Dr Mullan
As I said at the outset, there is a fundamental safeguard of people being able to have a judicial review of the allocation decision. It is all well and good for the hon. Member for Amber Valley to talk about the scenarios where it sails plainly, everyone is in agreement and it is all good. However, if it did not, at the moment, a defendant has a right to a judicial review of the decision to allocate. If these proposals go through, they will lose that right and have no ability to question legally the decision to allocate—even if it was a factual error of the law. We are not even talking about a subjective element. Let us say that the judge just gets it completely wrong, misunderstands the facts presented to them and allocates incorrectly. At the moment with magistrates that person could go straight to judicial review and the case does not proceed as was intended. However, we would now lose that right.
Rebecca Paul
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Returning to this debate, we are going to see real problems from this approach to allocation. I am glad that the hon. Member for Amber Valley thinks that it is not an issue—it sounds as if she thinks that all the issues I am raising are not issues. However, she will find that there are some KCs out there that will say that some of the things I have raised are actually very much going to be issues.
I ask the Minister in her summing up to go into some of the detail about how this would work in practice. As I said, it sounds really straightforward—“Oh, we just decide whether it is more or less than three years”. However, it is just not that straightforward.
We also have to bear in mind that sometimes, as a case develops, the prosecution might substitute a lesser charge for trial, as sometimes happens—for example, a section 20 grievous bodily harm instead of a section 18 GBH, an affray instead of a violent disorder, or handling instead of robbery—and that changes everything.
What happens when they do that? Will it go back through the reallocation procedure every time? If so, has that been factored into the estimates on sitting day savings? I am sure that the Minister is very much enjoying me constantly going back to the estimates and impact assessment, but it is really important that we are clear about what has been factored in and what has not.
In the light of the number of questions about how this will work in practice, it is surely plain to see why it is so important that the defendant has, as a bare minimum, a right to appeal any such allocation decision by a judge. There is so much scope for error in having a judge perform a sentence estimate at a point before all the facts and evidence are known, or without giving them sufficient time to digest the information, that it would be completely unfair to not include an appeal route. Even better still, I would urge the Government to rethink the whole Bill and not do away with the right to elect for a jury trial at all; then we would not really have to worry about any of what I have just raised.
Sarah Sackman
Once again, I thank the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle and for Chichester and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for tabling the amendments. I will seek to address each of them in turn, as well as the other points raised, in particular by the hon. Member for Reigate.
On amendment 40, let me begin by emphasising that I do share the view of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that we have to uphold the principles of natural justice in our system, which encompass the right to a fair hearing, rules against bias and the duty to act fairly. He well knows that I regard timeliness as an important aspect of fairness and the effective administration of justice. Unnecessary delay places strain on all court users, which is what the Bill—primarily in clauses 1 to 7—is designed to address.
Members will have also heard me say that the fairness of the trial—the fundamental elements of fairness and natural justice—does not depend on the mode of trial chosen. I reject the characterisation by the hon. Member for Chichester of a judge-only trial as rough justice. A trial conducted without a jury is no less fair by reason of that alone.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I accept that it might be a mischaracterisation to describe it as rough justice, but does the Minister agree that in this case it will be summary justice, which by its very definition is rougher around the edges, because it is summary?
Sarah Sackman
I am happy to sit down with the hon. Member again to clarify what she means by summary. There is no curtailment of the trial. All the elements of the trial happen in exactly the same way: the prosecution presents its evidence; the defence presents its evidence; witnesses are cross-examined; the evidence is tested. It is not summary in that sense—but if she wants to come back on that, I am happy to give way.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I appreciate the opportunity to come back on that. That poses another question: if judge-only trials are going to take the exact same amount of time, how will this speed up the court backlog?
Sarah Sackman
As we have heard extensively in evidence, whether from Sir Brian Leveson, the three experienced judges or our international comparators, including the Attorney General for Ontario, it does save time in a number of ways. The most compelling characterisation I heard was from Clement Goldstone, the recorder of many years’ experience from Liverpool. He said:
“in my experience it is wrong to confine the savings, or the assessment of the savings, to empanelling and swearing in a jury. That is where it begins.
Every sex case, I suspect probably nationally, now comes before the court with a direction that there will be no witnesses before 2.15 pm on the first day or, if the case is starting at 2.15 pm, until 10.30 the following morning. If there is no jury, there is no bar to the evidence starting within 10 or 15 minutes... Half a day, at least, will be saved on every sex case that is heard in the Crown court. That is before you start with time lost as a result of jury sickness, or a juror being delayed”.
He went on to say—and we heard this from the Canadian witness as well—that
“It is also easier to call a witness out of order if you are not trying to take a jury through in the order in which the evidence would otherwise be called.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Bill Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 76, Q161.]
He said, in terms, “I do not accept that there will not be a significant amount of time saved.”
It is not right to call a judge-only trial summary. It is not right to call it rough justice, and it is also not right to say that time will not be saved. Substantial time will be saved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Sackman
I am going to make some progress.
Amendment 40 seeks to introduce an appeal route. The practical effect would be adding an additional interlocutory stage to proceedings, increasing the risk of delay. That risks undermining the efficient progression of cases without providing any corresponding benefit in terms of fairness. As I have stated when discussing similar amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, decisions about mode of trial are procedural case management decisions rather than determinations of guilt. As a general rule, such decisions are not subject to a specific route of appeal, in order to promote procedural finality and to avoid delay.
Sarah Sackman
There is no specific ability to appeal, but of course, a decision in relation to mode of trial could be subject to judicial review. Those familiar with the judicial review process know that that is a high bar. We are talking about public law grounds of vires—whether it is within the scope of the statute—and rationality. It is a high bar, but there is no unique route of appeal. That is in order to promote procedural finality and to avoid delay when we are talking about the allocation decision itself.
I reiterate that several important safeguards are in place to ensure fairness and transparency. Both parties will be able to make representations on mode of trial decisions, and judges will give reasons for their decisions. Of course, the wider system of appeal—that is, to the substantive determination on a verdict and, indeed, on sentencing—remains in place.
Dr Mullan
I think the Minister would accept that it is a high bar, but also that it is sometimes successfully crossed. Allocations are sometimes successfully challenged, which demonstrates just how important this provision is. If it is there and is used when things have gone so significantly wrong as to meet that high bar, it is vital that the same test is available in extreme scenarios, but it will not be available in relation to allocation by the Crown court.
Sarah Sackman
I think I have been as clear as I can be. If a mode-of-trial decision is so out of order or unlawful that it is challengeable by way of judicial review, it can be challenged in that way.
Dr Mullan
This is very important. I have read the legislation to the Minister, and highlighted the point that a non-conviction element of the Crown court proceedings cannot be taken to judicial review. The Minister should either say that I am wrong about that and that something like an allocation decision in the Crown court can be judicially reviewed, or that I am right and that what she has just said means there should be something that is not there. The whole Committee needs to know whether I am correct in saying—I believe I am—that that sort of hearing from a Crown court cannot be judicially reviewed.
Sarah Sackman
My understanding, and I will happily correct the record if I am wrong, is that there is no bar to judicial review in that context. However, there is not a specific route of appeal, which is what amendment 40 seeks to allow. To reiterate, several important safeguards are in place to ensure fairness and transparency.
Sarah Sackman
I am going to make some progress.
Both parties will be able to make representations as I have said. We also recognise that cases can and do evolve as they progress through the courts and a number of examples were raised. Clause 3 makes clear provision for cases to be reallocated between the bench division and jury trial where the seriousness changes. That process is set out specifically in the legislation, and for that reason I urge the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The point is that judges can make mistakes. That is why the Attorney General can appeal unduly lenient sentences. Why are the Government saying there cannot be a challenge in this case when a mistake has been made? Why are they not allowing an appeal when a mistake has been made as to how long the maximum sentence might be?
Sarah Sackman
As I am about to come on to, not least to address the very fair questions raised by the hon. Member for Reigate—she knows that I do not mind answering questions, because we have a constructive approach—the assessment designed to take place at the PTPH is to give an indicative assessment of sentence; it is not a final determination of sentence. That final sentence may exceed the estimate that is reached, or it may be lower. This is not intended to be a mini-trial, and that is consistent, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, with what happens in the magistrates court every day.
Sarah Sackman
Of course nobody is infallible in this process, and mistakes are made. But I caution that there is a distinction between taking a decision that is totally outwith the legal authority the statute provides the decision maker with and an indicative assessment of likely sentence, which turns out not to be the precise result that we end up with. That does not invalidate the initial assessment or necessarily mean it is mistaken based on the representations that were before the judge at that time. We therefore think that introducing a specific route of appeal to the allocation decision—I am not talking about appeals to the ultimate verdict —introduces a needless interlocutory stage that will only add to delay, in a system where we are trying to bring them down.
Sarah Sackman
I am going to make some progress.
Amendment 18 would introduce a new right to appeal allocation or reallocation determinations made under proposed new sections 74A and 74B. The Government do not consider that necessary or appropriate. As I said, mode-of-trial decisions of this kind are procedural case management decisions. They are intended to ensure that cases are tried efficiently and fairly and managed proportionately. As a general rule, such decisions are not subject to a unique route of appeal.
Dr Mullan
Just so we are really clear, I have met Supreme Court judges and they tell me that they go back through discussions and debates about legislation to understand the intent or will of Parliament. The Minister said there will not be a separate route of appeal and referred to existing and ordinary rights to appeal. Does she therefore think that it is the will of Parliament that people at the point of conviction should be able to raise questions of allocation, or that judges at the point of conviction should not consider questions of incorrect allocation?
Sarah Sackman
I am not quite sure, in that hypothetical, where those arguments would take us. As I said, the allocation—whatever the constitution of the Crown court, it is still the Crown court—guarantees a fair trial. So I am not sure what this proposal does in that context to underline the fairness of what has been determined.
What I would say to the hon. Member for Reigate is that the intention here is that this process is neither new nor complex. As others have said, it broadly mirrors the allocation exercise in the magistrates court, which already requires a balanced assessment of the case, including matters properly advanced by the defence. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the judge at the PTPH stage in the Crown court will hear the prosecution’s summary of the alleged facts and apply the relevant defence-specific sentencing guidelines to assess harm and culpability to determine in what category that places the case. When one examines the sentencing guidelines, although they are rich in detail, it is often pretty black and white as to whether someone is within the three-year territory or quite obviously above it in cases that are not themselves indictable-only. The judge will then consider any clear aggravating or mitigating features, which will allow the judge to determine where the case will likely fall within the sentencing category range. Inviting representations from the parties at PTPH is not an open-ended process, a mini-trial or a sentencing hearing. As I said, we are trying to give an indicative assessment of likely sentencing length, not what the actual sentencing length will be.
Rebecca Paul
I apologise if the Minister is about to come to this, but is she saying that she does not expect this process to take very long?
Sarah Sackman
It is not just me saying that; Sir Brian Leveson and the independent review of the criminal courts take that view, as did the three senior judges we heard from in Committee, who thought that allocation and reallocation decisions—this is in relation to reallocation decisions, but in some ways there are parallels—could often be appropriately made on the papers, as the judge would have sufficient information in front of them, including written representations from the parties.
The hon. Lady asked how we factor in assessments of the time savings. That is predicated on the idea that this is not a mini-trial and is not intended to be a mini-hearing in any sense. In the magistrates court, there is an indicative assessment that informs the applications of the sentencing guidelines to an allocation decision, and the same thing will happen in much the same way here, with highly experienced judges. That will happen as part of the PTPH, so this is part of a hearing that already happens. The hon. Lady was right to ask me about that, because there was some confusion or challenge over the idea that we are introducing a new hearing or a new stage. We are trying to make this efficient, so that is not the intention at all.
Rebecca Paul
Is the Minister saying that judges will not be required to review CCTV footage or understand the impact on the victim? Is she saying that that is not required in this process?
Sarah Sackman
I will not stray into judicial discretion about how they would do this, but I think that that is highly unlikely. One is assuming that the prosecution’s facts in their case summary are in their favour. That does not require looking behind every element of the evidence to substantiate whether the facts are proven or not; that is for the trial. However, the judge may want to look at something when the parties present their case on allocation, and I am not going to gainsay that. But I think that what the hon. Lady describes is highly unlikely.
As I said, appeals in the Crown court will otherwise remain unchanged. I have dealt with that, and I ask the hon. Member for Chichester not to press her amendment.
Amendment 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden, would add into the reallocation test in clause 3 the ability for parties to require the court to hold a hearing. That would be inefficient. I refer again to the three senior judges who told this Committee that reallocation decisions can often be made appropriately on the papers. Why should judges be required to use up court time where that may not be necessary? This is simply not going to be the laborious process that has been suggested.
Forcing judges to hold hearings if they are considering reallocation runs counter to the intent of the clause. Delays to proceedings can and should influence a judge’s decisions over whether to reallocate a case, and by forcing hearings and delays, parties would effectively be tying a judge’s hands. There is also nothing to stop a party requesting a hearing in that context.
It is fundamental to the proper functioning of the courts that judges can make decisions impartially and independently. Like others across the House, I have full faith in our judiciary to make those informed and robust decisions. I therefore urge my hon. Friend not to press her amendment.
Dr Mullan
We are now being asked to vote in a totally unsatisfactory situation when it comes to the facts of how this legislation will operate in two very important regards. I put it to the Committee that there will be an erosion of the right to judicially appeal an allocation decision that currently exists in respect of magistrates. The Minister said she thinks that that is wrong, but we will have to vote one way or the other on the basis that either the Minister is correct or I am correct. A Member said from a sedentary position—this is not a criticism of him—that the Minister will come and correct the record, but we will have already voted when the record is corrected. The Minister has given a view that there will be a right of appeal through judicial review to an allocation decision in the Crown court, and that is a fundamentally different scenario to one where someone does not have that right. However, we will be asked to vote on that today, without having absolute certainty, and we will perhaps be told afterwards, “Oh no, you don’t actually have that right.” I am not sure how Labour Members are comfortable or confident voting against a right that we are seeking to give people, without having absolute clarity about what the Minister has said and whether she is correct. It is extremely unsatisfactory for this Committee to be asked to vote on that matter without absolute clarity.
Secondly, similarly, the Minister did not clearly answer whether, as a consequence of that, people would be able to pick the issue up in an ordinary court of appeal. To another point raised by Opposition Members, the Minister said that we are not talking about errors in the law or where judges have clearly strayed outside of legislation. How does she know that? How does she know what future mistakes a judge might make? A judge may do exactly that, and allocate a decision completely and utterly incorrectly, outside of the law and what Parliament intended, and the Minister will not tell us whether that could be picked up in a court of appeal.
That, again, has important consequences, not just for the rights of the person who may be subject to that kind of egregious mistake in a legal proceeding without any route of recourse; it will also undermine the whole system if people are appealing and challenging these decisions and there is all this uncertainty.
Mr Kohler
I hate to break the consensus on the Opposition side, but I really do not see how we can say that judicial review is an appeal, and therefore why it is caught by this legislation at all. Judicial review is not an appeal of a decision; it is a review of a process. I do not think it is a concern.
Dr Mullan
As I said, our preference is for an appeal. The Government could say, “We are not going to add additional rights that do not exist; you do not get a right of appeal on allocation by a magistrate, but you do have a right to judicial review.” But the Minister cannot say with confidence that we do or do not have that. That is extraordinary.
Dr Mullan
Sorry—with confidence. The Minister says she is happy to go away and double-check. She should know for certain whether people have a right to a judicial review of an allocation decision in the Crown court, as in the magistrates court. She should be able to tell us that with absolute certainty.
I have been the Parliamentary Private Secretary for a Minister, passing notes between officials and the Minister. That is why debates are structured in the way they are: earlier in the debate, someone raises a point of importance in their opening remarks, and that gives time to the Minister, working with their officials. I absolutely accept that the Minister will not always have things at the tips of their fingers, but that is why the officials are there, to liaise with the Department. I am not criticising the officials, but why have we not had a direct note so that the Minister can get up and say, clearly and confidently, with absolute certainty, that there is a right of appeal to a Crown court allocation decision?
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I have to add my voice to the point that this is an unsatisfactory situation. We have heard time and again from the Minister that the decision about allocation will be made based only on the length of sentence, but in proposed new section 74C(7)(a) to (g) on reallocation—(g) allows for any other matters—there are many points that are quite subjective where decisions could be made on reallocation, and that could have a similar impact on someone’s life. I do not think we have all the answers we need about how this will work.
Dr Mullan
I absolutely agree. We will go on to discuss reallocation, and the hon. Member anticipates the points I was going to make. The reallocation decision is even more of a minefield, with all sorts of subjectivity and challengeable elements. I look forward to discussing that.
The PPS muttered earlier that I am patronising the Minister, but I think the Opposition are being patronised. We are being asked to vote on something where we have not had absolute clarity.
Sarah Sackman
I appreciate that the Opposition disagree with what we have decided to do in this legislation. There is no specific route of appeal to challenge the mode-of-trial allocation decision. If a defendant and their representatives consider it to be so egregious as to be unlawful, they can challenge that by way of JR, but I would suggest that that will be a very difficult threshold to reach and unlikely to get permission in the administrative court. The mode-of-trial allocation exercise involves an indicative assessment of likely sentence—a judgment on the basis of indicative factors—so establishing that the conclusion that has been reached is so irrational is unlikely.
I do not think I am being unclear. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has heard it three times; he does not like it. I am doing my best.
Dr Mullan
Does the PPS want to intervene? No, I did not think so.
As we have agreed, judicial review exists for an allocation decision by the magistrates. The Minister has quite rightly set out that that is a very high bar and is not a right of appeal. In that regard, the Minister is fair to say that our amendment is not directly comparable. I put it to the Minister, and I made this point earlier, that it would be the Crown court making an allocation decision. It is not allowed, as it is in a magistrates court, to use judicial review to challenge a decision made, like at the PTPH, on allocation. That is an incredibly important point that all Members must understand. If the Minister is going to say that people are not allowed a general right of appeal—we do not agree with that, but it is a legitimate argument—that is one thing. But if the Minister is saying that people are going to lose the high bar of challenge that exists at the magistrates court, that is incredibly important. We need to understand that because, as I have said, it is a high bar, but it exists for a reason.
Dr Mullan
Again, this is why the Minister needs to clearly articulate whether or not we can—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Amber Valley is saying that the Minister said that we can. But what will the Minister do if we all vote tonight on the basis that the allocation decision can be judicially reviewed? The Minister is asking us not to have a view on it, not to consider it, but to vote on the question of appeal in relation to allocation decisions on the basis that she has told us that they can be judicially reviewed. Will the Minister think that that is in any way satisfactory if what she has told us proves wrong? I do not see how she could possibly think that that would be satisfactory.
Alex McIntyre
The Minister has been really clear in her response. This morning, the shadow Minister was extolling some intellectually coherent arguments that the Conservative party has now discovered. I wonder whether he might return to them for this afternoon’s session.
Dr Mullan
I think that wanting defendants to have the ability to challenge allocation decisions as they stand under a new court is pretty intellectually coherent. I am arguing that these are potentially significant, consequential decisions for defendants, and at the moment, as the Minister has explained, we all agree that there is a high bar for judicial review. I am not confident, and the Minister has not given me confidence, that the judicial review element absolutely exists.
The Minister has talked about appeal; she is right that there is no right of appeal for the allocation decision at the magistrates court, but there is a right to judicial review and I am not sure that there is in this clause. It is unsatisfactory that we may have to vote on it.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I am no expert, but I find this argument fascinating. What would it take to make the shadow Minister believe what the Minister is saying? I do not understand this subject, except for everything that I have read, but the Minister has been absolutely clear. What does the shadow Minister need to make it clear so that we can move on to another point?
Dr Mullan
If the Minister wants to intervene on me and say, “I am absolutely certain that there would be a right to judicially review the allocation decision by a Crown court,” I will be satisfied. I am asking for the Minister to stand up and say that she is absolutely certain.
Sarah Sackman
If, at a PTPH, a judge makes an error of law, that is amenable to judicial review. Full stop.
Dr Mullan
I welcome that clarity; it will be interesting to see what happens as a result of that. I take what the Minister has said in good faith, and assume that she would not say that unless she was certain.
That point is about the question of judicial review. The Opposition believe that there should be a right of appeal separate to that, for two reasons. First, it is fair to the individual, and, secondly, if we do not have an initial right to appeal, and these matters are then considered in appeal at point of conviction, we will create more issues, backlogs and legal uncertainty and defeat the point. Our amendment would make the system more, not less, streamlined. It would help the Government meet their objective, not hamper them. On that basis, I will push it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Mullan
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 3, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(7) Where a court has determined in accordance with this section that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the defendant may request a different judge to preside over the trial than the judge who made the determination that the case was suitable to be tried without a jury.”
This amendment enables the defendant to request a different judge to try the case than the judge who determined that the case was eligible for trial without a jury.
The amendment draws into acute focus the challenges with public confidence and the risk of clouding judicial decision making that the proposals of a new judge-only court bench division will create.
It is important to set out the distinctions between different types of allocation decisions both now and in the future, if the proposals are passed. It is important to restate that we have summary-only cases based on the offence type rather than anything subjective, and then we have the indictable-only offences, again based on the offence type. In our previous debate on allocation, I pointed the Minister to grey cases, such as drug dealing and burglary offences, that are triable either way. At the moment, if it is about three of those offences, they have to go to the Crown court. I ask the Minister for clarity at some point about how they will operate.
Presently, we have what I sometimes call a clear and distinct separation of powers—a separation between those anticipating sentencing outcomes and those deciding sentencing outcomes, and a powerful safeguard for where that is not the case. Under the Bill, those lines will be blurred in a new and novel way, because the judge anticipating sentence length in the Crown court can then determine guilt and sentence length, and potentially issue a longer sentence of more than three years. That is important for the defendant and, in certain scenarios, for the victims and bereaved.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley, with her expertise, earlier described the fact that allocation and sentencing take place in the magistrates court, but importantly, the defendant can elect, and say no to their being involved in that process. They can say, “I want a jury trial; I want the judge who passes the sentence to be separate from the people involved in allocation.” Of course, the scenario is one in which a defendant is unlikely to have a reasonable claim of bias against their interests in relation to the sentence.
We discussed why someone may prefer a jury trial, even if the sentence might be higher. However, if we are talking about the defendant’s ultimate view about the judge, it is unlikely that someone in the magistrates court—if the case stays in the magistrates court—will say, “You chose to keep me here because of a shorter sentence, so I think you are biased in giving me a longer sentence.” They already have a positive disposition about the view of the sentencing.
More importantly, there are strict limits on the sentence length if a case stays in the magistrates court. It cannot go beyond what the initial judgment was. If the court decides, during or at the conclusion of the trial, that the sentence should be higher, it is up to someone else to pass that sentence. It goes to the Crown court for sentencing.
Linsey Farnsworth
It is true that the case has to go up to the Crown court, but it is not for the purposes that the hon. Member would like, as it were. It is because the magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers have been reached, and therefore they do not have the power, as opposed to it being preferable that the case go to somebody else.
Dr Mullan
That was not the point I was seeking to make, so I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying.
I sometimes wonder what victims think. Do they sometimes follow a case, hear the evidence and then think it should be getting more than the magistrates’ limits? Do they question whether the magistrates, who have a preliminary view about whether the case will hit a certain maximum at the outset, have come to the trial with some degree of bias about what outcome might be? Do they think the magistrates would therefore have some reluctance, even having heard the evidence in full, to pass a sentence that is beyond their powers and send the case up? Of course, magistrates do reallocate sentencing. As we have said, just because I feel there is a risk of a perception of bias does not mean I think we should scrap the whole lot and never let magistrates pass a sentence, but seeing that things are not perfect on balance does not mean that we accept them.
These proposals will add a degree of seriousness because of the potentially significant differences between possible sentence lengths. The sentencing guidelines for the offences are narrower than we will perhaps see with triable either-way cases, which have already been curtailed at a certain level of seriousness and might go up to an even greater level of seriousness.
If the clause passes unamended, the scenario could be as follows. A Crown court judge will receive an outline of the case, and make an initial judgment on the likely sentence outcome. They will decide, for a triable either-way offence, whether a sentence is likely to be more than three years. That same judge could then hear that case. That is the same judge whom a victim or bereaved family member could reasonably—perhaps not correctly, but reasonably—perceive on some level had already made a decision about the case, because of course they have: they have taken an initial view of the case and on what the outcome was likely to be. Importantly, that is not something that happens in any way shape or form with the jury trial system, where the two things are separate.
We all agree that perception as well as reality is important in our justice system. It is possible that some victims or bereaved family members might question whether the judge, who formed a view, is not best placed to then objectively and fairly decide what the actual sentence should be, if it should be longer than three years. They might even be concerned that passing a sentence of more than three years would suggest that they had got it wrong in their initial view. Again, we do not have to form a view about how likely or unlikely that is; we should form a view on what the perception of that will be. As politicians, we are very used to the concept that perception is important. Even if someone has not necessarily done something wrong, whether the public perceive that they might have done something wrong is important.
All that can be readily and simply avoided through our amendment, which would introduce a separation of powers, as I have described it. This is a modest and narrow amendment. It will provide a greater degree of confidence in the new system; even if the Minister is happy to proceed with the system, I am sure she would accept that it has generated questions and debates about rights and impartiality. This amendment is a very simple and modest way in which the Minister can minimise that. I know she wants maximum possible confidence in the new system, so I hope our amendment achieves that and that she can support it.
As we are still discussing allocations and who will or will not be allocated to different parts of the court, I would also be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity on triable either-way offences, such as drug dealing and burglary offences, where multiple versions go into the Crown court at the moment. What will happen to those cases in relation to allocation as part of the new division?
Joe Robertson
Evidently, I support the amendment in the name of the shadow Minister. As he set out, this is about confidence in the trial when it gets under way. It is about understanding what a judge, in exercising their procedural decision making, may have seen prior to the trial getting under way and the evidence being heard. As I see it, the amendment would go some way to at least mitigating what is lost in the Government’s abolition of jury trials for certain offences: that is, the objectivity of jury trials, where a jury decide on the conviction—guilt or innocence, effectively—and the judge decides on the sentencing.
In jury trials, there is separation between a judge’s procedural decision making about how the trial runs, including throughout the trial, and the facts of the case—whether someone is guilty or not—being decided on by the jury. When a trial is heard by a judge, the judge makes both those decisions. The disadvantage there, of course, is that when either party to proceedings—the defence or the prosecution—wishes to make representations about the way a trial is being conducted or about the evidence in a jury trial, the jury get sent out of the room. They do not see that argument, and their minds are not clouded by what is discussed in the courtroom on a procedural matter that a judge may rule is inadmissible in the hearing. Frequently in trials, that would be a dispute over evidence, such as whether a certain bit of evidence should be brought before a jury. The jury will not hear that discussion; if a judge says no, the jury come back in and they never see it. In a judge-only trial, where the judge is also deciding innocence or guilt, they have to decide whether a piece of evidence is relevant and, if they decide it is not, they have to effectively pretend that they never saw it and to disregard it.
Our judges are capable of doing that because of their training, career, expertise and experience. I would suggest that judges in this country are among the best in the world; as I have said before, I believe our common law English legal system is the best, and I believe our judiciary is the best. But it is simply the case—it is human nature—that when someone has seen something they cannot unsee it. That is precisely one of the arguments for why we have jury trials in this country.
This is about the arguments a judge hears and assesses when it comes to allocation. They could be fairly contested and, of course, the decision made by a judge could be controversial—not necessarily wrong, but controversial—and against what the defendant is seeking. When a judge chooses a judge-only trial, the defendant’s wishes are not disregarded but considered and set to one side, and the judge then hears the facts of the case. The argument is that the judge may be clouded in their view of a defendant, given the robust, perhaps sometimes controversial, arguments the defendant is making about where they want the trial to be heard. That may then unfairly cloud the judge’s view of the defendant when hearing the case itself. In the vast majority of cases, judges have a professional separation as they move on from an important single decision about where to hear the case to hearing the case itself.
It is not just about whether a judge was clouded by the earlier decision-making process. In truth, in the vast majority of cases we can never know. We do not want to get into philosophy here, but some philosophers may argue that judges themselves do not realise when they are clouded. Probably more relevant in practice, though, is the confidence that the defendant has in the judge’s decision.
If there has been a highly contentious, contested argument about where the trial should be held, if the defendant did not get their way, which in my view they should have, because I do not agree with this legislation, and if the defendant does not believe that their case is being tried properly and sees bias in the judge, that will make the trial harder to run even if it is not a reasonable view to hold. It could lead to defendants, some of whom may be representing themselves and giving evidence, not being able to set aside their disagreement with the judge. There will therefore not be a fair, objective process with a judge and a fair-minded defendant who at least has confidence in the system.
Of course, not every defendant will have objective confidence in the system, but at least we can assist the process by not creating an opportunity for the defendant to disagree with a judge’s allocation decision and then have to face the same judge making a decision on their innocence or guilt in the trial itself. I use the analogy of juries, because that is what we are discussing, albeit not under this amendment.
An important example arises in the family courts, when two people are contesting finances during a divorce. That is an area I am more familiar with, as a former family practitioner, and the principle is similar. I apologise if the language I use to describe the proceedings is slightly out of date; it has been a few years since I practised. A financial dispute resolution hearing is effectively an interim hearing before people get to a final hearing; they are seeking to avoid the final hearing by having a financial dispute resolution hearing. A judge hears the arguments made at that hearing and tries to assist the parties to at least narrow the areas of dispute, or indeed resolve their dispute and come up with an agreement by consent. If consent is not reached at that hearing, the FDR judge will not hear the final hearing, because they have seen things that they cannot unsee and heard things that they cannot unhear. The perception is that the judge has been unable to assist in the settlement, they will be unable to hear an objective final hearing and make a decision.
The principle runs through not just criminal courts and jury trials, but family courts and the civil courts. It is a fundamental principle, in this country, that judge who makes a final decision should be as unclouded as possible by earlier arguments or decisions of a more procedural nature. For those reasons, I support the shadow Minister’s amendment. It would not drive a coach and horses through what the Government want to achieve in the Bill. I have already said that I disagree with a lot of the Government’s intentions, but the Government can still do what they want to do while taking the amendment on board. I hope that they will at least consider accepting some amendments. If not, what is the point of scrutiny of a Bill? What is the point of the process?
Sarah Sackman
Let me begin by making it absolutely clear that the deployment of judicial resource is properly a matter for the independent judiciary. Under proposed new sections 74A to 74D of the Senior Courts Act 1981, judge-alone trials will operate in the existing Crown courts and any judge of the Crown courts will be eligible to sit in the new division. Creating a statutory entitlement to require reassignment following a request of the kind outlined in the amendment would, in the Government’s view, encroach on that judicial responsibility.
Let me be clear that, like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East, I am firmly of the view that our judiciary are among the best in the world. That is why the Government are prepared to put our faith in them to deliver this reform. They are best placed to determine how and where to deploy their resources.
The amendment implies that, to safeguard fairness and impartiality in our courts, different judges must preside over the allocation decision and the trial. Let me address that concern directly. There is no basis for suggesting that a judge who has made an allocation decision would be unable to approach a trial with full independence and objectivity. We have confidence in our judiciary, who are independent and highly trained, to do so. Judges receive training throughout their careers, including on structured decision making and the fair treatment of court users. They are accustomed to managing complex cases and to ensuring that trials are conducted fairly. That is their job.
What the Bill proposes is consistent with well-established practice. Across our systems in the civil courts, judges routinely make a range of procedural and case management decisions before trial without that depriving them of their impartiality at trial. The Government are committed to upholding the highest standards of justice, which is why we have ensured that the judiciary have the funding that they need to deliver the training and guidance required to support these reforms.
I reassure the Committee, the House at large and the public watching at home that every defendant in the Crown court will receive a fair trial, and that that is not affected by the mode of trial or by the particular judge presiding over the case. In the magistrates court, justices and district judges routinely make decisions about the admissibility of evidence, including bad character evidence, and other preliminary points of law and then go on to determine guilt without any loss of impartiality. In the Crown court, judges already deal with instances of contempt of court that they witness themselves, sometimes those directed at them personally, without being disqualified from continuing to try the case. That position was affirmed by the Court of Appeal only last year.
Requiring a different judge to preside over the trial would encroach on judicial independence and introduce unnecessary complexity and inefficiency to the system without any evidence that such a safeguard is needed. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Sarah Sackman
I am sorry: I did have that question noted down. The hon. Member will get an answer.
Sarah Sackman
Let me intervene, because the omission was certainly not deliberate. I am trying to make progress, for the sake of the Committee, but the hon. Member has fairly put the question. To be as clear as I can, the court considers the mode of trial by reference to the sentencing guidelines. According to the sentencing guidelines, a third domestic burglary offence is triable only on indictment.
Sarah Sackman
In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, and so that we can make progress, if he gives me a list of those cases at the end of the day, I will come back and give him chapter and verse on each of them at our next sitting.
Dr Mullan
To return to the heart of the matter, I will pick up on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East on an issue that I had not talked about. I talked about how one forms a view of the sentence and how one gives a sentence, and about the ways in which the interaction is unhelpful, but my hon. Friend helpfully points out that other things will happen at the pre-sentence hearing, including the submission of evidence that is then ruled out of order, that might lead to a certain perception.
The Minister rightly referred to precedents relating to judges’ capability, but I do not think that she really engaged with the Opposition’s concern about perceptions that the system is unfair. The Minister highlighted examples in which that might be a risk already. There might already be times when people argue that the perception is wrong. We accept that. I had anticipated that point, which is why I made it clear that the fact that the existing system is not ideal or has undesirable features does not mean that when we get to design a new system from scratch and from the ground up, we should say, “Yes, this is undesirable in these areas, but it exists and we are not going to get rid of it.” When we are designing a new system, we should design out the less desirable elements. Our amendment puts forward the best possible approach. I suspect that it would make it less likely that either defendants who have been convicted and sentenced or victims will be concerned.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) A trial conducted without a jury will be heard by one judge and two magistrates.”
This amendment implements the recommendation of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to have cases heard in the Crown Court Bench Division by a judge and two magistrates.
Sir Brian Leveson and the Minister, on the many occasions on which we have discussed this issue, have been very clear that the proposals set out in the independent review of the criminal courts were not to be treated as a pick and mix. Sir Brian was clear that it was meant to be a package of reforms, alongside stating that juries are not the cause of the backlog; I want to make sure that that is on the record.
But the Government have indeed chosen to pick and mix from Sir Brian’s recommendations, because he never proposed a judge sitting alone in the Crown court bench division. He proposed including a lay element, with two magistrates sitting with the judge; the magistrates would have equal decision-making authority on matters of fact, evidence and sentencing, while the judge would retain responsibility on rulings of law. The purpose of having two was to enable them to outvote the judge on matters of fact and, importantly, to maintain public participation and legitimacy in the absence of a jury.
Sir Brian referred to that in part 1 of his review. He said:
“In a similar vein, the inclusion of two magistrates in the composition of the bench would also ensure that the CCBD would satisfy the expectation of”
being judged by “one’s peers.” He continued:
“I...will not revisit those arguments here. I do, however want to acknowledge the diversity of the current magistracy, which I believe goes some way to satisfying this expectation and would help ensure a fair and balanced representation in the CCBD.”
The magistracy has done an excellent job of improving its diversity, although one could argue that there is still more work to do. A former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, has said:
“It seems to me that if one is going to reduce the involvement of the general public, as members of a jury, in the relatively low-level cases that go to the Crown court, maintaining public involvement through the magistracy is a good course to follow. It also has the great advantage of simply replicating a constitution and jurisdiction that exists in the Crown court at the moment. When there is an appeal from the magistrates court against conviction or sentence, including an appeal against conviction in an either-way case, it is heard in the Crown court by a judge and two magistrates.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 75, Q159.]
The Government cannot shirk their commitment to fair justice free from bias. If these changes are to be implemented, they should include the safeguard of two magistrates in the Crown court bench division. I would appreciate the Minister’s outlining why the Government have departed from Leveson on the point. Is it because there is a concern about finding enough magistrates to fill the roles? Is it because the magistracy will already be overwhelmed by the additional cases given to it as a result of the new sentencing powers outlined in this Bill? Or is it because the Government believe that having the lay element provides no additional safeguard in the interests of fair justice? Through the amendment, we seek to implement the recommendation of Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member for Chichester has set out the reasoning behind her amendment very well. If the amendment were agreed to, it would not go anywhere near restoring jury trials, but it would plainly be an improvement. The leading argument in its favour is that it is what Sir Brian Leveson recommended. The Government have repeatedly cited Brian Leveson’s review, and rightly so—that is what the Bill flows out of—but as the hon. Member for Chichester says, it cannot be a pick and mix. The Government cannot cite Leveson on the one hand and ignore him on the other.
Quite aside from the fact that the opinion expressed in the independent review has been ignored here, there are objectively good reasons why a trial heard by a judge and two magistrates is preferable to a trial heard by a judge alone. For a start, there would be three decision makers rather than one; with a jury there are 12, but clearly three is better than one. But it is not just a matter of numbers. Magistrates could be viewed, and certainly have been viewed, as a hybrid of jurors and judges. They are not judges, and they are not legally qualified people. They bring the quality that jurors bring—varied life experience—to the decision-making process. Of course, in a magistrates court, they are guided in the law by a legally qualified clerk.
It is fairly obvious that magistrates as a group are less diverse than the population of the United Kingdom, from which jurors are drawn, but at least they represent a greater diversity and variety of experience than judges. Judges all share one thing: they went to law school, they are legally qualified and they have had a career that is privileged—that is not a criticism, but I do not think it is an unfair word to describe a judge’s career. Magistrates have a greater variety of life experience. To bring magistrates into the decision making alongside a judge, as Sir Brian Leveson envisaged, would be to bring at least some element of a jury trial: the quality of being unjaded by a career in law and being unencumbered by the experience of being a well-paid legal professional.
I struggle to support the amendment, because it does not go anywhere near maintaining the system that we have today, but it would at least be a small improvement. It is an obvious point, but judges sit alongside magistrates today; it is a tried, tested and understood approach, not an obscure or novel one. Indeed, appeals are often heard in that way, as I understand it, because there is added rigour in having a magistrate sitting alongside a judge.
Of course, having a judge sitting alongside magistrates is an improvement on having magistrates alone, because judges bring professionalism from their legal training and experience of the law as part of the judiciary. There is a benefit there, although of course the benefit is already delivered by the Government’s own amendment, notwithstanding that it is worse than what we have today.
I commend, or at least understand, what the hon. Member for Chichester is trying to achieve. It comes from a good place, but unfortunately—this is not her fault, but the Government’s—it does not go anywhere near maintaining the status quo, which in my view is plainly greatly preferable both to her amendment and to the Government’s approach.
Dr Mullan
I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendment 19, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East pointed out, this one of those challenging situations; we will not vote for the amendment, because it would indicate that we support or endorse a judge trial with two magistrates as opposed to a jury trial, which is not the case. But it is an extremely helpful probing amendment to point out the broader challenges and weaknesses with the Government’s proposal and the differences we would have seen had they followed the proposal by Sir Brian Leveson.
The amendment also draws close attention to a matter that I have spoken about frequently: the Government’s willingness both to say that great credibility should be placed on the reforms that they are proposing because they have come about as a result of the work of the independent review by Sir Brian Leveson, and at the same time to reject proposals by Sir Brian. When we discussed this matter before, the Minister argued that our concern was not valid because Sir Brian had said in his report that the Government could go further. In my view, it is quite the leap to say of our criticisms that specific proposals lack the authority that Ministers claim because they were not recommended by Sir Brian that the proposals would in fact, in some way, be recommended by him anyway.
While I think it is a weak point, it is probably stronger in relation to the decision by the Government to set the test for removing the jury from a Crown court trial at a sentence length of three years rather than Sir Brian’s recommendation of two years. I do not know whether he would support that—one might think he would have said so if he did—but there are what we might call matters on the continuum, where the prospect of Sir Brian’s suggestion of going further on a continuum of sentence length as the test is somewhat understandable. I do not think that argument is at all viable in relation to the measures relating to amendment 19.
There is a distinct, what we might call, category difference between the recommendation to have a judge sit alone and to have a judge sit with two magistrates. We have discussed a number of the drawbacks of a judge sitting alone compared with having a jury. I will take them in turn. First, there is the question of bias—of concerns raised in relation to different outcomes, for example for women or ethnic minorities. We have discussed this before, but I want to draw attention again to the comments of Geoffrey Robertson KC. He said:
“The determination, by 12 citizens of evidence tested by prosecution and defence, is a surer guide to the right result, reflecting common sense and common values, than the personal view of a judge”.
He also said:
“A diverse jury, usually with a few representatives of ethnic communities, serves as some guarantee of fairness and non-discrimination in dispensing justice.”
We have been leaning very heavily on the Bar, but the Criminal Law Solicitors Association says:
“Jurors, drawn from all elements of society, take jury service very seriously. Our Vice-Chair sat on a jury last year and saw his fellow jurors, without exception, treat the process with the gravity and respect that it deserves. Limiting jury trials reduces public engagement in the process and weakens democratic participation in criminal justice.”
Sir Brian was not the only person tasked to consider in detail proposals for a reform of the courts who has settled on similar views about the decision to reduce jury trials, which, as I have said, we do not support. They have also agreed that a judge with two magistrates is the way to do it. Lord Justice Auld’s 2001 independent review of the criminal courts in England and Wales recommended the creation of a new district division, with a unified criminal court structure designed to handle either-way cases that were too serious for the magistrates but did not require, in his view, a full jury trial. He proposed that the court would consist of a professional judge sitting with two experienced magistrates. He said in his report that there is a
“middle-range of cases that do not warrant the cumbersome and expensive fact-finding exercise of a trial by judge and jury, but which are sufficiently serious or difficult, or their outcome is of such consequence to the public or defendant, to merit a combination of professional and lay judges”.
That was a specific choice to say that there was merit in lay as well as professional judges taking part.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester for tabling amendment 19. I reiterate how grateful we are to Sir Brian Leveson and his team for their thorough review, which has directly shaped the measures in the Bill, including the one we are discussing. I also thank our magistrates, who are volunteers and do a fine job in hearing 90% of the trials in this country, providing a lay element. I say this on the day that the Government have launched the magistrates recruitment taskforce, which is part of our endeavour to boost the number of magistrates in the country.
Part of the relevant backdrop to the debate that we are having about the policy choice that the Government have made in this provision is the sufficiency, experience and availability of the cadre of magistrates. The fact is that the number of magistrates in this country halved under the previous Government. That is not an easy thing to turn around overnight. For us to implement and see the benefits of these reforms, the Government are undertaking a huge recruitment drive, but of course it takes time to train magistrates.
As discussed in relation to previous clauses, we are also, as part of this reform package, diverting appropriate cases to the magistrates court and enhancing magistrates’ sentencing powers. That is a big job of work. The hon. Member rightly challenges us and says, “Is that sustainable?” It will be sustainable if we recruit the requisite number of magistrates and train them sufficiently, but there is no doubt that a pressure needs to be met because of the legacy that we inherited, so of course that practical consideration has informed the policy choice. I accept, of course, that magistrates would add a community element and community participation in judge-only trials, in the constitution that the IRCC proposed. But it is also true to say that, on page 274 of the report, the practical realities and the point about sufficiency in the number of magistrates were expressly acknowledged by the independent review, so of course the numbers of magistrates and what they have to do are an important consideration.
I am again grateful to Members from across the House for recognising not just the contribution that magistrates make, but the diversity of the magistracy. For example, 31% of magistrates in London are drawn from black and minority ethnic communities. That is in keeping with the diversity of the city.
Paulette Hamilton
The Minister makes such a brilliant point. She is right: 31% of those who have become magistrates are from an ethnic minority group. But when we look outside London, we see that we are unable to recruit in the numbers that we need in big cities such as Birmingham. Would consideration ever be given to paying younger magistrates, because they are struggling to get employers to give them time off to do this important work?
Sarah Sackman
As ever, my hon. Friend raises a very good point. Overall in the country, 14% of our magistrates are drawn from black and minority ethnic communities. The picture is not bad in the midlands, which my hon. Friend takes a particular interest in. The reality is that we are not in a position to pay our magistrates, but it touches on another consideration in this context. As I have said, I fully accept that magistrates would add a community element to the Crown court bench division, but it is also true to say that in relation to longer and more complex matters, which necessarily are what we are talking about when we are talking about the Crown court bench division, the type of magistrate who can give up their time for the length of time needed to hear longer trials—for weeks at a time—is, I would suggest, inevitably skewing towards the less diverse end of the magistracy.
The other point to make, in addition to the practical one, which I have been transparent about throughout, is the normative one. If I can put it colloquially, the Government make this policy choice because we believe our judges can do it. We believe they can do it for the reasons that I have reiterated in earlier parts of the discussion: their integrity, impartiality and ability to manage the court efficiently. And we see parallels—international comparators. I will again draw on Canada, where this is done to good effect while maintaining the fairness and integrity of the trials.
Introducing a requirement for magistrates to sit alongside judges would risk delaying the implementation of these reforms and, with that, delaying the benefits to victims, defendants, complainants, witnesses and the wider justice system. The Government’s view is that in that time the backlog would continue to grow and remain unresolved, and we cannot have that. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Chichester to withdraw her amendment.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I recognise the comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. I agree that the amendment would not go towards restoring jury trials, and I will continue to push for jury trials to remain at their current thresholds. However, in the absence of the Government budging on that issue, I will continue to table amendments as we go through this process, and I know that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle echoed those points.
The Minister rightly talked of the pressure in the system that must be met. We all feel that deeply across the House; no party represented on the Committee thinks the status quo is acceptable, or that a good version of justice is being served for anyone who is sitting in that backlog, or who is being told that their case will not be heard until 2029. However, the Minister also recognised that the lay element is really important, which surely strengthens the argument that she would not be doing this if she had capacity in the magistracy. If the magistracy was running at full volume, or at its numbers from 15 years ago, she would be including that lay element in the Crown court bench division.
There is a balance to be struck, and the balance should not see our fundamental justice system reduced or degraded in any way. It is something that we should be proud of in this country, and we should protect its core principles. I will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 3, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
“(h) fairness when considering the rights and circumstances of the defendant;
(i) the interests of justice.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 44, in clause 3, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
“(h) whether it is in the interests of natural justice for the defendant for the trial to be conducted with a jury.”
This amendment would ensure that where the decision for a judge-only trial is being considered for reallocation following a change in circumstances, that the judge must consider whether it is in the interests of natural justice for the defendant to have trial with a jury.
Yasmin Qureshi
The amendment would add to proposed new section 74C of the Senior Courts Act, which concerns matters that must be taken into account when determining allocation in cases that are already set to have a jury trial. Amendment 26 would add two further conditions that must be considered when making such allocation decisions. First, it would add
“fairness when considering the rights and circumstances of the defendant”,
and secondly, whether the decision is in
“the interests of justice”.
Those two additional grounds would constitute an important safeguard for a defendant, especially given that these provisions are being applied retrospectively to cases that are already listed. We do not know what the criteria will be for reallocating existing cases in the system. For example, will it apply to those in custody, those very near to their trial time or those who are set down for trial within a short period of the Bill commencing, whenever that may be? No clear guidelines have yet been published on how the allocations will be dealt with.
We also do not know whether the decision to reallocate will be made by the resident judge of a particular Crown court, or whether a court’s listed cases be dealt with by the court administrators who are just doing the list, which is how many things are dealt with. We do not know what the procedure is going to be—we have no idea how the allocation process is going to work—so we are asking for these two particular provisions to be added to the Bill to ensure that there is a proper safeguard in the system.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of my amendment 44 and related amendments, which brings us to consider the issue of reallocation in more detail for the first time. It was touched on briefly this morning in the discussion about allocation, but there are distinct differences in the processes.
We must remind ourselves what the allocation process will be initially through proposed new sections 74A to D of the Senior Courts Act 1981. My understanding is that the reallocation provisions are intended to operate in the following way. First:
“The court must, at the prescribed time or times, determine”
in accordance with proposed new section 74A
“whether the trial is to be conducted with or without a jury.”
It is important to note that “prescribed time” is not defined in the Bill, but would be covered by the existing provisions in sections 84 to 87 of the Senior Courts Act, which refer to prescribed matters being specified in the criminal procedure rules. The explanatory note does not appear to provide any further detail on what the criminal procedure rules are likely to prescribe in terms of timing, so it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what she expects that to be.
Whatever the prescribed time is defined to be, the court must say that the trial is to be conducted with a jury if either the offence, or any of the offences, is triable only on indictment or if the court considers that the defendant, if convicted of the offence for which they are to be tried, would be likely to receive a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years. In any other case, the trial is to be conducted without a jury.
We have covered this initial decision at some length, but the proposed legislation also says that if a trial is to be conducted without a jury but there is a relevant change of circumstances, the court may—and in some cases must—reallocate the case to a jury trial. A relevant change of circumstances is defined in proposed new section 74B(8), and will occur if either the defendants to be tried, or the offences for which they are to be tried, have changed since the court’s last determination on allocation, or it appears to the court that there is new evidence that would or might affect whether the condition in proposed new section 74A is met, and that condition relates to a likely sentence of imprisonment of more than three years.
This is something to which we must give close consideration. The Bill does not define the term “new evidence”, and I am not aware of it being defined elsewhere in legislation. We can look to the explanatory notes to try to better understand what is meant here. In paragraph 206, the notes say:
“This is intended to capture significant new material indicating that the offending is more serious, or less serious, than originally understood. It is not intended to require the court to redo the full allocation exercise each time new evidence emerges, but simply to note where new material might alter the earlier likely-sentence assessment so as to justify reconsideration under section 74B.”
The explanatory notes are helpful, but we must remember that they are not legislation and that the courts are more likely to seek to interpret differently what may or may not be said in an explanatory note from something that is given clear direction in legislation.
The explanatory notes actually leave us with not just one but two new terms. Again, as far as I am aware, “significant new material” is not defined in legislation; there is certainly no case law for it in these specific circumstances, as these courts have never operated before. I do not think we can know in practice how it would be obvious that something amounted to new evidence for the purposes of proposed new section 74B(8); the Bill, as I have said, is silent on this point.
Do we have to assume that that will become a matter of judicial interpretation or discretion? I think we do. It might be evidence that was not already set out in the initial details of the prosecution case or in a defence statement. While the explanatory notes say they do not expect this process to be done on a rolling basis, I assume that the prosecution and defence would be able to invite the judge to consider whether evidence amounts to “new evidence” whenever it was brought to the attention of the court as part of the general conduct of the trial. Again, this is not specified in the Bill, but it is certainly not ruled out.
If there has been a relevant change of circumstances meaning that the case involves an indictable-only offence—for example, if new evidence emerges that results in a charge of theft being recharged as robbery, or a charge of sexual assault recharged as rape—the judge must reallocate it to a jury trial. To be clear, that is in relation to offence-based things. If there has been a relevant change of circumstances, but the aforementioned process does not apply—for example, if there is new evidence that means a custodial sentence of more than three years is likely—the judge may reallocate that to a jury trial. The use of “may” is important, because may is not must.
I draw Members’ attention to the wording of the initial process of allocation. Perhaps to the frustration of some, I took the time to read it, because it is important. The initial wording on allocation with regard to sentence times is “must”—if the court thinks a sentence of more than three years is likely, it must allocate a jury trial—but as I pointed out, on reallocation the court simply “may” reallocate. I hope it is immediately obvious to Government Members that that is a less stringent test, which creates an inherent unfairness.
At the outset, if a judge thinks that a defendant or accused is likely to receive three years, that jury trial is guaranteed. Let us remind ourselves that the Government accept that that is a benefit or a right—although they do not accept it is an absolute right—if the outcome is potentially a sentence of more than three years, yet some people will not get that benefit, even though the Government accept that it is desirable, because the Bill states that the judge has discretion to continue conducting the trial without a jury despite the relevant change of circumstances.
The judge has that discretion if any of the following applies. First, they have that discretion if the condition in proposed new section 74A—a likely custodial sentence of more than three years—is not met in relation to the defendant. Secondly, and this is the important bit, in proposed new section 74B(3)(b), they have that discretion if
“the court considers that it would not be appropriate to reallocate the trial”,
taking into account the matters set out in proposed new section 74C(6) and (7). Those include representations by the prosecution and defence; the extent to which the new likely sentence differs from the three-year threshold sentence; the interests of the alleged victim; the desirability of avoiding the need for witnesses to give evidence again; any delay to proceedings; any actual or potential wasted costs; the effect of reallocation on other court business; and any other prescribed matter set out in the criminal procedure rules.
Thirdly, the judge has that discretion if, as proposed new section 74B(3)(c) states,
“the prosecution and the defendant or defendants each consent to the trial being conducted without a jury.”
Therefore, if the defendant is happy to carry on without a jury, even though they risk the higher sentence, the trial can continue—and similarly for the prosecution.
Some of those examples set out in proposed new section 74C(6) and (7) could legitimately deny a defendant a right that they would otherwise have had if the evidence had been available at the start of a trial. It could be something that has nothing to do with them—for example, a witness might not give the same evidence in their statement as they do at trial. Another example is the effect of reallocation on other court business—so simply because it would be challenging for the court to allocate or reallocate the case, a right that the Government deliberately set out to preserve for those people at initial allocation could not be exercised at that point. Again, in essence, those are all new legal tests.
We have a whole range of factors, many of them subjective matters that must be weighed, rather than objective ones. They may all be factors that we might reasonably agree should be given weight, such as—to go back to some of the factors—the interests of the alleged victim. If an alleged victim has had a traumatic experience of giving evidence, it is not unreasonable for people to consider that. That does not mean, however, that it will not lead to circumstances in which a defendant is substantially disadvantaged.
Let us take, for example, a case related to injury. In a case of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the sentencing range for this offence, triable either way, can include a sentence of up to four years. That is a good example of where we might see a change in circumstances, based on the evolving medical consequences of an alleged assault.
A more concrete and simple example than a medical injury that might evolve from an assault, which is complex, is a person who is originally on trial for grievous bodily harm or attempted murder, but the victim dies during the trial or at a much later date, which can happen, and the person can be retried for a further offence. We know that the medical consequences can take time to materialise and can make a material difference to the charge. There are other borderline cases where the likely sentence at the point of the initial allocation decision was considered to be just under three years.
To give another example, the sentencing guidelines for the most serious harm or culpability form of theft suggest a starting point sentence of three years and six months, with a suggested range of two years and six months to six years. That is absolutely within the scope of not being allocated a jury trial, but if the medical consequences were to evolve, that would change and push it to a sentence of up to six years, which would require a jury trial.
As the hon. Member for Amber Valley, with her expertise and experience of the CPS, pointed out in relation to things that already happen in a magistrates court, we know that magistrates have to undertake this sort of intellectual exercise. They must be mindful that if the circumstances change, the trial must move to the Crown court. I understand that is quite unusual, however, and as we have talked about before, the stakes are likely—not always—to be lower when we are talking about a potentially much wider gap in possible sentence length.
Strangely, this may be an example of something that magistrates do but, as I understand it, Crown court judges do not normally do; Crown court judges do not have to have it constantly in their mind throughout a trial whether their view has changed on the likely sentencing outcome. As I have alluded to, the legislation therefore risks creating a whole raft of legal challenges over potentially many years until there is a settled common law understanding of how all the different measures interact, and until higher courts set out the methodical tests and boundaries that are absent from it.
The obvious test will arise when someone does actually end up receiving a longer sentence, and the obvious challenge will be that the judge should have realised and reallocated the case because of something considered materially new. That will be highly arguable. Let us say, for example, a complainant, when giving evidence, identifies a more profound psychological impact of a crime on them that was apparent from the initial statements disclosed—something that is to some extent subjective. The judge might listen to the evidence being given and not consider it to be materially different from the statements on which they based their initial summation, but I can absolutely imagine a defendant and their legal representatives feeling that a witness did say something that indicated something materially different. That is another more complex decision than the one made by the magistrates courts in a different way.
As we have heard again and again, although magistrates court trials can be long, they are often shorter. Weighing up the impact of restarting that trial, of discounting the work that had been done and of re-sending it to another court, is very different from making that decision after weeks and weeks of a Crown court trial.
There is also another risk in terms of public confidence in the process. As we have touched on before in relation to the initial allocation and sentencing, the judge will have already made a decision and given a view on initial allocation. There would be a risk that a defendant feels that their right to a jury trial, if the circumstances are such that they would have been concerned that the sentence would be greater than three years, might inhibit a judge from reallocating in the way that they would have ordinarily wanted to.
As we have covered, the judge will be able to pass that higher sentence, which is another important difference with the magistrates, who, as I have talked about before, are constrained in their ability to go beyond that initial judgment. There will be no constraints, so it would be perfectly possible for a judge who had an initial view to end up passing a sentence much higher than they had anticipated and much higher than the defendant was advised would be the likely outcome. Again, that would give serious impetus for a defendant and their legal representatives to make the point that the judge had erred in their reallocation.
It is not just a question of the fair thing to do. I explained earlier in relation to other allocations that I do not think it is the fair thing to do, but again it is a matter of efficiency and process. If we end up with repeated appeals over, as I have said, many different factors that will all individually need to be clarified in case law, that will again take up the time and energy of court staff, and particularly legal representatives, who work between all the different courts in a way that judges do not.
Amendment 44 would help to balance that by opening up the widest possible interpretation of whether a reallocation is the right thing to do. We think talking about it in the interests of justice will give the maximum possible room to defendants to be sure that the trial they receive without a jury, and the decision taken to deny them a jury, are as fair as they possibly could be.
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden, who is no longer in her place, and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for their amendments.
I will begin with amendment 26. The defendant’s interests are already embedded into decision making on mode of trial reallocation. Parties are given the opportunity to make representations on reallocation, meaning the defence can draw the court’s attention to how the factors in the Bill intersect with a defendant’s interests, including the impact of delays to proceedings. Parties are also able to override a judge’s decision to reallocate to a jury trial if they both consent to remain in front of the Crown court bench division judge-alone, allowing, for example, a consensus for swifter justice to prevail.
At the same time, clause 3 requires the court itself to have regard to the interest of complainants—victims—when deciding whether reallocation would be appropriate. Those interests would be properly weighed by the court alongside the other factors set out in the Bill.
Finally, an additional “interests of justice” factor would be superfluous, not least because many of the factors that already fall under an “interests of justice” test, such as delays to proceedings and the impact on witnesses, are already taken account of. Introducing such a broad and undefined factor would risk undermining the structured and calibrated framework that Parliament is being asked to approve. It would also reintroduce uncertainty into the decision making that the clause is designed to make clear and workable in practice—not just the clause, but any accompanying criminal procedure rules. I have faith in our judiciary to make informed and robust decisions on the mode of trial reallocation. As such, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to amendment 44, where an indictable-only offence is added to a bench division case, it will always be reallocated to jury trial. Where a jury trial has started, it can never be reallocated to the bench division. The principles of natural justice encompass the right to a fair trial, the rule against bias and the duty to act fairly. All of those elements are preserved in these reforms. The amendment would not add any substantive protection beyond those safeguards already in place.
Jess Brown-Fuller
On a point of clarification, in the instance where a jury trial may begin but the case is adjourned for any reason, could it be reallocated to the Crown court bench division at a later date when it is rescheduled, or would it continue to have a jury trial?
Sarah Sackman
Under the provisions, where a jury trial has started, it cannot be reallocated to the CCBD.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I am just trying to get some clarification about when a jury trial “has started”. If a jury trial is listed on a day but the case is adjourned, it does not go ahead. Cases can be adjourned for many different reasons—the defence or the prosecution could not be ready. In that instance, where the case is adjourned to be relisted on a different day, would the defendant maintain their right to a jury trial or could it be reallocated to the bench division?
Sarah Sackman
What circumstances does the hon. Member envisage would trigger that reallocation? The allocation has been made—it has been allocated to a jury trial. She is right that it has not yet commenced, which is the point I was dealing with, but the circumstances we are dealing with here fall into two broad categories: first, where the nature of the offences in question changes; or secondly, where new evidence comes into play mid-trial, which is so material as to lead to an application to reallocate, or even to a judge of their own volition deciding that the seriousness necessitates reallocation. I cannot see, where it has been allocated already but has not yet commenced, why that would be triggered. But maybe I have missed something.
Dr Mullan
I talked about how the medical picture can evolve in a worsening situation. We can also get that situation in reverse. For example, in A&E, the A&E consultant’s interpretation of an X-ray, to determine whether someone has broken a bone, can be a key fact in deciding the classification. But when that goes to a radiologist, sometimes two or three weeks later, they have that more expert view. This happens quite regularly: they review the X-ray, CT scan or whatever it might be and say, “Actually, no, there isn’t a fracture here.” That would then drop down the injury to a different category. In that intervening period, which could be a matter of weeks, there would be a change to the nature of the charge.
Sarah Sackman
What I am seeking to be clear on is that when we are talking about the trial being commenced—a perfectly good question—I am saying that if the trial has started and there has been the first day, and then for whatever reason there is an adjournment, in those circumstances we would never see such a trial reallocated to the bench division.
I suppose there may be circumstances in which there is an adjournment and new evidence could come to light, or a new offence or a new charge could be added to the indictment or withdrawn, which I suppose might trigger a reallocation decision, but the trial itself would not have commenced. In those circumstances, I think I am right in saying that it is possible that it might get reallocated at that point. I will come back to the hon. Member for Chichester if anything I have said on that point is inaccurate.
Amendment 44 would not add substantive protections, because the defendant in every Crown court trial, irrespective of whether it is Crown court bench division or before a jury, would be considered to receive a fair trial. The mode of trial itself has no bearing on the fundamental fairness of the proceedings.
We have designed the test for mode-of-trial allocation in clause 3 to ensure that the relevant interests are properly balanced by the court. Parties are given the opportunity to make representations on allocation and the court must have regard to the interests of victims when deciding whether reallocation would be appropriate.
I make one final point. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle raised a concern about rolling applications throughout the course of a trial. I think the Government’s view is that that is unlikely to be the case, because while new evidence is a feature of trials commonly, it is not all that often that such new evidence alters the fundamental seriousness of the case to such an extent that it would engage the tests that are here. I am not sure that it is quite the concern that the hon. Member suggests, and I urge him to not press amendment 44 to a Division.
The Chair
As the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden is not here to press amendment 26, is everyone content for that amendment to be withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 44, in clause 3, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
“(h) whether it is in the interests of natural justice for the defendant for the trial to be conducted with a jury.”—(Dr Mullan.)
This amendment would ensure that where the decision for a judge-only trial is being considered for reallocation following a change in circumstances, that the judge must consider whether it is in the interests of natural justice for the defendant to have trial with a jury.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Mullan
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 3, page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Where a court has determined in accordance with section 74A that a trial is to be conducted without a jury, the court cannot pass a sentence of imprisonment or detention of more than three years on a person convicted of an offence.
(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence and the court considers that the appropriate sentence is more than three years’ imprisonment or detention, the court must refer the case for retrial by jury.”
This amendment prevents a judge sitting alone from sentencing a defendant to more than three years in prison, and requires that if this is the likely sentence, the case must be remitted for trial by jury.
It is my pleasure to speak in support of amendment 42, tabled in my name, which really drives at the heart of the question of fairness in relation to this new system. It would prevent a judge, sitting alone, from sentencing a defendant to more than three years in prison, and requires that, if that is the likely sentence, the case must be remitted for trial. Again, related to the important points I made earlier, it also introduces the element of “must”.
Again, we have to revisit the process of allocation; triable either-way offences will be allocated on the basis of sentence length. That is the important part for us to consider here. The Government have agreed that the suitable manner in which to allocate offences to trial with or without a jury is based on sentence length. We can only conclude, therefore, that the Minister accepts that the possible consequence—the possible time in prison—is intrinsically linked to the fairness, reasonableness, desirability or however the Minister might want to describe it of remaining with a jury trial.
In this case, if criminals—because they will have been convicted at this point, we can say criminals rather than defendants—ended up with a sentence of more than three years, they would have a reasonable basis on which to say that their treatment was not in keeping with the Government’s own decisions about what would be preferable in relation to fairness. Let us be clear: I spend a lot of time working with victims and campaigning for longer sentences for offenders, and I think that, across the board and for many decades, our sentencing regime for convicted criminals has been insufficiently punitive and has given insufficiently long sentences. But that does not mean that I do not think that there is a fair and proper way of going about that.
I agree with the Government that sentence length is inherently related to fairness in regard to whether someone gets a Crown court trial with or without a jury—although, in my view, it should always be a jury trial—but a convicted criminal now will look at this and say that he has a sentence greater than he otherwise should have expected to get, and that, if the judge had anticipated correctly that sentence at the outset, he would have had a jury trial. That would be his reasonable conclusion.
Linsey Farnsworth
On that point, what are the hon. Member’s thoughts in relation to a magistrates court where a magistrate has made a decision that a case is suitable for summary trial but then they have the opportunity—or the right if you like—to commit somebody for sentencing at the Crown court if the offence turns out to be more serious than had originally been envisaged? Actually, the safeguard for the expectation of the defendant is dealt with at an early stage—at the allocation stage—when the defendant is told of the decision that the case will stay in the magistrates court, but they could be committed in due course to sentencing in the Crown court.
Dr Mullan
That goes straight to the point we discussed earlier about why it is important to separate the two, because in this scenario it is the same person all the way through. Ultimately, the sentencing process ends up being separate to the people who decide whether or not someone is guilty, and they will have decided the mode of trial, as well.
Linsey Farnsworth
Can I also just mention Newton hearings? A defendant has pleaded guilty but does not accept all the allegations that the prosecution’s case sets out—perhaps the most serious aggravating feature. Then, there is a Newton hearing, at which a judge sits and decides what the factual situation is and goes on to sentence as well. There is already precedent in the Crown court for a judge to hear evidence, make a decision based on the evidence, and pass sentence. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman’s view on that is.
Dr Mullan
This is a great opportunity for me to learn and understand an element of the system that I did not understand—I know about it, rather than understand it.
I will go back to the point that we have made repeatedly. We are designing a system from scratch here. We have the opportunity to do things exactly as we want to. We do not have to be forced into replicating other elements of the wider system; we can design this system as we best think it should operate. I think that the best thing in this scenario, in which we are starting from scratch, would be to say to somebody that they should be able to derive the benefit of having a jury trial if the case is of a nature that the Government themselves agree would typically enjoy the benefits of a jury trial. This is just inherently a fairness question.
That is why we have replicated the process—in a positive way—in a magistrates court. The decision is the decision that has been made; the court cannot go above it. That is because we say that in a magistrates court, if someone seeks to go above that court, that is not the right place to do that; it would not be fair and reasonable. We are making a similar point here in relation to mode of trial, for jury trial.
We think that the amendment is sensible, reasonable, balanced and does not prevent the Government from undertaking their reforms; it is not what could possibly be described as a wrecking amendment. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and accept the amendment.
Joe Robertson
I echo the points made by the shadow Minister. The issue here is where sentences may go above three years. A sentence of three years or more is fairly significant. The crime, of course, will match the sentence; no one is suggesting that the sentence is inappropriate in these cases—someone has been convicted. However, the issue is that the trial—the fact of innocence or guilt—will have been decided by a judge. Without raking over too much old ground, the point in a jury trial is that on more serious offences, jury decides innocence or guilt.
What we have here, without the amendment, is a back-door way for a judge to decide what turns out to be a more serious case than perhaps had originally been thought, because the sentence passed is more than three years. As I understand it, it is not the intention of the Government to capture more cases of that serious nature than they had originally intended would be decided by a judge. They themselves are not arguing that jury trials do not have a place in this country for a great number of cases—unfortunately, not enough after this legislation.
The hon. Member for Rugby made the point in an earlier sitting that other Governments have adjusted the threshold, notwithstanding our disagreement over what is being proposed in this legislation. Clearly, the issue with this provision, if it remains unamended, is that more serious crimes, with a sentence of more than three years, will inadvertently get caught.
I cannot quite understand why the Minister will not accept the amendment, but I am sure she will address that. Once again, it would not, in any material way, move away from what she is trying to achieve with the legislation, which is tackling the backlog of Crown court cases. Again, that intention that is perfectly well meant. The amendment would not, in any way, get rid of her primary intent to get rid of either-way offences so that they are not heard by a jury. Notwithstanding the fact that I do not agree with her on that, the amendment would not defeat what she is trying to do there. Effectively, what it would do is close a loophole.
I invite the Minister to address that point about instances where a judge decides, on their own without a jury, that a case is of significant seriousness—and that may mean complexity that was not apparent at the outset but became apparent during the trial—that he or she wishes to pass a sentence of more than three years. Three years is a serious length of time for someone to be locked up and deprived of their liberty. Wherever we think that the threshold should sit, I think that we all agree that jury trials have a role in this country for more serious crimes.
If the threshold can rise above three years through that avenue, how high a threshold is the Minister willing to tolerate? In how many cases is she willing to tolerate that apparent loophole? Maybe she does not see it as a loophole. Maybe there is purpose behind it. If there is, perhaps she can explain why it is important enough to risk even her principle by having more serious crimes—those with a sentence over three years—potentially being heard without a jury. Again, I reiterate that I disagree with the primary disapplication of jury trials for what are now either-way offences. That is not what this is about; this is about the Bill doing something more than the Government may wish to do. I invite the Minister to address that in some detail.
Sarah Sackman
I will seek, as best I can, to clarify why judges sitting alone should have full Crown court sentencing powers consistent with the recommendations of the independent review of criminal courts. That review made clear that both judge-only trials—where those are prescribed—and a Crown court bench division must operate with the same judicial powers as jury trials if they are to function effectively in practice. As I have said, allocation is an early indicative assessment. It cannot and must not predetermine the sentence, which must be based on the facts proven at trial. The amendment would reverse that principle, effectively allowing an initial assessment allocation to cap the sentence ultimately imposed, or else force a retrial before a jury. That would compound a delay which, as anyone who has listened to victims’ testimonies to the Committee knows, we can ill afford.
Under proposed new section 74A, the allocation decision—whether the case should be tried by a judge alone or by judge and jury—will rely on a structured application of the existing sentencing guidelines. As I have said, we are not introducing an unfamiliar exercise, and we have full confidence that judges will apply the guidelines consistently to determine the appropriate mode of trial based on their assessment of the seriousness of the case.
In practice, the allocation decision in the Crown court will be tied firmly to the facts of the case, in much the same way as in the magistrates court. That means that in the vast majority of cases it is unlikely that a case will result in a sentence far beyond what was anticipated at the point of allocation. However, I recognise that in a small proportion of cases where evidence evolves and a case becomes more serious, appropriate safeguards must be, and will be under the Bill, put in place. That is precisely why the Bill includes provision for a reallocation where circumstances change. Where an indictable-only offence is added to the case, it must always be reallocated as a jury trial.
Where seriousness increases just enough to push the likely sentence in a case above three years, the judges must consider reallocation to jury trail. We have looked at the factors set out in the Bill, including potential delays following reallocation, any disruption to victims or wasted costs, and the effects on other trials. It is therefore essential that judges sitting alone retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown court. Unlimited sentencing powers do not expand the jurisdiction of judge-alone trials, but they ensure that once a case has been properly tried, the sentence imposed reflects the facts as found.
Against that backdrop, amendment 42 would require cases to be retried because the sentence ultimately exceeded the earlier indicative assessment. As I have said, that would introduce significant delay into the system, requiring cases to be heard twice and directly undermining the purpose of these reforms, which is to reduce the dreadful delays. The principle that the sentence must reflect the facts is important, and for that reason it is necessary that judges retain the full sentencing powers. To do otherwise would risk distorting outcomes and create unnecessary duplication and delay in proceedings, thereby undermining confidence in the system. For that reason, the Government cannot support the amendment.
Dr Mullan
I want to pick out a couple of points. The Minister has criticised the risk of retrials, and we have made several points about how other elements in the Bill will increase that risk through successful appeals and so on. I accept the Minister’s point that it is unlikely that these things will happen, but this is not so much about whether someone was expecting three years and ends up with three years and two months, for example, as the fact that there is no control of it at all.
The Minister is right that there is a reallocation process. We have debated the flaws in that, which are pertinent, but clearly the Government do not think that the reallocation process is perfect, otherwise they would not mind a cap. If they thought that the reallocation approach would manage all these scenarios, they would not oppose a cap. They want to oppose it because they accept that the reallocation process will not be perfect. Someone might be expecting a three-year sentence—I gave an example earlier, I think of theft—but could end up with a six-year sentence, double what they expected to receive. That is many years above what the Government have recognised as a suitable and acceptable threshold on which to make these decisions. It would be inherently unjust, and those sorts of situations would warrant retrial.
Sarah Sackman
Just on that point—as unlikely and rare a scenario as I anticipate it would be—would the hon. Member accept that that sentencing decision could be subject to appeal?
Dr Mullan
Yes, but the question is not whether the six-year sentence is reasonable, it is whether the mode of trial in reaching that sentence was fair. The Government agree that the preferable mode of trial in all other scenarios that could lead to a sentence of six years is a trial with a jury. Yet we could have people expecting a three-year sentence and ending up with a six-year one, which is far from the Government’s test of reasonableness for the mode of trial.
I understand the point about weighing probabilities with the smaller gap, but we are faced with the question of allowing either no gaps or very big gaps. If we are forced to choose, I will continue to say that we support amendment 42, because it is important that people do not end up in that situation. I do not know the limit; I have given an example of three to six years, but there could be even wider gaps among the offences that we are considering. That would not be reasonable, and, therefore this safeguard is important.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Kohler
On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I want to place on the record an apology to the shadow Minister. I have read some cases and, much to my surprise, I think the allocation process does come with the trial on indictment; it is not ancillary to it. Therefore, my view is that judicial review does probably come within the statutory bar, so I apologise.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Morgan.)
Armed Forces Bill (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We are continuing line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. We will begin with a few preliminary reminders. Hon. Members know the rules about food and drink. Could you email your notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or hand a copy to the Hansard colleague in the room? Please bob if you want to catch my eye. You can remove your jackets if you are warm; I intend to remove mine.
Clause 31
Transfers between regular and reserve forces
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 31, page 51, line 2, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, in respect of each financial year, publish a report assessing the impact of the provisions under subsections (3) and (4) on the retention of personnel within His Majesty’s forces.
(6) The report under subsection (5) must include data on the number of personnel who have transferred between the regular and reserve forces, broken down by service and rank.
(7) The first such report must be laid before each House of Parliament within a period of 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(8) Each subsequent report must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the publication of the last report under this section.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish an annual report on the impact of provisions related to transfers between regular and reserve forces on retention in the armed forces.
Mike Martin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and I thank you for the invitation to remove our jackets. Amendment 7 was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. I will just briefly introduce it to the Committee.
The idea of a zig-zag career is incredibly important. Unlike previously, when the qualification needed to join the armed forces was the ability to run around a muddy field with a heavy backpack, we now live in an age in which we recognise that we need a much greater range of skills in the armed forces, and the ability to move from reserve to regular and back to reserve is incredibly important, so we welcome that the Government are introducing that. When I served, a number of people regularly moved between the regulars and the reserves—in fact, I did it myself.
However, there is a question mark as to what effect such movement has on retention. In an ideal world, we would expect it to improve, as more flexibility should mean that people are more likely to stay in the regular forces or the reserve forces. But we do not know that; this is an untried experiment, so the amendment would mandate the Ministry of Defence to provide a report to Parliament on the effect of the implementation of this clause—of this zig-zag career pathway—on retention.
Specifically, clause 31 as it stands amends the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to make it easier for personnel to move in both directions. It also amends the Armed Forces Act 2006 to enable that to happen. Amendment 7 would simply add an annual reporting and accountability mechanism on top of those transfer provisions. It would not change the function of the clause, but just require the Government to enable Parliament to monitor the situation accurately. As we know, recruitment and retention is a big problem for the armed forces.
Without such a reporting requirement, the provisions could be enacted—again, we are in favour of that—but never meaningfully evaluated. As we heard in evidence, there are so many different categories of reserve forces and many different types of engagement. They have grown piecemeal over time, and one reason for that is that there is no effective oversight mechanism, looking at things in the round. Under this amendment, the reporting requirement would establish one element of an oversight mechanism.
I conclude by saying that our amendment does not seek to amend the function of the clause, which we are in favour of, but it seeks to mandate the MOD to provide a report to Parliament, so that Parliament can exercise proper oversight and scrutiny.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Good morning to you, Mr Efford, and to all members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again today. I will lead for my party in this section on reserve forces. I will begin by offering some comments on Liberal Democrat amendment 7, which relates to retention and transfers between regular and reserve forces, and will follow with a few remarks on clause 31.
In one of our evidence sessions, I raised the potential complexity when people wish to leave the regular armed forces and transfer into the reserves. That point is often a good time to catch them, as many people who have enjoyed their regular service but wish to earn their living in a different way are still often tempted to transfer to the reserves to keep their hand in and to continue to serve the nation and maintain the bonds of comradeship and friendship they have developed as regulars.
However, in recent years, that transfer has often proved to be administratively difficult. I have heard anecdotal horror stories of former regular personnel who have attempted to re-enlist in the reserves when their regular service has come to an end but have had to overcome an assault course of bureaucracy to do so. In fact, I spoke relatively recently to a reserve officer who had had to fight his way through what he described as “the Capita circus”.
The Minister sought to reassure the Committee in evidence by saying that this will be dealt with as a relatively straightforward administrative matter. That flies in the face of much of the anecdotal evidence to the contrary. If someone tries to initiate the transfer while they are still serving, it seems that the process works better, but if they leave it until after they have left the regulars, or if they perhaps have a change of heart after having left the regulars and decide that they want to re-enlist as a reservist after a few years, it is really difficult. In fact, I have been told that in some cases it is worse than if they just tried to join the reserves straight off, ab initio, as a civilian.
I pressed the Minister specifically on whether the new tri-service armed forces recruitment programme—the AFRP—contract was written in such a way as to allow the contractor to facilitate the process in an effective and efficient manner. Again, the Minister sought to offer the explanation that it could all be done via administrative procedures. I want to press the Minister on how exactly these administrative procedures are intended to apply in practice. Under the new contract, what, in practical terms, will be different from the rather cumbersome arrangements that we still have in place? In short, how will the creases in this system, which everyone agrees exist, be ironed out to make the transition sufficiently smooth that those leaving the regulars are not put off by mind-numbing bureaucracy if they wish to convert to reserve service?
Those are my comments on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, which he introduced very well. I now turn to clause 31.
Reserves are a fundamental part of our armed forces, as both the Minister and I can attest, having served in the reserve forces at different times in our careers—although I handed back my kit shortly after the Berlin wall came down in 1989, whereas the Minister is still undertaking reserve service. Indeed, we understand he has been on manoeuvres only recently.
However, it is a fact that compared with many other nations, we still have very small numbers of reserves, with some 26,000 in the active Army Reserve and many fewer in the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and related reserves. If we put those numbers in context and compare them with the United States, which has both an army reserve and large numbers of national guard—they are organised on a state-by-state basis and report to governors in peacetime, but they can be federalised in wartime—or the reserve elements of the Chinese and Russian armies, they pale by comparison, even though, as the Minister often likes to remind us, we had very large citizen armies in both the first and second world wars.
The Army Reserve can be augmented by what is now generally referred to as the Strategic Reserve. For the avoidance of confusion, that is former regular soldiers and officers who would be liable for recall to service with the colours in a national emergency up to and including full-scale war. Indeed, the Bill extends the provision for recalling the Strategic Reserve to up to 18 years, I believe, from leaving the colours of the regular armed forces. For the record, we very much support that measure.
When asked in evidence for his estimate of the size of the Strategic Reserve, the Minister gave a definitive figure of approximately 95,000. However, to put it in context, the 2021 census—after much campaigning over quite a few years by the Royal British Legion and some MPs who backed the proposal—specifically asked respondents whether they had ever served in His Majesty’s armed forces, and just over 2 million people positively answered the question. Since then, sadly, a number of those veterans will have passed away, but given that the question was not included in the census forms dispatched to Northern Ireland, which has historically proved a very healthy recruiting ground for our armed forces, it seems not unreasonable to assume that the current number is still probably somewhere around 2 million living veterans, or relatively close to it. Moreover, the Minister also revealed to the Committee, assisted by witnesses from the Ministry of Defence, that about 1 million of those people are still of what he called employment age. I take it that he means males aged up to about 67.
I cite those figures to try to estimate the maximum theoretical strength of the Strategic Reserve—or, in military parlance, the absolute right of arc—if all those living veterans were included. Of course, in practice they would not be if they were in their 80s or 90s. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think we are proposing to put Chelsea pensioners in the Strategic Reserve.
We can discern from that calculation that the absolute maximum is theoretically about 2 million—assuming for a moment that we also include veterans who have also served in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, because they will have ticked the same box. If we cut it differently and include only those of employable age, the Strategic Reserve would come out at about 1 million. If we believe that 95,000 is too small a Strategic Reserve to act as a credible deterrent, particularly given the darkening international situation that we face at present, could we, as it were, draw a line or establish a set of criteria that would achieve a Strategic Reserve of somewhere between 95,000 and, for the sake of debate, a quarter of a million? That would be a much more credible figure in deterrent terms.
I ask the question deliberately to provoke debate about how we could, if we chose, expand the Strategic Reserve from the Minister’s 95,000 figure. If he cannot answer that question off the top of his head, perhaps he could write to me, to you, Mr Efford, and to other members of the Committee prior to Report about where, at least theoretically, a line could be drawn—perhaps defined by age or some other criterion—to create a Strategic Reserve of about a quarter of a million troops, rather than just under 100,000.
Moreover, if we were to consider something as ambitious as that in order to provide a greater deterrent effect, how would we track and communicate with those people, above and beyond access to the His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs database that Ministers have prayed in aid before? For instance, if we assume that quite a number of those veterans are in receipt of a military pension of one type or another, presumably they would be known to Veterans UK and at least their basic details would be recorded on the MOD’s joint personnel administration system. Could we not use that as a means of tracking down those people?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
I thank the hon. Members for North Devon and for Tunbridge Wells for the amendment. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I thank the Clerks and staff, who are doing a fantastic job. I acknowledge Members’ concerns about the importance of retaining skills in the armed forces, which we all agree is critical to ensuring that we have a fighting force.
Let me address amendment 7. Despite the well-documented historical shortfalls in recruitment and retention, the figures are now far more positive. Under this Government, inflow is up around 13%, which we welcome, and outflow is down 9%. We have cut a lot of red tape—I will come back to that in a minute—addressed system blockages and established a ministerial board to oversee both inflow and retention, among many other improvements.
However, we are not complacent, and we are looking to drive our retention rates up further. Transparency and parliamentary scrutiny are crucial throughout this process, so that the public can clearly see how the changes we are implementing are enhancing their experience and delivering good value for the taxpayer. I appreciate the call from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for an annual report, but I am concerned that that would create an additional layer of bureaucracy and red tape and largely duplicate information that is already available. As he mentioned, there is a need to step back and look at the issue holistically.
To give Members a small example, we publish around 80 statistical reports every year—some quarterly, some yearly and some twice a year. That is a huge amount of data that is collated and presented both to Parliament and as open source. We already publish, and will continue to publish, information on the size and make-up of the armed forces through our quarterly personnel statistics, which will make plain the effects of retention measures for both regulars and reserves. We also continue to publish the outcomes of the various continuous attitude surveys that the MOD runs annually, where we can see the change in attitude to some of the key drivers that affect people’s desire to stay.
One of the key measures to assist with this is clause 31, which will ensure that regulars do not have to leave their service to join the Volunteer Reserve, thus making career transitions and flexible careers far easier. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford mentioned some of the bureaucracy and difficulties in leaving regular service and joining the reserves, and a plethora of evidence highlights that difficulty. The clause will remove the requirement to leave one service and rejoin the next. Around 1,500 ex-regulars join the Volunteer Reserve every year—about a third of the total intake.
Another issue with people going from the regulars to the reserves is that a lot of senior-ish ranks leave—OF-3s, OF-4s, majors or lieutenant colonels—and there is just not the space or requirement for them in the reserves, so sometimes they have to de-rank or join at a different level, creating another bureaucratic hurdle. Although the clause will make it easier for service personnel to transfer from the regulars to the Volunteer Reserve, and we encourage them to do so, it is on a mutually agreed basis; there must be a suitable role for them to go to—for example, rank, skills and so on—and the serviceperson will have to agree to the terms and conditions.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I can provide a real-world example of how ludicrous the current system is. A friend of mine joined the Paras, completed P company, served with the Paras, smelt the coffee, and joined the REME and transferred to the Royal Engineers. He served for about 12 years in colour service and left. Within a year of leaving, he wanted to join his local reserve infantry unit, which said that it would accept him only if he did full reserve basic training. I take it that this legislation will prevent that nonsense in the future, because it seems ludicrous.
Al Carns
My hon. Friend highlights a good point. That issue is replicated across the entire service—not in all cases, but in many. People are having to go back through medical within six months of leaving, having to go back through basic training, or having to redo the commando course—you name it. There is a litany of issues. The Minister for Veterans and People is looking at that to see how we speed up the process. Sometimes there is no room for those individuals in the reserve liability, given the rank and position they want to come in at, which can create a difficult discussion about whether they have to de-rank—joining at a lower rank than they left. I absolutely agree that we have to smooth out those issues, and the Minister for Veterans and People is on it.
Mr Francois
The hon. Member for South Ribble has raised a good point. When people leave the regulars now—I am probably rusty on this—is there a standard operating procedure where they are invited to consider joining the reserves and given a pathway for doing that before they leave? All the anecdotal evidence says that if they try to transfer at that point, it is still bureaucratic, but it is a lot less bureaucratic than doing it after they have left. Do we ask that question as a matter of course and offer people a pathway if they say yes when they are still in the regulars?
Al Carns
Because of the decentralised nature of the military, some units, depending on reserve liability, will absolutely try to recruit those individuals into the reserve immediately. There is not carte blanche across the entire military, because in some areas we do not necessarily need those individuals in the reserves—if that makes sense.
Going back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, there is a lot more work to do to make the transition much smoother. Clause 31 will reduce the huge bureaucratic hurdle of individuals having to leave the regular military to join the reserves. Over time, it should become seamless, so someone can also go from the reserves back to the regulars. We want to replicate a civilian job where, for example, if someone has welfare issues, they can leave and do a couple of years in the reserves, and then come back into the regulars far more seamlessly. That will also allow someone to pursue a career in the defence industry, for example, if they are a technical expert.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I raised a point about clearances when we first started discussing the Bill, and that is one of the sticking points we need to get right. If people have secured security clearances—enhanced developed vetting—in the military, but then go into an organisation that does not hold that clearance and it elapses after three, six or however many months, they are lost. If they then want to go into the defence industry where they might need developed vetting—and we want those people to be going into the defence industry—they have to start the process all over again. They might waste 12 or 18 months, or two years, getting cleared again. Can something be done to hold clearances in a sort of bucket—I know other organisations do that—to make that zig-zag process a lot easier?
Al Carns
I would like to return to the hon. Gentleman with the detail around that vetting process, but I will give an example of some of the complexities. If an individual leaves and goes to work overseas for another company, that may invalidate their DV status, so we need to take it case by case. However, he is absolutely right that we need to make it easier, if we are going to adopt a zig-zag career process, for vetting to follow suit, almost by exception, but individual cases need to be taken into consideration.
Clause 31 amends part I of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and section 331 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which concern the transfer between regular and reserve forces—something I just discussed. The changes to armed forces legislation will enable those of warrant officer rank equivalent and below to more easily transfer to the Volunteer Reserve. Further, they will permit a more seamless transfer into regular service for reserves. We will also amend the secondary legislation that covers officers, who are employed differently and therefore not covered by this legislation, so that the same effect is achieved for them.
To address the comments made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, the Strategic Reserve is slightly different. I will be relatively honest: the reserve architecture that we have inherited, which has gone on for multiple Governments, is a continual layering of bureaucracy, to such an extent that I describe it as a spaghetti soup of terms and conditions of service, pension payments, liability, skills, qualifications and patronage. It needs simplifying. Alongside other clauses, clause 31 is one of the first steps in moving towards a more simplified process that will allow us to capture data more effectively and use the Strategic Reserve as and when required.
I give a couple of examples. The right hon. Member was right to mention that there are 2.1 million veterans out there. Most of them came from conscription or national service, and the reality is that we never kept records on any of those individuals. There are records on some pensions, but not all of them were entitled to pensions because the pension system was different. As a result, it is exceptionally difficult to map and track their skills and capabilities, and even how long they served. Those are some of the reasons why it takes so long to go through the claims process. There are warehouses full of documents and medical records that are still analogue, not digital. They require humans to go through big yellow pages of files to find data to cross-check with doctors and so on. The records and recording system have never been digitised, and it is exceptionally difficult to do so.
On the Strategic Reserve and the numbers, circa 15,000 people leave the military every year. At the moment, for those in the Army, Navy or Air Force, whether they are an officer, warrant officer or another rank, depending on how long they have served, there is a different liability for return to service. That means that when they leave the gates, they still have a return of service and they can be called on by the nation to serve again. That can be for four years, six years or 18 years in some cases—it depends. It might be more for an officer or less for another rank. It is, again, a complete mess. The Bill simplifies it. Everybody will do 18 years. Whether someone is an officer, another rank, Army, Navy or Air Force, they will do 18 years when they leave the military.
I am a marine, so Members should be careful of my maths, but 15,000 times 10 will give us 150,000 in the Strategic Reserve within 10 years. That is on top of what we already have—on top of those in the reserve and regular forces. That is probably two echelons of the Army. It is a fantastic clause that gives us more redundancy and resilience as a nation over the longer term, and ensures that we have a proper package.
The critical part, highlighted by the right hon. Member, is how we collect the data. How do we ensure that we can track and pull back the right skills at the right time to deliver the effect we need, whether that be a Typhoon pilot, a nuclear engineer, a chef or an infantryman? We are working through the details. There is something clever to be done with the veteran ID card, with pensions—although there is a GDPR issue there—and with the individual’s requirement to stay in touch with the military. It is a combination of all three, while accepting that some people who leave the military want nothing to do with the military ever again.
Mr Francois
I take the Minister’s point that via this method we could have a Strategic Reserve of 150,000 within a decade, but what if we do not have a decade? I suspect we will return to the point this afternoon, but for now, to use the Minister’s analogy of trying to cut through the spaghetti soup—I think we are all with him on that—how do we increase the size of the soup bowl? How do we have a bigger pool of manpower and womanpower that we can draw on, if necessary, in a full-scale war? These people will have had at least some military training and will be able to train others who have had none. That is why we are suggesting that we at least look at the practicalities of 250,000. Could the Minister say something about that?
Al Carns
I mentioned some statistics about what we have now. It is circa 90,000 to 95,000 when we add in the four-year, six-year and 18-year mix that we have across our terms of service. If we then add on, say, five years times 15,000, we again get into the space of about 150,000 to just shy of 200,000.
When we look at the maths for the Army, we see that it needs about an echelon to two echelons in depth, and then it needs a training cadre to deliver that capability. That training cadre will primarily be the reserve forces we have already. Consequently, I think we have done enough to move the dial to give us a big enough number and to standardise the process. As always with these things—I am not a data expert—the trick is collecting the data and then being able to analyse it at the right time to get the right force that we need, because we may not need all of those individuals back. We may need very specific skills or individuals.
I will return to some of the tri-service changes. The tri-service transition framework will be launched this month. It aims to standardise the process for leaving, to tackle inconsistencies for vulnerable cohorts and in skills capture, resettlement, employment support and regular-reserve transfer. That is heading in the right direction.
A lot of the changes that I have just talked about will bring immense benefit to both those in the regular service and the reserve service, by removing the administrative issues that service personnel face, and have faced in the past, when leaving and rejoining, or as they seek to move between regulars and reserves and vice versa. This is vital to the wider work that we are doing to create a new framework that will allow for a more flexible service, ensuring that we have access to the right skills and increasing retention by offering alternative forms of service. That reflects many of the recommendations in the Haythornthwaite review, which was conducted under the last Government.
I hope that what I have said provides the necessary reassurance to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. I ask him to withdraw amendment 7 and I commend clause 31 to the Committee.
Mike Martin
In the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Call out for permanent service
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 33, page 51, line 31, at end insert—
“(2B) This section does not apply to any person who was discharged from the regular services or the reserve forces for a medical reason relating to physical or mental health.”
This amendment makes former service personnel who have been discharged from the armed forces for a medical reason relating to physical or mental health exempt from being recalled to permanent service.
Amendment 20, in clause 33, page 52, line 1, leave out “65” and insert “67”.
This amendment increases the maximum age for service in the Reserve Forces from 65 to 67.
Amendment 21, in clause 33, page 52, line 10, leave out “65” and insert “67”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.
Amendment 22, in clause 33, page 54, line 6, leave out “12” and insert “18”.
This amendment would extend the duration of a recall order from 12 months to 18 months.
Amendment 23, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—
“69C Prevention of recall for persons in reserved occupations
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to define certain categories of civilian work as reserved occupations.
(2) A ‘reserved occupation’ under subsection (1) is any category of civilian work which the Secretary of State deems as vital for defence purposes.
(3) Persons undertaking a reserved occupation may be exempted from a recall order under section 69A for which they would have otherwise been liable.”
This amendment would allow persons undertaking civilian work which the Secretary of State deems vital for defence purposes to be exempt from a recall order under section 69A.
Amendment 24, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—
“69C Notice periods for recall
(1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the coming into force of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R8 (90 days)
(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘Army Reserve Group A’ has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.”
This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 90 days.
Clauses 33 to 35 stand part.
Schedule 5.
Clause 36 stand part.
Al Carns
Clause 32 amends the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable the Secretary of State to disapply aggregate service for members of the reserve forces when making a call-out order under sections 52 or 54 of the 1996 Act. Currently, the maximum duration of service under a call-out order under section 52—for national danger, great emergency or an attack on the United Kingdom— cannot usually exceed three years, and is usually 12 months for “warlike operations”. This maximum duration is calculated by combining the current service of a call-out order under sections 52 or 54 with any relevant service in aggregate. “Relevant service” means any permanent service within the six years or three years immediately preceding a reservist’s current service under a call-out order.
These clauses allow the Secretary of State to disapply those limits in extremis, allowing us to call out our reservists—this will apply mainly to the Volunteer Reserve—more often. They will thereby ensure that we have access to a full range of key skills, from cyber to logistics, in the event of a transition to conflict and war.
Clause 33 makes five important changes in relation to recall to service, and it goes further to try to simplify the process I talked about previously. First, this provision introduces recall liability for former volunteer reservists of other ranks. Currently, only former volunteer reservist officers and former regulars of any rank have recall liability.
Secondly, this provision will increase the age limit for recall for other ranks from 55 to 65. This will allow us to continue to access key trade groups, such as cyber and medical, where former members of the regulars are still using these skills in their civilian lives well beyond the age of 55.
Thirdly, the recall liability for Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel of other ranks will move from six years following discharge to 18 years; again, I am talking about the difference between terms. This will ensure consistency with the Army and the RAF, and put everyone on an equal footing.
The fourth change, via proposed new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, will provide an ability to recall certain individuals when warlike preparations are in progress. It will create a new power to make a recall order for this purpose. “Warlike preparations” means that we will be able to recall someone sooner than is the case presently, because the current threshold for being able to recall people—when there is a great danger, a national emergency or an attack on the United Kingdom—may be too late in a modern transition-to-war scenario. The relevant roles could include roles such as logistics preparations, planning and specialist capabilities. This measure brings those subject to recall in line with the call-out provisions of the Volunteer Reserve and ex-regular reserve.
The fifth change in clause 33 enables the disapplication of aggregate service under a recall order made under the existing section 68 and proposed new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act, mirroring the approach taken by clause 32. Clause 34 makes consequential amendments following the changes made by clauses 32 and 33.
Clause 35 and schedule 5 introduce two new transitional classes to manage how the new liabilities apply to existing and former personnel. It is important to note that to ensure defence is able to access the right skills in its reserve, while also maintaining its commitments to those who have left, the MOD will introduce these measures via the following method. Unless individuals opt out, they will affect every member of the Regular Reserve and Volunteer Reserve who is in service when these provisions of the Bill come into force.
Around 17,000 people leave the regular and reserve forces every year—I said, 15,000 earlier, but this number includes the reserves—of which the vast majority will now have some form of liability. Current ex-regular members of the reserve forces and those still subject to recall under part VII of the Reserve Forces Act—or those who will otherwise have recall liability solely as a result of these changes—will be able to opt in to the new system should they wish to do so. We are currently analysing how many people this might affect. That is an opt-in process if someone has left.
It should be noted that the fitness or medical criteria applied to these individuals will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. A large proportion of individuals in the Strategic Reserve are in their 30s or early 40s and therefore may well still be medically fit for a large number of roles. In addition, the changing nature of modern defence also means that there are valuable roles, such as cyber and operating uncrewed aerial systems, that do not require the same medical and fitness standards as roles such as infantry or aircrew. In reality, the provisions will enable defence to access more of the right people with the skills and experience it needs at times of need.
Mr Francois
Does the Department have at least a working estimate of how many people it thinks will opt in to that liability, bearing in mind that they cannot be recalled otherwise? What is the planning assumption within the MOD?
Al Carns
We do not have an estimate of how many people will opt in, and I think that would be very difficult to gauge. First, a lot of those individuals already have a liability, because they may be on 18 years already—some will be on six or four years, and some will be officers. To gauge how many people are already in and how many people are going to opt in is very difficult. I would like to think that a lot will opt in, but if they do not, we already have the existing Strategic Reserve, which is at circa 95,000, and the number starts flowing as soon as the Bill comes into force, when everyone who leaves will have 18 years. The number of people who are serving who opt out will also be an interesting reflection, and something to analyse after the event.
Clause 36 corrects an anomaly in the existing legislation. Under section 96 of the Reserve Forces Act, failure to attend for service on call-out or recall is an offence of desertion or absence without leave. That is applicable to members of a reserve force as well as persons liable to recall. However, under section 98, there is no punishment for this offence for those with recall liability as there is for members of a reserve force. That produces an unintended anomaly: an offence is created without a penalty. The clause therefore removes that anomaly and ensures that legislation clearly sets out the possible consequences for an offence of failure to respond to a recall order.
To sum up, the measures will help to maximise the number of personnel available to defence and will modernise the Reserve Forces Act. The measures align with the direction provided by the strategic defence review by allowing for a whole of defence approach, re-energising the relationship with the Strategic Reserve, and increasing our readiness for war. I will speak to the amendments in this group in my closing remarks.
Mr Francois
I will speak to amendments 20 to 24. As they have been grouped together in the largest individual group to be debated today, I will take them in turn, with a few brief remarks on each amendment.
I begin by addressing amendment 20 and consequential amendment 21. The essence of the amendments is to further increase the maximum age of service in the reserve forces from 55 to 65, as currently proposed in the Bill, to a higher level of 67. That would mean having a maximum age limit in line with the normal male retirement age in civilian life. The Opposition appreciate the sense of increasing the maximum age for service in the armed forces from 55 to 65—for the record, that would include me, and I will opt in now.
In his evidence, the Minister provided some practical examples of highly skilled personnel, such as highly experienced medics or air traffic controllers, who do not necessarily need to be as physically fit as, say, a 21-year-old infantryman to make an important contribution to defence. The point of the amendments is to ask a simple question: if that argument holds good at 65, does it not still hold good at 67, the age at which most people can draw a state pension in civilian life if they are male? If someone is a skilled surgeon in the Royal Army Medical Corps at age 65, would they not be equally skilled just two years later? Would those two additional years in their mid-60s represent significant skill fade in their ability to give medical aid?
I hope the Minister can see why the Opposition have tabled these straightforward amendments to provoke a debate on the proposed age limit and the rationale for it. I look forward to hearing what he has to say on them.
The essence of Opposition amendment 22 is to expand from 12 to 18 months the maximum allowable period for a recall order under the Bill. The rationale is that history shows that in a national emergency, including a peer-on-peer conflict, the war is not always over by Christmas. It is therefore not inconceivable that people who are mobilised for reserve service for up to a year might find themselves required to fight on the frontline for longer.
In making this argument, I pray in aid the practical experience from Ukraine, where service personnel have been fighting on the frontline for years, some with relatively limited leave over the whole period. I visited Ukraine with UK Friends of Ukraine only a few weeks ago, and the Minister told the Committee on Tuesday that he had only recently returned from a trip to that country—again, time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted. It hardly needs saying, but I am sure that all Members and parties represented on the Committee will want to join me in expressing our determination to support the Ukrainians, for as long as it takes, in facing down Russia’s illegal and barbaric invasion of their country.
A point made very powerfully to our delegation during our visit to Odesa, Chornobyl and Kyiv was that many in the west believe or perceive that Ukraine’s war with Russia has been going on for four years, from the date of the so-called full-scale invasion in February 2022, but in fact the Ukrainians are keen to point out that the war really began in 2014, or arguably even earlier, with the Russian occupation of Crimea in the south of the country and the occupation of significant portions of the Donbas in the east. In other words, Ukraine has been at war with Russia not for four years, but for 12. To put that into context, it is longer than the first and second world wars combined.
It is immensely to the Ukrainians’ credit that they have continued to actively resist their larger and stronger neighbour to the east. The Ukrainians are fighting for western values of freedom and democracy, and they deserve our enduring support. Moreover, the Speaker of the Rada, who is a larger-than-life man in a whole range of respects, gave us a stark warning while we were there: “If we fall, you and your friends will be next.”
Given all that, and bearing in mind the duration of the first and second world wars and of other conflicts such as those in Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, it might make sense to allow a recall order to last longer than a year should circumstances demand it at the time. We have tabled amendment 22 accordingly.
The essence of Opposition amendment 23 is to allow persons undertaking civilian work that the Secretary of State deems vital for defence purposes to be exempt from a recall order under proposed new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act.
This is by no means a new idea. There is an old saying in politics that there is nothing new under the sun, and this is not new either. For instance, during the second world war, many people who were eligible for military service by virtue of their age were nevertheless exempted from call-up because they were working in so-called reserved occupations—in other words, a field of civilian endeavour that was considered vital to the war effort.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
Amendment 1 would introduce an exemption from recall to former service personnel who have been discharged due to physical or mental health reasons, to ensure that, even as the Bill seeks to make it easier to recall reservists in times of urgent need, those with long-term injuries or other serious medical conditions can be automatically screened out. Currently, clause 33 updates section 65 of the Reserve Forces Act to alter the terms under which a former serviceperson can be recalled to include reserves, specifying time periods in relation to re-enlistment and tidying up certain terminology.
We feel that section 65(2) should specify that, in addition to the recall provision not applying to anybody over 65 or beyond 18 years after discharge, the exclusion should recognise a medical exemption as standard procedure. That would apply to a medical discharge from either the regular or the reserve forces, closing off the possibility that an individual who might otherwise be medically exempted would be targeted for recall because of their previous service.
The mental health element is particularly significant, given the well-documented prevalence of conditions such as PTSD among veterans, at nearly double the rate of the adult population. This amendment would avoid doing harm to vulnerable individuals, as well as removing the need for the armed forces to go through the process of ruling someone not fit for service a second time.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Before I start, I should probably put it on record that I am on the RARO—Regular Army Reserve of Officers—list as a former Regular Army officer.
I joined my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford on the delegation to Ukraine, which was put together by UK Friends of Ukraine and during which we had some very interesting conversations, as he said, about the ability to mobilise reserve forces at a time of pressing threats.
I want to speak very briefly—I am sure other Members will be pleased that my contribution will be brief—on amendments 20 to 24. I will start with amendments 20 and 21, with amendment 21 being consequential on amendment 20. These appear to be sensible technical amendments that would bring the Bill in line with the civilian world. In the light of the facts that the retirement age is likely to be pushed forward as people are living longer, that we need to have a more flexible and resilient reserve force, and that the nature of warfare has changed, with many more technical roles, it seems sensible to increase the age of liability to 67.
On amendment 22, my right hon. Friend set out very clearly the growing threats. It is a daily occurrence for us in this place to be talking about the increasing and ongoing threats facing us across the world. In those circumstances, it seems wise to extend the duration of a recall order from 12 months to 18 months. That does not mean it would have to go up to the 18-month point, but it would provide more flex and resilience in the system.
Amendment 23, again, reflects the realities of life. Many individuals who have served in uniform go into roles that are vital for our defence, albeit are no longer required still to wear the uniform of His Majesty. In those circumstances, to lose their skillset by automatically requiring them to be recalled from those reserved occupations seems counterproductive to the aims we should be seeking to achieve.
Finally, amendment 24 recognises the reality of the situation we live in. We need more flexibility to respond with agility and speed to changing circumstances. Therefore, halving the notice period for recall from 180 days to 90 would seem a sensible and prudent approach.
I promised Members that my contribution would be short this time, and I have delivered on that promise.
David Reed
Given that my colleagues have very ably gone through amendments 21 to 24, I will just comment on amendment 20 before handing over to the Minister.
Amendment 20 would increase the maximum age for service in the reserve forces from 65 to 67, which is important in bringing the reserves in line with the age of retirement, which now sits at 67. Parliament has decided that is the threshold at which the working life of a British citizen typically ends, and it makes no obvious sense to retire reservists two years before the age at which we expect the rest of the working population to stop. As the Minister and other colleagues have said, the knowledge of a cyber specialist, a military medic or a logistics officer does not expire on their 65th birthday.
We are legislating at a moment when the security environment is more dangerous than at any point since the cold war, if not world war two. War has broken out across the European continent, and there are wars in the middle east and across Africa. Technological change is speeding everything up, and climate change is increasing volatility. The threats that we face, whether hybrid, cyber or conventional, are growing in scale and sophistication. The Armed Forces Minister himself, in introducing the Bill’s Strategic Reserve measures, said:
“we live in a…fragile environment”,
and the United Kingdom needs
“to be able to recall experienced people faster and more effectively”
should the country need to prepare for war. That is an honest assessment of where we are. If we accept that framing, as I think we should, the case for retaining every capable, willing and medically fit reservist for as long as possible follows directly from it. We should not be narrowing our pool of trained people by two years for no compelling reason.
The strategic defence review is explicit that we need to grow the reserves by 20%, but that ambition runs directly against the policy of letting experienced people go earlier than we need to. At a Royal United Services Institute event in December 2024, General Gary Munch described the current approach as “decommissioning” personnel—the same word that we use for retiring ships. He was making a pointed observation: we would not withdraw a capable platform from service simply because it has accumulated years, and we should apply the same logic to people. The amendment would not impose an obligation on anyone; it would remove an arbitrary ceiling. That is a proportionate ask.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Members for North Devon and for Tunbridge Wells for tabling amendment 1. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who serve, and of course we have an ongoing duty of care to those who have given service to their country but can no longer serve due to medical issues, especially if those issues were a result of their service. Statistics show that there were about 1,900 people medically discharged in financial year 2024-25—700 of those were for musculoskeletal issues, and 800 were for mental or behavioural issues.
Some of those individuals who have left—it could be for an Achilles injury, a break or a back problem—still wanted to serve, but they could not serve in their current role because of the medical requirements. That is not to say that they could not serve in another role at a later date when they had healed or recovered. Our current policies exclude those who have been discharged for a range of conditions from further service, but it would be wrong to exclude all personnel from further service permanently through a change in the law. Keeping these rules set out in policy and secondary legislation gives us a degree of flexibility. Should circumstances change and we require more of our ex-regulars—for example, in a war-like situation—we could give people who want to serve the opportunity to do so.
I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for North Devon about the effect that further service might have on those service personnel. I assure the Committee that any recall into service will be done on a case-by-case basis. We will consider the serviceperson’s service record, including their medical status. Indeed, there will also be regulars who left the service fully medically fit but who, in the intervening years, have unfortunately become unwell and therefore may not be able to undertake further employment with the armed services. Those cases would also have to be considered.
I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for his views on the Bill, and I acknowledge his concerns about the flexibility and readiness of our reserves. On amendments 20 and 21, we are increasing the age limit for recall liability to 65 for other ranks across all three services. That will enable defence to draw on the valuable skills and experience provided by former service personnel aged 55 and above. Recently retired non-officer personnel in the 55-plus age range who have knowledge, skills and experience from a full career provide a useful latent capability to draw upon when needed.
Although I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal to raise the age to 67, which will shortly become the state pension age, my view is that it would not be the most prudent way forward. Recall liability in the reserves is a significant responsibility, because it demands that individuals balance their civilian lives with readiness to serve their country at potentially short notice, reflecting a profound personal and civic duty.
Further increases to the liability from 65 to 67 would be an imposition, given that the measure already addresses the gap in capability. We estimate that the proposed increase in liability will affect only 1.1% of personnel between the ages of 55 and 65 who left the regular forces during the financial year 2024-25. There were no UK regular forces or other ranks personnel who left during that financial year between the ages of 65 and 67.
It is worth noting that some individuals, depending on their service, can still serve up to 67. Therefore, the amendment would not achieve its intended effect, as it concerns a relatively small group of individuals already accounted for within the measure. Indeed, it undermines the balance between the responsibilities defence places on our serving personnel and the operational demands we face.
Mr Francois
The Minister just said that some categories of personnel could in certain circumstances continue to serve beyond 65 to 67, which is in line with the spirit of what the Opposition are proposing. Can he explain to the Committee who those people are?
Al Carns
Through continuation policies, and in some cases using over-age extension mechanisms, people can continue to serve, but changing 55 to 65 is about the liability, not necessarily the service, and capturing the most people in the liability process.
Turning to amendment 22, while I recognise the right hon. Member’s proposal to extend the duration of a recall order from 12 to 18 months, I believe that this would not achieve the effect he desires. The changes in the Bill as drafted will allow us to extend the duration of a call-out order—we already have that power. The Bill’s provisions ensure that defence has the necessary powers to extend both call-out and recall periods up to two years when required, rendering any additional amendment to extend the period to 18 months in respect of recall unnecessary.
On amendment 23, section 73 of the Reserve Forces Act already provides powers of exemption to recall. The existing provision allows the Defence Council, by regulations, to exempt individuals from, or relax, recall liability. Working across Government, defence requires the flexibility to determine critical roles in a warlike scenario. As a result, additional codification in primary legislation would restrict defence’s ability to maintain the necessary flexibility to safeguard critical roles.
The Government are doing that in other ways. Last month, we launched the pan-defence skills framework, a whole-force initiative designed to strengthen defence capability through a unified, transparent focus on skills, which will allow us to identify and manage skills throughout the whole of defence. We recognise that our strength is not just in our equipment, but in the expertise of our people. We also maintain dialogue with our colleagues in other Government Departments, as well as the wider industry, to ensure that we understand the effect of any large-scale mobilisation on critical industries such as the NHS or the defence sector.
Amendment 24 aims to increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve group A from 180 days to 90 days. I take the point about getting the ground truth; I will take that away and see where we are from an internal perspective by speaking to the Department. I reassure the Committee that all Army readiness levels are subject to annual review and are set through the Army operating order, which aligns with defence-directed commitments within the framework of the armed forces plan. To fulfil its obligations effectively, the Army must review and adjust readiness levels across all elements of its force, responding to the evolving demands of the nation.
It is essential that defence maintains the necessary flexibility to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing threat levels. Embedding such provisions in primary legislation would impose too rigid constraints, creating an obstacle rather than a suitable mechanism for setting and reviewing readiness levels. I am committed to taking the point away and having a look. I hope I have provided the necessary reassurance, and on those grounds, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Mr Efford. We will not press amendments 20 to 23. I am grateful that the Minister agreed to take amendment 24 away—we note that—but because the suggestion came from within the ranks, as it were, we will press it to a vote.
Clause 33
Recall for service
Amendment proposed: 24, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—
“69C Notice periods for recall
(1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the coming into force of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R8 (90 days)
(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘Army Reserve Group A’ has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.”—(Mr Francois.)
This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 90 days.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 37, page 56, line 35, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must create a plan for ensuring and monitoring the efficiency of the RFCA in carrying out its duties and its relationship with local Reserve and Cadet units.
(5) The plan in subsection (4) must be laid before each House of Parliament within six months of the passage of this Act.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to create a plan ensuring and monitoring the efficiency of the RFCA in carrying out its duties and its relationship with local Reserve and Cadet units.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Schedule 6.
Mr Francois
The essence of the amendment, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to create a plan to ensure and monitor the efficiency of the reserve forces and cadets associations in carrying out their duties and the relationship with local reserve and cadet units in their charge. I place formally on the record my thanks to the RFCAs as part of our overall national defence effort, and the appreciation of my party for the highly important role they carry out. Many people who serve on the RFCAs at national and regional level have tremendous experience of military life, often across each of the three services in the case of a regional RFCA. The fact that they wish to continue to make a contribution to defence, in many cases after their regular career is over, is to be welcomed and commended.
Nevertheless, just occasionally, I come across examples of a perhaps overly bureaucratic approach by some RFCA staff, who are no doubt well meaning, but whose actions tend—perhaps inadvertently—to stifle innovation and creative thinking. I will illustrate that point to the Minister with two specific personal examples, one from some years ago and the other more contemporary. The first example relates to attempts to create new cadet units in my constituency.
While I served as a Minister in the MOD more than a decade ago, I think it is fair to say that we had a successful programme to expand the number of cadet units in state secondary schools. We set a target of creating some 500 new cadet units at secondary level, specifically including some educational settings and some geographical areas that had perhaps not benefited from cadet units hitherto. We deliberately tried to set up some of those school cadet units in what might be termed quite tough inner-city areas.
That went pretty well; we hit the target. That meant that thousands of young people at school had the opportunity to benefit from everything the cadet movement offers in terms of teaching teamwork, discipline, determination in adversity and all the other military virtues that they were therefore exposed to at a relatively young age. As the Minister knows, we do not have a cadet movement specifically to recruit people into the adult armed forces. Nevertheless, if many of those people, having experienced a taste of the military ethos, wish to continue their military involvement afterwards, that is all well and good, both for them and for their country.
Therefore, on a personal level, I have always been a great believer in the cadet movement, and I am proud to say that I have four cadet units in my constituency: 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron Air Training Corps and its sister squadron, 1474 (Wickford), and detachments of the Essex Army Cadet Force in both Rayleigh and Wickford. I have also, over the past year at least, made a point of attending both the Army cadets’ and the Air cadets’ annual awards ceremonies in Essex.
After I left the MOD, and after we had hit the target of 500 new cadet units in schools, I was involved in conversations with the headteachers of two secondary schools in my constituency, who were also very interested in the programme but had not been part of the original cohort of 500. In essence, they were both keen to set up cadet units of their own. There was an original barrier to entry of a down payment of something like £17,000 by any school that wished to participate. Given the pressure on school budgets, even a decade or so ago, that was a prohibitive barrier to entry for many schools. Nevertheless, I am pleased to say that that requirement was eventually dropped, and, at that point, I had two headteachers who were very keen to go ahead.
I attempted on numerous occasions to communicate that to the East Anglia RFCA, but I regret to inform the Committee that I got absolutely nowhere. Multiple attempts to raise this were met with a very lukewarm response; I was constantly referred to different people within the organisation, and then ultimately to one non-commissioned officer who appeared to have been given responsibility for new cadet units but, for various reasons, seemed very hard to reach.
In the end, I am sad to report that the two headteachers in question lost interest. As one of them put it to me at the time, “Well, if they’re not interested in my school, I don’t see why I should still be interested in one of their cadet units.” That was a shame. I believe it was a missed opportunity—in fact, two. I raise that in the hope that if, in future, any hon. Member wants to help foster the creation of a cadet unit at a school in their constituency, they might have a more positive experience than I did.
Perhaps, in responding to this amendment, the Minister could tell us where we are in terms of school cadet units. I think it would be handy if he could place it on the record that the Government would still like to see new cadet units in schools, and, very briefly, how hon. Members can go about encouraging that. Maybe I was just unlucky, but it would be a shame if we could not facilitate setting up new units in schools.
Secondly—this is a more contemporary example—I have the honour and privilege of serving as the honorary president of 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron. The Minister might recall that I alluded to an issue about the potential expansion of the squadron during one of the earlier evidence sessions. I was then invited to write to the head of the RFCA about that. I am grateful for that hint, and I still intend to do so following this debate.
For the record, 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron has won the Lees trophy as the champion squadron in the Essex wing two years running. A military type might well say, “Well, they must be doing something right then.” Suffice it to say, having declared my interest as the squadron president, I am slightly dismayed that attempts to refurbish and expand the facilities of 1476’s admittedly ageing base in Rayleigh have often fallen foul of what one might call bureaucracy at the RFCA level, even though a national house builder was offering to build a brand-new extension to the squadron base at Connaught Road as a gesture of good will and at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer.
I am sure that we have all seen these things in our constituencies: a company offers to get together a group of volunteers at a weekend and do something up. The company was going to do that, and it also offered to build what was basically, in pub English, a large shed at the back of the unit, as the squadron has a particularly strong interest in engineering studies and needed a shed in which to store its equipment and conduct lessons. That was all to the good.
David Reed
To back up the shadow Minister’s point, I was an air cadet for a number of years—[Interruption.] I know he is laughing at that, but in my experience, it was not about recruitment or a pathway into the armed forces. It was really powerful to have, as a youngster, the opportunity to do adventure training, shooting and flying, and to have a link with the military. As we ask citizens across the UK for more taxes to increase armed forces spend, our young people having that link to the military will be important, so I completely agree with my right hon. Friend.
Mr Francois
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. He proves that the issue is not all about recruitment, as he was in the Air Training Corps but joined the Royal Marines. I thank him for his tri-service.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is bipartisan support for extending cadet forces into the state sector, which was his first point. He mentioned cadet forces in state schools in his constituency, and the combined cadet force at Park View comprehensive school in Chester-le-Street also does excellent work. I hope he accepts that there is a community of interest in achieving that aim. I am not aware of the obstacles he spoke about around the RFCA, but I am interested by his points.
Mr Francois
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On the point about CCFs, part of the Department’s thinking at the time was that a lot of young people, particularly in the independent sector, benefited from the cadet experience by joining combined cadet force units in independent schools, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, exist in some state schools too. We were trying to give more people in the state sector the opportunity to benefit from a similar experience, so we set the ambitious target of 500 units in state schools, which I am pleased to say we hit.
Returning briefly to 1476, in the end, I think it has all been a misunderstanding, and it could be easily resolved with a measure of good will on both sides. I hope the Minister understands the spirit in which I, as the president of the squadron, have raised the issue. If he can personally do anything to help, it would be greatly appreciated. With that, I rest my case.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for his views on the Bill, and I acknowledge his concerns about reserve forces and cadets associations. The Government fully recognise the vital contribution that they currently play in supporting reservist cadets and in defence engagement across the entire United Kingdom, particularly through their close relationships with local communities and employers. I had never heard of the RFCA before I left the military, but after visiting it I can see that it is a fantastic, dedicated and focused group of people who engage across society and have an amazing network that is useful not just in peacetime, but on the road to crisis and indeed during conflict as well.
However, I believe this amendment is not necessary. The Reserve Forces and Cadets Association will operate within a robust governance and assurance framework. Its performance, effectiveness and value for money will be subject to regulatory oversight through existing accountability arrangements, including formal assurance processes, reporting against key performance indicators, and ongoing engagement with the Ministry of Defence.
Mandating a statutory plan to be laid before Parliament would risk duplicating existing mechanisms. That would add bureaucracy without delivering meaningful additional oversight or improvement. The Department remains committed to continuous improvement in how the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association will operate and work with reserve and cadet units, and we will continue to strengthen those arrangements through existing flexible governance structures rather than through new statutory requirements.
Mr Francois
That being the case, could the Minister place on the record—I hope he will say yes—that it remains the policy of this Government to create new cadet units within educational settings where that is appropriate, and where the headteacher is onside?
Al Carns
I place on record our SDR commitment to grow the cadet forces by 30%, which should equate to around 40,000 cadets and 8,000 adult volunteers, although those numbers will ebb and flow. The benefits of the cadet forces are not lost on me; the University of Northampton report is a prime example, and I recommend it to anyone who has a cadet force in their constituency. It demonstrates the benefits of being in the cadet forces, ranging from education and skills to mental and physical resilience. Indeed, people’s life chances go through the roof when they join the cadet forces.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the specific issue of infrastructure, and I would be happy to take that offline and raise it with the Minister for Veterans and People. If people are willing to help, and if there is a way to get better facilities for cadet forces, we will double down to deliver them.
Clause 37 creates a new public body to deliver vital support to the reserve forces and cadet communities. For more than a century, the regional reserve forces and cadets associations have supported defence through the management of the volunteer estate, the administration of reserve activity, and engagement with employers and communities. I reiterate my absolute support for the reserve forces and cadets associations, and for all the volunteers who come forward to help those organisations—they do a sterling job. Their contribution is significant and valued across the defence sector, industry and broader society.
The structure of the reserve forces and cadets associations, however, still reflects that of the county associations set up in 1908, which does not meet today’s public sector expectations for governance, assurance or financial management. Multiple independent reviews, including the 2019 Sullivan review and 2025 reports by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, have highlighted structural weaknesses in the current regional associations and recommended reform.
The clause implements those recommendations by creating a single national RFCA as a non-departmental public body, which ensures compliance with central Government governance standards. The clause provides for Defence Council appointments of an independent chair and non-executive board members; a clear reporting and audit framework consistent with the principles of “Managing Public Money”; and the transfer of assets, property and personnel via statutory schemes to ensure continuity of delivery.
That reform ensures that the NDPB will maintain the local expertise and volunteer contribution that the existing RFCAs provide by moving them to the new regional councils, which will be committees of the new NDPB. For those reasons, I hope this provides the necessary reassurance and ask the right hon. Member to withdraw his amendment. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.
Mr Francois
That is a very reasonable reply from the Minister. I thank him for his offer to look into this. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Parliamentary control of air forces numbers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Al Carns
Clauses 38 and 39 remove the statutory requirements to seek approval for the maximum numbers in each of the regular services and each of the reserve services, and also the maximum number of reservists who may be used for certain commitments.
In an age in which we will increasingly need to call on our reservists at pace and adapt our force make-up to meet a changing threat, having statutory maximum limits—especially at such a granular level for reservists—can place operational constraints on the armed forces. However, we recognise the importance of parliamentary oversight of the armed forces, and that is why we continue to request a maximum for the overall number of the active force, mainly the regular and volunteer reserves for each of the three services, in Parliament through the votes A process.
The quarterly personnel statistics that contain detailed information on the strength of all our armed forces—including all the types reported on in votes A—will continue to be published, allowing Members to hold Ministers to account for the size of the armed forces. The simplification will allow defence to maintain its ability to flex its force to meet operational needs, while allowing Parliament to retain its historical control over the armed forces. I commend clauses 38 and 39 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Prohibition on sentences of death
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Al Carns
The clause amends section 2(4) of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to make it explicit that a visiting force’s service court cannot impose a sentence of capital punishment while conducting proceedings in the United Kingdom. Under existing legislation, a scenario could potentially arise where a NATO sending state requests the transfer of one of its personnel into its custody in the UK and then conducts service court proceedings that may result in the death penalty. That could risk conflicting with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights. The clause removes that possibility where capital punishment could be a potential outcome. By doing so, it ensures that UK practice remains fully aligned with long standing domestic and international commitments against the death penalty.
Clause 41 updates the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act on how the UK determines whether a visiting force member was on or off duty when an alleged offence occurred. At present, the Act does not provide for direct state-to-state negotiation, as envisaged under the NATO status of forces agreement 1951, if there is disagreement about whether a service member was on duty. The clause empowers the Secretary of State to make a conclusive factual determination on the narrow issue of whether the individual was acting in the course of their duty at the time of the alleged offence. In reaching that determination, the Secretary of State must consider representations from the visiting force and the relevant UK prosecuting authority. The clause fulfils the NATO status of forces agreement obligation to engage directly with a sending state in cases of dispute, ensuring consistent and NATO-aligned handling of duty status questions. I therefore commend clauses 40 and 41 to the Committee.
Mr Francois
Briefly, I want to make just one point about visiting forces. As the Minister knows, in recent years certain high-profile cases have included people from visiting forces based in the United Kingdom. In one case in particular, a young boy was tragically killed in a road accident by someone who was alleged to have been driving irresponsibly—a citizen of the United States. For legal reasons, I will say no more on that particular case, but I can see members of the Committee nodding in recognition of what I am talking about.
All I ask is that the Minister places on the record that we welcome the presence of those who come here as our allies to help protect us, but none the less make it plain to them that while they are in the United Kingdom, they should abide by our laws in all respects, in the same way that we ask our own citizens to. For reasons that I hope the Minister appreciates, I would like it if he could make that reassurance plain this afternoon.
Al Carns
I place on the record again everything that I have just said, which of course was about the NATO status of forces agreement and the changes that we want to make to ensure that UK law is reinforced here in this country, while also establishing a clear and precise relationship with individuals who come here under the status of forces agreement.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neuroscience and Digital Childhoods
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
We begin with the Select Committee statement. Dame Chi Onwurah will speak on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s inquiry into neuroscience and digital childhoods for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Dame Chi Onwurah to respond to them in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one each.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship for the very first time, Ms Butler. As you know very well, digital technology is no longer simply a tool or a luxury plaything; it is a foundational part of our way of life here in Britain, like the electricity that powers our kettles or indeed the very air we breathe. Part of the environment in which our children grow, learn, play and communicate, it shapes how the next generation interacts with the world. However, like the air we breathe, digital technologies can be polluted.
I am, as I may have mentioned at times, an engineer and a tech evangelist. I champion the benefits that these technologies bring, but I also recognise the profound concerns that they raise for children’s physical and mental health, as well as for their cognitive development. That is why the Select Committee for Science, Innovation and Technology is undertaking an inquiry to examine neuroscience and digital childhoods, and I am glad to see members of the Committee present.
We want to move beyond the surface-level debate to ask the difficult scientific questions about what is happening inside young minds and the developing brain. The inquiry will build on previous evidence gathering. Last year, as part of our investigation into social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms, we went deep into the workings of the platform companies, particularly the business models that drive their social media operations. Meta’s market capitalisation is about equal to the entire UK public sector budget. With such financial power driving content into children’s lives, it is vital that we understand what drives those companies.
Social media companies rely on advertising-based business models, where clicks and likes matter most. As a result, they are designed to push content that drives engagement to the point of addiction, often without sufficient regard for whether that content is accurate or trustworthy. The digital advertising that incentivises recommendation algorithms is under-regulated and highly concentrated, with Facebook and Google the dominant players. They encourage the creation of material built to perform on social media above all else, and that includes misinformation and disinformation.
As part of that inquiry, we identified five key principles essential for public trust: public safety, free and safe expression, platform responsibility, user control and transparency. Although the Government accepted all our conclusions, they rejected all our recommendations, such as better regulation of how algorithms rank, recommend and amplify content, better regulation of digital advertising, the inclusion of artificial intelligence in the Online Safety Act 2023 and a right to reset. Had they been implemented, some of the harms we now face would have been at least partially addressed.
In March this year the Committee held a one-off session to investigate the proposals for social media age restrictions. We took evidence from clinicians, experts in social media on both sides of the debate, bereaved family members, representatives of those with direct experience of harms and those monitoring the early implementation of the age restrictions brought in in Australia. During both inquiries, Committee members were struck by the extent of the evidence base for a wide range of significant harms from the use of social media—evidence that is consistent, strong and temporally linked to its use. We heard distressing testimony about media health impacts on children, including suicide and suicide ideation, exposure to and normalisation of sexual and violent content, eating disorders and body dysmorphia, health and nutrition misinformation, and physical health, brain development and sleeping disorders.
Governments worldwide are currently debating social media and phone bans for children. In December last year Australia banned social media for under-16s. France looks likely to follow suit with votes for an under-15s ban clearing the French Senate in March. Spain, Portugal, Greece and Canada all have similar proposals under way, and the UK Government are consulting on various protective measures, yet there is a gap in our collective knowledge. Although there is lots of evidence on how much time young people spend on digital devices, we have far too little evidence on how the devices affect children’s development. We also lack clarity on the different impacts of different types of exposure, from social media apps to screen time more generally. Our objective is to map the existing evidence and, crucially, identify where the gaps lie. Our aim is to understand how digital devices influence brain development in children and adolescents. We will examine the resulting impact on physical health and mental wellbeing, behaviour and educational attainment. We will assess how the impacts vary based on individual characteristics, including age, sex, socioeconomic background and ethnicity.
In our inquiry we will distinguish between active and passive engagement. Is there a neurological difference between a child playing a game and a child passively scrolling through an algorithmically driven auto-playing video infinite feed? We will look across activities—gaming, social media, television and messaging—and across various devices, whether they are hand-held, wearable or fixed technologies.
A key focus of our inquiry is the short, medium and long-term effects on brain and eye development. We will explore neurological and hormonal processes, including the role of dopamine releases and potential links to behavioural conditions. We will also look at the indirect effects on sleep and vision and the impact on eye development. We want to hear from those at the heart of this—the children and adolescents themselves. Their views on their own digital lives are vital to our understanding.
We also want to hear from experts, particularly experts in every stage of brain development. The ultimate goal of the Committee is to ensure that policymakers and parents have a better understanding of the evidence on the impact of digital devices on childhood. Then we can decide as parents and policymakers where we want to erect barriers, mitigate harmful impacts or extend beneficial impacts in order to optimise the physical and mental wellbeing of our children. We must ensure that the digital childhood supports development rather than undermines it.
I look forward to hearing the evidence and the questions from Members today.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for her report from our Select Committee, which I particularly enjoy working on. I find it very useful to bring people such as the social media companies before the Committee. We had a very—shall I say—vibrant meeting with them recently. Does the hon. Member agree that they are not doing enough in this space, and that we need to get them to do an awful lot more and to take responsibility?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his work on the Committee. It is always incisive and rooted in a desire to get the evidence. I agree with him. I understand the big tech companies are in No. 10 Downing Street this morning talking—or I hope listening—to the Prime Minister about this very subject: the importance of children’s wellbeing in digital technology. That in itself is testament to the fact that they have not done enough. We should not have got to this place, where our children are living through the harms that I spoke about and that the Committee heard about in its evidence. The companies’ incentives, driven by advertising revenue and profit making, should be in second place to children’s wellbeing and the safety of the products and services that they put out to our young people—and indeed to all our citizens.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Chair of the Select Committee’s launch of a new inquiry on digital childhoods. Like her, I sit on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and was disturbed when I asked the big tech companies how much money they make from children. They said that they do not make much because they cannot make advertising revenue from them, so I asked whether it was altruistic—to which there was tumbleweed and then the admission: “Actually, no, it creates a user base”. I am paraphrasing, but even the use of the word “user” with reference to our children is deeply concerning.
I welcome this inquiry. I believe plenty of evidence already demonstrates a direct link between being miserable and an increased use of online devices. I welcome the fact that we will hear from experts, and that we can be guided by their guidance. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given last year’s report and the evidence from this inquiry, in addition to the social media ban consultation that is going at the moment, the Government might not just listen and agree, but actually do something about it?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for her question and her contribution to the Committee, which is always driven by a desire to ensure that technology works for people in this country. Her questioning of the tech companies about their approach to children was very illustrative of a lack of concern about the outcomes on children. The financial rewards are certainly there in the long term. However, the companies should be doing the research that we are and understanding the impact of these vast money-making machines on young people and children. That we are having to do that, and that they cannot speak effectively to the safety of their products and services, is remarkable. I want to emphasise that they bring benefits as well, but it is not appropriate that this should be unregulated and that our children should be exposed to uncertain, unknown and uncontrolled harms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Committee, along with the Select Committee Members, for their hard work for the lives of young children in the past and in the neuroscience and digital childhoods inquiry. The Select Committee’s work is important and vital in modern society. I have a particular interest in online activities relating to those who could pervert the minds of children but also in relation to eating disorders, which the Chair mentioned—I thank her for that.
There is a role for the parents, but I think many parents are just not sure what this will do to their child. As the grandfather of six children, I understand some of the threats on their tablets, laptops, phones and so on. When the investigation is complete, the questions are asked and the inquiry is done, will the hon. Lady and her Committee share it with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland? It is very important that we are in tandem with her recommendations.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Member for his question, as well as his valuable work and concerns in this area. I echo his concerns about mental wellbeing and eating disorders. The Committee heard evidence that a false account of a young girl aged 14 or 15 was inundated within a few hours with misinformation about unhealthy eating and, basically, the promotion of eating disorders. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about sharing the report’s findings with the Administration in Northern Ireland. We will certainly make sure that happens in terms of the regulatory environment.
I am not sure that I fully answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) about Government action. We are looking for speedy Government action in response to this inquiry, and we hope that both our conclusions and our recommendations will be accepted by the Government in this case.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I welcome this new inquiry looking at children and young people’s device use. There is a growing feeling that there is a causation between screen use and poor mental health outcomes, and we are now having to drill into brain science and neuroscience to provide evidence back to tech companies to justify why we need regulation. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it has come too late, fundamentally, we need to find that evidence?
Does my hon. Friend also agree that we need to encourage all our young people and parents to respond to the Government’s consultation on a social media ban? We need to go further than a ban at age 16. The voices of young people and parents will contribute to evidence on this and make an informed and better policy.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her contribution to the Committee, which is always rooted in and driven by her profound understanding both of biological and chemical sciences and of the life of a woman scientist in the research community.
To the two points that my hon. Friend made, the industry has not learned from the examples of smoking and other harmful products and services. The sector is creating vast revenues and is responsible for the majority of the stock market capitalisation in the US. It has the resources to understand the impacts of its products and services. It also has the talents and fantastic research capabilities; we see that in its innovative new products and services. Yet the sector does not understand, or share its understanding of, the impact of its products and services on children’s developing brains.
Every generation’s childhood is unique and different—the first generation to be literate, or the first generation to have television—so it is not necessarily that change is bad. Understanding what change means is in the interests of the sector as well as the interests of parents.
To my hon. Friend’s final point, the Government clearly see the need for change, which is why we are having the consultation, and have been proactive in making that clear. It is important that as many people as possible, particularly young people, respond to that consultation. I would also encourage as many people as possible to respond to the Committee’s call for evidence, so that when change comes, which I hope will be quickly, we can ensure that we make the right decisions based on the right scientific evidence and the right understanding of what people in this country want to see happen in this important area.
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Housing Needs: Young People
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the housing needs of young people.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Everyone has the right to a safe, secure and healthy home, yet for far too many young people across the United Kingdom, that feels increasingly out of reach. The effects go far beyond housing: it is about young people’s ability to leave home, to work and contribute, to start a family, and to build a stake in the country they call home.
I am sure every hon. Member here can see the shift happening in their constituencies. We see children staying at home for longer and struggling to save to move out. In 2024, the Office for National Statistics showed that a third of men aged 20 to 34 were living with their parents, along with just over a fifth of women of the same age. That is not a lifestyle choice; it is the result of a housing market that has moved beyond what young people can afford.
Nowhere is the pressure clearer than in the private rented sector. Private renters in the bottom 20% of earners spend an average of 63% of their income on rent, and private renters overall spend 34% of their income on housing. That means that the average renter pays rent that, by the Government’s own definition, is not affordable. Someone renting from the age of 18 will have paid almost £200,000 in rent before reaching the average age of a first-time buyer in Britain—34. A young couple will have paid more in rent than the cost of an average home in the UK plus an extra £110,000 on top.
That is not a fair system. It simply strips wealth from younger people and takes away our children’s future. Given the enormous sums of money that young people pay in rent before they have an opportunity to get on the property ladder, will the Minister meet the Liberal Democrats to discuss a rent-to-buy scheme?
We also see the strain in the rise of what we call concealed households. In 2020, there were nearly 2 million households that included an additional adult who wanted to rent or buy but could not afford to do so. More than half the people in those households were aged 16 to 24. I am sure we all understand that this stems from years of failure; it is not a problem that has happened overnight. We now have adults living in childhood bedrooms—not because they want to, but because there is nowhere affordable for them to go.
For many young people, home ownership feels less realistic and more like a distant aspiration. High prices, high deposit requirements and the pressure of everyday living costs have pushed ownership further and further out of reach. Nowhere is that clearer than in the average age of first-time buyers. In the 1970s, it was as low as 24; now, as of this year, it has been pushed up to 34. It is no wonder that young people feel like the system is not working. ONS data shows that in 2024, the median house-price-to-income ratio was 7.9 in England, 5.4 in Wales, 5.3 in Scotland and 4.6 in Northern Ireland.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
In December 2023, the Scottish SNP Government slashed their affordable housing budget by £200 million—a 26% reduction. We have record levels of children in temporary accommodation in Scotland—10,000—and under the SNP’s watch, rough sleeping has increased by 66%. Scottish Labour is promising 125,000 new homes to add to the UK Government’s ambitious targets. Does the hon. Member agree that that would surely tackle the housing needs of our young people?
Susan Murray
I absolutely agree, and I would add that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are also contributing to the push for additional affordable housing in Scotland.
The ONS also found that a median-priced home was affordable to the highest-income 40% of households in Scotland and Wales, while in England it was affordable only to the top 10%. That means that even in the most affordable nation, the average house price is now more than banks are willing to lend to someone on an average salary. Can the Minister tell us what discussions the Government have had with the Financial Conduct Authority about its ongoing mortgage rule review and whether it will publish an assessment of how any changes would affect the under-35s? Any changes must not make the situation worse.
Lack of access to affordable homes causes the decline of communities and the widening of wealth gaps. If people can rely on family wealth, or perhaps family sacrifice, to access the property market, they have an enormous headstart on their peers. With that in mind, can the Minister explain what assessment has been made of whether the Government’s first-time buyer support schemes, such as help to buy ISAs, are genuinely reaching young people on ordinary incomes, rather than those who already have family who can help them out?
The consequences of this issue, as we have heard, go beyond housing. When young people cannot afford to live near work, talent leaves and our best and brightest look for opportunities overseas. When high rents dominate young people’s finances, local businesses suffer and third spaces die out. The economic impact of the financial stranglehold that housing has on our youth hurts us all. The Minister must recognise that housing and security are now affecting not only where young people live but whether they feel able to start a family.
I want to make something clear for those who misrepresent the struggles of young people trying to get on the property ladder: young people are not asking for handouts or special favours, and the reason that they cannot buy a home is not their lifestyle. They are asking for a fair chance—the chance to build a life of their own. It is a chance that previous generations have had. This Government have an enormous majority and, if used properly, the opportunity to give young people real hope. I urge the Government to listen to and work with young people to give them the future that they deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to partake in the debate.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing forward this debate. I will focus on the housing needs of care leavers and those with care experience.
Every year around 12,000 young people leave foster care or residential homes and begin their transition into independent living. For most young people, that stage of life can be supported by family, friends and a social network—they have a safety net—but so often for care leavers that safety net does not exist. As a result, they face a sharply heightened risk of homelessness: in 2024-25 alone, 4,610 care leavers aged between 18 and 20 experienced homelessness. That represents a 54% increase over five years, with rates rising 2.5 times faster than among the general population.
Those numbers represent young people who are being pushed into crisis at the very point that they should be building their future. The Government have recognised that challenge, and they are introducing important changes through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. That includes additional support for care leavers at risk of homelessness, a raft of changes in the Department of Health and Social Care around prescriptions, and wholesale reform of children’s social care. The Bill is a hugely positive and welcome step, but I hope that we can go further.
There remain significant barriers that prevent care leavers from accessing accessible and suitable accommodation. The private sector, which many young people rely on, is particularly difficult for them to navigate. Research from Centrepoint has found that care leavers are significantly more likely to be rejected by landlords, who are unwilling to rent to that particular group. At the same time, 40% reported they could not afford deposits and up-front costs.
Practical solutions do already exist, but they are not mandatory and they are not used widely enough. Local authority rent deposit and guarantor schemes make a real difference, yet fewer than half of councils currently offer them. Expanding such schemes could be a straightforward and effective way to open doors for care leavers who would otherwise be locked out of the housing market.
In Doncaster, we have fantastic organisations such as Doncaster Housing for Young People, which provides real support, particularly for those without a safety net. In Doncaster, like in so many areas, there is a critical shortage of affordable, move-on housing. Many young people are ready to live independently but are unable to do so because of a lack of appropriate accommodation. There are not enough one-bedroom properties and, as a result, young people are often penalised by things like the bedroom tax, which they simply cannot afford on basic universal credit.
Young people, particularly care leavers, who are supported by Doncaster Housing for Young People are ready to move on, but they are stuck. They are stuck not because they are unprepared or have not been supported, but because the system does not provide housing that they can realistically access.
If we are serious about improving outcomes for care leavers, we need to go further. We must increase the amount of genuinely affordable housing and ensure that they have access to it. We must expand access to practical support, such as deposit and guarantor schemes, where it is not already available. Finally, we must ensure that the welfare system as a whole works with, not against, young people who are trying to build independent lives in terms of both housing and employment. Leaving care should be the start of a future, not the beginning of a housing crisis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. I ask that Members please speak for roughly six minutes so that we can fit everybody in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for her contribution, and for her passion for helping the young people in her constituency and across the entire UK.
I do not know what everybody else does, but after a busy week at Westminster my heart longs for home. It longs to get home to enjoy my precious grandchildren, my dear wife and my bed, which, no matter what, fits me better than most. Home is a wonderful thing, and I put on record my thanks to my wife Sandra for giving me a home for 39 years.
However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to find a home. For thousands of young people across Northern Ireland that foundation is crumbling. Members will not be aware of the 38,336 households across the Province currently in housing stress. That is not just a number; it is a record high that represents a 6% increase in just one year.
It is good to see the Minister in his place; he is, by his very nature, incredibly helpful. He always tries to be helpful in any debate and with any questions that I have. I am quite sure that the answers to our requests will be positive and constructive.
To give a Northern Ireland perspective, which the Minister will be glad to know he is not responsible for, in my own council area of Ards and North Down—a borough that is rightly celebrated for its beauty—there hides a growing struggle similar to that which the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire referred to and others will refer to as well. As of March 2024, there were some 3,300 applicants on our local social housing waiting list. Even more alarmingly, 81% of those applicants—more than 2,400—are officially in housing stress. They are living in conditions that are overcrowded, unsuitable and simply unsafe.
The crisis is stealing the childhoods of our youngest citizens. Across Northern Ireland, some 5,000 children are now living in temporary accommodation. That is a staggering 99% increase just five years, which gives everyone an idea of the problem in Northern Ireland. These children are not just waiting; they are spending an average of 38 weeks—nearly three quarters of a year—stuck in hostels or B&Bs. In Ards and North Down, we have the fifth highest social housing waiting list in the whole country.
For a young person starting out, the dream of independence is being replaced by the reality of hidden homelessness. For many it is simple—it is a brutal matter of affordability. In the last year alone, house prices in Ards and North Down in my Strangford constituency reached an average of £243,924—the highest average increase in all of Northern Ireland. We had the highest average increase across all the Province.
For a young person on a starting salary or a care leaver trying to find their footing, these prices are a wall, not a doorway. I have had two of my three sons, with their families, move in with me and Sandra at separate times, in a desperate attempt to save money for a home. We will always give them money to help them with a home, but the price of houses has become so much that the achievement of a mortgage is almost beyond all grasp. It is a near-impossible leap to get on to the first rung of the property ladder.
We know that 64% of care leavers in Northern Ireland present as homeless within just a few years of leaving the system—the hon. Member for Doncaster Central spoke about care leavers in particular. Without targeted support, we are setting our most vulnerable up to fail.
Statistics, by their very nature, can be cold, but the stories they tell us are urgent. When one young person in the UK becomes homeless every four minutes, we cannot afford to look away. We need more than just targets and goals. We need the 1,390 new social units projected for my borough alone to be built and allocated with urgency. I welcome the Government’s programme of house building. We need whatever houses are built. The Government’s original target of 1.5 million may not be achieved, but if 1 million were achieved over this term of government, that would be a fantastic success.
It is time we ensured that every young person in the UK has a place to truly call home. We have to help them or that will not happen. I know the Minister understands the situation only too well, but I ask him to help those most vulnerable to get on to the ladder and find an affordable place that they can call home. I would appreciate the Minister’s engagement with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland—he always does that, very helpfully. It is important that the policies that start here, driven by this Government, are the policies that we also adopt in Northern Ireland, to bring the same delivery.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Butler. When I first stood for election to this place, I did so with a mission to fix Oxfordshire’s broken housing market. I saw the mess that we were in. I saw the lives broken by that market long before I arrived here.
Oxford faces a crisis of unique and crushing proportions. Homes now cost 12 times local earnings—a burden for the city, a burden for the county and a burden that no other part of this country is asked to bear.
For our young people, the situation is transformative in the worst of ways. Those aged 25 to 34 are now the backbone of a private rented sector that has doubled in size since the start of the century. These young people are renters by necessity, renters without equity and renters without a clear path to a home of their own.
In Oxford, nearly a third of households rent privately. As the city’s prices climb, the pressure climbs; as the pressure climbs, people leave. They leave and go to places such as Banbury. They come for the 20-minute commute, but they bring with them the weight of Oxford’s exhaustion. Thus Oxford’s housing problems become Banbury’s housing problems. Demand has surged. Supply has stalled. My inbox swells as the local housing waiting list ticks up and up, quadrupling in a single decade.
This is what I say to the local voices who question why Cherwell district council, which covers Banbury, must contribute to Oxford’s unmet housing need: “It is no longer Oxford’s need. It is our need in Banbury as well. It is our future. It is our children who are being priced out of their own parishes.”
Let us be clear: this is not merely a housing crisis. It is an economic crisis. Oxford does not just grow; it prospers. It does not just work; it innovates. Our high-tech industries generate £23.5 billion in gross value added annually. We are a net contributor to the Exchequer, a global destination for talent and a titan of enterprise. That is why the Chancellor is right to champion the Oxford-Cambridge corridor—it is a vision of growth, infrastructure and national renewal—but that vision will remain a mirage if the workers required to build it cannot afford to live within it.
By failing to build, we are stifling the growth we seek, the talent we nurture and the very future we promised to deliver. I therefore urge the Government to give young people in Banbury and across Oxfordshire the tools, the support and the resolve that we need to help me to keep my promise of helping to fix Oxfordshire’s broken housing market.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing of this debate, Ms Butler. I have the honour to represent an inner London constituency, in which approximately a third of the population live in private rented accommodation. Among young people, that proportion is considerably higher because of the problems they have with access to social housing of any sort, which force them into the private rented sector or into sharing properties.
The stress they suffer is enormous, the overcrowding that happens in shared flats is horrendous and the way young people have to club together to try to pay rent, which for even a two or three-bedroom flat would be at least £2,000 a month in the private rented sector in my constituency, means they have no possibility of saving money for anything else. Their whole life revolves around work, trying to pay the rent and the other costs that go with it.
Their ability to access council or housing association accommodation is extremely limited, because there is an enormous waiting list with a terrible stress level and shortage of housing. Essentially, to be allocated council housing, a person must have quite profound special needs. I see the Minister nodding; he understands very well that this is an issue all across London. Communities are increasingly broken up because of the lack of access to anything that one could begin to call affordable housing.
There are a number of things that we could do about that. First, we could increase the levels of control over the private rented sector, something I have raised before with the Minister. I support the Renters’ Rights Act 2025—it is a big step forward, because it gives more security and power to the tenant vis-à-vis the landlord. However—and this is the big problem, particularly for London, the south-east and every other big city—the lack of rent control means that places become increasingly unaffordable, forcing young people out of these areas altogether. I hope, as a result of this debate, that the Government can give us some hope that they will be able to do something about young people’s housing, particularly in inner-urban areas.
There is also the issue of the administration of housing associations. I was a councillor before I became an MP, and I remember when housing associations were thought to be the panacea for all ills. In the 1970s, they were promoted as a wonderful thing: co-operatively and locally run, responsive to tenants needs, and the other things that we would always want.
These days, it is not even a little bit like that; we have enormous housing associations, owning thousands of properties across a very wide part of the country and the cities. There is very little response to tenants’ needs and, frankly, they are well out of touch. I spend a great deal of time representing the needs of tenants, particularly those of housing associations Peabody and Clarion Housing.
However, the housing associations have in many cases leased properties to special needs housing groups. That is often quite a good thing; for example, the Peter Bedford Trust, in my area, is a very good organisation that has done a great deal of work to help mainly, but not exclusively, young people with very profound and special needs. Sadly, a couple of weeks ago I learned that Clarion Housing Association is taking back a large number of its properties, leaving a large number of young, and middle-aged, people stressed and needing to find somewhere else to go. I hope the Minister can give us some indication of the Government’s thoughts on the democracy and accountability of the very large housing associations in particular, because there is a growing feeling of alienation from them.
Evictions are happening in the private rented sector because of the implementation of section 21 no-fault evictions. I am delighted that such no-fault evictions will end when the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 finally comes into effect; that is a huge step forward. My deep regret is that they did not end in July 2024, because as soon as the Act and its contents were announced the landlords took advantage by implementing large numbers of no-fault evictions ahead of the time when they will not be able to. It is too late to do much about that, but I urge that there be some thoughts about that.
The last thing I will say, in the 39 seconds remaining, is this: colleagues have talked about rising up the housing ladder and, while I understand the language and its use, the reality is that as a society we tolerate too much housing stress, homelessness and housing poverty. We need a principle of housing as a right, rather than the idea that housing is all about an investment for your own future. Surely housing should be for housing needs; that should be the primary consideration.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate.
Housing is an issue that goes to the heart of opportunity for young people. A generation that came of age in the wake of the financial crisis and saw youth services slashed under austerity then had their lives put on pause by the pandemic; now, when they seek to be independent, they face a housing market that is too often still inaccessible.
Young people in the private rented sector spend a higher proportion of their income on rent than any other age group—if they are able to live independently at all, that is. In 2014, 36% of those aged 24 still lived in their family home; by 2024, that had risen to 49%. Thankfully, this Government are treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves. The £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing is the most ambitious in a generation, and planning reforms will unlock growth. Together with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which was passed by this Labour Government and comes into force next month, it represents not just policy change, but a long-term commitment to rebuilding a housing system that works.
Young people, particularly 25 to 34-year olds, are disproportionately more likely to rent, as is already clear from the debate, so they are highly vulnerable to high housing costs. Regulating rental increases will significantly benefit young people, providing greater housing stability and increasing financial predictability. I often talk about ensuring that, when we build homes, the infrastructure that communities need is in place, and I would like to talk about partnerships in delivery.
In Derby, we have seen at first hand the role that organisations such as the YMCA play in supporting young people into safe, stable housing. The Foundry Point development, opening in the next couple of weeks, is one such example. Once fully developed, it will support young people aged 18 to 30 with 60 affordable, self-contained flats on land that forms part of the Rolls-Royce estate. It is about not just providing a roof, but enabling independence, employment and long-term stability, and it is possible because of the partnership between the YMCA, Homes England, Rolls-Royce, community groups and individuals donating and fundraising to help keep rents affordable. The Minister would be very welcome to come and visit.
With ambitions to deliver 10,000 affordable homes, YMCA and similar organisations will be vital partners in meeting the Government’s housing goals, particularly when it comes to creating genuinely affordable homes for younger people. As such, the Government continuing to engage with charitable providers, so that 100%-affordable housing projects get support, will help to ensure that the needs of young people are sufficiently recognised.
It is clear that this Government are serious about tackling the housing crisis, and about who it is hitting hardest. Government plans are essential, because they are quite literally building the foundations of a housing system that will work for the next generation. We must all play our part to ensure that they succeed. With Derby College Group becoming one of the new construction technical excellence colleges, we are ensuring the skills we need to build those foundations.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on her opening remarks.
Other speakers have referred to the issues and difficulties that young people today are experiencing. They are not facing a storm but enduring a prolonged storm, and I fear that unless there are further changes to Government policy, they will have to continue to endure that storm.
I declare an interest as a former chief executive of a registered provider of housing—a housing association, or at least a community land trust—and I now sit as a volunteer on the board of Cornwall Community Land Trust. That organisation, along with many others, is also facing a perfect storm. In part, that is the result of the so-called “benefits of Brexit”, in that we have taken back control of the colour of our passports but lost control of construction inflation in this country—in part, thanks to Brexit. As a result, a large number of homes are shovel-ready, but work is unable to start on site as a result of the simple fact of Brexit.
One of the biggest pressures being faced by young people in our area is a planning system that was changed on 12 December last year through changes to the national planning policy framework. That resulted in the introduction of new standard housing methods, which the Minister is clearly well aware of. I agree with the values that the Labour Government are trying to advance: to try to address the desperate housing needs across this country. I am of course professionally and politically very committed to achieving that aim. However, the changes have actually proven to be counterproductive.
In Cornwall, we now have to deliver 4,421 homes every year instead of the previous target of 2,600, and we must show that we have a five-year land supply. However, it is simply impossible to do that overnight, as local authorities around the country are well aware. Consequently, we are no longer able to defend the exception sites that we had wanted to deliver around the edges of all of our communities in Cornwall. Indeed, there have been appeals on permissions previously granted for affordable homes that are now being converted to allow for smaller numbers, and for unaffordable homes. There, the changes have been proven to be counter- productive.
The Minister knows full well that in Cornwall we are not nimbys. Our housing stock has grown faster than that of almost anywhere else in the country; we have almost tripled our housing stock in the last 60 years. Yet, the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse. We need to look much more widely at the way in which the planning system works.
As far as rural exception sites are concerned, the rural exception should not be an exception; it should be the rural norm. Our whole approach to delivering homes on the edges of our communities means that applicants must demonstrate that they will meet need rather than greed. The whole planning system is tipped entirely in a direction that is opposite to the one that I think we in this Chamber today would like policy to go.
Young people have to compete in a market in which—the Minister knows this because I have raised it several times—the tax system is tipped heavily in favour of second residences. A person with a second home can flip their property from council tax to business rates, apply for small business rate relief and then pay nothing at all. That has to be subsidised by the rest of us through the tax system. In the last 10 years in Cornwall alone, in excess of half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money has gone into the pockets of wealthy second-home owners. We should put that money into first homes for young people. The situation is inequitable and I am surprised that a Labour Government are not prepared to challenge and change that simple fact in order to properly address the issue.
Andrew George
The Minister objects. I am sorry but the small business rate relief is still available. The tax loopholes available are still there. Perhaps the Minister can put me right on that, if he wishes.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is right that we need rent controls as well as the Renters’ Rights Act. As well as the stick for private landlords, we should offer them a carrot: tax incentives should be available to landlords who provide decent homes and lower rents. There is a lot that we can do. Young people need to see that we set housing targets based on need rather than greed, that we are able to turn exception sites into the rural norm, and that we enable the intermediate market with, yes, rent to buy but also rent to discount sale. We have established that model in Cornwall and it could be used much more widely to help young people.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing this important debate. Young people face challenges with housing in every part of the country, and in rural communities such as Derbyshire Dales there are compounding pressures of exorbitant prices, high rents and a lack of access to jobs and public services. I have heard from many constituents, whether parents or young people, who fear being priced out of the communities that they grew up in.
As in all areas of the country, house prices in Derbyshire Dales have risen significantly in recent years, far outstripping local wages and leaving many young people unable to buy—and increasingly unable to rent in the few available properties. The challenge of affordability is exacerbated by the supply challenge we face, especially in the national park. There is a clear and ongoing need for affordable housing, especially homes for social rent, but it has to be in the communities that need it, not just where big developers will make the most money.
Some villages in the national park are crying out for housing, most clearly where ageing populations see declining numbers enrol at local primary schools. Without affordable housing and additional investment in transport links and connectivity, there are few pull factors for young families or professionals. In many areas we also see the impact of high numbers of second homes and holiday lets: they make up a quarter of all residential properties in some villages in my constituency, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. It is therefore a struggle for the number of new builds to outstrip the number lost to second homes and holiday lets.
In the parts of the constituency that sit outside the national park—and I am sure this applies right across the country—we regularly see developers try to wriggle out of their obligations to build affordable and social housing. We end up with yet more four-bed and five-bed properties because that is presumably where the big bucks lie, but that does little to help our young people get on to the housing ladder. We need a mix of housing but it has to include starter homes, affordable homes and social housing. It is clear that young families are being squeezed out. Time will tell whether more action on second homes will be required, beyond the doubling of council tax and the increase in stamp duty. We need action on empty properties. We need to increase the housing supply, of affordable housing, in the communities that need it most and we need to invest in the services and connectivity that are needed.
Andrew George
The hon. Gentleman raises once again the issue of second homes. He is well aware that the Liberal Democrats have proposed a change in the use class system to introduce a new use class for non-permanent occupancy. The introduction of such a thing would allow local communities to limit the number of second homes. It could be used as a tool to control expansion of the number of second homes and holiday lets.
John Whitby
I would be more than happy with local authorities having the capacity to limit holiday lets and so on—that is not a bad idea at all.
It should not be too much to ask that a young person can live in the community that they grew up in.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Butler. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) was the driving force behind securing this debate, the application for which I supported, and I congratulate her on doing so. I should declare an interest as a social landlord. I thank all other Members who have taken part in this important debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who restated the excellent case for planning controls on second homes.
I support that proposal because at its heart, housing is the single biggest issue affecting young people’s lives. Whether owning or renting, housing dominates their futures. A decent and affordable home is fundamental and the starting point for all other freedoms. That is why it was a Liberal Government who invented council housing and rolled it out. Liberals such as William Beveridge identified poor housing as the chief cause of squalor—one of the giants that any progressive Government would want to overcome.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to the £3.9 billion per year for social and affordable housing, but we urge them to go further and faster; I will return to how my party would do that. We also campaigned for an end to no-fault evictions and therefore supported the Renters’ Rights Act. Ending no-fault evictions was long overdue; the Conservatives failed to deliver on that.
While pragmatic improvements to the planning system are always welcome, the Government’s planning changes, which are focused on printing permissions for private sector housebuilders at the expense of locally elected councillors and communities having their say, will not bring the lower house prices that young people desperately need. That never has, and it never will. We need an approach that will not only deliver lower rents but help a new generation get the chance to buy a home of their own. That was an aspiration that felt achievable for my generation, but for too many younger people, seems like a fantasy. It is an injustice that we need to address.
Average deposits have more than doubled as a share of income in almost every region of the country compared with 30 years ago, and that is even higher in London. Saving for a deposit in the first place has never been harder, because rents are higher than ever both in real terms and as a percentage of income, as we have heard from other hon. Members. Nearly half of 24-year-olds are now living at home with their parents, up from just over a third a decade ago. As one of my constituents put it, he has paid more in rent over the last 20 years than the value of a house, yet he does not own one breeze block and has little hope of his three children getting a home of their own.
For the most vulnerable young people, the consequences go further than deferred aspiration. Last year, an estimated 124,000 young people approached their local authority because they were homeless or at risk of homelessness—a 6% rise on the previous year. One young person is facing homelessness every four minutes. That pushes people out of education and work, and into a cycle that is hard to escape. Crisis found that 58% of employers are less likely to hire someone experiencing homelessness, and the welfare system is not helping. Under-35s are only eligible for the shared accommodation rate—a lower housing benefit entitlement to cover shared accommodation, at a time when the number of houses in multiple occupation has fallen by 10% since 2019. The shared accommodation rate is a false economy. Our manifesto committed to abolishing it in its application to homeless people. They should not be penalised for being homeless.
Many leaseholders who have bought are facing potential negative equity as the cost of remediation or unfair and mounting service charges and ground rents accumulate. It is time to abolish residential leasehold and cap unfair and unreasonable service and management charges. I hope that the forthcoming Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will do so. The previous Conservative Government had its chance. Their answer was right to buy, which stripped over 1.5 million council houses from the stock since 1980. We would give councils the power to end right to buy in their areas.
The Conservatives’ other approach was Help to Buy, through which they spent £25 billion on an equity loan scheme. What did we get in return? The Institute for Fiscal Studies published research this week showing that Help to Buy made a very limited difference to affordability for first-time buyers, and the mortgage guarantee scheme only really made a difference to the maximum house price for the highest incomes. It also likely drove prices higher by fuelling a sellers’ market with extra cash. Imagine if that money had been invested in social housing instead. The Liberal Democrats do not just imagine that; our manifesto set out a commitment to 150,000 social homes per year, with an extra £6 billion per year in funding to roll them out, or £30 billion over the Parliament.
This is what we need to bring about: housing that young people can genuinely afford. In addition to social and council rental homes, we would develop a new generation of rent to own. Instead of removing the rights of local communities and councillors, we would take a different approach to secure affordable homes to buy. Our approach would prioritise essential infrastructure first, such as GPs, so that it came before new homes—no doctors, no development.
We need a different approach, and I encourage the Government to make further use of the powers that the Conservatives, to give them credit, put on the statute book, which the current Government have extended to town and parish councils, to acquire land at existing use value, and to ensure that it is raising sufficient funding from levies on development to increase the delivery of homes that young people can afford. After all, it is for our environment and communities that we want new homes to be built, and the voices of people and nature should therefore not be excluded from the process.
Young people need an affordable route out of private renting. That means a serious, funded social house building programme, including tenures specifically designed for young people, and capping rent rises in the way that we proposed during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, so that young people can actually save—for example, for a deposit on a new home of their own.
Finally, there is another quick win sitting right in front of the Government. Lib Dem councils such as Somerset want to build more, but their borrowing is maxed out. If the Government will not increase the £3.9 billion a year for council and social housing to the £6 billion a year that we would like to see, will they look at writing off part of the decades-old housing revenue account debt? If they did so, my Liberal Democrat Somerset councillor colleagues could build at least another 630 new council houses. I would welcome further discussion with the Minister on that matter in any meeting that is granted.
Young people are not asking for much; they simply want the same chances that previous generations took for granted. They deserve a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 a year—and low-cost rent to own, which is an affordable route to home ownership, and that is what the Liberal Democrats in government would deliver.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
This is the first time I have served with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. It is a pleasure to do so, and to take part in this debate about the housing needs of young people. I thank the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for raising this important topic.
The housing needs of young people are multifaceted, with experiences ranging from those in temporary accommodation to those in the private rented sector, those who own their home and those who, for whatever reason, unfortunately find themselves sleeping rough. However, what is clear is that the Government are overseeing a growing problem, and forecasts for the rest of this Parliament predict further misery for young people, whether they are seeking their first home or merely a stable home.
One of the core issues behind the housing problem facing young people is a lack of supply, and the axing of measures that were designed to bolster demand. The dream of home ownership should be a reality for every hard-working person in this country, on which I think there is collective agreement in this room, but that is not the case. The Government have not yet done enough to make that dream a reality.
For example, recent ONS figures show that the Government’s record in house building is not just a sorry sight; in fact, it is significantly worsening. The statistics show that house building in England is on track to fall to its lowest level in more than a decade. During this Government’s first 15 months in office, just 175,290 homes were completed in England—a far cry from the lofty target of 300,000 needed to meet their manifesto pledge to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament in 2029.
That crash is not showing signs of improvement either, with the three months to September 2025 seeing the number of dwellings drop to 30,880—the weakest quarter since the pandemic. Based on the pace recorded in the first three quarters of 2025, England is set for the lowest number of annual completions for over a decade, totalling just a measly 130,000. Those figures come alongside a release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government last November, which showed that the number of net new additional dwellings in England was 208,600 in the Government’s first year in power—a 6% drop from 2023-24 during the Conservative Government’s final year in office. Some 190,600 new homes were built, which was a fall of 8,000, or 4%, from 2023-24, once again suggesting that the Government are on course to fall well short of their 1.5 million homes pledge. If they fail to increase the rate of house building, there will be fewer than 1 million new homes completed by 2029, which is well short of their target.
What does that mean for young people trying to get on the housing ladder? It means it is becoming only more difficult to buy a home, not easier, and that young people are being failed by the Government. It is not just in housing supply that Whitehall currently presents more hinderances than help for young people. Demand for homes is far from insignificant in this country, not least among young people, but the Government are doing almost nothing to help that demand yield results. By November 2024, having been in office for just four months, they had taken an axe to the previous Government’s measures to get people on the housing ladder by cutting right to buy, first-time buyer stamp duty relief and the affordable homes to purchase programme. That has done nothing to help an already unaffordable housing market. It has in fact moved one of life’s primary assets—the ability to purchase one’s own home—further out of the reach of young people.
Young people already face huge challenges in buying a home. For example, the average age of a first-time buyer in England has climbed to 34, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire. New research shows the growing difficulty of getting on to the housing ladder, with the average deposit worth around a 10th more than a person’s yearly salary. Research also shows that the average age is rapidly being pushed up by the collapse of the portion of first-time buyers aged under 25. They now make up just 6%, despite having made up one quarter of those buying their first home in the 1990s. To compound the misery, more than half of first-time buyers now need two incomes to make a purchase.
Of course, it is important to consider not just those who are fortunate enough to consider buying their first home, but those who are renting, in social housing or in no house at all. On renting, a recent and very informative report by Centrepoint found that one third of young people in the private rental sector reported discrimination by landlords or agents, with the biggest issue being employment status. As unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds hits 16% as a direct result of the Government’s economic policies—a higher rate than during the pandemic—on the current trajectory, this issue will only worsen for young people, not improve. On top of that, young people face the prospect of a reduced supply of rental housing and, correspondingly, higher rents, which we are beginning to see on the back of the Government’s rental reforms.
For young people in social housing, the picture is no brighter. In the same report, Centrepoint highlighted that there are approximately 130,000 young households on housing registers. That means that if social housing were allocated at its current rate, with no new social housing applications from young households filed, it would still take more than six years to clear existing housing registers. To say the least, that is not a positive state of affairs. I hope the Minister will set out a clear path to addressing it in a couple of minutes’ time.
There is also a need to tackle the frightening rates of youth homelessness and young people staying in temporary accommodation. I am sure we all agree that no one should enter adulthood without the stability of a permanent and safe home, but under this Government, rough sleeping has hit its highest level since records began. More young people were staying in temporary accommodation, and for longer periods, in 2024-25, and 123,934 young people faced or were at risk of homelessness between April 2024 and March 2025—a 6% increase in just a year.
I doubt that the Government have done that on purpose, but young people deserve better. They deserve safe and affordable homes with demand-side support to make the dream of home ownership a reality. That is why the Conservative party has pledged that a future Conservative Government will abolish stamp duty on primary residences. It is a bad tax, and one that needs to be abolished on primary residences to get the housing market moving and to give young people a better chance of getting on to the property ladder. I call on the Minister to get behind that plan, to reverse his Department’s recent failures, to get Britain building, and to get young people to obtain a real stake in their community, their society and their own lives through affordable and targeted housing.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Members for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this important debate. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated for their thoughtful contributions.
It has been a very wide-ranging debate, as I assumed it would be from the title. It has covered a range of issues including—from memory—empty homes, short-term lets, building materials costs, rural exemption sites, care leavers, housing allocations, social housing and housing association regulation. I will not be able to cover all of those points, but I will try my best to cover as many as possible. I am more than happy to follow up with individual Members on specific points, as well as to meet the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and wider team, which I enjoy doing on occasion as their spokes- person, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, will know.
As the House is acutely aware, England remains in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. Over a number of decades, the combination of a sharp reduction in the nation’s social housing stock and rapid house price inflation, partly driven by increased demand for housing as an investment product, have squeezed both social renting and home ownership. For many years, an expanding private rented sector absorbed some of the resulting pressure, but post-2015 changes in tax treatment have seen the rate of rental sector growth slow. The result is a crisis of housing availability, affordability and quality that is blighting the lives of people of all ages. However, the youngest are among the hardest hit.
House prices have more than doubled since 1997 compared with incomes, locking an entire generation out of home ownership. We have traded a number of statistics, but the one that stands out to me is that first-time buyer numbers fell to a 10-year low in 2023, and that those under 30 are now less than half as likely to own a home as they were in 1990. That gap has created a stark divide between those who can draw on family support and those who cannot, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire mentioned in her opening remarks. That has concentrated housing wealth in ever fewer hands, entrenched social division and disadvantage and seen too many young people delaying life choices, including growing a family. It has also led to them paying more for less security. At the same time, increasing numbers of young people are spending longer in the private rented sector and facing high costs, insecurity and inconsistent standards because alternatives are out of reach.
England’s housing crisis has many causes. We have debated them over many months in this House as the Government have taken forward a number of our reforms. Chief among them is a failure over many decades to build enough homes of all tenures. For years, housing supply lagged well behind the needs of our population as well as comparative European countries. That is why we have placed so much emphasis over the past 21 months on making the necessary reforms to ensure that we have high and sustainable rates of house building over the coming years. We will get those high and sustainable rates of house building.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for detailing the consequences of the decisions that the previous Government took, not least to abolish housing targets. We are seeing them feed through, but there are green shoots. Housing starts are up 24% on the comparable quarter last year in the latest statistical release.
With a view to ensuring that housing need is met in full, our reforms include the biggest overhaul of the planning system in decades, as well as the largest boost in social and affordable housing investment in a generation through our 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. Of that, 60% will be allocated towards social rented homes, reflecting the Government’s prioritisation of that form of tenure.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman often calls for 150,000 homes a year. I would love to see his grant-rate calculations to back up the claim that he can get that for £6 billion a year. That is a wild underestimation. Perhaps he will share those calculations with me on some future occasion when we meet to discuss this issue.
Alongside increasing supply, we are taking action to support young people who aspire to home ownership. We have acted to widen access to mortgages. Following the Prime Minister’s call to action last year, the Financial Conduct Authority clarified its rules on affordability testing. As a result, most lenders now allow borrowers to borrow about 10% more than they could have at the start of last year. On top of that, the Bank of England has eased its loan-to-income rules, enabling tens of thousands of additional first-time buyers to get on the ladder.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also delivered on our manifesto commitment to launch a permanent mortgage guarantee scheme, supporting the availability of high loan-to-value mortgages for buyers with deposits as small as 5%. That is an important backstop, particularly when there is volatility in the mortgage market, as we are currently seeing in response to the conflict in the middle east, which I will address more fully in a moment.
We have also taken steps—this is why I slightly took issue with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)—to rebalance the market in favour of first-time buyers, including through higher stamp duty rates on additional dwellings, council tax premiums on second homes, reforms to the taxation of property income and, as he knows, the abolition of the furnished holiday lets tax regime, which has removed tax incentives that previously existed for owners of short-term lets over long-term landlords. I know that he has—
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way, because we are continuing a very long exchange that we have had over many months. I know he has other proposals on taxation that he would like to see happen, but I am just making the point that it is slightly unfair to say that the Government have taken no action in this regard and have not gripped that issue. We have made serious reforms to rebalance that.
Andrew George
I am not saying that the Government have done nothing, but the changes to furnished holiday lets and double council tax, for example, were actually introduced by the previous Government. The Minister has simply implemented them, which is welcome. I was simply talking about the massive, gaping tax loophole involving industrial levels of flipping second homes to take advantage of the opportunity to apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing at all. That is simply favouring thousands of very wealthy people on their second properties. Surely a Labour Government have to close that one.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman has made that point before, and he knows that I am well aware of the issue. We continue to keep under review measures relating to taxation, as well as looking at, as he knows, the additional powers that we might give local authorities to help them deal with particularly acute concentrations of both short-term lets and second homes. As I say, we have had this debate over many months on both the pros and cons of licensing regimes and planning control powers in that regard. It is an issue that we keep under close review.
We also have a number of Government-backed offers to directly help first-time buyers. That obviously includes shared ownership, which we continue to support while improving the model to strengthen long-term affordability, transparency and fairness for buyers. The lifetime ISA continues to be available to help aspiring buyers save towards a deposit, and the Treasury will shortly consult on a new first-time buyer product to replace the lifetime ISA and remove the need for a withdrawal charge.
As a result of all those measures, we have begun to see early improvements. First-time buyer mortgage numbers increased to over 329,000 in 2024, a 16% increase on the previous year.
As I have said, we are clear-eyed about the pressures arising in the mortgage market from instability in the middle east. Our assessment is that mortgage availability remains strong. Conditions are not comparable to late 2022, and first-time buyers should still be able to get on the housing ladder, particularly with support from brokers to find competitive options. However, uncertainty about interest rates may slow the improvement that we have been seeing in first-time buyer numbers, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.
I should briefly turn to the home buying and selling process, because helping young people into home ownership is not only about raising a deposit or securing a mortgage. Transactions currently take nearly five months to complete on average, and around one in three falls through, leaving first-time buyers out of pocket and too often back at square one. That is why we are committed to reforming the process to make it quicker, cheaper and more transparent. As hon. Members are aware, we consulted on a package of reforms to do that, including ensuring that key information is available up front before an offer is made, improving the quality and accountability of property professionals, and introducing binding contracts to reduce the wasted costs and heartache that come when a transaction collapses.
I want to touch briefly on other areas of focus, because supply is not the only thing we have focused on. As hon. Members have said, we are on the verge of transforming the private rented sector through the implementation of our Renters’ Rights Act. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned when that Act “finally comes into effect”, and he does not have long to wait. From 1 May, the first phase of our reforms will give renters greater stability and security, stronger protections against unreasonable rent increases and an end to exploitative practices such as rental bidding wars and excessive demands for rent in advance.
We are also progressing the reforms necessary to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end, so that the dream of home ownership is made real for millions of young leasehold homeowners across the country. Again, I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that I would love to know what he means by “abolition”. Is it now the position of the Liberal Democrats that they would end approximately 5 million leases overnight and do what established commonhold associations across the country fear? The Liberal Democrats have to explain what they mean, rather than just throwing out terminology that does not correspond to a really difficult and challenging transition, which we are overseeing, away from the broken leasehold system and towards that commonhold future. We are progressing those reforms, switching on the powers that are already on the statute book and, as the hon. Member knows, progressing our draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill.
Our overall aim is expanded housing choice and availability, and improved security and affordability across tenures.
Jeremy Corbyn
Before the Minister sits down, could he say anything about his Department’s approach to the large housing associations? I increasingly hear stories in my area—as the Minister probably does in his—that they are selling off properties when there is a change of tenancy to give themselves a capital asset, and they are then spending it somewhere else. It ends up with a process of social cleansing in the central parts of all our big cities.
Matthew Pennycook
I am aware of the point that the right hon. Member raises. To respond to his wider point about oversight, like all affordable providers of social housing, housing associations are held to the standards overseen by the regulator following the very welcome introduction of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 under the previous Government. The regulator has the powers necessary to ensure that individual providers, such as the ones he mentions, are held to those regulatory standards. If he wants to follow up with some of the specific constituency cases he has mentioned, I am more than happy to respond.
This debate underlines a point that the Government accept without qualification and that I have heard from lots of hon. Members outside this Chamber: that the housing market has to work better for young people. That means: increasing supply, especially of social and affordable housing; supporting first-time buyers; fixing a home buying process that is too slow and uncertain; transforming the private rented sector so that it provides security and decency; and bringing the feudal leasehold system to an end by making commonhold the default tenure and improving the leasehold model so that existing leaseholders can more cheaply and easily enfranchise and convert to commonhold—which I hope they will do in very large numbers.
Andrew George
I believe the Minister has until 10 past 3 if he wishes. He has not addressed the issue I raised regarding the counterproductive impact of the changes to the national planning policy framework, particularly for edge-of-community rural exception sites. A wholesale change of planning is happening. Those sites were originally going to be affordable-led, and now developers can put in planning applications to ensure that those sites are entirely unaffordable because of the Government’s policy on five-year land supply.
Matthew Pennycook
In all candour, I am not entirely sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, he will know from the recent consultation on a revised national planning policy framework that we propose to strengthen national policy in respect of rural exception sites. I know, given his keen interest in the subject, that he will have responded to the consultation. We are currently analysing the feedback with a view to determining final policy in due course.
There are no quick fixes to any of this, and we are committed to the long-term decisions needed to ensure that young people can access secure, decent and affordable homes, and with them, the opportunity to build stable lives and strong communities. I thank hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon.
Susan Murray
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate today. They all realise how important it is for young people to have a stable home, whether they come from a looked-after background, are looking for an affordable property or are in the fortunate position of trying to find a property to buy.
I thank the Minister for coming along today and for his comments. It is the privilege of Government to take action that matches the rhetoric. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) that the Scottish Government have failed in that. I look forward to this Government making affordable accommodation available for young people.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the housing needs of young people.
NHS Federated Data Platform
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the NHS Federated Data Platform.
We are at a key time for the NHS as it changes from analogue to digital, and data is key to achieving better health results for all our constituents, as well as to the future of the NHS. AI analysis of scans can spot patterns of disease before the human eye, and modern communications can be much more effective than sending letters, which often arrive late. We are, however, at a junction where we can correct a series of mistakes made in the direction of travel in this process. I ask the Government to mind the gap between expectation and reality. We can and need to change.
In November 2023, a contract for services approaching £500 million was signed for the federated data platform. The Government’s contracts tracker describes a data platform owned and controlled by the NHS
“to unlock the power of NHS data to understand patterns, solve problems, plan services for local populations and ultimately transform the health and care of the people they serve.”
Sadly, the FDP developed by Palantir is far from that description.
The NHS is an inherently distributed organisation, with trusts in charge of their own IT. Although NHS England has been working on a unified data dictionary and standards, imposing a single central IT solution has yet to work. Indeed, a single central system can become a single point of failure. Such a critical element of national infrastructure must be under full control, fully owned and trusted.
Although I understand the appeal of a slick salesman who persuades that they can solve all the problems in the NHS, build that one system to bind them all, and use AI like magic to provide all the answers, sadly, it is not reality. Is Palantir’s FDP a product that the NHS can own and trust, or have we bought the emperor’s new clothes that, after huge investment, leave us with nothing? I will outline why this solution is wrong in three significant points: the contract is wrong, the solution is wrong and the supplier is wrong and simply not delivering on its promises.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate at this critical point. Does he agree that the opaque procurement of the Palantir contract, one of Mandelson’s dodgy deals, is deeply concerning? Does he agree that the full details of Mandelson and the Prime Minister’s visit to the Palantir headquarters in 2025 must be made public?
Martin Wrigley
I agree with the hon. Lady entirely. The secret meeting in 2019 between Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings and Peter Thiel—the founder and chair of Palantir—that started this whole thing, for which there are no minutes, must be clarified as well.
I ask the Minister to consider using the contract renewal point to stop the chaotic expansion of the Palantir platform monopoly, to work to a staged exit with a retender for British companies to build a replacement for Palantir, and to deliver a better, long-term solution providing British sovereign capabilities in line with principles outlined by the Science and Research Minister and the Prime Minister.
The current contract delivers a subscription service that leaves no deliverables after the subscription—no software, no improvements and no intellectual property after spending more than £330 million. All the specially written software and intellectual property rights belong to the supplier, says the contract. All the rights to any know-how are explicitly retained by the supplier and not passed across on termination of the contract. The contract delivers no software—not one line—just a subscribed service; a permanent lock-in; a single point of failure.
Why are we building a leased service wrapped in glossy marketing promises, rather than a product that the NHS can own and trust? We are paying the supplier to hire Accenture, PwC, NHS experts and consultants to create a solution that we do not own—the supplier does. It uses external AI platforms from OpenAI and Anthropic and brings questionable value itself. Prior to it buying an opportunity to provide its system to help manage the data from the covid vaccine programme, the supplier had no expertise in health.
The three-year contract asks for 13 core capabilities to be delivered. According to the National Audit Office and the supplier, after nearly three years, it has partially delivered on three or four of those capabilities. Hon. Members may have received letters from the supplier, which has also taken to sponsoring newsletters that we see every day.
When in front of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the only benefit offered by the supplier and by NHS England was an improvement in managing staff rotas to deliver a higher operation throughput, which these days can be done by a relatively simple app. That is beneficial, but it perhaps relates more to the Government’s improvements in staffing and pay than to any magic from Palantir. It claims to have achieved waiting list reductions by removing people who do not respond to messages, but there is no external scrutiny or validation of results. This is a dreadful contract, and it is not in the national interest.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I know that, in a moment, he will come on to the point that this contract is coming to an end. I am sure that it is being reviewed by the Government—the Minister will respond on that issue—but we are encouraging them to bring the contract to a close, for the reasons that my hon. Friend is properly explaining. He will perhaps also agree that we should go through a transition period to ensure that the conditions he has described are addressed, so that the Government can benefit from the software that has been developed.
Martin Wrigley
I think my hon. Friend has been reading my speech in advance. I absolutely agree with him.
I see that the outgoing NHS England chief data and analytics officer, Ming Tang, has publicly joined Palantir’s fightback, saying that the system is delivering—but having introduced Palantir and lobbied to deploy it, she would say that, wouldn’t she? Given Palantir’s habit of lobbying civil servants and the revolving door from Government, I wait to see where she will end up.
I ask the Minister to review the contract, particularly in the light of the Government’s policies on investing in UK tech, value for money, technical lock-in, key performance indicators and strategic supplier status, which suppliers should have. I ask the Minister to reject extending the existing contract, which locks in the NHS forever and delivers nothing tangible.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making some important points. Just yesterday, I highlighted the Scottish Government’s decision to buy Chinese buses, which come with a serious security risk. It would be wrong of me not to do the same when the UK Government take the same risks. We have some of the finest minds in the world here in the UK, but too frequently, we lose them to foreign firms that are out of our control. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be developing Britain’s skills base here, and that whether it be buses or AI, we should be putting British jobs and British security first?
Martin Wrigley
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, as do the Prime Minister and the Science and Research Minister.
Turning to the solution, the solution is wrong. There have been many attempts to unify the NHS by using a single IT system; each one has failed. In reality, we must think of the NHS as thousands of independent organisations. NHS England has been guiding organisations towards a combined data dictionary for more than 10 years, combining definitions of what data means, how it is recorded and the way it is used. After three years, about half of the 200-odd NHS trusts across 42 integrated care boards are quoted as live on the FDP, and only a quarter of them report benefits from using it.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My hon. Friend’s expertise in this area is impressive. I recently spent a shift with the South Western ambulance service and saw how critical it was for that service to be able to access both GP and hospital data—we had a lady who had had a heart attack, and we did not know who she was. Does my hon. Friend agree that the priority should be for the different elements of the NHS to talk to each other, rather than be scraped by a third party such as Palantir?
Martin Wrigley
I do agree. Palantir will not enable GPs, paramedics or anybody else to see hospital data. They will have to go through Palantir to see that data, and they will not be able to access patient records from the hospital to the GP or vice versa.
Like any data warehouse, Palantir requires connecting software that reaches into each of the NHS’s internal systems and gathers data. That data gathering is being done NHS trust by NHS trust, as there are differences inside each one. That is embedding the use of Palantir-owned code inside every NHS trust by creating custom connecting software to connect and translate data.
In Devon, the local ICB has celebrated as a major success the adoption of the same electronic patient record across Devon’s four main hospitals. It has just gone live in Torbay trust, which serves most of my Newton Abbot constituency. In an organisation as diverse as the NHS, with such distributed responsibility, we can either impose one massive system to rule them all or build interoperability. Interoperability would allow GPs to see hospital records and vice versa. Palantir is not doing that.
Interoperability is how massive systems, such as the internet or mobile phone networks, work. They do not rely on one single system or supplier. In that way, a modular system, a bit like Lego, can be constructed that, overall, is immune to changes elsewhere in the wider environment, providing only the specific data required to deliver improvements in services. That form of system builds long-term capability and delivers without requiring a locked-in, expensive subscription. It can also be built by a UK tech consortium in parallel with phasing out Palantir, which would build UK sovereign solutions, tech skills and competencies.
Meanwhile, NHS England’s October 2025 medium-term planning framework mandates all NHS providers of acute, community and mental health services to sign up to the FDP, and it demands that any existing local data analysis systems are removed. That results in further lock-in.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
One of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has not discussed in his excellent speech is governance. The commissioner of the contract is the NHS, and it is also the main oversight body. He has put forward a black-and-white solution—end or maintain the contract—but is there not a case for a more robust governance structure? That could involve giving more powers to the National Data Guardian or setting up a bespoke oversight body for this contract.
Martin Wrigley
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the contract, he will see that it is subscription only: deliveries under supplier software—none; deliveries under third-party software—none. Any programming written under the contract is owned by Palantir. The contract has to be adapted for any next phase so that Palantir can be moved out.
Palantir is not only the wrong technical solution; NHS users report that it is awful to use. An open letter to NHS England said:
“we already have similar tools in use that presently exceed the capability and application of what the FDP is currently trying to develop or roll out”.
An NHS worker said:
“We’re being forced to use a convoluted system that makes even the simplest tasks feel like pulling teeth. It’s demoralising, and honestly, it’s a waste of everyone’s time and public money”.
An NHS data analyst said:
“Not only could similar functionality have been delivered at a fraction of the cost, but the existing tools are already better integrated, more intuitive, and more conducive to collaboration”.
In early 2025, Greater Manchester ICB reported that the FDP
“does not currently have any system-level products that offer the same or better functionality, compared to the custom-built system already in use for NHS GM”.
An NHS developer concerned about Palantir wrote to me to say:
“There are any number of reassuringly boring companies that could deliver this contract, many of them based in the UK, and then we could just get on with the exciting work of using technology to improve care for our patients”—
quite right too.
We must halt this path of chaos before the costs build any higher. I ask the Minister to use the change from NHS England to allow a change of direction towards a distributed, interoperable UK sovereign solution. Will the Minister cancel the expansion of the FDP to community and mental health service providers?
Palantir is the wrong supplier. Its name comes from a magical seeing stone in “The Lord of the Rings”. It is how the evil lord Sauron corrupted the good wizard Saruman—I think we should have known at the beginning. Funded initially by the CIA as a defence contractor, Palantir’s vision is to become the default operating system for data-driven decisions in high-stakes institutions.
Palantir’s chair, Peter Thiel, wrote:
“I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”
He has warned about the coming of the Antichrist in the form of an oppressive world government. Palantir’s stated aim is to have domination over most Government Departments across the US and allies, including healthcare Departments. Louis Mosley of Palantir UK recommended that the UK Government develop a “common operating system”, combining healthcare and central Government data. That is just mad.
Palantir is a company that builds lock-in into its architecture as a clear business tactic. Palantir’s Foundry system was installed for £1 to manage covid vaccination programmes, after high-pressure lobbying and persuasion. It bought the advantage for future contracts by providing the system for free. The company had no healthcare experience prior to the pandemic, and demonstrates a lack of data security by design. However, the main issue is trust. The future of the NHS depends on intelligent use of data with patients’ trust. Gaining the public’s trust for research that involves AI will be hard enough anyway, without a company like Palantir controlling it all.
Palantir and its NHS England advocates claim big benefits for the NHS. The BMJ this week published analysis of the initial Palantir trial at Chelsea and Westminster hospital that shows the benefits to be exaggerated and untrue. The National Audit Office has yet to assess the value of the deliveries to date and cannot confirm the numbers in Palantir’s claims. Even if we accept that Palantir has delivered some benefits, they are hardly worth £330 million or the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s estimated whole-life cost of over £1 billion.
In addition, Palantir’s history with the Government is not good. After secret meetings and intensive lobbying in 2020, Palantir won a £27 million border control contract—without competitive tender, just like the Ministry of Defence contracts. The border system was subsequently terminated as it had no users and no value.
We need to replace Palantir, the chaotic, all-seeing, single-point-of-failure, data-hungry AI solution. We need a well-architectured, security-by-design, resilient and nationally significant bedrock FDP in the NHS for years to come that must be powered by UK technology. That will build UK skills and business, pay dividends for years to come and build trust from the UK public. The British Medical Association says that
“an FDP has the potential to transform how care is delivered, but only if it is done right—via a UK-owned FDP that has the full confidence and support of the profession and patients.”
I ask the Minister to take action now to stop the expansion of the Palantir solution, to review the dreadful subscription contract with Palantir, and to rebuild the FDP project to deliver a sound, sovereign system to make our NHS thrive in the world of data-driven health.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Wrigley has asked me if he can sum up at the end of the debate—his chances were in his hands. Because the debate is so popular, I will now impose a two-and-half-minute time limit on contributions. I call Dawn Butler.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
It is wonderful to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.
The reality is that the Government have inherited a mess. We must not take responsibility for that mess. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate; he mentioned the £1 that Palantir paid to get its foot in the door. Some might say that was a smart business move; others might say that was a con or a trap. The first responsibility of a Government is to ensure that they protect their citizens. In order to do that, we must have AI and data sovereignty. We must ask ourselves: does Palantir allow us to have that AI and data sovereignty? I think the answer to that is no.
We have too much reliance on US systems. I was in hospital just the other week and the system is designed for the US, so that QR codes can be scanned at every action, because in America patients have to pay for everything, from blood tests to anything else. We do not have to deal with that, because luckily we have the NHS.
To say that we cannot do better in the UK just is not true. Unison and the BMA have severe concerns about Palantir, and they have said that they would like the Government to have a system that is based on ethics and values. That should be our starting point—a system of ethics and values. There are better alternatives and it is untrue to say that there are not. The BMA and Unison briefing talks about local platforms that already exceed FDP capability. For example, OpenSAFELY, developed at the University of Oxford, is an open source, privacy-preserving platform that has supported more than 200 NHS research projects.
The reality is that 30 people decided on the contract. Unison represents 1.3 million public service workers, and the BMA represents all doctors. They all have concerns. The Government need to cut loose the relationship with Palantir and have a transparent review that includes workers, trade unions and the public.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain.
In a briefing for investors, Palantir chief executive officer Alex Karp said:
“we are super proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about…Palantir is here to disrupt…and when it’s necessary, to scare our enemies and on occasion kill them.”
If it looks evil, if it smells evil and if it behaves evil, then it is evil. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate. Given my lack of speaking time, I am going to have to cut my speech short.
We must examine Palantir’s record elsewhere in the world in our assessment of its suitability as a supplier to the NHS. Palantir has long-standing contracts with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the tools to track and target migrants that it has provided to ICE have facilitated racial profiling, family separation and violations of due process. In January 2024, Palantir entered into a strategic partnership with the Israeli Ministry of Defence to support war-related missions, meaning that its advanced data systems are used to perpetuate a genocide against the Palestinian people. Reports from Novara Media and the Financial Times state that NHS staff have been warned that they could be fired for criticising the NHS contract with Palantir, that NHS organisations are under pressure to sign up voluntarily to the Palantir data system, and that technicians have been told to stop working on alternate systems.
The Swiss Government have previously rejected engagement with Palantir, raising national security concerns; in the US, hospital systems in New York have moved away from Palantir arrangements, citing data governance and control issues; and here at home, uptake of the FDP remains uneven, with many NHS professionals reluctant—in some cases refusing—to engage with it. Perhaps most concerning of all are the reports that patient data opt-outs do not apply to the federated data platform due to a legal direction issued under section 254 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, yet that direction has not been published or named or been subject to scrutiny. This debate is not about technology; it is about who we trust to sit at the heart of our NHS, and on that question, the Government must think again.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, because my constituents in South Derbyshire, like millions of NHS patients across the country, deserve honest answers about who holds their most private data, and why.
The federated data platform is, in principle, exactly the kind of innovation that can help to transform our NHS: it could connect fragmented data across trusts, reduce discharge delays and cut cancer diagnosis times. Those are goals that every Member of this House can support. The question before us today is not whether we want a modern, data-driven NHS—we do—but whether Palantir is the right company to deliver that.
The £330 million contract was awarded to Palantir to deliver the FDP, but its co-founder, Peter Thiel, has been openly hostile to the very idea of the NHS. Should a company of that character be trusted as a custodian of the intimate health records of tens of millions of British citizens? I do not dismiss the technology itself—the platform is genuinely impressive—but we cannot separate a company from its leadership. The Health Secretary himself has acknowledged that the “political views and…outlook” of Palantir’s founders and bosses are
“well off to the right”
of even the official Opposition—or the party that likes to think of itself as the official Opposition. When the co-founder of a company holds our NHS in open contempt, and when its chief executive is a prominent ally of an Administration that this House has repeatedly criticised, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether that company should occupy such a sensitive position at the heart of our public health infrastructure. This is not about ideology; it is scrutiny, which is precisely what this House is here to provide.
We also know that when the contract was first published, 417 of its 586 pages were completely blanked out, and it took a legal challenge from the Good Law Project to force the release of a substantially redacted version. That is not the transparency that the public have the right to expect. If we want NHS staff and patients to embrace a digital future, that future cannot be built on a foundation that they do not trust.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Gentleman for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for giving us the opportunity to think about and discuss this important issue.
Central to my contribution is the issue of trust, which the hon. Gentleman also referred to. We stand at a crossroads in the history of our national health service. For too long our frontline staff—the very heartbeat of our communities—have been battling a 21st-century crisis with 20th-century tools. They are held back by fragmented systems that do not speak to one another, waiting lists that remain stubbornly high, and expectations and red tape that are obstacles to actually practising medicine and helping our people.
I want to look at the issue of trust. The federated data platform represents a significant opportunity for change. By connecting trusts and boards, we are not just moving numbers on a screen; we are making sure that surgery happens sooner rather than later. The DUP supports the maximisation of technology, but we will never support the compromise of trust. Protecting health and protecting rights must go hand in hand.
I have three issues and three requests to raise with the Minister. On local control and accountability, there must not be a Big Brother database in Whitehall. Each hospital trust must remain the master of its own house, acting as the sole controller of its data. Can the Minister provide assurance that private partners are mere processors, locked out from selling our data or using it to train their own models?
Secondly, on compromising security, with the rise in cyber-threats, good enough is no longer enough. The Government must ensure that privacy-enhancing technology promised to us is not just a secondary feature, but a robust, audited shield that keeps personal identities anonymous.
Thirdly, on patient empowerment, my vision for the NHS is one where every citizen can access and input into their own medical record online. Data should empower the patient, not just the system. We have heard concerns about the choice of suppliers and the ethics of data sharing. We must be certain that we have solutions to those concerns and not just hope that it will work.
To conclude, the DUP—and I as its health spokesperson—wants Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom to lead the world in e-health. We will only do so if we can look every patient in the eye and say, “Your data is safe, your privacy is absolute, and your care is our only priority.” I look to the Minister and the Government to understand that fully and to agree to those three principles.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing the debate.
From links to serious human rights abuses to an ongoing lack of clarity around the security of sensitive patient data, a large number of my constituents have raised concerns about the ethical implications of using Palantir technology in our NHS. The hon. Member mentioned that a newspaper report in The Times on 9 April told us that the data chief of the NHS remains committed to the use of Palantir’s technology across the health service despite the company’s ties with ICE and the US military. I have written to the chief executive of Stockport NHS foundation trust as well as the Greater Manchester ICB on that issue.
Amnesty International and Medact, an organisation that brings together health workers in the UK, have been vocal in urging hospitals not to use Palantir software and have highlighted the link to some very concerning instances of human rights abuses.
Navendu Mishra
I am limited for time and the hon. Member has already contributed, so I ask him to accept my apologies.
Patients must feel confident that their data is handled transparently, securely and in a way that reflects British values. That is why we should be investing in and developing our own sovereign technological capabilities here in Britain. I want to see Britain at the forefront of science and technology, and that starts with backing our own institutions. The UK has a proud heritage of education, with some of the finest universities and institutions in the world. We should be investing in them instead of relying heavily on foreign companies.
France has set a good example here. The French Government are moving all their desktops from Windows to Linux as part of a nationwide strategy to reduce reliance on US tech giants. We should take similar action in the UK. Retendering the federated data platform could benefit the country, addressing ethical and security concerns while also delivering long-term economic and technological benefits. I know the Minister is an NHS worker—a transplant surgeon—and on behalf of the people of Stockport, I thank him for the work that he does for the NHS. I know he will take seriously the point that it is not just the cost of the £330 million to the British taxpayer that cross-party Members here are concerned about; they are also concerned about their private, personal health data and the ethical behaviour of Palantir. I hope he will take the concerns raised today urgently back to the Government.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. A nation, like a person, is judged by the company it keeps, and in this case, the companies to which it keeps handing taxpayers’ money. I tend to count my worth by the list of my enemies, and if I make one of Palantir today, I can count it as a good day’s work.
To be clear, the Government’s engagement with Palantir is shameful. Peter Thiel, the founder of Palantir, is a dangerous extremist who has called the Nazi Carl Schmitt a major influence on his thinking. He has allowed Palantir to provide sensitive data to Donald Trump’s far-right thugs in ICE to add power to their cruel elbow as they come crashing down on communities. Peter Thiel hates our values and hates the very principle of our NHS. He once told the Oxford student union that our love for the NHS is a form of Stockholm syndrome. Palantir and Peter Thiel must have their hands ripped off of our NHS before it is too late. We cannot stand idly by and let the NHS be rescued from years of Conservative neglect just to have critical functions and funding handed to a far-right US tech billionaire. The interweaving of Palantir’s opaque software with the framework of the NHS would make us dangerously dependent on and vulnerable to the whims of his strange organisation.
This Labour Government have had two years to signal their intention to end their partnership with Palantir, but they have failed to do so. I have some questions for the Minister. First, are the Government investigating ongoing reports of unethical lobbying efforts within the NHS and shady public relations by Palantir? For instance, we have seen allegations that the joint chair of north-west London’s four major hospital trusts was privately urging colleagues to add more patient data to the platform at the same time as advising Palantir through Global Counsel.
Secondly, have the Government taken any steps to make sure that the security and integrity of NHS data systems are iron-clad in the event of any rogue actions not just by Palantir, but by any third-party contractor? At that point, simple litigation for breach of contract would be moot; the damage will have been done. The Government should not need to do this—they should just wind down the contract. At the very least, they should tell my constituents who have written to me on this topic whether their concerns, which have been raised in this debate, are falling on deaf ears.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this excellent debate today. I agree with every word that has been spoken about this US spy tech company, which is now deep into our NHS data and our constituents’ patient data. We have got to take the example of the Swiss Government, who withdrew Palantir’s access to their data because of the risks of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data, the potential loss of national sovereignty and the dependence on foreign specialists.
As has been mentioned, we know that Palantir has been used in the US to power up the ICE teams in targeting their actions. I fear what a future Government could do with this data. While I am sure that this Government would not even consider such measures, a future Reform UK Government might use it to target vulnerable people. We know that there are already significant health inequalities in our health system. We can just imagine minoritised groups not sharing vital health information with clinicians for fear of what may happen in the future. That would widen health inequalities and put those individual patients at risk. As a former clinician in the NHS, I know that trust is key. If a clinician does not have the confidence and trust of their patients, that will result in worse health outcomes. In the interests of our constituents’ health, I urge the Government to end this contract.
I note that the former Secretary of State for Health who signed the contract, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), has not turned up to this debate to defend his record. That says everything about the lack of accountability on the signing of these contracts. Palantir has eight major footprints across Departments and public services, to the tune of more than £800 million. Palantir is not the only company. Other clients of Global Counsel, such as with the pharma deals, have signed deals and are unaccountable to this House. It comes back to this question: how do we hold the Government to account for the contracts they sign? Often it feels like we are negotiating on legislation, but not on the big decisions, such as the signing of major financial contracts in the NHS.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Let me be clear: as a practising optometrist, there is nothing more wonderful than touching a button and a patient’s data going to the right people, and I am sure that the Minister will agree. The patient can then be treated appropriately and on time. However, the Darzi and Sudlow reviews, which were published last year, confirmed that our health data system is broken and fragmented, which costs patients dearly.
The public overwhelmingly supports better data sharing and so do I. In my opinion, the question is not whether we need data sharing, but who is responsible for this modern-day oil? As has already been said, Palantir was named after the seeing stones from the book “The Lord of the Rings”, the palantíri. Those stones possessed enormous power. However, I want to be fair about them. The stones themselves were not good or evil; they were powerful instruments of vision. In the right hands, they brought clarity and wisdom. The problem, as Tolkien understood it, is never the stone itself; it is who is holding it. Let us have a look at who is holding these stones.
As has already been mentioned, Alex Karp said this year that Palantir wants
“to scare our enemies and on occasion kill them.”
The co-founder of Palantir, Peter Thiel, has written that he no longer believes that freedom and democracy are compatible. He has said that the NHS is making people sick and that the British public’s love for the jewel in our crown—the national health service—is a form of Stockholm syndrome.
Those are the stated beliefs of the men at the top of a company that we have handed £330 million to, and a £1.5 billion strategic partnership with the British state. And Palantir’s ambitions do not stop there. Its chief operating officer has spoken of a future where Palantir software is inside every missile and every drone. In Gaza, Amnesty International has named Palantir as a contributor to the war crimes and genocide being committed there.
In fact, when a protester confronted Palantir’s CEO about the killing of Palestinians—100,000 and counting—in Gaza, he replied that the dead were “mostly terrorists, that’s true.” Over 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza and the CEO of the company that holds our NHS data calls them “mostly terrorists.”
It is not just the NHS that is affected. Palantir is the second largest AI supplier to the UK public sector by contract value. It has contracts with the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, local authorities and local police services, including those in Leicester South.
The Palantir contract review comes in early 2027, so the window is still open. I want to share a scan with a specialist and get an answer before my patient leaves the room; every clinician in this country wants that and every patient deserves it. But the seeing stone is only as safe as the hands that hold it. Choose those hands carefully.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I first raised concerns about the Palantir contract in August 2023, in a letter I wrote to the Health Secretary in the previous Government. I am here today to raise my huge concerns again, because I believe that this contract is an affront to the values of our country and the NHS.
Palantir’s co-founder and chairman Peter Thiel, a historic Donald Trump backer and donor, has said that the NHS makes people sick and has called for its privatisation. Palantir deals in chaos, oppression and war, all in the pursuit of power and profit—the antithesis of the values that our NHS was built on. I also note with keen interest that New York City Health and Hospitals has pulled out of a contract with Palantir due to ethical concerns, which I will now outline.
In its own country, Palantir’s software enables the raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, that forcibly separate children from their parents and carry out prolonged detention and deportation. What is even more startling is a leaked document that showed the platform’s ability to generate dossiers on individuals and to mine data from the American Department of Health and Human Services. That is exactly the type of data that Palantir now has access to here.
Palantir should be nowhere near our NHS data and patient data, and that view reflects the hundreds of emails that I have had from extremely concerned constituents, which is an experience that I am sure is shared by Members across this House. People are genuinely frightened, and a loss of trust in the NHS is potentially catastrophic to health outcomes in the UK, as the Minister will know more than most.
Palantir’s reprehensible contribution to human rights abuses has been even more devastating in its complicity with the Israeli Government’s ongoing war crimes. A UN report in June 2025 found Palantir’s technology to have accelerated the Israeli Government’s campaign. It is shameful that Palantir is anywhere near anything that we have in this country.
Our NHS was built on a simple, powerful idea: healthcare is a human right, not a commodity. It was built on the trust of patients who must share personal details to receive the care they are promised. As a company arming slaughter in the middle east, mining American citizens’ health data to conduct violent deportations and advocating the demise of the NHS, that trust cannot be Palantir’s to hold. We call on the Government to exercise the break clause in this contract in 2027, award no further contracts to Palantir and create a publicly accountable and ethically grounded approach to the handling of data.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing it and on his excellent speech.
Palantir received a massive contract from the UK Government, apparently starting in about 2019. Some may recall that during that general election campaign, I accused the Government of undertaking secret negotiations with US health providers to take over our NHS. What was the response of our media? That I was peddling Russian propaganda. They refused to engage in a serious debate about the way in which US companies were trying to undermine not just the NHS but our public services as a whole. Palantir already has a £330 million contract with the NHS and is trying to get its hands on much more. It is hopefully under threat in many other countries where it is trying to operate, such as Germany, where human rights organisations are pressurising it because of its behaviour and attitudes.
This company is getting its clutches into our NHS, and it appears to be pressurising every local hospital and NHS trust to join the Palantir system. My local hospital, Whittington hospital, so far is not part of that system and says it does not wish to be part of it, as have many others, but we need a clear steer from the Government. I do not blame the Government for the contract—they did not sign it; they inherited it. But they have the opportunity now to say that they will end it when the opportunity arises, which is less than 18 months away, and that they will use the interim period to develop a publicly owned, accountable system in our NHS.
We should be very proud of our NHS. It is universal, and Palantir is in danger of getting its hands on the personal health records of every single person who has lived or died since 1948, which it can use for research purposes. Since it is a conglomerate that covers all kinds of other services and was involved in the war in Gaza and the attacks on the Palestinian people, surely it is time, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, for us as a Parliament to challenge the Government on this and say: get this contract out of our NHS, and bring it back into public hands.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech, demonstrating tremendous technical expertise.
This £330 million deal signed in 2023 with controversial American spy tech firm Palantir to use its tech on the federated data platform may turn out to be another gigantic waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. This is not just about money; it is also a moral and ethical misstep, given this firm’s links to work with the Israeli military and with the disgraced US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency—so-called ICE. Members and the general public will be aware that health data provided for one purpose has been used to track, detain and deport so-called illegal immigrants in America.
There are now persistent reports that issues of trust in the NHS among the wider public over this firm’s clear breach of data protection may lead the Government to use a break clause in the contract in 2027 to prevent renewal of this seven-year deal. I know that the BMA is not on the Secretary of State’s Christmas card list, or possibly the Minister’s, but he would do well to note the briefing it issued only yesterday, in which it calls for the use of the break clause and the retendering of this contract. If the Government are serious about tech sovereignty and investing in UK tech and AI, that is what they must do.
The roll-out of Scotland’s MyCare.scot app begins this month, with the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care describing it as the “most comprehensive” NHS app in the UK, created in-house and free from dodgy tech giants. I see the Minister laughing, but I want to reinforce that point, because it was made today by the First Minister of Scotland, John Swinney, at the launch of our manifesto.
To be fair, Palantir says that it will not use health data outwith the NHS as it would constitute a breach of contract and would, of course, be illegal, but England faces the rise of a political party that could change the law to suit its political purposes and ride roughshod over our basic privacy and human rights protections. If Members do not believe me, they should look at the US of A.
In conclusion, I hope the Minister will clarify in his response whether the situation is under review, and I urge the Government to reconsider their position, to implement the break clause next year and to invest in our own solutions, just as Scotland is doing.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I commend the determined and forensic work on this topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). The key reason I am attending and speaking today is because we love our national health service. For all its challenges and flaws, it is a key part of British society and identity, and we all want it to succeed. There is no question that improved stewardship and use of data are important, but they have to be done with public consent and trust. Palantir’s involvement in some of the critical change processes in the NHS places that at risk.
My first concern is the process and governance around appointing Palantir to its UK contracts. The process by which that was done has not been clear and, as others have said, it is essential that this Government seize the opportunity to do the right thing and come clean on exactly how that contract was awarded to a company mired in controversy and with no previous healthcare specialist expertise.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the key issue, as raised by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), is accountability to this House for these contracts? Big contracts can be signed replete with assurances about protecting the public and protecting patients’ data only to morph into an entirely different kind of contract, relationship and company in the future.
Olly Glover
I very much agree with my hon. Friend that accountability to this House is always a critical consideration.
The second concern is Palantir’s track record and motivations. I shall not repeat too much of what others have said, but its close ties with the US Government and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, as well as its background in security and surveillance more widely, are a key concern, as well as its role supporting the Israel Defence Forces in the Gaza war.
My biggest concern and that of the dozens of my constituents who have written in are the geopolitical sovereignty and data protection implications. Dozens of constituents have contacted me about Palantir’s work, business practices and leadership, which raise ethical and civil liberty concerns that are not compatible with UK values around privacy, democratic accountability and the responsible use of public data. Indeed, a YouGov poll in partnership with Foxglove, a tech justice campaign group, before the contract was awarded found that almost half of adults would opt out of sharing health data with the NHS if Palantir was granted the FDP contract, and under half of NHS trusts have started using the technology due to patient and doctor opposition.
There is a strong case for sovereignty over the UK’s data given that many allies in Europe also do not feel comfortable using American companies like Palantir. There are many suitable UK companies or those from trusted and reliable allies. For example, Kahootz based in my constituency provides a lot of software to Government agencies. The House has been clear in this debate about the concerns, and we all await the Minister’s response as to what will happen next.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for his tenacity and expertise in this subject. He has done a huge amount of research, and made an absolutely excellent speech.
At a moment of rising global instability, it is extraordinary that we are prepared to trust the health of our citizens and the functioning of our NHS to a US corporation that does not share our values or interests. Outsourcing the storage, handling and analysis of NHS data to a foreign company, rather than securing the national and economic benefits of this work being done by a British or UK-led organisation, is yet another example of our unnecessary reliance on others to keep our vital infrastructure running. Doctors and the public have made it clear that they do not trust this company. Fewer than half of NHS trusts have begun using this technology, in large part because of the concern from patients and clinicians. If, as the Health Secretary says, the federated data platform is
“absolutely critical to the future of the NHS”,
placing it in the hands of a company that staff and patients do not trust risks undermining that future from the outset.
This is the central issue: we hold doctors and nurses to the highest ethical standards, and rightly so. We expect them to protect confidentiality, to act with integrity and to put patients first. So why are we asking them to use a system they do not trust and stake their professional reputations on it?
Palantir is not a neutral contractor. It is a company that is deeply embedded within the political ecosystem of Donald Trump, a convicted felon whose Administration has repeatedly undermined the international rule of law. It is a company that has worked hand in glove with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose behaviour is morally and legally outrageous and whose agents have operated like masked vigilantes in the deportation of individuals. We are all aware of the tragedies that that rogue Trump organisation has left in its wake. Why are we allowing a Trump-aligned company to sit at the heart of Britain’s most precious public service? Why are we comfortable placing NHS data in the hands of a company whose values are so clearly at odds with those of the British public?
This is not a technical decision—this is a political choice. The NHS is not only one of our most important public services but one of the largest areas of public spending. Therefore, it is deeply concerning that Palantir’s contract for the federated data platform is so heavily redacted that it makes scrutiny almost impossible.
Iqbal Mohamed
Health inequality in the NHS for people of ethnic minorities is a challenge that we need to address. The New Orleans police department and the Los Angeles police department both terminated Palantir-powered predictive policing due to the system’s reinforcing racial bias and creating feedback loops to overpoliced communities that were affected. Does the hon. Member agree not only that the company and its leaders are unethical but that the systems it supplies are unethical and racist?
Dr Chambers
That is an important point. Amnesty International, whose representatives I believe are present, and others including voices within the NHS have been raising serious concerns about the potential misuse or inappropriate sharing of sensitive data. The Government must come clean about how the contract was awarded in the first place and what steps they will be taking to bring it to an end.
We should be building NHS data processing capacity here in the United Kingdom, strengthening our resilience, backing our own expertise and building sovereignty in a more dangerous world. Instead, we are exporting control of one of our most valuable national assets. I ask the Government today to use the break clause, stand with NHS staff, protect patient trust and keep Donald Trump and his allies out of our NHS.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I call the Government spokesperson—[Interruption.] I call the Opposition spokesperson.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I was expecting a promotion there, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate. He has brought forward an issue that sits right at the centre of how we shape the future of our national health service: how we use data, who we trust with it and how we ensure that technology supports care rather than complicates it.
The debate has been a thoughtful one, and in many respects it has been revealing. It has shown both the promise of the NHS federated data platform and the unease that still surrounds it. That tension really matters. I am grateful for the significant contributions we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members, with 13 coming from the Back Benches by my count. Let me start by setting out where I think there is common ground across the House.
The NHS is under enormous pressure as demand is rising, complexity is increasing and waiting lists remain too high. Too often, clinicians are working without the full picture in front of them. Anyone who has spent time in the health service knows that this is not a system that lacks dedication. It is, however, a system that too often lacks coherence. Data is part of that problem as it is scattered, fragmented and difficult to use in a joined-up way. Records do not always reliably follow the patient, and information is duplicated, delayed or simply not available when it is needed most. The consequence of that is not just theoretical; it is time lost, inefficiencies and, at times, patients not getting the care they should when they should.
The case for doing things better is a strong one; in fact, it is unavoidable. The FDP is one attempt to respond to that challenge. It seeks to bring together information in a way that allows the NHS to work more effectively, helping clinicians and supporting managers with the ultimate aim of improving care for patients. There are some early signs that this is beginning to deliver; waiting lists have been cleaned up, and some hospitals have reported better flow through theatres and wards. Those are practical improvements. As is so often the case in government, the easier question is whether something can work; the much harder question is whether it will be accepted. There are clearly concerns here.
We have heard about reluctance in part of the workforce. I am not suggesting there is uniform opposition, but there is certainly hesitation and, in some cases, disengagement. We should be careful, however, not to exaggerate that. Big reforms in the NHS have always faced resistance, often at the start. This is not necessarily something new, and on its own it is not necessarily decisive. At the same time, however, it is not irrelevant; if the people expected to use this system do not have confidence in it, its impact will always be limited. Will the Minister say what is the assessment of staff engagement with the FDP and how the Government are ensuring that this is something done with the NHS, rather than done to it? In the end, that will make the real difference.
The same issue arises with public trust. People are right to care about their medical data—it is sensitive, personal and deeply private. Once confidence is lost in this area, it is very difficult to rebuild it. There are important safeguards in place: the data remains under NHS control, the access is tightly regulated, and the provider does not own or use the data for its own purposes. The legal framework underpinning those safeguards is strong. Those are not minor points—they really matter.
However, we also have to recognise something else. People are not just asking whether the system is safe today, but what it enables tomorrow. Could the data be combined in ways that reveal more than people expect? Could systems evolve in ways not originally intended? Could future Governments choose to use the capability in different ways? Those are not unreasonable questions; they are the natural questions people ask when large new systems are created. Again, I ask the Minister what more will be done to reassure the public about the limits of how NHS data can be used and whether he can set out clearly where parliamentary oversight comes in if the use of data is expanded in the future. Trust is not built by reassurance alone; it is built by clarity and restraint.
A significant part of this debate has understandably focused on Palantir, and it is right that it has. Palantir is now a major supplier within the NHS data infrastructure as well as elsewhere across Government, and that raises legitimate questions about not just capability but dependence. For some the concern is political, while for others it is about principle. For many, though, it is something much more practical: what happens if we become too reliant on a single provider for something as critical as health data infrastructure? I think that is a fair question.
However, we should also separate those questions from the broader argument about the company’s international work. In a global economy, companies will inevitably work with different Governments, and that alone is not a sufficient reason to exclude them from public contracts in the UK. The question of procurement design, competition and resilience, however, is a different matter.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not. I want the Minister to have sufficient time to respond to the multiple contributions there have been today.
I ask the Minister the following questions. How are the Government ensuring that the NHS is not locked into a single supplier over the long term? What is the plan for maintaining genuine competition in this space? How easy would it be in practical terms to move to an alternative system if that was ever required?
There is then the issue of resilience. Some have argued that the FDP creates a single point of failure, while others have argued that the current fragmented system is itself a weakness and that greater coherence improves security and oversight. Both arguments deserve to be taken seriously. But practical questions remain: how resilient is this system to cyber-attacks or technical failure? What safeguards are in place? What happens if something goes wrong at scale?
The last matter I wish to address is that of governance. With the abolition of NHS England, there is now a question about where the responsibilities for the FDP properly sit. That matters because accountability cannot be diffuse. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister: who is responsible for the programme now, where does that accountability lie, and how will Parliament be able to scrutinise its performance going forward?
Better use of data has a real role to play in NHS reform, and the FDP may well prove to be part of that answer. Success will depend on more than just delivery; it will depend on confidence within the system: confidence from clinicians that the system helps rather than hinders them, confidence from patients that their data is properly protected and confidence from the public that our decisions are transparent, proportionate and properly accountable. If those conditions are met, this reform can succeed. If they are not, even the best designed system will struggle. We, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, will support what improves care and welcome what works, but will continue to ask questions that ensure reform is done properly in a way that sustains public trust. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for his and other hon. Members’ contributions to it. Of course, we should also welcome the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to his place in his first debate on the Front Bench.
We have heard a lot about concerns and insights and interpretations about the NHS’s technological architecture. Some would have us think that the FDP is synonymous with just one company. It is not. The FDP is fundamentally an NHS construct. It consists of multiple contracts awarded to a number of consortia, including Palantir, Accenture, PwC, Carnall Farrar and the North of England Care System Support. Each of those have different responsibilities to make sure that there is training, health expertise and security in the FDP.
Ultimately, the FDP is a federation of local trusts and ICBs within NHS England, each with their own version of the FDP and their own abilities to decide which information they put there on the basis of their own service needs and governance arrangements. Although there should be scrutiny of Palantir and of any contract, we should also provide clarity about what the FDP is delivering for the NHS. It is my duty to make sure that the FDP is improving patient and clinical experience and improving patient outcomes.
Making the best use of data generated by the NHS and social care is essential to transforming services, improving outcomes for patients and making sure that we use resources in the best manner possible. Lord Darzi’s independent investigation into the NHS found that, despite huge volumes of data, fundamentally:
“The last decade was a missed opportunity to prepare the NHS”
to use the latest technologies.
The FDP is part of an infrastructure—it is not the infrastructure or the only infrastructure—resolve that gap. It is improving efficiency and generating savings across the health service worth up to £2.4 billion, according to independent estimates. Those independent estimates are being further bolstered by a commissioned study by Imperial College that will look at the economic impact of the FDP. It is an important tool for us being able to make the NHS fit for the future on clinical efficiency, transparency of data and outcomes for patients up and down the country.
Before I go into more detail about what the FDP does, it is important that I say what it does not do. For instance, it is not synonymous with the single patient record, the NHS app or—necessarily—with linking primary care data with secondary care data.
Dr Ahmed
I am going to carry on for a bit longer.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) tempts me with his speech, and he knows that I cannot resist his temptation. He spoke about Scotland and he will know that I am an NHS surgeon in Scotland. I hope he thinks that I can speak with some authority about the NHS in Scotland, so let me tell him a few things about the digital architecture in the NHS there.
The NHS app has been running successfully in England for over eight years. Three out of four people in the NHS in England have that app. To clarify, the app is not Palantir; it has been devised organically on the ground by NHS England—by clinicians and by technologists. It now serves millions of patients to book test results, screenings and appointments—including GP appointments —to end the 8 am rush.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East spoke about the MyCare app in Scotland. That remains a far-fetched dream rather than a reality. The limit of the ambition of that app seems to be, as I understand it, a dermatology service in one part of Scotland called Lanarkshire, for those who are not familiar with Scotland. It is a million miles away from what has been developed down here in England.
Dr Ahmed
I will not; I am going to carry on—and I will tell the hon. Gentleman something further. The NHS in England was quite happy to use the expertise of technologists up and down the country, including in Scotland—including, in my own constituency of Glasgow South West, a company called Cohesion Medical. His Government in Scotland, who have been in government for over 20 years, refused that offer. That is why my patients and constituents in Scotland are unable to access simple digital services. It is why my patients and my constituents under NHS Scotland are 30 times more likely to wait over two years for treatment. It is why my patients and my constituents in Scotland are unable to access optimal stroke therapy and lung cancer screening.
The NHS federated data platform in England connects health information held in different systems, helping to manage activity to improve productivity and outcomes. By connecting critical data streams, it can accelerate diagnosis pathways, streamline discharge processes and ensure faster, more co-ordinated care that reduces waiting times for all patients.
I will briefly describe a couple of examples. North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust uses an FDP product called OPTICA to map the patient’s journey from being admitted to going home. It used to be done with spreadsheets, which were not always updated. Because of that, discharges were delayed, medicines were not sorted on time—in some cases time-critical medicines, causing real patient harm—and patients were therefore impacted. OPTICA lets the trust see all that information in one place in real time. It has reduced the number of long stays by a third, and despite a 7% increase in admissions over that time, we are improving services overall.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. May I just say that the hon. Member had very generous time allocated to him during this debate? If the Minister does not want to take an intervention, he does not need to.
Dr Ahmed
At the Mersey and West Lancashire teaching hospitals NHS trust, they are using the FDP to better manage the lists for planned surgery. That allows surgeons like me to operate on more people each day, and it is cutting waiting lists. This has been achieved through better use of data. It is a timely reminder that in England we are improving productivity in the national health service, getting more operations done per list and getting closer to pre-covid levels of activity. The same cannot be said for Scotland under the SNP Government.
Seamus Logan
Rather than giving so much of his speech to cheap political points about Scotland, can the Minister answer the question that was put to him several times by several Members: are the Government considering a review of the break clause next year?
Dr Ahmed
If the hon. Gentleman had read the details of any contract that the Government have negotiated, whether it is this one or the previous one, he would know that the break clause is there for a reason. Of course we evaluate value for money at those times. He used the word “cheap”, but let me tell him something: it is not cheap to have to wait over two years for NHS treatment in Scotland, which is 30 times more likely to happen than in England. That is why on 7 May the NHS in Scotland can get an upgrade with Anas Sarwar as First Minister and Jackie Baillie as Health Secretary.
The FDP is helping people get the care they need more quickly and more efficiently. As a programme, it is a success. The FDP has exceeded every single target since its go-live date in March 2024, and 137 NHS trusts are actively utilising the platform and have reported benefits. The programme is significantly exceeding its benefits forecast, with external independent experts validating these results.
NHS England publishes data on how the FDP has benefited patients and the NHS. The data collected up to the end of March will be published in May. I can share the figures with Members now. Since the go-live date in March 2024, more than 100,000 additional patients have been supported to undergo procedures in theatres, partly due to increasing theatre utilisation. Nearly 94,000 people have been supported on their cancer journey, with 7% seeing a reduction in the time taken to diagnose their cancer. There has also been a 14% decrease in delays to discharging patients staying in hospital for more than seven days, freeing up hospital beds for those who need them most.
The last Government awarded the Palantir contract on the basis of a successful bid that was deemed to be significantly better, and by a significant order of magnitude, than those of its competitors. It was judged the most economically advantageous and likely to deliver the best-quality outcome for patients. The contract was awarded with an overall value of up to £330 million over a maximum of the seven-year term. So far, £210 million has been invested, as we scale up. The benefits of the FDP are exceeding those we forecast, as I have already outlined, but—
Dr Ahmed
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I think I will answer his point shortly; in the interests of time, we have to be careful about interventions.
We live in a fast-paced technological world, and that means that we always look to the next possible provider to provide value for money, so it is right that there are break clauses in the contract to allow evaluations to take place. I can reassure all hon. Members that, as a clinician and a Minister, my north star is always patient safety and quality, and of course value for money. If, at the point of the break clause, we evaluate and find that there are other providers that can do the job better, then of course that needs to be looked at and reflected upon. More generally, as the Minister for Health Innovation, Patient Safety and Life Sciences, I would not be doing my job properly if I did not try to champion British business at every opportunity or to champion British small and medium-sized enterprises to become British plcs. I hope hon. Members will take that as read.
The contract has extension provisions and will be reviewed in line with standard contract management processes. We will decide later this year whether to extend it. NHS England will be transparent about the process and the evidence used, as we have been throughout our regular performance reviews for this contract and the FDP.
On digital sovereignty, our priority is to give patients the care they need. As Members will no doubt understand, for some essential IT services, it is simply not possible to develop in-house solutions, as we seek the best from the market. I reflect on my own practice in Glasgow, in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East seems to think has found a panacea of publicly delivered technology. I can tell him that when I walk into that hospital, I login through Microsoft Windows. Then I open a programme built by a North American tech company to order test results. Then I open another programme built by a North American tech company to look at the results of those tests. Finally, if I want to check X-rays, I open a fourth programme built by a North American technology company to evaluate CT scans, MRI scans and X-rays.
Dr Ahmed
In the interests of time, I will continue. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
In the future, our goal is to see a vibrant UK market in digital and technology, which would give the NHS more choices and help to improve standards. Of course, I would be unashamedly pro-British about my ambitions for that mix, because that is the way that we not only serve our NHS but also support economic growth. At the moment, what matters is who controls the data and how that is governed. I appreciate the sensitivities around that, I really do. Rightly for the FDP, this is a matter for the NHS and UK regulators.
I have also been asked about vendor lock-in and whether it is possible to remove companies like Palantir from the NHS. The answer is unequivocally yes, it is possible. Of course, it would take time and planning to safely transition from one supplier to another, as it always does in the NHS, when patient safety is the primary concern. At the moment, there are unfortunately only a small number of companies that can do what we genuinely need them to do at the scale that we need them to do it, but the contract has multiple measures built in to allow greater freedom of choice. That includes making sure that the NHS owns the intellectual property for all products and that it is possible to migrate them to other providers.
Data security is also at the heart of our health innovation programme. Protecting personal data is at the heart of the FDP and the health innovation strategy. Most importantly, we have separated church and state, in terms of service provision and data security. A separate company, IQVIA, provides the highest standard of privacy-enhancing technology for that data in the FDP, which means that we can remove personal identifiers from the data where they are not required, ensuring that privacy is maintained throughout. NHS England and NHS organisations retain full control as data controllers, including over decisions about how data is used, who can access it and which products are deployed. Palantir does not own the data, the products or the intellectual property, nor can it use the NHS data for its own purposes.
The FDP is a secure data environment. Security is built into its design and operation, and it has been through national, technical and cyber-assurance, with external oversight. It should also be understood that the FDP is only for health and care purposes; it cannot be legally used for non-health purposes such as immigration enforcement, as has been promulgated.
As Members will expect, my position on the owners and executives of Palantir is very much the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—we are no fan of their politics. However, the FDP, and the principles that underpin it, are critical to the future of the NHS. Palantir operates strictly within a UK-regulated contract where the NHS controls all data, access is tightly governed and information can be used only for agreed purposes that benefit patients. I would expect any member of staff who did not in all conscience feel that they could work with Palantir to raise that with their employer.
Rachael Maskell
I raised the issue of patient trust. We know that over 50% of the public do not have confidence in this system, so they might not share vital health information with their clinicians. As a result, will the Minister include that point in the consultation? He has only 10 months until this first period ends, so can he say more about the public perspective on the Government consultation?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend will know that no NHS system or pathway can ever work without the confidence of the public, and that needs to be reflected in any evaluations that take place. I have heard my hon. Friend’s concerns loud and clear, as well as those of Members across the House. It is right that we look to maintain the highest standards for our NHS. It is also true that the FDP has a role to play in delivering for the NHS and helping people get the care they need more quickly and efficiently. Those are real outcomes that will improve people’s lives, all through the better use of data.
Members on both sides of the House often rightly challenge me to go further, faster on rare diseases, rare tumours and rare cancers. None of that is possible in modern medicine without data, and the analysis of data. Just as I have a responsibility to ensure that we get value for money out of all contracts in the national health service, and that we evaluate them regularly, Members also have a responsibility to be careful not to aggregate different components of the NHS and present them as a monolithic technological solution.
The FDP is, and will continue to be, an important component of delivering patient care in the NHS in England. Of course, who contracts with the FDP will be open to question as we go forward and think about future contractual arrangements. It would be disingenuous to suggest that the FDP is somehow the only technological solution or database in the NHS; there are many others that do good work—whether that is the single patient record, the health data research service, the NHS app or clinical systems for NHS primary care providers. We must be careful not to conflate one technology with the next, and in doing so, alarm citizens and patients about what is happening with their data.
I can assure Members across the House that in my ministerial service—just as in my 20 years of clinical service—my north star is transparency, patient safety, quality and providing the best care to all patients up and down the country.
Martin Wrigley
I thank the Minister for his comments. However, I do not think he has been accurately informed about the status of the contract. I have the unredacted contract with me, which says nothing about software delivery. The whole thing is based on subscription, and the intellectual property of all specially written software, which is defined to include the data collection software, belongs to Palantir. None of this belongs to NHS. That is in this contract—I can show it to the Minister, if he likes. I thank him for his agreement to work towards a better future for our constituents, and we all agree that what we need is a trustable route forward in working with data that will make the NHS a real force in the 21st century.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the NHS Federated Data Platform.
Written Statements
British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I am pleased to be able to update the House that the Government are continuing to make progress on delivering a key flagship policy of the industrial strategy. This includes publishing the response to a consultation on eligibility for the British industrial competitiveness scheme, alongside launching a separate consultation on the regulatory changes required to give effect to BICS and its delivery.
As the House is aware, British industries face some of the highest industrial electricity prices in Europe—an issue regularly cited as a barrier to growth and investment in our industrial strategy growth sectors. This has been made even more acute by the current situation in the middle east, and the Government are aware that businesses are concerned by the instability and potential impact on energy prices and supply chains that this has caused. However, BICS is a long-term intervention designed to address Britain’s long-standing competitiveness challenge, and it does so by supporting our key manufacturing frontier industries, as well as the manufacturing foundational industries in their supply chains. This will bring industrial electricity costs for these businesses more closely in line with those in other economies in Europe, helping to level the playing field.
Following consultation, the Government have determined that eligibility for BICS will be based on both standard industrial classification codes, to identify eligible manufacturing sectors, and harmonised system codes, to confirm eligible products. Only businesses with both an eligible SIC and HS code will qualify. Different electricity-intensity thresholds will be applied at the sector level for frontier and foundational manufacturing industries, reflecting their characteristics and ensuring support is targeted to maximise the scheme’s growth and investment impact. The value of support will then be determined at site level, based on the proportion of electricity used for eligible manufacturing activity. The scheme will reduce electricity costs for over 10,000 eligible businesses by up to £40 per megawatt hour.
We also heard that support is needed sooner. While BICS cannot be operationalised earlier due to the regulatory and delivery changes required, the Government announced that they have decided to provide an additional payment in 2027, covering the 2026-27 period, reflecting the support eligible businesses would have received had the scheme been in operation earlier. The Government are clear that this support will be funded through a combination of Exchequer support and by bearing down on costs elsewhere in the energy system, ensuring that no other energy bills will rise as a result of this scheme. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has also updated the House on specific elements of these funding arrangements today (statement UIN HCWS1519).
The next consultation seeks views on the proposed regulatory changes and scheme delivery. I encourage Members to contact stakeholders in their constituencies to make them aware of the scheme and invite them to respond before the consultation closes on 14 May.
[HCWS1521]
Carbon Price Support
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I am today confirming to the House that carbon price support will be removed from April 2028.
CPS is a tax on fossil fuels used in electricity generation, introduced in 2013 by a previous Government to strengthen the carbon price for electricity generation above the price provided by the emissions trading scheme.
CPS has done its job and is no longer fit for purpose. Coal has been driven off the grid and the ETS has matured, with a tighter cap to drive the signal for electricity generators to decarbonise, so now is the right time to simplify the tax and carbon pricing system.
With our clean power 2030 mission, we are already reducing our electricity system’s reliance on volatile fossil fuels and we no longer need this additional tax to provide incentives in the system to decarbonise our grid.
CPS removal will also help to offset costs to all bill payers of the British industrial competitiveness scheme, and this will reduce electricity bills for manufacturing sectors in the industrial strategy.
The Government will legislate for the removal of CPS in a future Finance Bill.
[HCWS1519]
Air Quality Update
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
This statement fulfils the requirement under section 80A of Environment Act 1995, to update Parliament on the progress and steps taken to meet air quality standards and objectives in England over financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26.
Air quality across the UK has shown sustained improvement over recent decades with emissions of all key air pollutants showing a declining trend. These long- term reductions mean the UK has met the current domestic and international emission reduction commitments for emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, non-methane volatile organic compounds and fine particulate matter—PM2.5.
This progress matters for people’s everyday lives: cleaner air helps protect health, supports thriving neighbourhoods and contributes to the Government’s ambition to improve pride in place. Cleaner air also supports sustainable economic growth by helping people stay healthier and in work, improving productivity and making our towns and cities more attractive places to live, visit and invest in.
Protecting public health and the environment remains at the heart of our approach. PM2.5 is the most harmful pollutant to human health. Under the Environment Act 2021, we are delivering against two separate Environment Act 2021 targets for PM2.5—one to reduce maximum PM2.5 concentration levels and one for reducing the population’s overall exposure. In 2024, the maximum PM2.5 concentration level measured was 11 micrograms per cubic metre of air. Separately, PM2.5 population exposure in England has reduced by 25% compared with 2018.
In the environmental improvement plan 2025, the Government increased the ambition of both PM2.5 interim targets. We will review the 2040 statutory targets for PM2.5.
We are also seeing progress locally. Between 2024 and 2025, the number of air quality management areas for nitrogen dioxide fell from 435 to 352, a 19% reduction, as locations achieved sustained compliance with the standards and objectives. Nitrogen dioxide exceedances reported by local authorities fell again in 2024, continuing a downward trend.
Building on this strong progress, we are continuing to take ambitious and targeted action across key sectors to meet our air quality standards and objectives, including:
Clarifying delivery priorities through a rapid review and revision of the environmental improvement plan setting out clear, measurable actions.
Embedding PM2.5 targets into planning decisions through interim guidance and we have launched a pilot to trial more comprehensive guidance with planning authorities and developers.
Strengthening public communication by acting on an expert-led review to make air quality part of everyday conversations and commenced work on an air quality communications toolkit for directors of public health. This included establishing a new partnership bringing together communicators from the Government, healthcare professionals, and the NGO sector.
Improving transparency by modernising public access to air quality information via new gov.uk pages and a dedicated data service.
Enabling better local delivery by running practical webinars and providing detailed guidance to help local authorities develop more effective action plans.
Launching a consultation on a comprehensive package of interventions to cut fine particulate emissions from domestic burning, including more stringent emission standards for stoves, mandatory labelling of stoves and fuels and raised penalties for non-compliance.
Setting out the Government’s pathway for a strengthened environmental permitting regime for industry that supports quicker uptake of best available techniques, promotes innovation and improves regulator efficiency.
In July 2025, the Government published “Fit for the Future: 10 Year Health Plan for England”, which reinforces the importance of prevention and action on the wider determinants of health. This includes commitments to reduce harmful exposures and improve awareness of, and communications on, the health impacts of issues such as air pollution. We are supporting the Government’s mission to build an NHS fit for the future by continuing to clean up the air and protect the public from the harms of pollution.
While the direction of travel is positive, we know there is more to do to ensure everyone benefits from cleaner air. We will continue to tackle air pollution at all levels—helping individuals make informed choices, supporting local communities to take action, delivering national changes, and pursuing co-ordinated international action for the benefit of both the UK and the wider global community. We will continue to keep our regulatory framework under review to ensure it remains effective, proportionate and fit for the 21st century.
A further update to the House on our progress will be provided after the end of the financial year 2026-27.
[HCWS1520]
BBC World Service Objectives, Priorities and Targets
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
The Foreign Secretary has agreed with the BBC the objectives, priorities and targets for the BBC World Service for 2025–26, as required under the BBC framework agreement. The OPTs, which the BBC publishes in the World Service operating licence, include measures of reach, quality, impact and value for money. The BBC retains full editorial and managerial independence in delivering the World Service. The OPTs signal continued focus on underserved audiences, including women and young people, and on growing digital reach including on BBC owned platforms. This agreement is distinct from ongoing work with the BBC to strengthen oversight and assurance arrangements. The BBC will publish the updated World Service operating licence and OPTs on its website.
[HCWS1523]
Covid-19 Inquiry: Module 4 Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The chair of the UK covid-19 inquiry has today published the inquiry’s module 4 report, which examines the development and implementation of vaccines and therapeutics during the pandemic.
The chair recognises that the UK authorised and deployed effective vaccines and treatments at unprecedented speed. These achievements reflect the strength of the UK’s world-leading life sciences sector, the universal public health system in each of the four nations, which allowed whole population delivery of vaccines, and the extraordinary dedication of health and care staff. They also speak to the collective resolve of the public in coming forward to be vaccinated.
I would like to thank all those involved in this national effort—scientists, researchers, regulators, NHS and social care staff, volunteers, and all those who supported the roll-out of vaccines and treatments at pace.
The inquiry identifies the following areas for further work: strengthening manufacturing capability, sustaining investment in research and development, and developing the vaccine damage payment scheme. It also notes disparities in vaccine uptake among certain communities and the risk of vaccine hesitancy, underlining the importance of building public confidence.
The Government remain committed to learning the lessons from the inquiry and to strengthen our preparedness for the future.
I would like to thank Baroness Hallett and her team for their work on this report. The Government will consider their findings and recommendations, working closely with colleagues across the devolved Governments, and respond in due course.
I have laid a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS1522]
House of Lords
Farming Road Map
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish the 25-year Farming Roadmap.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the farming road map will set the course for farming in England up to 2050. It is focused on making farming and food production more profitable and sustainable, and it will set out how farming will evolve in response to changing markets, technologies and environmental pressures. It will highlight how the Government will support that transition, so it is crucial that we get it right. We expect to publish the road map later this year.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. The land use framework sets out a strategic vision for how land can deliver for food, climate and nature. In that respect, will the farming road map set out a clear, multi-year funding trajectory and timetable for the implementation of ELM schemes beyond the current announcements? How will the road map support farmers to adapt to climate impacts while maintaining resilient domestic food production, notwithstanding the impact of the war in Iran on fertilisers and other matters?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend has covered all the different areas that the farming road map is intended to address. Its whole purpose is as a long-term strategy: it is not quick fixes and it is not reactive. It will address many of the issues that she talked about. I cannot pre-empt what it will say ahead of publication, but we are certainly looking to address those matters. The fertiliser market is clearly global. While we do not have an immediate risk to UK supply, we know that the market price in the UK is strongly influenced and impacted by international prices. The situation in the Middle East is concerning and we are monitoring it closely.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, will the Government ensure, as urged by the National Trust, that the Farming and Food Partnership Board includes at least one environmental landowner or NGO, so that the road map, when published, will have been shaped by a wide range of stakeholders in farming policy and will deliver for people, food and the environment together?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It has been important in developing a number of strategies, not just the farming road map, to have regular contact and input with stakeholders—and not just talking to stakeholders but listening to what they are saying to us. We are not going to make the kind of progress that we want to if we do not bring with us stakeholders such as those that the noble Baroness talked about. This is ongoing work and the noble Baroness is right to raise the importance of working closely with stakeholders.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. Farmers in the UK have now adjusted very well to post-Brexit freedoms. Can the Minister confirm that, if HMG introduced legislation allowing single market rules to be adopted across the UK, it would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and a proper vote, and not brought in by SI?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Discussions with the EU are ongoing, so I cannot say whether they will include some of the issues that the noble Lord talked about. I am sure he is aware that the Government are intending to introduce legislation to enable the EU reset to go ahead, once we have finished negotiations. There will be opportunity to debate that.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Cumbria. Both Defra and the RPA have now confirmed that there is no current mechanism available for common land to enter the sustainable farming incentive or the Countryside Stewardship higher tier for the year 2026. Is that not a more important priority for the Government and for agriculture—what might happen in the next 25 weeks—than looking way ahead to the next 25 years?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As a fellow Cumbrian, I absolutely understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lord about common land, which is an important part of our farmed landscape. The department recognises the vital role that it plays in supporting wildlife, cultural heritage and rural economies. It is important. I recognise the frustration caused by the fact that commons groups cannot at this stage apply for an SFI agreement. I have been told that that is for technical reasons, but I am aware that the Rural Payments Agency is actively working on a solution. I hope to provide an update about when commons groups will be able to apply.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, will the road map deal with the scandal of billionaire farmers who are getting millions of pounds in subsidy despite the fact that they pay no tax in Britain at all?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure my noble friend will be delighted to be aware that the next round of the SFI is very much targeted at the smaller farmer.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the overwhelming majority of our farm output is sold at prices determined by international markets, which are out of government control. This Government have layered on cost for our farmers, and all businesses, through reduced inheritance tax relief, increased employer NICs and minimum wages, and now through the carbon border adjustment mechanism later this year. What are this Government doing to improve the long-term resilience and competitiveness of farmers, and indeed all British businesses, by reducing government-imposed costs? I refer the House to my interests as a farmer and an investor in British businesses.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the things we are actively working on at the moment is how to implement many of the recommendations that the farming profitability review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, suggested. We have brought some things in, and it is really important that we look at her clear, independent advice. I do not think anyone in this House would deny that she has substantial expert experience. She has made 57 recommendations; we are looking at how we can work through them, because the whole point behind her report and its recommendations is to improve farm profitability.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, the current crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has highlighted our dependence on imported fertiliser, among other things. What measures are His Majesty’s Government taking to encourage and support our farmers and our farming industry to develop a sustainable circular nitrogen economy?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The war in Iran has highlighted a number of areas where there is cause for concern in the long term. Clearly, there has been a lot of concern around the availability of fertiliser. As I mentioned earlier, it is a global market. While we do not see that there is an immediate risk in UK supply, we are looking at this very seriously. For example, Defra has asked the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to increase the frequency of its fertiliser price reporting; that is now being published weekly to support farmers in their decision-making. We have also issued a fertiliser survey, aimed at farmers and land managers, so that we can build a better picture and get a better understanding of any direct impacts. We want to work closely with industry and farmers on how we move forward with this.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Somerset and the Cotswolds. More importantly, how many civil servants are actually working on this and what on earth are they doing? Are we back in analysis paralysis? This is not the first delay we have seen because the Government “want to get it right”. What are they doing?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assume the noble Lord is referring to the publication of the farming road map. I have said that it will be published by the end of this year. Civil servants are working extremely hard on this.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, eight years ago, when we were dealing with the Agriculture Bill following Brexit, we were promised that there would be a period of consistency for farming while ELMS and SFI bedded in. Since then, we have had the land use strategy, the change in IHT rules, biodiversity net gain and the nature restoration fund—we have a constantly changing stream of strategies. Farming requires continuity, consistency and dependability. When will we see that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Earl on the need for consistency. There has been an enormous churn in government over the last eight years, which has not helped at all. That is why we want to provide a 25-year farming road map.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a tenant farmer. Far from there being billionaire farmers, there are a huge number of tenant farmers in the UK who pay commercial rent to farm. They are worried about fertiliser prices and input prices just as much as any other farmer. Will the Minister confirm that the vital role of the agricultural tenanted sector will be highlighted and supported in the farming road map when it is published?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The tenant farming sector is critical to our rural economy. I can confirm that.
Data Centres: Energy Demand
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that projected increases in energy demand from data centres do not compromise the achievement of their targets for clean power by 2030 and for net zero by 2050.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that Great British electricity demand is expected to grow significantly, driven in part by advances in AI. We are clear that this growth must not prevent delivery of clean power by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The Government are working to ensure data centre energy demand supports a flexible, resilient and increasingly low-carbon electricity system, including through smarter siting, improved use of existing clean generation and more efficient use of power. Importantly, evidence has shown that AI will support emissions reduction across the economy through improved efficiency and system optimisation, potentially outweighing additional electricity demand.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, with Ofgem warning that proposed data centres are seeking 50 gigawatts, exceeding our current peak demand, my view is that, as yet, inadequate assessments have been made by government and regulators of AI’s climate impacts. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable merely to believe that this demand is compatible with clean power and our net-zero targets? I ask the Minister to commit to a NESO standing forecast for AI’s electricity use and to ongoing direct contact between government and the Climate Change Committee on data centres.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Earl that merely believing that it is all going to be okay and that we can easily absorb all these additional demands on the energy sector without doing anything else is, at least, a folly. That is why the Government are taking substantial steps, for example through the AI growth zones, to make sure that we plan where data centres will be and make sure that those data centres are as closely aligned as possible with sources of either optimised electricity or constrained electricity or with new sources of energy production, so that the AI data centre development is not a burden on the system but an addition to it.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, remounting my favourite hobby horse, can I ask: when will the Government give increased support for tidal power, which, unlike wind and solar, never runs out?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I welcome that question from the noble Lord. This is an issue that is quite close to my heart, and I recently visited the Liverpool tidal barrage scheme to see how it is doing. I personally am committed to developing tidal power, both tidal stream and tidal range, but there is still some way to go in working out how that can be value for money and can be supported through various longer-term methods of support because of the long life that tidal range in particular has in front of it.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the most economic way of meeting such peak demand from clean sources is rapidly to accelerate the programme for building hydro pump storage schemes? There are a number that are ready to go in Wales and Scotland. They are clearly economic, using electricity generated cheaply at night to augment peak availability, so please, please, please will the Government get on with it?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that pumped hydro schemes are one method of ensuring that electricity is used as efficiently as it can be in terms of taking it in at some stages of the cycle and releasing it at others. A number of other arrangements can do that, such as batteries and other forms of long-term storage—compressed air, for example—all of which will be a substantial part of the battery of systems to optimise the electricity production of the country as AI develops.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, when the Minister last answered on this question, he was good enough to talk about the problem of using Uyghur slave labour in the manufacture of solar panels. He promised to write to me, and I am grateful to him for following up that promise. In that letter, he said that he would inform the Joint Committee on Human Rights by July of the measures that Great British Energy is taking to eliminate the use of slave labour. Will he comment on what he said about the need for a review of the 2015 modern slavery legislation that the noble Baroness, Lady May, who introduced that legislation, has called for, not least Section 56 of the 2015 Act, and how he intends the review of that legislation, which he mentions in the letter, to take place?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I have a feeling that the noble Lord will shortly be in receipt of a further letter from me on this subject. It is the case that the Modern Slavery Act, particularly in terms of a number of the concerns that have been raised about the more offset arrangements as far as modern slavery is concerned, needs some uprating. That is being considered, but as to some of his further points, I think I will need to write to him further.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that new nuclear is important, in terms of both data centres and our clean energy programme? Will he confirm that the only way we can get new nuclear at places such as Hunterston in East Lothian, where we currently have a nuclear power station, which is much needed in Scotland, is if on 7 May we get rid of the incompetent SNP Administration?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I have lots of reasons to agree with my noble friend about particular Administrations and how they might be replaced. As far as the future of AI nuclear is concerned, it is certainly the case that new nuclear can sit very well alongside, for example, AI growth zones. One example of that is the Wylfa area, where the contract for a new SMR has just been signed, which will also be an AI growth zone where a number of data centres can establish themselves and directly use the power coming from that new SMR on that site.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, given that the environmental footprint is rightly central to the Government’s net zero policy, what is their reason for not opening the North Sea to a new licence round tied to long-term take-or-pay contracts to power new data centres, for example, when the average carbon intensity of the North Sea is 24 kilograms per barrel of oil, Jackdaw is 8 and imported LNG from the United States is 85 kilograms of carbon intensity? What is the Government’s rationale for not developing our own reserves rather than importing LNG, at the expense of energy security, with an environmental impact four times more polluting than developing our reserves in the North Sea?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I am afraid the noble Lord is back on his fairly standard topic. As far as AI is concerned, we ought to bear in mind that clean power already represents 73.7% of GB electricity generation and we are targeting clean power providing at least 95% of that power by 2030 or so. Importing a lot more gas to deal with the introduction of AI does not necessarily follow, because it is really a question of using that clean power in the most optimised way possible to make sure that AI is supported, so his thesis does not quite stack up.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, what requirements will be put in place to ensure that energy efficiency and waste heat recovery measures are implemented?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Baroness mentions waste heat and electricity waste, and that is precisely the sort of area that needs to be optimised in terms of making sure that we can deal with this growth in AI without building huge new resources. It is by optimising the system that we can get quite a lot of this new requirement over the line. For example, the introduction—interestingly, using AI—of dynamic line rating allows cables to work at a much higher rate much closer to their thermal capacity because of the ability of AI to predict what that line is going to do as opposed to the lower rating that they are on at the moment. That could produce up to a 50% gain in capacity for those lines. The same goes with a lot of things concerning waste heat.
Local Resilience Forums
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the future arrangements for Local Resilience Forums in the light of their plans for local government devolution and their proposed reforms to police force structures.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in so doing refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission and declare that I am sitting on the advisory panel supporting the review by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, of police force structures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all the work he does as chair of the National Preparedness Commission and for what he is now doing in respect of policing. It is crucial to retain resilience as we go through the reforms to police forces and local government restructuring. The Government are actively assessing the impact of police and local government changes on local resilience forums to ensure that communities remain supported before, during and after emergencies. We are strengthening the local resilience forum model to make sure it is robust and fit for the future. We have allocated £2.5 million of trailblazer funding to test approaches that strengthen local leadership and accountability.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. If one believes in the concept of a whole of society and whole of government approach to resilience and preparedness, local resilience forums are an essential part of that mix. I hope my noble friend will relay to her ministerial colleagues that in reviewing what are the best arrangements and the best structures, there must be a recognition that one size fits all is inappropriate, in that the nature of communities around the country varies very widely. I ask that consideration be given to the model in Scotland, where there is a resilience structure at Scotland level, and then three regional structures—Scotland is perhaps midway between the two largest local resilience forum populations—three regions below that and 12 district structures below that. That enables a detailed look on a local, sub-regional and regional basis at how resilience is carried out.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend that one size does not fit all in this respect. He may be aware that my fellow Minister, my noble friend Lady Twycross, and myself have both worked in emergency services, so we know how important it is to get this right for local areas, and that absolutely goes alongside the devolution programme. Alongside that reorganisation and devolution, we are committed to strengthening the role of strategic authorities and mayors in local resilience, which will give the opportunity to develop local solutions. We are safeguarding emergency preparation and response effectiveness, making sure we get that continuity through the reorganisation programme. Part of the trailblazer programme is to introduce the concept of chief resilience officers, which we are looking at and will be testing. That will inform the 2027 review of the Civil Contingencies Act.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, utilising modern science and technology, the police appear to be addressing the most serious crime very effectively. But we all know that we have an epidemic of offending on our streets—and our high streets—unmatched in my lifetime, with shoplifting, phone-snatching, drug-dealing and rogue bikers. Does the Minister accept that we need to take a fresh look at how the police are organised and tasked?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Hanson, who has the next Question, may be better placed to answer that question. I agree that there was a real error made in decriminalising shoplifting. We are addressing that now and work is being done on it. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, carries on his review of police structures, which will report this summer, the Home Office is absolutely committed to ensuring that local policing remains at the heart of any changes to force structures. The policing White Paper is clear that responsive local policing will be guaranteed through local policing areas, with local officers focused on tackling the epidemic of everyday local crime. That undermines our communities; it causes great distress in them, and both our mayors and our police service want to tackle that as quickly as possible.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, with the establishment of new strategic authorities, the Minister has indicated that the Government plan to publish guidance on their duties and responsibilities. Can the Minister confirm that this guidance will clearly cover how these authorities and their mayors can most effectively work with local resilience forums going forward, and key partners, to ensure we continue collaboration, co-ordinated working and, importantly, operational readiness for major incidents?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness puts her finger on a critical point as we go through this: making sure that the resilience is effective throughout the period of reorganisation and then into the future. We are working in partnership with the Cabinet Office, the UK Resilience Academy, the Local Government Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives to support local authorities to make sure they strengthen their resilience capability. That is with training to clarify expectations, through the guidance the noble Baroness refers to, and sharing best practice. We work regularly with our colleagues in local government on this and through national forums, such as the national strategic forum of local resilience forum chairs.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as head of the Army Reserve. I have been an active reservist now for 38 years and played a very active part during the Covid crisis, but the challenge always is that we tend to default to the military when it comes to aid to civil authority and national resilience. I simply ask the Minister: what thoughts do the Government have on the creation of a civilian reserve, rather along the lines of the model the Swedes have followed, with reserved occupations for times of crisis, so that we can have a civilian reserve and not have to default to the military the whole time?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very interesting question. I do not have a direct answer for him but, having been through the process of being the leader of a local authority during the Covid period I pay tribute, first, to the voluntary and third sectors, which absolutely stepped up during that period, and, secondly, to colleagues in the services who also supported what both local government and national government were doing. We need to think very hard about where we are going to need significant resources and how those will be co-ordinated and arranged. I am sure that the 2027 review of the Civil Contingencies Act will take great consideration of the kind of issues the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, the West Mercia area has an elected police commissioner at the moment, but we have no elected mayor in Hereford and Shopshire. What is the Government’s plan for devolution here? Will we be offered a mayoral deal to run the police?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The local government reorganisation and devolution programme is still ongoing, as I am sure my noble friend will be aware. It is the Government’s intention that when police and crime commissioners come to the end of their terms, there will be mayors in place to take over their duties. We will be making announcements towards the summer in response to all the proposals that have come in for the rest of the country where announcements have not already been made.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, guidance on emergency preparedness issued under the Civil Contingencies Act to the emergency responders who make up local resilience forums includes reference in chapter 14 to use of the voluntary sector. This is often assumed to be where the service provided is wholly or largely relevant to an emergency, such as that offered by Mountain Rescue, Samaritans or the Salvation Army. However, I notice that one local authority listed as an example of best practice includes the use of religious groups, presumably because of buildings and other services that they can provide. Might the Minister consider whether this warrants a discreet but distinct reference in a revision of the guidance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are very happy to take all suggestions as we refresh the guidance, so I am happy to speak to the right reverend Prelate outside the Chamber to clarify what he wants in there.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, effective emergency response depends on clear lines of leadership and accountability. In the context of local government reorganisation and devolution, when will the Government clarify who will be ultimately responsible for the co-ordination, leadership and performance of local resilience forums? The issue is that emergencies do not wait for the Government to review things and make plans. They happen suddenly and we need somebody leading these resilience forums.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes, the noble Baroness is quite right. That is why it is important that, as well as making sure that we look at how this is done in future with the trailblazer programme and understand what can be done better, we make sure we have ongoing resilience throughout the transformation programme. For those local authorities where there will not be a mayor immediately, announcements will be made before the summer about how local resilience forums will be continued during the process of reorganisation and devolution.
Southport Inquiry: Prevent Programme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 report, published on 13 April, what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the Prevent programme, in particular its ability to prevent similar attacks.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
This was a horrific attack and my thoughts remain with the families of victims. Since the attack in Southport, Ministers have taken steps to improve Prevent, including new guidance, training and assessment tools, a stronger approach to repeat referrals and new Channel interventions. We have also introduced the role of Prevent commissioner to provide independent oversight of Prevent’s effectiveness. We will respond in full to the inquiry’s recommendations by the summer.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
One lesson that we could take from the Southport tragedy is that the focus on terrorism and ideology by Prevent actually distracts the police, schools and social services from dealing with a group of young adults who have different needs. Does the Minister perhaps agree that it is time to stop arresting peaceful eco-protesters and start thinking more about the violent people who do not fit into the ideological category that Prevent deals with?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The second phase of Sir Adrian Fulford’s investigation into the events at Southport includes examining the very issue the noble Baroness has mentioned: the wider, non-ideologically driven potential activity that leads to terrorist or violent behaviour. That second phase, and the terms of reference that we have given Sir Adrian, cover that point. In the Home Office we are also looking at those issues internally, through a separate working party that we have established to examine them. The noble Baroness will know my views on other forms of issues that she has raised; I will not repeat them now, for the sake of brevity.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, our thoughts are with the victims and their families, especially this week with the publication of the inquiry report, which will have brought back many sad memories. The inquiry report is very clear that, unlike with the safeguarding of children, there is a glaring hole in the joint sharing of information to ensure that all agencies are aware of the risks that a child poses to others in society. Yesterday my noble friend Lady Doocey pointed out that under the Crime and Policing Bill the police will need to consult only the youth offending team. Surely, as the report suggests, there must be one lead agency managing this information, but all the agencies involved—schools, social care, medical services—must have a duty to record and share information. Will the Government look at this as an absolute, urgent priority?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the Statement yesterday, I responded to the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, to introduce amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. The Bill finishes its stages in Parliament this week or, potentially, next week or the week after. We have been very clear that we want to examine the recommendations in full, but we received these recommendations only at noon on Monday. I think it is fair that we give them consideration, but the noble Baroness’s point about data sharing and co-operation was a significant failure identified by Sir Adrian, and one we will respond to in full in the summer.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is no suggestion that people who are demonstrating should be arrested or harassed in any way, and that the only people who are being arrested or harassed are those acting illegally?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is a tangential point to the issue in relation to Southport, but I assure my noble friend that both Houses of Parliament have passed legislation—in this case, banning Palestine Action. That is subject to a current court case. We have taken that decision on solid advice from security services, and nobody is stopping anybody protesting about Palestine, Israel or any other issue. Under clear proscription orders from the powers that the Government have, any terrorist-related item is banned. We made a judgment on Palestine Action that it is terrorist-related action. It is subject to court procedures at the moment, but I hope we can resolve them very shortly.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, while the Government are considering the Fulford report and what they should be doing next, will they have something and somebody in place to take decisions if this happens before they have completed their inquiries?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I mentioned, we have established a separate working group of officials. They are looking not just at the recommendations for advice for Ministers but at the type of individual and at the incident that occurred. They will test with police forces and others why and how that incident in Southport occurred. That working group is looking not at the ideological issues but at individuals who are obsessed with violence, which was the potential motivating factor of the Southport attack. We are very cognisant that, pending the recommendations being examined and reported back on, any individual at any time can undertake serious violent action motivated by their love and desire to be involved in such action.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, early intervention on those individuals who may be defined or identified as extremists is vital. Previously, as the Minister will be aware, we have had a Minister for Countering Extremism and a strategy. What work is being done in that regard to ensure that early identifiers on individuals can be put in place? Is the Extremism Analysis Unit, which was previously established in the Home Office, still active? Many of those who are coming under the influence of extremism are influenced online.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord mentions an important point: we are very cognisant of online radicalisation, and the Home Office is looking at what steps we can take to improve the take-down of difficult sites and to look at tracing back those sites. We are continually monitoring the whole issue of counterextremism and how that works, both through my colleague Ministers and through the security services. We will continue to monitor our support and Prevent mechanisms. Prevent has helped around 6,000 people not to go into extremist activity in the last nine years. It is a good programme but, as I have mentioned, we have tweaked it based on the experiences of what happened in Southport in the very early days of this Government.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to the points that noble Lords around the House have made—about multi-agency co-operation and single-agency lead, and indeed the last comments about the internet, and about violent and misogynistic material in particular—will my noble friend also consider issues around the challenges of parenting a very troubled and potentially violent child, and around support and accountability? Will that be on the Government’s agenda as well?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the recommendations from Sir Adrian was on assessing the parents of the individual who is, I remind the House, now serving 52 years as a minimum sentence in prison for the assault. The failure of the parents to understand, establish and report the behaviour of the individual was a critical factor, so Sir Adrian has made a number of recommendations in that area. We received the recommendations on Monday; it is important to give them due consideration. We will report back to the House by the summer, but those are key areas where we need to look at what interventions can be made where there are difficult young people involved in activity that can escalate to the incident that happened in Southport.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we touched on a number of issues yesterday during the Government’s Statement on the dreadful events at Southport, including the Mental Health Act. This was of course expressly designed for the purpose of limiting the extent to which autistic people can be detained and treated. Given that one of the contributing factors to both Rudakubana’s behaviour and the authorities’ failure to intervene was his autism diagnosis, will the new national autism strategy now look to change this approach? Can the Minister outline when we can expect to see that strategy?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the recommendations said the issue of autism was a potential contributing factor but not the sole contributing factor. As I mentioned on the Statement last night, it is anticipated that a revised autism strategy being produced by other parts of government will be done in relatively short order. I cannot give the noble Lord a timescale from the Dispatch Box because it is not my direct departmental responsibility, but I will look into that and report back to him by letter.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, there can be no excuse for violence, but does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is an epidemic of loneliness in this country at the moment? Sometimes, individuals who spend a lot of time in their rooms alone are somehow encouraged to engage in violent acts. Does he further agree that perhaps it is time for the Government to renew their strategy on loneliness so that we can make a real inroad into this epidemic?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think my noble friend will recognise that there are key issues and impacts from individuals living solitary lives, getting information and their contact with the outside world via the internet and, very often, the dark web. One of the issues that Sir Adrian has raised with us is what we do about radicalisation and information provided by the internet. We will look at that. The wider loneliness strategy is an important factor that my noble friend has mentioned. It is key that we look at the type of information that goes through the net and the type of exposure that individuals have, and particularly that we improve our take-down and blocking of information that goes beyond the pale and damages our society as a whole.
Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 February be approved.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 April.
National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 February be approved.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 April.
Strategic Defence Review: Funding
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been under sustained attack over many months for inadequacy of defence spend, opacity as to what they are going to do about it and lethargy engulfing their defence investment plan. When the most acerbic criticism comes from a political friend and the Government’s defence adviser, that is painful, but it is also a piercing alarm klaxon; help is needed now.
I ask the Minister, whom I hold in respect and affection, two questions. Even if the Government do not accept that the Chagos deal is dead, although everyone else does, why not redirect the identified and assigned Chagos payments to the MoD? That money is not going to Mauritius any time soon. As the MoD struggles to fill a current £3.5 billion black hole, it must ruthlessly prioritise, so how about, above all else, urgently getting warships out of maintenance?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. On the Chagos deal, the direct answer, fairly obviously, is that priorities across government are always being assessed and reassessed as policy develops or changes, but predicting that is very difficult. I cannot give a direct answer to what the noble Baroness has asked—as I expect she thought I would not be able to. On warship maintenance, the First Sea Lord is working extremely hard to improve the maintenance of warships to see how we can get them all ready and operational more quickly. It is not just warships but the whole of the Navy. He is working hard, as the noble Baroness knows, with respect to a hybrid Navy. He is also working extremely hard to improve submarine availability.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, first, is the delay in the defence investment plan partly due to the Government having to make cuts to existing programmes to provide for programmes that meet new and increasing challenges? How does that sit with the claim to be funding increased defence spending? Secondly, given that the SDR called for a “whole-of-society approach” to defence and security, when will the Government seek to engage the public and all political parties in a debate on the threats we face, how they are escalating and how we need to respond? At the moment, the public are not so convinced that increased defence spending is justified. Most of us know that it is, but we need to ensure that the public are carried with it. Will the Government take such an initiative?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There is a debate in Grand Committee on Monday about defence resilience, so we can start the conversation there. Of course, there is a broader conversation that the noble Lord referred to, and we are working hard to deliver that as well. I accept that there is a debate about defence spending. However, in 2024-25, the total DEL was £60.2 billion. In 2028-29, it will be £73.5 billion under current plans. That is a £13.5 billion increase in that final year.
On the SDR, the noble Lord will know, notwithstanding the debate going on around it, that the Government are not waiting for the publication of the SDR. Significant investments are being made already. The Leonardo investment in Yeovil around helicopters was announced recently. Again on helicopters, just yesterday nearly £900 million was announced Boeing UK for Chinook and Apache maintenance. There is huge investment in shipbuilding in Scotland, which is immense for Scotland and something about which we can all be pleased. The nuclear deterrent is being renewed. We have ordered 12 F35As. All those things are important. We are not waiting for the SDR; we are investing already. The debate will no doubt continue on the total amount, but it is wrong to say we are not investing anything.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I offer my sympathies to the Minister for being put up, once again, to defend the indefensible. Would he agree that the people of this country have a right to expect their leaders to, well, lead? The need is not in doubt. The Prime Minister goes to places such as Munich and gives very eloquent speeches, setting out the urgency of the requirement, but back at home the issue apparently remains on his desk, where I assume it has been sitting for months. Could the Minister take the message back to his colleagues—it is a message with which I know he agrees, although he cannot say so—that the time for leadership is not now, it is long past? We need to get on with this. The situation is too urgent and too dangerous to permit a further delay.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The DIP is being finalised. As the noble and gallant Lord said, the DIP is on the Prime Minister’s desk, as he said recently at the Liaison Committee, and is being considered. The only point I make to the noble and gallant Lord is the one I made to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and often make to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. I accept the debate and discussion about the totality of the amount that should or should not be spent within the total the Government have available. Alongside that discussion and debate, significant change is happening and significant investment is being made. The defence budget is rising. I know it is not rising in the way the noble and gallant Lord would wish it to but, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and without repeating it to save time for other noble Lords to ask questions, significant investment is going into the defence industry and defence capabilities across our nation, of which the British public can be proud.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, in the current debate about the appropriate balance between welfare and defence spending, allegations have been made about the lack of defence expertise in the Treasury. Is this justified?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We speak to the Treasury all the time, so I hope the Treasury will understand the points we are making about defence and its importance. I know the Treasury and the Prime Minister understand that. The debate continues about the totality of the spending that needs to be allocated to defence. Those discussions with the Treasury, the Prime Minister and others across government will continue.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving Army Reserve officer. I thank the Minister for giving up his valuable time yesterday to meet senior Army leaders from the directorate of personnel. Reservists are the first echelon. The Regular Forces are now so small that reservists are no longer second echelon, but being, essentially, on a zero-hours contract our budgets are usually the first to be cut. What assurances can the Minister give the House that reserve budgets will be protected in the forthcoming DIP?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, that the reserves are an essential part of the defence of our nation; they will be an increasing part of the defence of our nation. As such, they deserve a budget which matches the responsibility they are going to be given.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, on Tuesday, my noble friend the Minister called on all sides of the House to come together to deal with the threats we face. However, my noble friend Lord Robertson this week called out the lack of engagement of the Liberal Democrats and Reform, who did not respond to his offer—at least until this week—to brief them on the strategic defence review. The Green Party is at best, if I am being charitable, ambivalent about NATO. What needs to be done to bring all sides together in the face of the toughest compounding circumstances in decades? It is apparent, from recent conversations, that noble Lords on all sides care and think deeply about this issue.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The point I was trying to make on Tuesday—I am happy to reiterate it—is that the threat we face needs the country to respond as a whole. The Government’s responsibility, working with others, is to ensure that the population understand that threat and the increasing nature of it. I think that, in response to that, we can expect everyone to come together, as our country always does.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I say simply from the Liberal Democrat Benches that I cannot think how many times I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in the last few months. We are fully engaged with this debate, as the Minister knows well. We are anxious that the defence review should be implemented. We regret that there has not been the national conversation led by the Prime Minister that we need. The idea that we are somehow not engaged with this is a little over the top, to say the least.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On the noble Lord’s main point about the national conversations, as I have said to him and in this House on a number of occasions, that national conversation needs to begin as soon as possible, and plans are under way with respect to that. It is essential that it happens: we need to ensure that the British public understand the very real change in circumstances they now face compared with just a few years ago.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the effectiveness of expenditure is as important as the level of expenditure? Can he tell the House what the MoD is doing to improve the efficiency of defence spending?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As the noble Lord will know, there has been a defence reform programme, which has led to the establishment of a national armaments directorate and a new national armaments director. Certainly, at the top of his agenda is ensuring more effective procurement and better value for money—all the sorts of things that you would assume are essential. But it is not only effective procurement; the other challenge for us all as a nation, and indeed our friends and allies, is what appropriate equipment to buy for the changed nature of warfare. The lesson from Ukraine is clearly that it is air defence, new technology and drones. It is about how we ensure a balance between what you might call traditional capability, which of course is still essential, and the new technologies that are emerging. That is also a challenge, as well as the nature of the procurement itself.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
12:38 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 141 - Motion A1 agreed.
12:50 - Division on Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 144 - Motion D1 agreed.
15:07 - Division on Motion Q1 (as an amendment to Motion Q) - Ayes: 142 / Noes: 192 - Motion Q1 disagreed.
15:20 - Division on Motion R1 (as an amendment to Motion R) - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 154 - Motion R1 disagreed.
15:31 - Division on Motion S1 (as an amendment to Motion S) - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 142 - Motion S1 agreed.
15:43 - Division on Motion U1 (as an amendment to Motion U) - Ayes: 186 / Noes: 144 - Motion U1 agreed.
16:07 - Division on Motion V1 (as an amendment to Motion V) - Ayes: 115 / Noes: 121 - Motion V1 disagreed.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu.
“(3A) In section 56 (guidance), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Guidance issued under this section may include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices under section 52 by authorised persons (within the meaning of section 52(1)).””
“(5) In section 73 (guidance), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Guidance issued under this section may include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices under section 68 by authorised persons (within the meaning of that section).””
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to Motion A, I will speak also to Motions B, F and P in this group.
Amendment 2 is intended to ensure that accredited or authorised persons or their employers may not profit financially from fixed penalty notices issued for breaches of community protection notices or public spaces protection orders. I have had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on a number of occasions and I fully understand the concerns he has raised that fixed penalty notices could be issued disproportionately where there is a financial incentive to do so. However, I must stress that this amendment risks weakening crucial enforcement action taken to address those who breach community protection notices or public spaces protection orders, and such a bar would, in effect, put an end to all outsourcing and could significantly reduce enforcement capacity.
Therefore, I have tabled our Amendments 2A to 2C in lieu, which seek to ensure that statutory guidance is issued that addresses the need for proportionality in the issuing of fixed penalty notices. I have had an opportunity to discuss that with the noble Lord outside the Chamber, and I await his comments in due course. It would mean a statutory presumption in the Bill that the guidance addresses the use and proportionality of such fixed penalty notices.
I turn to Amendments 6, 10, 11 and 12, and the very important issue of fly-tipping; I know that noble Lords have been exercised about it. I emphasise that I understand and recognise the problem and believe that waste crime is an issue that confronts us. The Government are committed to taking firm action. We recently published our new waste crime action plan, which is the toughest-ever crackdown on illegal waste and targets the problem at its root. Lords Amendment 6 is unnecessary as, where sufficient evidence is available, local authorities already have the power to prosecute fly-tippers and, on conviction, a cost order can be made by the court so that the landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. If available evidence is not sufficient to secure a successful prosecution, it is unclear how addressing this issue through statutory guidance would help in recovering those clean-up costs.
Amendment 11 is also unnecessary as, under Section 34B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local councils have the power to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe that the vehicle is being used or is about to be used to commit a fly-tipping offence. Where the police stop and search a vehicle under their PACE powers, on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is used for the committing of fly-tipping offences, they can also call on local authority officers who can then impound the vehicle under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as I have mentioned.
Amendment 12 would place a duty on waste authorities to clean up waste from fly-tipping, including on private land. I have had what I hope were constructive discussions with the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, but, as I have said to him outside the Chamber, the amendment would place a substantial unfunded burden on local councils and represents a significant departure from current practice. As such, it would infringe also on Commons financial privilege. I trust that, on that basis, the noble Viscount will consider not pursuing the amendment further.
Having said all that, I say to the House that the waste crime action plan sets out a zero-tolerance approach to prevent waste crime. We will look at pursuing criminals responsible and accelerating the clean-up effort. We are committed to working with the insurance industry in particular to explore any barriers to an accessible insurance market that will allow farmers, businesses and landowners to be indemnified against illegal waste dumping on their land.
We are also taking further action. The Government agree with the need for tougher penalties for those convicted of fly-tipping. As drafted, Amendment 10 seeks to amend the wrong legislation. Driving licence endorsements are set out in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Our Amendment 10A in lieu enables the addition of penalty points to the driving licence of an offender following conviction for fly-tipping offences where that offender was driving a motor vehicle used in or for the purposes of committing the offence. This may ultimately lead to disqualification from driving. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling his earlier amendments on this. I hope that he will now look at the amendment that we have tabled and see that, by allowing a range of three to nine points to be added, Amendment 10A would go even further than the amendment that he tabled initially.
Regarding Lords Amendment 15, I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House about the four-year custodial term’s reflection of the elements of culpability in the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause unlawful violence. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for tabling his initial amendment. We have reflected on it and tabled Amendment 15A in lieu, which, with cross-government support from my colleagues in the MoJ and the Home Office, raises the maximum term to seven years’ imprisonment from the current four-year custodial term. I hope that noble Lords will accept this as a sensible compromise. It is a movement by the Government which reflects the additional intent element of the new offence.
Finally, I turn to Lords Amendment 333, which would extend the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days and of closure orders from six months to 12 months. Clause 3 already extends the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to 72 hours. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is not able to be in her place today and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, may be speaking to this set of amendments. I say to him, and to the noble Baroness through him, that I acknowledge the sentiment of the amendment. I agree that it is vital that we tackle money laundering, organised crime and other criminal activities. On Report I extended my view on how police should be doing that in the street, and indicated my support for very strong action on these issues.
However, it is important that, if we support the principle of extending the duration of closure orders, we first should consult to avoid any unintended consequences. Stronger enforcement powers should be used only proportionately; therefore, the government amendment in lieu will enable us, following targeted consultation, to extend the maximum duration of closure orders and make different provision for commercial and/or residential properties. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that the consultation will focus not on whether to exercise the regulation power but on how to exercise it.
I realise that this grouping has covered ASB, fly-tipping, unlawful weapons and the closure of premises—it is quite a wide group. Those things have been grouped under the issue of anti-social behaviour, but I hope that noble Lords will see that the Government have moved where we can. There is significant movement with some of the amendments in lieu, and I commend them to the House and await contributions from noble Lords on these matters. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Clement-Jones
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 2D as an amendment to Amendment 2B, and Amendment 2E as an amendment to Amendment 2C—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, while I welcome that the Government have acknowledged the widespread concern over how these powers are being enforced, I must express my profound disappointment that they have chosen to strip out the robust amendment from the Bill which would have banned fining for profit in primary legislation. The Government should have retained that original amendment, which would have implemented a strict statutory ban preventing private companies from receiving financial benefits contingent on the number or value of the fixed penalty notices they issue. The Government have argued that a statutory ban risks weakening enforcement action and prefer to rely on statutory guidance to “ensure proportionality”.
We are not talking about legitimate enforcement; we are talking about a cowboy enforcement economy that preys on the public. Under the Bill, the maximum fine for breaching a public spaces protection order or a community protection order will rise by 400% from £100 to a staggering £500. Without a firm legal prohibition, that drastic increase will only supercharge an industry that profits from punishing our citizens for anodyne actions. As we know from the damning new report from the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life, the surge in penalties is driven overwhelmingly by councils that employ private companies, which issue a staggering 75.7% of all penalties, despite making up only 11.2% of the responding councils.
If your local authority employs a private contractor, companies that typically retain 80% to 90% of the fine income, you are 25 times more likely to be fined. Let us take the London Borough of Redbridge as a cautionary tale. In 2022, it issued just 163 penalties; in 2023, after hiring a private company, that number exploded to 3,550. When it stopped employing the company, the number of fines dropped to zero. What are these incentivised wardens fining the public for in these local authority areas? It is not for serious anti-social behaviour; they are issuing penalties for feeding the birds, for swimming, for lacking a dog poo bag and for simply standing in groups or loitering, Disgracefully, this system is also being used to target the most vulnerable, with multiple councils issuing fines for begging and rough sleeping.
By rejecting the original amendment, the Government are protecting a corrupt enforcement industry that uses financial incentives to issue unfair penalties. The Government’s replacement amendment under Motion A is simply too weak: it states only that the Secretary of State may include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons. The word “may” is not a guarantee, and general guidance about issuing notices will not stop the aggressive, profit-driven tactics that we are seeing on our streets. That is why we have tabled new amendments under Motion A1 today.
These vital new amendments demand two things. First, they change the permissive “may” to a mandatory “must”, ensuring that the Secretary of State is legally obligated to address this issue in guidance. Secondly, they ensure that this guidance cannot merely offer vague platitudes about proportionality but must explicitly tackle the practice of incentivising the giving out of fixed penalty notices. If the Government insist on regulating this through guidance rather than a direct statutory ban on profit sharing, that guidance must be mandatory, and its prohibition on financial incentives must be explicit. I urge the House to support Motion A1.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I have involvement with two Motions in this group. The first is Motion E, which relates to Amendment 12, which would transfer the responsibility for dealing with fly-tipping from landowners to the local waste authority. When we considered the amendment on Report, there was strong support for the measure from around the House and it was carried.
On Report, the House accepted the strong logic of the argument that dealing with illegal waste is a complex system, with government in all its facets—central, agency and local—holding the levers for the push factor: the landfill tax, approved facilities, disposal, and investigation, policing and prosecution. However, responsibility for dealing with the aftermath of a dump lies with the landowner and, through no fault of their own, they could face a huge bill—in a recent case, £40,000 for clearing up 200 tonnes. That is fundamentally unfair.
This position was supported in a joint letter sent to the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on 19 March from Tim Bonner, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance; Gavin Lane, president of the Country Land and Business Association; Robyn Munt, vice-president of the National Farmers’ Union; Tim Passmore of the National Rural Crime Network; and John Read, founder of Clean Up Britain. That is a powerful and knowledgeable coalition, united in support of the approach set out in that amendment.
However, I recognise that this is a complex issue, and indeed the Minister has, on behalf of the Government, stressed the financial privilege element, which is an unarguable point. Clearly, my amendment would represent a fundamental change. Therefore, at this stage, and in the context of this Bill, I will not be opposing Motion E. None the less, given the support around the country and from important stakeholder organisations for this potential change, the story does not end at this point.
I certainly support the move that the Government have made on licence points for fly-tipping. I support my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s Motion D1 with regard to seizure of vehicles.
The other Motion with which I have an involvement is Motion P, which deals with Amendment 333, originally tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe on Report and carried by the House. Unfortunately, my noble friend is unable to attend your Lordships’ House today, so I will address the Motion in her stead.
The amendment, as the Minister has mentioned, is designed to provide a further tool to deal with the epidemic of fake cash-only businesses which have taken over our high streets up and down the land, masquerading as barbershops, nail bars, vape retailers and many other businesses. There are, of course, a great many legitimate, genuine businesses providing the public with these services, and they should be supported, but there are legions that are simply fronts for money laundering, the sale of illicit goods, drug smuggling and immigration crime, among other things.
These are not individual operations but co-ordinated networks—in other words, organised crime. They are operating in plain sight, but, despite that, we have collectively been slow to do anything about that situation. We require a co-ordinated, tough and aggressive multi-agency approach geared towards one objective: the destruction of these gangs. I welcome the initiatives that the Government have brought forward, including Operation Machinize under the auspices of the National Crime Agency, but much larger-scale and tougher action needs to be taken.
My noble friend’s amendment represents a small but important measure to amend the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to enable the police to close premises. The amendment itself stresses that the time limits are too short for appropriate action to be taken. My noble friend’s amendment would extend the time limits, for both notices and closure orders, with the latter being extended from three to 12 months. The Bill recognises the importance of getting additional time, and I am pleased that the Minister has recognised the power of the argument from my noble friend and those who supported her and proposed an amendment in lieu to allow regulations to be made to extend the duration period of closure orders.
This is an important move and an important concession, and we welcome it. I particularly welcome the Minister’s assurance and undertaking that the consultation that he described will not be about whether but about how. With that in mind, we will not be opposing that Motion.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I do not need to repeat his excellent exposition of why Motion A1 is needed, although I stress that his original amendments were better, but we are where we are.
It is important to note that this is not about preventing enforcement at all. We can all agree on the need to clamp down on the problem of anti-social behaviour. In a situation where fixed penalty notices for PSPOs are presently at record levels—they have gone up 32.5% in a couple of years—the public might believe that councils are doing their best to stamp down on anti-social behaviour. However, that would be misleading and misinformation, because, where we have private companies, they are paid a commission of that penalty income, which can be up to 80% to 90% of the fine paid. That gives them a direct incentive to issue as many penalties as possible. Motion A1 tries to ensure that we protect the public from unscrupulous incentivised enforcement agencies, which I think are corrupt.
The main thing—if I can appeal to the Government—is that this does not actually tackle anti-social behaviour at all. If you live in an area with a private company, you might think that because everyone is being fined then the council are doing something about anti-social behaviour, but that is not true. I stress that those of us who support Motion A1 want to tackle anti-social behaviour and want a fair and just enforcement regime, but do not think that the private companies employed by some councils are tackling anti-social behaviour or delivering justice or fairness. I hope that the Government will reconsider.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond to the amendments in this group on waste crime and fly-tipping. As we know, nearly one-fifth of all our waste ends up in the hands of criminals. The rising number of mega tips and the speed at which they are now appearing show the increasingly sophisticated nature of criminal networks and that they are operating with impunity, making vast profits at little risk. That causes direct costs to our economy of more than £1 billion annually, with devastating effects on the environment, communities and individuals. Since our last debate, as the Minister mentioned, the Government have published their 10-point plan on waste crime. More must be done, but I record my thanks to the Minister and the Government, because this is a very welcome step forward.
We support the amendments before us, but none alone would shift the dial on this problem. Amendment 6, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, rightly seeks to make the polluter, not the landowner or the community, liable for clean-up costs. The Commons rejected this on the grounds that sufficient powers already exist. However, with 1.26 million fly-tipping incidents recorded in 2024-25, an increase of 9%, any conversation with any landowner or farmer in this country would show that the powers we have now are not adequate. The “polluter pays” principle remains unmet and clean-up costs can reach tens of thousands of pounds, which is simply bankrupting many individuals. In a similar vein, Amendment 12 would require waste authorities to collect fly-tipped waste and recover costs from offenders. The Commons dismissed this as a public cost.
In truth, these amendments would address only part of a much larger system. Real solutions require systemic reform, prevention, adequate local authority funding and compensation for local authorities where they do clear sites. Without turning off the supply tap and properly resourcing councils, responsibility is merely passed down the chain. Mentions of local authority compensation in the 10-point plan are encouraging, although the details remain missing. Treasury receipts from landfill tax need urgently to be allocated to the clean-up of sites.
Amendment 10 proposes penalty points on licences for fly-tipping convictions. Although that was rejected, the two government amendments in lieu are welcome. Amendment 11 would add fly-tipping to the list of offences allowing vehicle seizures, which is a proportionate step since vehicles are the primary means of committing these crimes. My party supported this measure in the other place and, if it is pressed to a Division, we will support it today. I would, however, prefer roadworthy seized vehicles to be reused or sold rather than crushed.
In conclusion, the 10-point plan makes some real progress, but this Bill largely remains a missed opportunity to tackle waste crime decisively. Serious organised waste crime should be treated as serious organised crime. The Environment Agency lacks specialist skills and technology to counter these networks effectively. The Government’s plans to strengthen its powers is welcome, but questions remain. The plan says:
“On enforcement, we are committing further funding. We are exploring giving the Environment Agency police-style powers”.
The Bill could have given the Environment Agency the police-style powers that it so desperately needs to improve enforcement and make it more effective and speedy. The truth is that those powers have not been given.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Motions C, D and E relate to the several amendments on fly-tipping the Conservatives tabled on Report. I thank the Government for their amendment on points on licences for fly-tipping offences. Although our previous arguments in support of this policy were opposed by the Government, I welcome their Amendments 10A and 10B, even if it has taken us some time to get to this point. I also thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for his Amendment 12. We on these Benches wholly agree with the principle that it should be the responsibility of and the burden on the offenders who fly-tip to clean up the waste they deposit.
I was disappointed to see the Government tabling Amendment D opposing the amendment that provides police the powers to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping offences. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out on Report that this is a business. That is why we need to disrupt the business model by confiscating the means to conduct this criminality. I simply cannot understand why the Government remain reluctant to take firm and decisive action on fly-tipping. They were reluctant to impose penalty points for the offence until they were defeated on Report. It is deeply disappointing that it is their intention to resist my amendment which would put into statute powers for the police to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping. If the Government oppose my Motion D1, I will test the opinion of the House.
On the issue of knife crime, Amendment 15 increased the maximum term of imprisonment for the new offence of possession of a bladed article with intent to use unlawful violence from four to 10 years. As I explained in Committee and on Report, the offence of simple possession of a bladed article under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 carries four years, so it did not make sense to create a new, more serious offence of possessing an article with the intent to do harm to another that carried the same maximum sentence. For both offences to carry the same maximum sentence would be entirely inconsistent with how the criminal law has always approached the issue of intent. That is why we sought, successfully, to amend the maximum term of imprisonment on Report. However, since then the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence of possessing an article with the intent to harm another to seven years. I thank the Minister for recognising the arguments that the Conservatives made both in Committee and on Report.
I thank my noble friend Lady Buscombe for tabling her amendment regarding closure notices on Report. Recent investigations have exposed businesses that plague our high streets, selling counterfeit and illegal goods as well as unregulated products. In doing so, she has raised important issues which have clearly resonated with your Lordships. It is therefore welcome to see that, despite opposing my noble friend’s amendment on Report, the Government now recognise the importance of this issue, and their amendment in lieu would give the Secretary of State powers to change the maximum duration of closure orders, as well as the maximum period for which such an order may be extended. They also recognise that different provisions may be required for different circumstances, such as whether a building is commercial or residential, so I thank the Government for their Amendment 333A in lieu and I look forward to when the Secretary of State uses the powers conferred by this amendment to lay regulations on closure notices.
As previously stated, if the Government oppose my Motion D1 concerning seizure of vehicles involved in fly-tipping, I will test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions that have been made in response to this group of amendments, both those in lieu from the Government and the amendments tabled by Members here today. I stress that the Government agree with the sentiments behind the amendments in this group. On Amendments 2D and 2E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I assure the noble Lord that while the amendments say that the statutory guidance “may” include guidance about the issue of fixed penalty notices, it is our firm intention to issue such guidance. Indeed, I will be happy to share a copy of the guidance in draft form with the noble Lord at an appropriate time when it is ready.
The issue of fly-tipping has permeated through the discussions we have had in the last half an hour or so and I understand the strength of feeling on all sides of your Lordships’ House. That is why we have tabled the amendments in lieu to introduce penalty points for fly-tippers and I emphasise again to noble Lords that, in relation to Amendments 6 to 11, local authorities already have the power to seize vehicles used for fly-tipping, and courts can already impose cost orders on those convicted of fly-tipping. I should add, if I may, that Defra, with the support of the Home Office, is going to explore how the Environment Agency’s powers to address waste crime can be bolstered. We are going to consider how additional measures within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act and other relevant legislation could achieve this. This work will ensure that the Environment Agency has much stronger powers and tools to bring criminals to justice, intervene earlier and disrupt criminal finances undermining the waste system.
Again, I am sympathetic to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and I understand and welcome the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the Waste Crime Action Plan. We are looking at how we improve enforcement around fly-tipping. However, as I have mentioned and as I think the noble Viscount acknowledged, the amendment breached Commons financial privilege, and I thank him for accepting those arguments and not pursuing the amendments further.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for accepting Amendment 15A in lieu.
On Amendment 333, it is right that the Government fully consult on any changes to closure powers before making significant changes, and our amendment in lieu does that. Again, I thank the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for their pressure in raising these issues, because it is important. I confirm what I have said to the noble Viscount already, which is that the issue is not how but when we strengthen those closure powers.
I hope I have been able to offer reassurances to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on his. I suspect that I may not have done to the extent that they would wish, but I can only try. We have moved significantly on some of the areas in this group. I welcome the support for the changes that we have made, but I do hope that, in moving Motion A, noble Lords will listen to my wise counsel and not press their amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, during the passage of this Bill, I have greatly admired the Minister’s geniality and stamina, but, sadly, this is not always matched by his delivery. I am afraid that the Government’s current approach really does not cut the mustard, and a number of mixed metaphors occur in the circumstances. The Minister said that they have a “firm intention”, but that is something of a pig in a poke and I will be asking the Government, as we proceed, to show rather more leg in this legislation, so with apologies for the metaphors, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 10A and 10B in lieu.
“An offence under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (unauthorised disposal of waste) committed by the driver of a motor vehicle used in or for the purposes of the commission of the offence. | Discretionary | Obligatory | 3-9” |
Lord Hanson of Flint
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
Lord Davies of Gower
Moved by
leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 11.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, fly-tipping is a scourge on our society. We on these Benches recognise it, the public recognises it and landowners recognise it. We consider that the addition of vehicle seizure is an important one, so I beg to move Motion D1 and test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motions E and F. With the leave of the House, I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 15 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 15A in lieu.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 256 and 257 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 257A and 257B in lieu.
“Taking down intimate image content
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 10 (regulated user-to-user services: safety duties about illegal content) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to take down—
(a) content in relation to which an intimate image content report is made to the provider (see section 20A(2)), and
(b) any other content identified by the provider as the same, or substantially the same, as that content, as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours, after the provider receives the report (unless subsection (3B) applies).
(3B) This subsection applies if the provider considers that—
(a) the content is not intimate image content, or
(b) the person making the report is not—
(i) the subject of the content, or
(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf.”
(3) After section 20 (duty about content reporting) insert—
“20A Reporting of intimate image content
(1) The duty in section 20(2) includes a duty to operate a service using systems and processes that allow users and affected persons to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider.
(2) An “intimate image content report” is a report which—
(a) declares that content present on the service is intimate image content,
(b) declares that the report is made by—
(i) the subject of the content, or
(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf,
(c) declares that the report—
(i) is made in good faith, and
(ii) to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person making the report, is true,
(d) provides sufficient information about the content for the provider to identify it,
(e) provides contact details for the person making the report, and
(f) complies with any other requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how the requirements in subsection (2)(a) to (e) are to be met.”
(4) In section 21 (duties about complaints procedures) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The duty in subsection (2) includes a duty to operate an expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints within subsection (4)(a), (b)(i) or (b)(ii) that—
(a) are made by users or affected persons who have made an intimate image content report (see section 20A(2)), and
(b) are about the content to which the report relates.”
(5) In section 27 (regulated search services: safety duties about illegal content) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to ensure that individuals are no longer able to encounter—
(a) search content in relation to which an intimate image content report is made to the provider (see section 31A(2)), and
(b) any other search content identified by the provider as the same, or substantially the same, as that content, as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours, after the provider receives the report (unless subsection (3B) applies).
(3B) This subsection applies if the provider considers that—
(a) the search content is not intimate image content, or
(b) the person making the report is not—
(i) the subject of the content, or
(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf.”
(6) After section 31 (duty about content reporting) insert—
“31A Reporting of intimate image content
(1) The duty in section 31(2) includes a duty to operate a service using systems and processes that allow users and affected persons to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider.
(2) An “intimate image content report” is a report which—
(a) declares that search content is intimate image content,
(b) declares that the report is made by—
(i) the subject of the content, or
(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf,
(c) declares that the report—
(i) is made in good faith, and
(ii) to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person making the report, is true,
(d) provides sufficient information about the search content for the provider to identify it,
(e) provides contact details for the person making the report, and
(f) complies with any other requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how the requirements in subsection (2)(a) to (e) are to be met.”
(7) In section 32 (duties about complaints procedures) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The duty in subsection (2) includes a duty to operate an expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints within subsection (4)(a), (b)(i) or (b)(ii) that—
(a) are made by users or affected persons who have made an intimate image content report (see section 31A(2)), and
(b) are about the search content to which the report relates.”
(8) In section 59 (meaning of “illegal content” etc) after subsection (10) insert—
“(10A) “Intimate image content” means content that amounts to an offence under section 66B(1), (2) or (3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sharing intimate image of a person without consent).”
(9) In section 133 (confirmation decisions: requirements to take steps)—
(a) in subsection (4) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(ca) specify which of those requirements (if any) have been designated as intimate image content requirements (see subsections (7A) and (7B)),”;
(b) after subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) If the condition in subsection (7B) is met in relation to a requirement imposed by a confirmation decision which is of a kind described in subsection (1), OFCOM must designate the requirement as an “intimate image content requirement” for the purposes of section
138(3A) (offence of failure to comply with confirmation decision).
(7B) The condition referred to in subsection (7A) is that the requirement is imposed (whether or not exclusively) in relation to—
(a) a failure to comply with a provision listed in column 1 of the table, which
(b) where there is an entry for the provision in column 2 of the table, is in respect of a matter listed in column 2.
Provision | Failure in respect of |
Section 10(2)(a) | (1) Intimate image content (2) Priority illegal content which includes intimate image content |
Section 10(2)(b) | (1) An offence under section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (2) Priority offences which include an offence under that section |
Section 10(3)(a) Section 10(3)(a) | (1) Intimate image content (2) Priority illegal content which includes intimate image content |
Section 10(3)(b) | (1) Intimate image content (2) Illegal content which includes intimate image content |
Section 10(3A) | |
Section 27(3)(a) | (1) Intimate image content (2) Priority illegal content which includes intimate image content |
Section 27(3)(b) | (1) Intimate image content (2) Illegal content which includes intimate image content |
Section 27(3A)”; |
(10) In section 138 (offence of failing to comply with requirements imposed by confirmation decision) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) A person to whom a confirmation decision is given commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person fails to comply with an intimate image content requirement imposed by the decision (see section 133(7A) and (7B)).””
“Taking down intimate image content: consequential amendments
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 10 (regulated user-to-user services: safety duties about illegal content)—
(a) in subsection (4) for “and (3)” substitute “to (3A)”;
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) the words from “each paragraph” to the end become paragraph (a);
(ii) at the end of that paragraph insert “, and
(b) subsection (3A).”;
(c) in subsection (7) for “subsection (2) or (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3A)”.
(3) In section 23(5) (record-keeping and review duties) for “or (3)”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.
(4) In section 27 (regulated search services: safety duties about illegal content)—
(a) in subsection (4) for “and (3)” substitute “to (3A)”;
(b) in subsection (7) for “subsection (2) or (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3A)”.
(5) In section 34(5) (record-keeping and review duties), for “or (3)”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.
(6) In section 59(14) (meaning of “illegal content” etc) for “and “priority illegal content”” substitute “, “priority illegal content” and “intimate image content””.
(7) In section 71(2)(a)(i) (duty not to take down content except in accordance with terms of service: exceptions) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.
(8) In section 136(5) (confirmation decisions: proactive technology)—
(a) in paragraph (a) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”; (b) in paragraph (c) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.
(9) In section 237 (index of defined terms) at the appropriate place insert—
“intimate image content (in Part 3) section 59”.
(10) In Schedule 4 (codes of practice)—
(a) in paragraph 9(1) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;
(b) in paragraph 9(3) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;
(c) in paragraph 13(3)(a) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;
(d) in paragraph 13(3)(c) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion G, I will also speak to Motions H, J, K, L, M, W and Y.
I will start with the collection of intimate image abuse-related amendments in lieu. These all flow from the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, on Report. I say once more, with feeling, that I thank the noble Baroness for engaging with us over the past few weeks, which she has done extensively. It is in the best traditions of your Lordships’ House. We have worked together to ensure—I hope—that the Government have taken the right direction with these amendments across the piece.
I turn to the take-down powers. Amendments 257A and 257B in Motion G build on the Government’s existing provisions. They do that by making failure to comply with an Ofcom enforcement decision relating to the new take-down duties a criminal offence. That means that senior executives of the service could be personally criminally liable for the failure. Alongside that enforcement approach, the Government are also strengthening safeguards against malicious reporting. We will bring forward regulations that will enable Ofcom to scrutinise both the speed of intimate image removals and how clearly and effectively platforms enable users to report such content. We are determined that victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse should see swift action, clear routes for redress and transparency from platforms.
Therefore, in addition to these amendments, the Government are working with Ofcom to create a clear route for reporting complaints regarding compliance with the NCII duty, signposting to specialist organisations. We will also use existing powers under the Online Safety Act to strengthen transparency, enabling Ofcom to require services to report on and publish their average NCII take-down times. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her continued advocacy on this important topic.
I turn to deletion orders and Motion H. The Government recognise the serious harm caused by perpetrators retaining copies of intimate images. We have listened to the will of the House on Report, which is why we have brought forward a new deletion order that will be available on conviction for a broader range of offences. This new order can be made for all intimate image abuse offences, including breastfeeding voyeurism recording and the new sharing of semen-defaced images offences, which I will refer to throughout my speech as “intimate image-related offences”.
It will enable courts to order the deletion and destruction of all copies of a relevant image. It does that by requiring the court to give reasons if it declines to make a deletion order for images related to the offence. This mirrors the criminal law in relation to compensation orders. It strikes the right balance between protecting victims and preserving judicial discretion in appropriate cases. Importantly, it will enable courts to order the deletion and destruction of all copies related to a specified offence in the offender’s possession or control, as well as any other relevant images of the same victim. Breaching such an order will be a separate criminal offence, itself carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
On hashing and the non-consensual intimate image register, the Government will give statutory backing to a register of non-consensual intimate images. Amendments 260A to 260D in Motion J enable the Government to designate a trusted flagger—which will most likely be the Revenge Porn Helpline—and, following a scoping exercise, to make further provisions by regulations about the operation of a statutory register. That includes provisions for the Secretary of State to impose requirements on providers to share hashes and any other information deemed necessary with the register. As Lords Amendments 260A to 260D recognise, proceeding by regulations will enable us properly to evaluate the requirements necessary to ensure a register operates as effectively as possible.
I turn to the question of pornography. I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for the time she has taken over the past few weeks to meet many Ministers, who really are grateful to her for the time she has spent with us, making sure that we get this right. I stress to your Lordships that the changes to which I now turn are just the start, and the Government mean it when we say that we look forward to working with the noble Baroness even more in future.
I will speak briefly to the parity sprint. This is a key piece of ongoing work that will build on the provisions in the Bill, and the discussions have already started. This work will identify the best way to fix the gap between the regulation of pornography online and offline. It will address content that is not caught by our proposed offences that would otherwise be illegal offline. This could include, for example, pornography where there is a suggestion that a person is under 18, a relationship is portrayed as abusive, or there is a clear exploitative power imbalance or breach of trust, including some examples of depictions of step-incest between adults, or a teacher and a student. At the end of this work, the Government are fully committed to implementation. If regulators need to be assigned, this will happen. If legislation is needed, this will happen. This Government are serious about this.
In a similar vein, on the verification of age and consent, we agree with the sentiment that underlies the amendment: non-consensual intimate images and child sexual abuse have no place online, and the tech platforms need to do more to prevent this type of illegal content. Having said this, further work is needed to identify the most effective approach. For this reason, the Government’s amendments in lieu, Amendments 264A to 264F in Motion L, provide for a further statutory sprint to test which mechanisms will be most effective for tackling this kind of content. It will also place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent on the outcome of this work and will provide a power to make regulations to give effect to its outcome.
Given the existing criminal and regulatory legal frameworks, we need carefully to consider the gaps and how best they can be addressed. Upon completion of the review, we have the option of putting in place regulations to impose new duties on providers of internet services relating to verification of age and consent. The power would allow the appointment of a regulator to oversee these duties.
With regard to adults role-playing as children in pornography, we have listened to the concerns that were raised. We must protect the legislative regime that protects actual children from harm, which is why we cannot support Lords Amendment 265. However, we absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, that content that mimics child sexual abuse must be tackled. That is why we have brought forward amendments in lieu, Amendments 265A to 265H in Motion M, which will criminalise the possession and publication of pornographic images portraying sexual activity between persons where one person is or is pretending to be under 16. This will be a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. Our intention with these amendments is clearly to signal that content which mimics, and thus risks normalising, child sexual abuse is totally unacceptable and should not be available online.
I need to make clear what the provision criminalises. It includes pornographic depictions of any sexual activity where one party is pretending to be under 16. It is intentionally wide and will capture harmful content that we know exists. I apologise for being graphic here, but there is no way of avoiding it. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, laughing as I say this—I am here again talking about rather graphic acts. This provision will capture images such as an actor role-playing as an underage girl, where, for example, her underwear has been moved aside, or male genitals are in shot.
As I have just said, this offence is just the start. Content that is illegal offline but not caught by this offence will be addressed through the Government’s work on parity.
Similarly, in relation to pornography depicting incest, we have listened to the concerns about the extent to which the Government’s Lords Amendment 263 should cover other troubling relationships, such as sex between step-relations. We completely agree with the need to curtail the depiction of step-incest pornography in cases where it portrays conduct that is illegal in the real world. To that extent, the Government’s amendments in lieu, Amendments 263A to 263G in Motion K, will restore and extend the new offence of possession and publication of incest pornography. They will list the relevant family relationships and expand this to include step-parents and children, step-siblings and foster parents, and children where one of the persons is or is pretending to be under the age of 18. Where there are grey areas, such as step-relationships over 18, that show a clear power imbalance and would be illegal offline, this will be addressed through the parity sprint, about which I have already spoken.
Through Lords Amendments 255 and 395, the Government are criminalising the making, adapting and supplying of the nudification tools and are bringing chatbots into the scope of the Online Safety Act. This means that the requirements of the Online Safety Act will kick in. Social media services will be required to take down content that supplies nudification tools, and search engines will have to reduce the visibility of search results linked to these tools. When chatbots come into the scope of the Online Safety Act, they will also have to ensure that illegal nudification tools and images cannot be made, supplied or appear on those services. Taken together, these measures will deliver an effective ban on nudification tools.
Given this, we do not believe that a separate possession offence, as provided for in Lords Amendment 505, would make a meaningful difference, not least as many such tools are not possessed in the technical legal sense, but rather are accessed online. For this reason, we are seeking its removal via Motion Y, but we are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for engaging with us on this and for supporting the approach that we have discussed at length with her and finally fixed upon.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 257C, 257D, 257E and 257F as amendments to Amendment 257A.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions H and J. In doing so, I declare an interest, as having received pro bono legal advice on intimate image abuse from Mishcon de Reya.
Amendments 257C and 257E in Motion G1 seek to ensure that internet services record, collect and publish data on the proportion of content they remove in 48 hours. I am aware that Ofcom has transparency powers under Schedule 8 to the Online Safety Act to gather information from internet services and that these regulations can be developed further. I am keen that the Government address any remaining gaps to ensure that all internet services that Ofcom defines as being high-risk or medium-risk of sharing intimate image content, as Ofcom will outline in its hashing measures, are required to publicly report their takedown times.
I was disappointed by the Government’s removal of the fine per day per account of £39,000 that noble Lords so overwhelmingly voted to support. While I acknowledge that Ofcom has the power to issue daily fines, I still believe that we must be more agile in our approach to ensure that no victim is left behind. I am keen to return to this issue in future legislation, when we have further information on how regularly Ofcom is issuing daily fines in response to this.
I am very grateful for the vast movement the Government have made by introducing their amendments under Motions G, H and J in response to my amendments at Report and Third Reading. We have made huge progress on the deletion of content after conviction and on the hashing of intimate content to prevent re-upload. I very much look forward to working with the Government and the charities as the centralised hash registry is developed.
I do not intend to test my Motion today. I am grateful to the Government, particularly to the Minister, and to the noble Lords across this House who have worked with me so constructively on these issues. I also wish to thank the survivors who have worked alongside me, Professor Clare McGlynn KC, and Sophie Mortimer from the Revenge Porn Helpline, for their steadfast support. We have made huge strides towards protecting victims from this appalling form of abuse. I beg to move.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
Very briefly, I welcome the Government’s Amendments 263A to 263G, 264A to 264F, and 265A to 265C. I put on record how grateful I am to the Government for the constructive conversations that we have had to get to this place. I also put on record my view that these amendments mark the beginning of a new era in the regulation of harmful pornographic content in this country.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to act swiftly on the outcome of this work, particularly the online/offline parity sprint, and I assure Ministers that we will hold them to account on that commitment. In reaching this point, I also echo my noble friend Lady Owen’s point about thanking the cross-party and team effort there has been to get to this point. In particular, I thank my team, Gemma Kelly in particular, and Clare McGlynn, who have been at the helm of these reforms and pushing this work through for a lot longer than I have.
I quickly turn to Amendments 264A and 264F, which address duties on pornographic providers to ensure age and consent verification, and enable performers to withdraw consent. This process must not be about revisiting whether action is needed. The case for action has been made conclusively and the focus must now be on effective delivery, enforcement and regulation. Although I am wary of “review”—allergic to it, even—I accept that a tightly timed statutory process with a clear duty to return to Parliament and the power to act strikes the right balance between urgency and rigour. We know that this industry is rife with coercion and trafficking, and falling short here would be a grave failure to victims.
Amendments 265A and 265C address adults role-playing children in pornography. The purpose of this offence is clear: to ensure that material which simulates, normalises or encourages an interest in child sexual abuse is illegal to host online. This is not theoretical harm; this content acts as a gateway to a very real and dangerous interest, and it is right that the law intervenes decisively. I am very grateful that the Government are moving on that.
Very briefly, though, I offer reassurance to communities that have raised concerns. This offence is carefully and deliberately drawn—I thank officials for doing that—with clear exclusions for genuinely fanciful depictions involving unambiguously adult participants. This is not about criminalising benign fantasy but about drawing a firm line at the point where content begins to replicate the dynamics, power imbalance and harms of child sexual abuse.
I also welcome Amendments 263A to 263G, which extend offences to include step-incest and foster relationship pornography involving children. For far too long, pornography has been allowed to normalise and incite sexual abuse within the household, and these amendments begin to close a deeply troubling gap in the law. However, I appreciate the Minister saying that this is only the beginning.
On nudification tools, criminalising their creation and supply and bringing them within the scope of the Online Safety Act is a proportionate and necessary step, but we must emphasise that platforms and search engines must not be allowed to direct users or to profit from this software. We saw just today reports from Bloomberg that Apple and Google have profited heavily from nudifying apps, which only underlies the need for urgent action and how specific it must be to stop search engines allowing these kind of apps to remain possible to find.
This work matters far beyond this Chamber. Harmful pornography is a global problem requiring a global response. Regulation and law change are not an end in themselves but, used properly, can raise awareness, disrupt profit and accelerate change. These amendments are not the final word but they are a decisive and long overdue step forward. I welcome them.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the work that she has done on the issues that have been raised in the House about pornography and online harm. I add my thanks to my noble friend and her honourable friend the Minister in the other place for the very competent amendment they have made in Motion W to the pardons on the decriminalisation of abortion.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, thanks should certainly be paid to the Minister for all her hard work in this area, but the House will also wish to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin and Lady Owen, for their hard work over many years, their persistence, their judgment and their success in a very difficult area of law and society. I suggest that although this House is very often criticised—sometimes with justification—the debates on this issue and the way we have moved the law forward with the very great assistance of the Government show this House working at its very best.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, both noble Baronesses have spoken extremely eloquently today. It has been a privilege, from these Benches, to be part of the cross-party coalition for both their campaigns. I pay tribute, as others have, to both of them for their persistence throughout the passage of the Bill.
In particular, these Benches have strongly supported the comprehensive framework introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, who has tirelessly campaigned on non-consensual intimate images, and we welcome—this is a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt—the Government’s concessions today under Motion G, in particular the move to place the 48-hour take-down requirement firmly into the Bill. We also welcome the Government’s decision in Motion J to include a statutory non-consensual intimate image register. As the South West Grid for Learning and the Revenge Porn Helpline rightly stated this week, embedding this register in law is a “transformative move” and a “hugely important step forward” in protecting victims at scale. Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this.
However, although we celebrate this progress, the Government’s amendments will continue to require scrutiny in two crucial areas. First, on the new statutory NCII register, the devil will be in the detail. As the SWGfL has highlighted, key questions remain around how this register will be operated in practice and, most importantly, enforced. Secondly, the Government’s amendments on image deletion orders under Motion H still fall somewhat short. During the debate in the other place on Tuesday, a Government Back-Bencher praised these amendments, believing that they would ensure that
“courts are properly mandated to destroy those intimate images”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/4/26; col. 740.]
However, the Government’s amendment explicitly uses “may”, leaving deletion entirely at the judge’s discretion. Nevertheless, I believe that the noble Baroness has achieved a huge amount through this process. We on these Benches entirely understand why she may choose not to press Motion G1, and she should take the greatest possible pride in what has been achieved so far.
On the second half of this group, on the regulation of online pornography, I likewise pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, who has worked tirelessly to expose the appalling loopholes that currently allow commercial pornography platforms to operate with light-touch self-regulation. The Government’s amendments in lieu under Motions K and L may be said to fall short of the robust statutory safeguards that this House originally agreed on. On age and consent verification, the House voted to make it a requirement for platforms to verify the age and permission of everyone featured on their sites. The Government have taken this out, replacing an immediate duty with a
“duty to review and report”
to Parliament within 12 months, followed by unspecified regulating powers. I very much accept that the noble Baroness is somewhat wary, but I accept her view on the way forward.
Furthermore, the Government’s amendments dilute the ban on step-incest pornography. They have caveated the offence so that it applies only to depictions of step-incest where one of the persons is portrayed to be under the age of 18. This misses the point of establishing parity with the offline Sexual Offences Act, where sexual relations between stepparents and stepchildren are illegal regardless of age due to the inherent power imbalances.
The Government have also failed to match the ambition of Amendment 505, which brings us to Motion Y. In the other place on Tuesday, the Minister claimed that Amendment 505 was unnecessary. She argued that the Government’s new offence of “supplying” nudification tools, combined with future powers to regulate chatbots via Ofcom, is sufficient, but a promise to eventually introduce secondary legislation to tell search engines to reduce the visibility of these apps does nothing to stop individuals possessing, downloading and using these tools to abuse women right now.
Great weight is being placed on the “sprint” delivery plan within six months of Royal Assent to achieve greater parity between the regulation of online and offline pornography. We very much hope that this will bear fruit in due course. On the mimicking of children, as the noble Baroness has indicated, this has been quite a battle with government. She has settled on the criminalisation of the depiction of children under 16. I know that she would have preferred that it was 18, but the Government have claimed that widening it is operationally difficult and would put too much pressure on law enforcement. However, they have promised that they will commit, on the Floor of the House, to address this in the parity work via regulation but not the criminal law.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Owen and Lady Bertin, on behalf of all noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, for their sustained efforts on these important issues. Their work and amendments will surely help to protect women and girls, whether through legislation on the taking down of intimate images or greater protection for age verification in pornographic content. I also thank the Government, particularly the Minister, for their continued engagement on these topics. These Motions are evidence of what this Chamber can achieve through collaborative and productive dialogue.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions not just today but during the passage of this Bill, and for the thoughtful and constructive way in which everybody has engaged with these issues.
I shall be brief and address only one or two of the points that were raised. The first is in relation to Motion G1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. Motion G strengthens accountability where platforms fail to comply with their duties to deal with non-consensual intimate images. Regarding Motion G1, we recognise the noble Baroness’s concern and want transparency beyond just the biggest platforms. That is why every regulated user-to-user service must be clear with users about how it is meeting the 48-hour takedown duty, while Ofcom can require detailed reporting where it will make the biggest difference. Through Schedule 8, the Online Safety Act allows Ofcom to require detailed information about how providers identify, deal with and take down illegal content. We will amend this through regulations to make it clear that these requirements cover compliance with the new NCII takedown duty, including average takedown times.
Turning to the verification of age, again the Government recognise the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. We are not intentionally delaying these important changes for the sake of it. I think that the noble Baroness recognises that we all agree that this issue is important, but we cannot shy away from the complex legal and practical issues that it presents. These considerations must be made alongside and flowing from the existing six-month review into parity, closing the gap between regulation of online and offline pornography. For this reason, the 12 months is needed to ensure that we get it right. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for supporting this approach.
On the issue of adults role-playing as children and the question of step-incest, in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as to the differential in age, it is to ensure that the online offences mirror the underlying offline criminal offences so that there is parity between the two. I should stress that for both these offences, adult role-playing and the extension to step-incest offences, this is a first step. The provisions in this Bill create significant changes already in the criminal law and the parity work to which we have all referred will build on this to address the grey areas where it is illegal offline but difficult to address online via the criminal law.
It remains for me only to thank once again the two noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin and Lady Owen. I genuinely look forward to continuing to work with them in future.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response and am assured by it. I beg leave to withdraw Motion G1.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 258 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 258A in lieu.
“Image deletion orders
(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In Part 7 (financial orders and orders relating to property), after Chapter 4 insert—
“CHAPTER 4A
IMAGE DELETION ORDERS
161ZA Image deletion orders
(1) In this code “image deletion order” means an order under this Chapter which—
(a) is made in respect of an offender for an offence,
(b) relates to a photograph or film which is in the offender’s possession or under their control, and
(c) requires the offender to take steps specified in the order to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the photograph or film is put beyond use.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), a photograph or film is put beyond use if—
(a) in the case of a physical item, it is destroyed;
(b) in the case of data stored by any means by or on behalf of the offender, it is deleted;
(c) in the case of content on an internet service, it is removed from the service or permanently hidden.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) something is “deleted” if it is irrecoverable;
(b) “content”, in relation to an internet service, has the meaning given by section 236(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023;
(c) “internet service” has the meaning given by section 228 of that Act (and section 204(1) of that Act applies).
161ZB Image deletion orders: availability
(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—
(a) section 66AA (sharing semen-defaced image);
(b) section 66AA (taking or recording intimate photograph or film);
(c) section 66AD (creating a copy of intimate photograph or film shared temporarily);
(d) section 66B (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film);
(e) section 66E (creating purported intimate image of adult);
(f) section 66F (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult);
(g) section 67A(2B) (recording a person breast-feeding child).
(2) This section also applies where a person commits an inchoate offence in relation to an offence specified in subsection (1).
(3) The court by or before which the offender is convicted of the offence may make an image deletion order in respect of—
(a) a photograph or film to which the offence relates, and
(b) any other photograph or film—
(i) which shows, or appears to show, a person who is the subject of the photograph or film to which the offence relates in an intimate state,
(ii) which is a semen-defaced image of a person who is the subject of the photograph or film to which the offence relates, or
(iii) which shows a person who is the subject of the photograph or film to which the offence relates breast-feeding a child.
(4) The following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 apply for the purposes of this section—
(a) section 66AA(2) (meaning of “semen-defaced image”);
(b) section 66D(5) to (9) (meaning of “showing, or appearing to show, another person in an intimate state”);
(c) section 67A(3A) and (3B) (meaning of references to a person breast-feeding a child), ignoring references to the intention of the person who recorded the photograph or film.
(5) In relation to an offence under section 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a photograph or film is a photograph or film to which the offence relates for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it appears to be of a person who was the subject of the request to which the offence relates (whether or not it is what was requested), and
(b) it was in the offender’s possession, or under the offender’s control, as a result of that request.
(6) An image deletion order is not available if the offence was committed before the day on which section (Image deletion orders) of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 comes into force.
161ZC Period for complying with requirements
(1) An image deletion order must specify, in respect of each step the order requires the offender to take, the date by which the step must be taken (and different dates may be specified in respect of different steps).
(2) Where the order requires the offender to take a step in relation to a photograph or film that would result in the offender being unable to recover the photograph or film—
(a) the order must not require the step to be taken before the end of the period for giving notice of appeal against the conviction or order, and
(b) where notice of appeal against the conviction or order is given, the offender is not required to take the step until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn.
161ZD Offence of failing to comply with an image deletion order
(1) It is an offence for a person in respect of whom an image deletion order made under this Chapter is in force to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement included in the order.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both.
161ZE Image deletion orders: interpretation
(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Chapter.
(2) “Photograph” includes the negative as well as the positive version.
(3) “Film” means a moving image.
(4) References to a photograph or film also include—
(a) an image, whether made or altered by computer graphics or in any other way, which appears to be a photograph or film,
(b) a copy of a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a), and
(c) data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a).”
(3) In Chapter 5 of Part 3 (duties to explain or give reasons), after section 55 insert—
“55A Duty to give reasons where image deletion order not made
Where—
(a) a court is dealing with an offender for an offence, and
(b) an image deletion order is available, the court must give reasons if it does not make an image deletion order in respect of a photograph or film to which the offence relates (see section 161ZB(3)(a)).””
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 259 and 260 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 260A to 260D in lieu.
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 259 and 260 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 260A to 260D in lieu.
“Intimate image material: reporting and registration
Schedule (Intimate image material: reporting and registration) makes provision about the reporting and registration of intimate image material.”
“(ja) section (Intimate image material reporting and registration) and Schedule (Intimate image material: reporting and registration);”
“SCHEDULE
INTIMATE IMAGE MATERIAL: REPORTING AND REGISTRATION
PART 1
TRUSTED FLAGGERS
Duty to designate trusted flagger
1 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate persons as suitable to make intimate image reports to—
(a) providers of internet services, and
(b) providers of internet access services, for the purpose of assisting the providers to make judgments about whether content is intimate image content.
(2) An intimate image report is —
(a) a report that—
(i) content identified in the report is a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, a person (P) in an intimate state, and
(ii) P, or a person acting on P’s behalf, has informed the person making the report that P does not consent to the sharing of the photograph or film, or
(b) a report of information provided to the person making the report by virtue of regulations under paragraph 2.
(3) The Secretary of State must exercise the power in sub-paragraph (1) to designate at least one person.
(4) The duty in sub-paragraph (3) ceases to apply if Secretary of State makes regulations under paragraph 3.
(5) Terms used in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and in section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 have the same meaning in sub-paragraph (2)(a) as in section 66B.
Duties to report intimate image content to trusted flagger
2 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Online Safety Act 2023 for, or in connection with, the imposition on providers of regulated services of duties relating to the provision of intimate image information to a person designated under paragraph 1.
(2) In this paragraph “intimate image information” means information generated by the provider for the purposes of identifying content which the provider considers to be intimate image content
(3) The regulations may require intimate image information to be provided in a particular form (for example, a hash code).
(4) The provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023 that may be amended by regulations under this paragraph include, but are not limited to, section 131(2) (enforceable requirements).
PART 2
THE INTIMATE IMAGE REGISTER
The intimate image register
3 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with a register of intimate image material (the “intimate image register”).
(2) “Intimate image material” means material which—
(a) is intimate image content, or
(b) would be intimate image content if it were shared on an internet service.
(3) In this Part of this Schedule “intimate image content” has the meaning given by section 59 of the Online Safety Act 2023, except that section 59 applies as if subsections (13) and (14) (“intimate image content” on user-to-user services limited to user-generated content) were omitted.
The registrar
4 (1) The regulations may provide for the intimate image register to be maintained by—
(a) a person specified in the regulations,
(b) an individual appointed by the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations, or
(c) the Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(b) may make provision about the terms on which an individual is appointed, including provision—
(a) for the payment of remuneration, allowances and expenses by the Secretary of State;
(b) for staff, accommodation and other facilities to be provided by the Secretary of State.
(3) The person who maintains the intimate image register is referred to in this Schedule as the registrar.
Operation of intimate image register
5 The regulations may make provision about—
(a) the form in which information is to be recorded on the intimate image register (which may in particular include hash codes);
(b) how material is to be reported to the registrar;
(c) how the registrar is to make judgments about whether material is intimate image material (which may in particular include provision similar to section 192(5) and (6) of the Online Safety Act 2023);
(d) how the registrar is to deal with reports that the registrar considers to be frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith;
(e) appeals against decisions of the registrar;
(f) the sharing of information on the intimate image register with—
(i) providers of internet services and internet access services, and
(ii) other persons, for purposes specified in the regulations.
Payment of fees to registrar
6 (1) The regulations may require providers of internet services and internet access services to pay fees to the registrar, as a means of recovering the costs incurred by the registrar in exercising functions under the regulations.
(2) The regulations may in particular make provision—
(a) for fees to be paid in respect of specified periods;
(b) for different fees to be payable by different providers.
Duties of providers of internet services and internet access services
7 (1) The regulations may make provision for or in connection with imposing on providers of internet services duties relating to—
(a) the provision of intimate image information to the registrar;
(b) taking down content recorded on the intimate image register;
(c) preventing persons from encountering content recorded on the intimate image register.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with imposing on providers of internet access services duties relating to preventing access to content recorded on the intimate image register.
(3) In this paragraph “intimate image information” means information generated by the provider for the purposes of identifying intimate image material.
(4) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may—
(a) make provision about how a provider is to make judgments about whether material is intimate image material (which may in particular include provision similar to section 192(5) and (6) of the Online Safety Act 2023);
(b) require intimate image information to be provided in a particular form (for example, a hash code).
Enforcement
8 (1) The regulations may make provision for or in connection with the enforcement of requirements imposed on providers of internet services and internet access services (“providers”) by or under the regulations.
(2) The regulations may include provision conferring functions on one or more persons specified in the regulations (each of whom is an “enforcement authority”).
(3) The persons who may be specified in the regulations include the registrar and the Secretary of State.
(4) The functions which may be conferred on an enforcement authority include—
(a) powers to require providers to provide information to the enforcement authority;
(b) powers to impose monetary penalties on providers for failure to comply with requirements;
(c) powers to issue notices (“compliance notices”) requiring providers to take steps specified in the notice for the purposes of complying with, or remedying a failure to comply with, a requirement.
(5) If the regulations provide for the imposition of monetary penalties they must provide—
(a) that a penalty (or, where more than one penalty is imposed in respect of a failure, those penalties taken together) may not exceed a maximum amount specified in the regulations (which may not be more than £3 million);
(b) for the amount of a penalty imposed on a provider to be appropriate and proportionate, having regard to—
(i) the failure to comply in respect of which it is imposed;
(ii) any penalties previously imposed on the provider in respect of that failure or other failures;
(iii) the size and financial resources of the provider.
(6) The regulations may provide for requirements imposed by a compliance notice to be enforceable, on the application of the enforcement authority, by injunction.
(7) The regulations—
(a) must make provision for appeals against the imposition of a monetary penalty and the issue of a compliance notice (if they provide for those things);
(b) may make provision for appeals against other decisions of an enforcement authority.
Payment of fees to enforcement authority
9 (1) The regulations may require providers of internet services and internet access services to pay fees to enforcement authorities, as a means of recovering the costs incurred by enforcement authorities in exercising their functions under the regulations.
(2) The regulations may in particular make provision—
(a) for fees to be paid in respect of specified periods;
(b) for different fees to be payable by different providers.
Guidance
10 The regulations may provide for the issue of guidance by—
(a) the registrar;
(b) enforcement authorities;
(c) the Secretary of State.
Duties of OFCOM
11 The regulations may require OFCOM to have regard to the intimate image register when—
(a) preparing a code of practice under section 41 of the Online Safety Act 2023;
(b) exercising its functions under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and retail charges for regulated intra-EU communications and amending Directive 2002/22/EC and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012, and the regulations may amend that Act or that Regulation for or in connection with that purpose.
PART 3
INTIMATE IMAGE REGISTER: POWER TO AMEND ONLINE SAFETY ACT 2023
12 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Online Safety Act 2023 for or in connection with the imposition on providers of regulated services of duties relating to—
(a) the provision of intimate image information to the registrar;
(b) taking down content recorded on the intimate image register;
(c) preventing persons from encountering content recorded on the intimate image register.
(2) In this paragraph “intimate image information” means information generated by the provider for the purposes of identifying intimate image content.
(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may require intimate image information to be provided in a particular form (for example, a hash code).
(4) The provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023 that may be amended by regulations under this paragraph include, but are not limited to, section 131(2) (enforceable requirements).
PART 4
SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION
Extra-territoriality
13 (1) References in this Schedule to an internet service include an internet service provided from outside the United Kingdom—
(a) which has a significant number of United Kingdom users, or
(b) one of the target markets of which (or the only target market of which) is United Kingdom users.
(2) A user of an internet service is a “United Kingdom user” if—
(a) where the user is an individual, the individual is in the United Kingdom;
(b) where the user is an entity, the entity is incorporated or formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.
Interpretation
14 (1) This paragraph applies for the interpretation of this Schedule.
(2) The following terms have the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023—
“content” (see section 236 of that Act);
“internet service” (see section 228 of that Act);
“intimate image content” (see section 59 of that Act), except in Part 2 of this Schedule (see paragraph 3(3));
“provider”, in relation to an internet service of any kind (see section 226 of that Act);
“regulated service” (see section 4(4) of that Act).
(3) “Internet access service” means a service that provides access to virtually all (or just some) end points of the internet.
(4) The following terms have the meaning given by the specified provision of this Schedule—
enforcement authority | paragraph 8 |
intimate image register | paragraph 3 |
intimate image material | paragraph 3 |
the registrar | paragraph 4” |
Baroness Levitt
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 263A to 263G.
(1A) That A and B were related, or pretending to be related, such that A was related to B as parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.
(1B) That—
(a) A and B were related or had been related, or were pretending to be related or to have been related, such that A was or had been related to B as step-parent, step-child, stepbrother, stepsister, foster parent or foster child, and
(b) at least one of A and B was, or was pretending to be, under 18.”
“(4A) For the purpose of subsections (1A) and (1B), A and B are not to be taken as pretending to be related if it is fanciful that they actually were or had been related in the way pretended.
(4B) In subsection (1A)—
(a) “parent” includes an adoptive parent;
(b) “child” includes an adopted person within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002;
(c) “uncle” means the brother of a person’s parent, and “aunt” has a corresponding meaning;
(d) “nephew” means the child of a person’s brother or sister, and “niece” has a corresponding meaning.
(4C) In subsection (1B), “step-parent”, “stepbrother”, “stepsister” and “foster parent” have the meanings given by section 27(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and “step-child” and “foster child” have corresponding meanings.”
“(iii) the person was not or had not been related to person B or A (as the case may be) in a way mentioned in section 67E(1A) or (1B).”
“(iii) the person was not or had not been related to person B or A (as the case may be) in a way mentioned in section 67E(1A) or (1B), and”
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 264 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 264A to 264F in lieu.
“Online pornography (age and consent verification): duty to review and report
(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the role of providers of internet services in—
(a) verifying the age of individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on their services;
(b) verifying whether individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on their services consent to the content being published or displayed.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a report of the review.
(3) The Secretary of State must comply with subsections (1) and (2) before the end of the 12 month period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) In this section the following terms have the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023—
“internet service” (see section 228 of that Act);
“pornographic content” (see section 236 of that Act);
“provider”, in relation to an internet service of any kind (see section 226 of that Act).”
“Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to amend Online Safety Act 2023
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 217 insert—
“Power to amend Act: pornographic content
217A Power to impose duties about pornographic content
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Act for or in connection with the imposition, on providers of regulated services or regulated services of a particular kind, of duties relating to—
(a) verifying the age of individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on those regulated services (“age verification duties”);
(b) verifying whether individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on those regulated services consent to the content being published or displayed (“consent verification duties”).
(2) Age verification duties and consent verification duties may include duties relating to the systems and processes used to operate regulated services, or regulated services of a particular kind.
(3) Consent verification duties may include duties relating to cases where consent previously given is withdrawn.
(4) Regulations under this section may make provision requiring OFCOM to issue guidance to providers of regulated services, or regulated services of a particular kind, to assist them to comply with age verification duties and consent verification duties.
(5) The provisions of this Act that may be amended by the regulations in connection with the imposition of age verification duties and consent verification duties include, but are not limited to, section 131(2).”
(3) In section 225(1) (regulations subject to affirmative procedure) after paragraph (g) insert—
“(ga) regulations under section 217A,”.”
“Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to make regulations
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with the imposition on providers of specified internet services of duties relating to—
(a) verifying the age of individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on those internet services (“age verification duties”);
(b) verifying whether individuals appearing in pornographic content published or displayed on those internet services consent to the content being published or displayed (“consent verification duties”).
(2) Age verification duties and consent verification duties may include duties relating to the systems and processes used to operate specified internet services.
(3) Consent verification duties may include duties relating to cases where consent previously given is withdrawn.
(4) The regulations may confer functions on— (a) a body established by the regulations, or (b) another body specified in the regulations, (“the regulator”).
(5) The regulations may make provision—
(a) establishing or modifying the constitutional arrangements of the regulator; (b) establishing or modifying the funding arrangements of the regulator.
(6) The functions which may be conferred on the regulator include—
(a) powers to, by notice, require providers of specified internet services to provide information to the regulator;
(b) powers, in relation to requirements imposed by or under the regulations, corresponding or similar to those conferred on OFCOM by or under Chapter 6 of Part 7 of the Online Safety Act 2023 in relation to enforceable requirements, including provisions conferring power to impose monetary penalties.
(7) The provision which may be made under subsection (6)(a) includes provision corresponding or similar to that made in relation to requirements to provide information to OFCOM by—
(a) section 109 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (offences in connection with information notices), and
(b) section 113 of that Act so far as relating to section 109 (penalties for information offences).
(8) If the regulations make provision under subsection (6)(b) corresponding or similar to provision in relation to which an appeal lies under section 168 of the Online Safety Act 2023, they must make corresponding or similar provision for an appeal.
(9) The regulations may make provision for appeals against other decisions of the regulator.
(10) The regulations may make provision requiring providers of specified internet services to pay fees to the regulator.
(11) The provision which may be made under subsection (10) includes provision corresponding or similar to that made in relation to the payment of fees to OFCOM by or under Part 6 of the Online Safety Act 2023.
(12) The regulations may make provision requiring the regulator to issue guidance to providers of specified internet services to assist them to comply with age verification duties and consent verification duties.
(13) References in this section to an internet service include an internet service provided from outside the United Kingdom—
(a) which has a significant number of United Kingdom users, or
(b) one of the target markets of which (or the only target market of which) is United Kingdom users.
(14) In this section the following terms have the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023—
“internet service” (see section 228 of that Act);
“pornographic content” (see section 236 of that Act);
“provider”, in relation to an internet service of any kind (see section 226 of that Act);
“United Kingdom user” (see section 227 of that Act).
(15) In this section “specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations.”
“(ja) sections “(Online pornography (age and consent verification): duty to review and report), (Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to amend Online Safety Act 2023), (Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to make regulations),””
“(ba) sections “(Online pornography (age and consent verification): duty to review and report), (Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to amend Online Safety Act 2023), (Online pornography (age and consent verification): power to make regulations),””
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 265 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 265A to 265C in lieu with the following amendments to Commons Amendment 265A—
“Pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16
(1) After section 67G of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 insert—
“67H Possession or publication of pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16
(1) It is an offence for a person (P) to be in possession of an image if—
(a) the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63,
(b) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person (A) engaged in sexual activity with another person (B),
(c) a reasonable person looking at the image would think that A and B were real, and
(d) a reasonable person—
(i) looking at the image, and
(ii) taking into account any sound or information associated with the image, would think that at least one of A or B was, or was pretending to be, under 16.
(2) It is an offence for a person to publish an image of the kind mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Publishing an image includes giving or making it available to another person by any means.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d)—
(a) the reference to sound or information associated with the image is—
(i) when subsection (1)(d) applies for the purpose of an offence under subsection (1), to sound, or information, associated with the image that is in P’s possession, and
(ii) when subsection (1)(d) applies for the purpose of an offence under subsection (2), to sound, or information, associated with the image that the person in subsection (2) publishes with the image, and
(b) a person is not to be taken as pretending to be under 16 if it is fanciful that they are actually under 16 in the way pretended.
(5) In this section “image” has the same meaning as in section 63.
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to excluded images, within the meaning of section 64.
(7) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
67I Defences to offences under section 67H
(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 67H(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The matters are—
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 67H(1);
(c) that the person—
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time;
(d) that—
(i) the person directly participated in the act portrayed as person A or person B mentioned in section 67H(1)(b),
(ii) the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and
(iii) neither A nor B was under 16.
(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 67H(2), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (4).
(4) The matters are—
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for publishing the image concerned to the persons to whom they published it;
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 67H(1);
(c) that—
(i) the person directly participated in the act portrayed as person A or person B mentioned in section 67H(1)(b),
(ii) the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person,
(iii) neither A nor B was under 16, and
(iv) the person only published the image to person B or A (as the case may be).
(5) In this section “non-consensual harm” has the same meaning as in section 66.
67J Penalties for offences under section 67H
(1) A person who commits an offence under section 67H(1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine (or both).
(2) A person who commits an offence under section 67H(2) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).”
(2) In section 68 of that Act (special rules relating to providers of information society services), after “67E” insert “and 67H”.
(3) In Schedule 14 to that Act (special rules relating to providers of information society services), in paragraphs 3(1), 4(2) and 5(1) after “67E” insert “or 67H”.
(4) In Schedule 34A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (child sex offences for the purposes of section 327A), after paragraph 13ZB insert—
“13ZC An offence under section 67H of that Act (possession or publication of pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16) in relation to an image showing a person under 18.”
(5) In Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 (priority offences), in paragraph 29 after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) section 67H (possession or publication of pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16).””
“(ja) section (Pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16)(5);”
(1A) The conditions are—
(a) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person (A) engaged in sexual activity with another person (B),
(b) A and B are real, and
(c) at least one of A or B is, or is pretending to be, under 16.
(1B) A person is not to be taken as pretending to be under 16 if it is fanciful that they are actually under 16 in the way pretended.”
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 311, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 311A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion N, I will also speak to Motions S, T, U and X. Amendment 311, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, seeks to introduce a proscription regime for extreme criminal protest groups. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the amendment with the noble Lord—before Report, during Report formally and informally since then. I understand the concerns that led to the adoption of Amendment 311. However, it remains the case that the Government cannot support this amendment.
The amendment aims to minimise the risk of Palestine Action-style sign holders being arrested to challenge a proscription decision. I want to inform the House of the views of Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who has noted that supporters will still seek arrest to challenge the regime and the same disproportionality arguments would arise because the new offences closely mirror—and in some respects, go beyond—those under terrorism legislation.
There is a broader risk, which again I have shared with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, privately, and which has been identified by the independent reviewer, that the proscription regime is undermined by the proposal and the threshold for proscription will naturally increase if there is an alternative designation available. The Government may be pressured not to proscribe terrorist organisations and instead pursue a less forceful and less effective measure.
The designation test set out in the amendment is unclear, particularly the concept of serious harm to the rights of others, which sadly, I fear, will create uncertainty for the police, for prosecutors and for the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, KC, as the House will know, is currently undertaking a review of public order and hate crime legislation. I fully expect him to report to the House and to Parliament as a whole in May. It would be appropriate to wait for the outcome of that review before committing to any further legislation. I hope that, with those comments, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, will not wish to pursue his amendment.
Turning to Motion S and Amendment 342, I agree with the sentiments in our earlier debates expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. Multi-agency engagement is essential to the success of youth diversion orders in practice. However, I would argue to her—and she is at liberty to accept it or not—that this has already been reflected in current drafting of the legislation. There is a duty on the police under Clause 174 of the Bill to consult youth offending teams in England and Wales, or their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the respondent is under the age of 18.
I want to emphasise that youth offending teams are necessarily multi-agency in nature and include representation from probation, local council social services, health, education and others. This means that the police will already need to ensure there is a wide range of expertise considered at the start of any process.
The department is also currently drafting statutory guidance, which will support the police in applying for youth diversion orders and management of the orders when in place. This will include guidance for police on the consultation process, and consideration of alternative interventions before the police can even apply for an order. The guidance will be laid before Parliament in due course. I have explained to the noble Baroness that, unusually for statutory guidance, in this instance we have provided that the guidance is subject to scrutiny by both Houses through the negative resolution procedure. That is an abnormal procedure for the type of activity before the House today. Further, the legislation dictates that the police must consider the necessity and proportionality of the order and the measures within it on a case-by-case basis, and this would need to include consideration of alternative options.
However, given the concerns in Committee and on Report, the Commons has agreed Amendment 342A in lieu. This amendment will clarify that the statutory guidance may include guidance about matters to be taken into account by the police prior to making an application for a youth diversion order, including, crucially, consideration of alternative interventions and guidance on their duty to consult partners under Clause 174, including youth justice services. I know there has been a bit of debate on this outside the Chamber and in my discussions with the noble Baroness. To be clear, the guidance in this case will use “may”, but that reflects usual practice. I hope that the amendment in lieu offers sufficient assurance and that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, knows that the spirit of the original amendment has been met. It is our intention to address these matters in the guidance, and I hope that will assist her.
I turn to Motion T and Amendment 357 on the glorification of terrorism. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is available to examine this issue. I have had a great opportunity to discuss these matters with her in informal discussions outside the Chamber. I have previously set out that I fully recognise the harm that can be caused by the glorification of terrorism. The offence in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act was designed to prevent terrorist risk by criminalising statements that could lead to individuals being encouraged to carry out acts of terrorism themselves. Such statements not only increase the risks to public safety but potentially legitimise terrorist actors if left unchecked.
However, as I set out at on Report and have discussed with the noble Baroness outside the Chamber, the offence of encouraging terrorism is already very wide, and I believe it strikes the right balance between freedom of speech and criminalising statements, which may even increase terrorist risk. Amendment 357 would remove an important safeguard requiring that the glorification be understood to mean that the conduct should be emulated in current circumstances. Put simply, that safeguard aims to prevent the inadvertent criminalisation of statements about historic acts of terrorism, where those statements do not carry the same risk of those acts being repeated nowadays. I pray in aid statements around such high-profile figures as the former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, who may well have had arguments around terrorism activities in the past.
I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has attempted to limit her changes to statements that concern acts of terrorism carried out by proscribed organisations. However, this does not fully mitigate the risk of overreach I have described, and it does not recognise the existence of a separate terrorist offence—the offence of inviting support for a proscribed organisation—which the amendment would arguably overlap with.
Nevertheless, I understand and appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue, so I am proposing to the House that the Government will ask the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to carry out a targeted review of the encouragement offence. As Members of your Lordships’ House will know, the independent reviewer’s role is to review the operation of terrorism legislation in practice, so this commission by the Government will be an opportunity for the reviewer to undertake a detailed review of the use of the encouragement offence in practice and to identify any issues that may warrant further consideration by the Government. As I explained to the noble Baroness in our private discussions, I will of course discuss the terms of reference for that review with the independent reviewer, and I understand that Jonathan Hall KC is ready to meet with the noble Baroness as part of the review, including a prior discussion on the terms of reference for any review. I hope that assists in what is a genuine attempt by the noble Baroness to clarify this issue, and I hope that I have at least attempted to meet that Motion half way.
Lord Walney
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 311.”
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I was disappointed that the Government directed their Members in the Commons to vote down Amendment 311, which would have created a limited power for the Government to designate as an extreme criminal protest group organisations that attempt to influence public policy through a limited number of offences, including criminal damage, without labelling them as terrorists or criminalising simple expressions of support, such as holding up signs.
I am grateful for the time that the Minister has taken to meet me directly on this matter on a number of occasions, as he said. He has characterised the Government’s objections in two areas. The first is the observations made by the Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, which were published on 31 March and the second is the review of public order legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, which he assures me is due to report shortly.
I shall deal with both those issues briefly. Jonathan Hall makes important points that we should all reflect on. He summarises his objections as: first, that the power potentially overlaps with terrorism proscription, but the relationship is unclear; secondly, that the existence of the new power will be used to undermine terrorist proscription; and, thirdly, that it is doubtful whether new offences are suitable for groups operating below the national security threshold. I shall take these three objections in turn.
On the first point, if that is a genuine concern to the point that the Government believe that there is genuine potential for a proscribed group to be able legally to contest the proportionality of a full terrorism proscription because of the existence of a lower form of designation, then it is surely within the Government’s power to insist that the one does not preclude the other. That is a safeguard that could be put into legislation that the Government bring forward.
On the second point—the idea that this will be used to undermine terrorist proscription—it is important to make the point that we are dealing with a narrow and quite unusual form of proscription here that uses the part of the definition of terrorism that relates to economic damage. A group that is to be designated as terrorist because it used violent methods to target individuals or groups to kill has never been under the scope of this extreme criminal protest group designation. We are dealing with the relatively narrow issue of a group that uses methods such as Palestine Action has used, where there has been a level of violence that the Government have asserted as part of its proscription, but it is undoubted that the main part of what it has done has been intimidation and attempts to influence public policy through criminal damage. Jonathan Hall suggests that, if you move the goalposts, these groups would find new ways to break the law proportionately; even if that were not holding up signs, they would find a new way to do that. That is, of course, a possibility. We could never devise legislation that could guarantee against people performatively trying to clog up the court system in the way that is happening at the moment with the Palestine Action protesters. The key point here is that, while there will always be a hard core of people who are determined to contest this, what has made Palestine Action’s terrorist proscription so controversial is not that people agree with what it is doing but the fact of labelling it as terrorism.
I agreed with the proscription of Palestine Action, which I know is not universal in the House. I hope that the Government’s appeal against the High Court judgment is successful. Nevertheless, it cannot be seen as good public policy and it cannot be seen that this framework is working if the Government took five years to reach the judgment that the sustained campaign of criminal damage and vandalism that was carried out by Palestine Action reached the terrorism threshold. This measure would enable faster action to deal with that. I know that the Minister will not say that the Government would be deterred from designating another group that eventually reached the terrorism threshold primarily through criminal damage. They will not admit that, but I suggest that they would be highly wary of repeating this with the next Palestine Action group because of the level of controversy that this has generated. Therefore, there is a gap in the legislative framework that is not being filled.
That leads to the third point, where Jonathan Hall says that he contests whether the powers are appropriate, given that they are relatively severe. They are significantly less severe than terrorist proscription but still relatively severe. I respectfully disagree with him on that point. I hope that he, and the Government, will reflect, given the nature and severity of the problem of extreme protest groups using criminal damage in a systematic way, which is causing huge amounts of economic damage and damage to the public realm.
That ties into the second of the Government’s objections, which is, as the Minister has stated a number of times and again today, my noble friend Lord Macdonald’s upcoming review. We are all looking forward to that, and I hope that I am able to persuade my noble friend Lord Macdonald of the merits of this, but the fact is that the Government have acted ahead of this review in other areas and could do so now. There is a need to do so now, rather than to wait for when the next legislative opportunity comes along, which may be years down the track.
There is a growing epidemic of these tactics being used to frighten the public and try to deter businesses from carrying out legitimate, lawful activity. I had a meeting with a major insurance supplier yesterday, which does not want at this point to be public because of the fear of further reprisals. It spelled out that because of being tangential—at one, two or three removes from—to a defence company that may have some relationship with Israel’s conflict in Gaza, though that is highly debatable, it is repeatedly attacked. Its windows are being smashed, red paint is being daubed over its offices and its employees are frightened to go to work. It is spending literally millions of pounds per year on preventive measures and the clean-up operations. That is one single insurer, and this is spreading. It is completely unacceptable that the defence industry is being subjected to this, but it is spreading far beyond the defence industry into the insurance and financial sectors, and other sectors.
The framework we have is not adequate to deal with this. It would not be disproportionate to put in place this limited measure to be able to restrict the activities of such organisations and send a message of greater deterrence, to protect businesses, workers and the public from this sustained intimidation. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Motion S1 is in my name. On Report, your Lordships supported Amendment 342 for one overriding reason: to make sure that the tragic failures of the past are not built into future law.
Three days ago, the Fulford report into the Southport tragedy was published. I had hoped that it might lead to a change of heart by the Government, but, regrettably, it has not. Fulford’s findings are stark: the tragedy was not caused by a lack of powers but by systemic failure. Risk information was mishandled, lost or watered down as it passed between agencies. No one was responsible for pulling the full picture together. Referrals went unanswered. Officers often acted without knowing what help or interventions were available, and some decisions were taken outside the bounds of what could reasonably be expected because the system had failed them.
These failures cost lives. Fulford makes it clear that, unless the way agencies share and account for risk is strengthened, such failures will happen again. These were not one-off mistakes; they were the result of weak information management and an absence of co-ordinated leadership. The danger was not properly recognised because no one joined up the information and acted upon it. That is precisely the gap which my amendment is designed to close.
The Government tell us that this should be left to guidance. They say that a statutory duty for multi-agency consultation would make the law too rigid and prevent judges exercising discretion. Surely that gets things the wrong way round. Judges can use their discretion properly only if they have had all the relevant information before them. A few minutes ago, the Minister said that the police have a duty to consult, and they do, but that duty is narrow. It is limited to the youth offending team. It leaves out the schools, health professionals and social services who often know the child best. Amendment S1 would not reduce discretion; it would support informed decision-making and, as a result, better public protection.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I will say a few words in relation to Motion N1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on extreme criminal protest groups. The House should be thanking the noble Lord for his enormous efforts and dedication in relation to this important subject over many years.
There is no doubt about the gravity of the mischief that the United Kingdom is facing. There are extreme criminal protest groups and, sadly, people who believe that the way to advance their political views—to which they are perfectly entitled—about Gaza, Israel and other subjects is impermissibly to use violence against people and to smash up property. It is disgraceful, and the law needs to deal with these people powerfully and effectively. It is symptomatic of a malaise in our society: we saw this the other night at Finchley Reform Synagogue, and with the setting fire to ambulances in north-west London. It is all disgraceful, and every effort must be made by the law to ensure that this type of action can be addressed and remedied.
I supported the noble Lord, Lord Walney, in his amendment on Report, which has now been considered by the Commons. However, I understand—and hope it is the case—that he will not be pressing his Motion today to divide the House. I am sure that is right, and it is right for the reasons the Minister gave.
Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has made some powerful points that need to be considered carefully in relation to how we deal with extreme criminal protest groups. We have heard that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, will be reporting next month.
There is also the appeal relating to the proscription of Palestine Action, which will be heard in the Court of Appeal the week after next. I very much hope—it is a matter for the court, of course—that the Court of Appeal will give judgment before the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, issues his report. He will obviously wish to take account of that judgment, as will the Home Office.
It is important to stress that there are two important issues raised by the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walney. The first is whether the law is at its most effective if it requires that, before proscription can occur, a particular body has to be labelled as terrorist. I entirely understand that the actions of Palestine Action have been recognised by the Government to fall within the statutory definition of a terrorist group. The Divisional Court judgment, which has been much criticised, accepts that Palestine Action is indeed a terrorist group. However, there is a real issue here: does it undermine the efficacy of proscription for a body such as Palestine Action to be labelled as terrorist given that, for most people, terrorism has a connotation that many people would not regard as satisfied by a protest group, objectional and damaging though it is? That is something the Home Office needs to give further thought to.
Secondly, the other point which the noble Lord, Lord Walney, emphasised in his Motion—it is a real point—is that the current law does not just proscribe organisations such as Palestine Action; it makes it unlawful for people to stand in a public place and say, “I support Palestine Action”. That has led to hundreds of otherwise law-abiding individuals being arrested, which poses real problems for the administration of justice in this country. It may be better to have a proscription law that does not criminalise the mere expression of support for a body such as Palestine Action, however objectional and unlawful the conduct of that organisation is. Perhaps we should confine the illegality to those who organise such a group, finance it and do more by way of support than simply sitting in a public place saying that they sympathise with that organisation. Those are difficult questions. Jonathan Hall has made some powerful points in relation to them. I am simply saying that I hope the Home Office will give further thought to these matters. I am sure it will.
I thank the Minister because he has laboured hard on this Bill, which covers so many areas. He has responded with sensitivity, tact and courtesy to a wide range of subjects, for which he has all our thanks. He will no doubt be pleased to know that it is absolutely inevitable that these subjects will return to the House. We very much look forward to hearing his further comments under future legislation.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I sincerely apologise to the Minister for not being here for the beginning of his speech. He will be glad to know my athleticism, as I was running down the corridor, allowed for me to be in time for his reference to Motion T, which I will speak to briefly. It deals with the glorification of terrorism. I thank all those who supported the amendment on Report. I believe that, in doing so, we have collectively underlined the importance of dealing with this issue, which is becoming a gateway to extremism and, worse, terrorism.
I thank the Minister in particular for his engagement and that of his officials, and for the constructive way in which they have engaged around the whole issue. As a result, I will not push Motion T1 to a vote today but look forward to engaging in the review that will be put in place after the Bill becomes law. I particularly welcome the opportunity to engage around the review’s terms of reference. I hope it will take the approach of engaging widely to ascertain how a narrative is taking hold in our society here in the UK that it is somehow acceptable to glorify terrorism to effect change, and look at the real damage it can cause to society.
I also hope the review will take note of the fact that there has not been a single prosecution in Northern Ireland, despite the obvious ongoing glorification of terrorism there. I know that the Minister, and many in this House, recognise that this is a growing issue. If there is any doubt that it is very much a real and live issue, a brief glimpse at my social media feeds following Report in this House will confirm this to be the case. One particularly brazen poster said that he wished
“the provos had killed your da when they attacked him. Up the Ra”.
That is a reference to the attempted murder of my father by the IRA in 1979. Of course, that is something that I have become quite resilient to, but it is entirely unacceptable that people can glorify terrorism as a way to make change happen.
Over Easter, when many of us were relaxing with our friends and family, some of those who are content to glorify the actions of the IRA broke into a Church of Ireland Sunday school in a village near to where I live and ransacked it. We know that they were supporters of the IRA because they wrote “Up the Ra” over the 10 commandments. I was pleased to see the local Roman Catholic community condemn that vandalism, but there was complete silence from the political wing of the IRA—in other words, Sinn Féin—and nothing from its local representatives or the self-appointed “First Minister for all”.
As we have said throughout this debate, this is not just a Northern Ireland issue. Here in London, just yesterday, Finchley Reform Synagogue endured what police are calling an antisemitic hate crime, when the shul was attacked in an attempted break-in and firebombing incident. This shul is not only a place of worship for the Jewish community; it also hosts a nursery, a homeless shelter and a safe place for refugees to gather.
Those are two attacks that happened very recently in two different parts of the United Kingdom, in two different faith buildings, both motivated by hate. As Sarah Sackman, the MP for Finchley and Golders Green, said yesterday, we cannot
“allow this to become the ‘new normal’”.
There is a definite need to deal with the glorification of terrorism. It has real consequences for young people being led into extremism and thinking that terrorism is somehow cool and edgy, rather than learning about the fact that it leads to division, pain and hurt, mostly to their neighbours. The radicalisation of children should concern us all in this House.
I thank again all noble Lords who supported the amendment on Report, for highlighting the issue. I thank the Government for responding positively with the announcement of the review led by Jonathan Hall; I look forward to engaging with him. Therefore, I will not move Motion T1.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, throughout, and I continue to do so. I also thank the Minister for the time he has taken to engage on the issue and for recognising that this is a serious and pertinent problem. The glorification of terrorism has real consequences, as we have been hearing. It contributes to the normalisation of extremism, and that in turn makes us all less safe.
I particularly welcome the Minister’s agreement to commission a review by Jonathan Hall KC. He seems to be rather busy and to have a lot on his plate, and I hope that this is a quick look at something. It is important that the review looks at all forms of glorification, including the very significant rise we have seen since 7 October 2023. We saw, for instance, young people in the days after 7 October wearing images of parachutes on their backs, imagery clearly associated with those Hamas terrorists who entered Israel and carried out the brutal attacks on civilians. That kind of conduct is not incidental; it reflects a climate in which acts of terror are being referenced in ways that risk admiration or endorsement.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I follow the noble Baroness by apologising to your Lordships that I was not here for the commencement of the Minister’s speech, but I heard the great majority of what he said, and I was also present for the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Pannick.
I want to emphasise my considerable support for subsection (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 311, which deals directly with the concerns that I expressed in Committee and on Report. I am deeply troubled by the fact that people who are expressing support for Palestine Action in the streets of London are in fact using shorthand simply to protest at what they think is going wrong in Gaza and the West Bank. I do not think that those people should be charged with or arrested for terrorism. The proposed new subsection deals directly with that, and I think it is a very useful way forward. I very much hope that in the review, or if any amendment to the Terrorism Act is brought forward, the provisions of that subsection would be incorporated into any change of law, because that subsection makes it plain that, unless somebody is doing something which is really in furtherance of a criminal offence, they are not to be treated as a terrorist simply for demonstrating.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Before we have any other contributions, I remind your Lordships that there is a very clear rule here, that if one is not present in the Chamber for the beginning of a group it is unacceptable to participate. Apologising and then proceeding is not the way that we do it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, just before we progress, while the noble Lord on the Woolsack is absolutely right in what he has just argued, I have just witnessed three Members of this House not complying with the Companion. While my noble friend was wrong to do what he did, it is not for the noble Lord on the Woolsack to point out failures of procedure—it is for the Government Chief Whip or Deputy Chief Whip, who is present, to do so. If we all start not meeting our own individual responsibilities or discharging them properly, none of us is going to be complying with the Companion.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I feel as though I have entered into a slightly surreal moment there, but I thank noble Lords for that clarification. I speak very briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is trying to do—having opposed it at an earlier stage, which is why I thought it was important to speak. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, were very helpful in outlining what we are confronting and what we face at the present time.
I just raise some queries for the Minister to help me understand. One point that seems to have been made is that, if the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, were accepted, it would mean raising the threshold for proscribing an organisation. That did not make any sense to me because I would hope that, as legislators, we could make the finer distinctions between thresholds. We need some nuance here; otherwise, I fear that we will use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, which is what I fear has happened in relation to Palestine Action, potentially.
The notion of an extreme criminal protest group is a new phenomenon and therefore one that requires new thinking. The intimidation and criminal damage are not spontaneous; they are organised by organisations that proclaim that they are organisations. That needs to be tackled but they are not terrorist organisations. The point about supporting Palestine Action, which I thought the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained very well in terms of holding up a sign, is that we do not want to be soft on who is proscribed, but we have to be careful that we do not undermine what is meant by terrorism by turning to those people who are holding up the sign and treating them as though they are terrorists. That does not help anybody. I have spoken to a lot of young people and I have found that they are now cynical about the label “terrorist” precisely because of those people who are being arrested under an anti-terrorist proscription for holding up a sign. I cannot see that that helps. In the meantime, it does not make any sense for that to be the case, while the IRGC is still not proscribed. That seems completely contradictory.
The damage that this is doing is immense. The insurance example was given by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, but I know that people from Gail’s coffee shops have been specifically targeted. I was told by some young people that if you go to Gail’s, they have got it in for you—they are going to draw a map of Gail’s coffee shops. What has happened here is quite serious. This is very different from going out on a protest in support of Palestine or whatever else. We have to acknowledge that there is a new world with new problems and new legislation is needed.
Just finally, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment. I am not sure entirely what I think about it but, importantly, she drew our attention to the lessons of Southport and the fact that, whatever happens—and as the Minister rightly said yesterday—the Government need to be given time to read the inquiry’s report and decide what to do. I hope that some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised, particularly in relation to how youth diversion orders will be used and the need for different agencies to talk to each other, were very powerful and important. Her comments could at the very least feed into the Government’s discussions in relation to not just learning lessons from Southport but preventing it happening again.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord on the Woolsack about the inadequacy of an apology for late arrival in the Chamber, and I am bound to say it is not something I have ever had to make before, but I was late into the Chamber today and I apologise to the House, after others, that I was late for the start of this group. I will speak briefly, if the House permits. The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, to permit designation—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I stress that the Deputy Speaker made it clear that people who arrive late for the debate are not allowed to speak. I think it is difficult for the noble Lord, having heard the explanation and the discussion, to stand up and speak. I am sorry.
Lord Pannick (CB)
We are a self-governing House. If it is the will of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, speak briefly from the Front Bench, I suggest that we should hear him.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I hope I will be permitted to speak briefly. I have followed the arguments on all these matters throughout these proceedings.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, my understanding of the Companion is that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is correct in what he said: if it wishes, the House can set aside the Companion and hear from a noble Lord, but in that case a Motion has to be put and voted upon.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I do not know whether this is helpful in any way—probably not—but as the proposer of the Motion, I really would appreciate hearing what the noble Lord on the Front Bench has to say on it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, on that basis, unless I am stopped, I will speak briefly.
On the first Motion I was going to address, that of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, we have a great deal of sympathy for his proposal. Indeed, we would go so far as to say that it seems like a good idea. Its principal appeal is that it would permit a step falling short of proscription of an organisation, which would not involve anyone peacefully expressing support for that organisation at a demonstration or a protest being arrested, charged and possibly convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act. In that, I fully agree with the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, does not intend to press his Motion to a vote, and we on these Benches think he is right in that because our reservations remain. We abstained on Report, and our principal reason for doing so was that the amendment leaves in place the present law on proscription and does not oblige the Government to make a designation of a group as an extreme criminal protest group where the existing threshold for proscription is met, so we would be left with the position that the Government would have two alternative designations as options: one with consequences that we consider to be undesirable, far too severe and damaging; and the other with far less serious consequences. We think that risks introducing an element of muddle and a lack of clarity into this very difficult but important area of the law. It is important for civil liberties and the rights of the citizen, and important for the control of terrorism and of public criminal behaviour more generally.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned, we await the decision of the Court of Appeal and any possible appeal to the Supreme Court on the proscription of Palestine Action, and we also await the review of public order law by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. We are not persuaded that it would be sensible now to introduce a compromise that would address a very real difficulty with the Terrorism Act as it stands but would leave the law uncertain. It is better by far, we suggest, to wait and trust that a more comprehensive and credible solution to the difficulties presented by the present law can be found that does not involve leaving the law unamended and available on proscription alongside an alternative system introduced as a partial answer only to the weaknesses of the law as it stands. We applaud the noble Lord, Lord Walney, for the work he has done on this and we think he has a sensible way forward, but it needs further work and we agree that it should not be pressed at this stage.
On Motion S1, I have nothing to add to what was said by my noble friend Lady Doocey, except that these Benches are fully behind everything she said in approving of her Motion.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for returning with her amendment. I understand the Government are offering to include alternative interventions in youth diversion order guidance, but I agree with the noble Baroness that these considerations should be consistently applied to ensure proportionality. We therefore support the original measure.
Motion U1, standing in my name, returns once again to the issue of proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. I am sure that the Minister will once again attempt to use the fact that the last Government did not proscribe the IRGC as a justification for this Government’s position, and I recognise that fact. But the international situation is radically different now from that when we left government. Before this war even started, it was clear that the Iranian regime was ramping up its aggressive activities. At home, it wilfully oversaw the murder of over 40,000 protestors. Overseas, it continued to extend its influence through its backing of terrorist cells. In the UK alone, in 2025, security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots.
This threat has only been exacerbated following the outbreak of war. Just last month, an Iranian man suspected of being a regime spy was arrested for attempting to break into a nuclear naval base in Scotland. We have seen the streets of our capital city filled with regime apologists on so-called Al-Quds day, leading to 12 arrests and countless lost police hours. Proscribing the IRGC would not only give the police more powers to counteract these actions but would send a signal that we do not bow to pressure from oppressive and authoritarian regimes.
I once again anticipate that the response from the Minister will be that this is constantly kept under review—but that is now not good enough. We know what this group is capable of, especially when it has the apparatus of an OPEC state behind it, and now with the current war, we must strengthen our resolve further. The Iranian regime is blocking the Strait of Hormuz, erratically attacking neighbours and, most importantly, influencing—if not sanctioning—potential attacks on British soil.
Quite independently of our national approach to the United States, this Iranian regime is one for which we should have no regard and no tolerance. The Government must now be pragmatic. Their policy must now reflect the international situation—they must undertake this review and proscribe the IRGC. If the Minister still does not agree with this conclusion, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the discussion we have had to date on these matters. As I made clear in my opening remarks—for those who heard them, at least—the Government cannot accept Amendment 311 as drafted. I fully appreciate the work of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, on these issues, but as I have set out to the House already, and as I set out to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in particular, the independent reviewer has made clear his view that this would undermine the existing proscription regime. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also recognised that, and I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this was the position. With the review of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, coming forward, it is right that this amendment not be accepted today. I particularly welcome the recognition of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, of that. That is not to undermine the arguments he has made, but we are where we are at the moment.
On Amendment 359, I stress that both this and previous Governments do not comment on organisations that are being assessed for proscription. As I mentioned in my opening remarks—for those who heard them—we have sanctioned 550 Iranian individuals, including members of the IRGC, so we are holding the Iranian regime to account. We have also put them in the foreign influence registration scheme.
If I may say so, I take objection to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that our not proscribing the IRGC somehow supports the Iranian regime—it does not. I will not accept that we should give a running commentary on proscription. With due respect to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, they have not had intelligence in front of them on these issues from the intelligence services. We are making judgments as a Government, and we are not going to give a running commentary on what and when we proscribe, because that is a very dangerous position to take.
I remind the House—without commenting on the IRGC in particular—that any eventual proscription order on anybody is voted on by both Houses of Parliament, where it can be tested at that time. I am not in a position today to give a running commentary on the possible proscription of the IRGC, nor will I accept in principle the fact that both Opposition Front Benches think it right to do so. That may be their view, but the Government have to take a view on these matters in due course. It is not for us to give a running commentary on those matters. I say that to the House as a whole.
I stress again that I understand and accept the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, put before the House today. We will make it clear in statutory guidance that authorities must consider a range of options and interventions before deciding whether to apply for a youth diversion order. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, also stressed that it was important to do so. I stress to both noble Baronesses that the police are under a duty to consult multi-agency youth offending teams, which comprise health, education, probation and police services. I am happy to share a draft of the guidance with the noble Baroness in due course, but at the moment I cannot accept the amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work on her amendment on glorifying terrorism, and for giving her own personal experiences. It is very difficult to do that, and I understand the circumstances that she and others find themselves in. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on glorification in general. On the incident in Finchley that has been mentioned today, individuals are under arrest and in custody for the alleged offence. We should obviously allow the police to do their job and determine whether charges should be put forward to the CPS for consideration. None the less, that type of incident—whether or not the individuals under arrest are responsible—is simply not acceptable. The Government and others should stand with the community as a whole.
I was pleased to hear and welcomed the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, but I cannot accept the Motions in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I ask—in anticipation and hope rather than aspiration and agreement—that they be content not to press their Motions. In the meantime, I beg to move my Motion N, and I hope the House will agree to it.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their insight on and support for the principle behind this matter, which is that urgent action is needed. In the light of what has been said, I am reluctantly content to withdraw my Motion. In doing so, I will leave the Minister with two thoughts.
First, this will not go away. I hope the Minister will take away the urgent need to deal with this matter and bring forward a solution—this debate has shown that that is possible—in order to address the concerns set out in this Chamber and outside it. Secondly, I hope he will agree to meet with me and others to look in the meantime at an array of protections for the affected businesses, in advance of any legislative change. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 333 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 333A in lieu.
“(5) After section 83 insert—
“83A Power of Secretary of State to change maximum duration of closure orders
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this Chapter so as to alter—
(a) the maximum period that a closure order under section 80 may specify as the period for which access to the premises is prohibited;
(b) the maximum period for which a closure order may be extended under section 82;
(c) the maximum duration of a closure order extended under section 82.
(2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
(3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
(6) In section 182(2) (orders and regulations), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) regulations under section 83A,”.”
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion P. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendmentusb 334, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 334A.
Lord Young of Acton
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 334.”
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I urge noble Lords to support Amendment 334 and declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. The Minister will tell noble Lords that the amendment is unnecessary because the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council have recommended the abolition of the non-crime hate incident regime and the Government have amended the Bill to repeal the statutory NCHI code of practice.
However, we knew all this when we voted for the amendment on Report. The Minister stood where he is about to stand and said all this a few weeks ago. The amendment repealing the code of practice had already sailed through unopposed. He told us what was going to be in the joint report and, lo, that is what is in the joint report. This was all priced in when this House decided to vote for the amendment. Nothing has changed, so there is no reason why any noble Lords should change their minds about supporting it.
I have already set out the case for the amendment, which I remind noble Lords was co-sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a Liberal Democrat, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, a former Metropolitan Police commissioner, so I will not waste your Lordships’ time by repeating those arguments, but I would just like to make a couple of points.
The joint report, while welcome, has left some loose ends, such as: what will become of historic non-crime hate incidents sitting on police databases? Is there a risk that they will be disclosed in enhanced criminal record checks if a person applies for a job as a teacher or carer, as there was under the old regime? I remind noble Lords that one person had a NCHI recorded against his name for whistling the theme tune to “Bob the Builder” every time he saw his neighbour. Another was recorded for someone claiming that a newly elected independent councillor cared more about the people of Gaza than the people in his ward. That comment was recorded as a non-crime hate incident. The joint report had nothing to say about what would become of these historic NCHIs, and there are still tens of thousands, if not more, sitting on police databases.
Our amendment made some very modest demands to deal with this outstanding problem. The first version, which we tabled in Committee, asked for all historic NCHIs to be deleted, but at a meeting between the co-sponsors of the amendment and Sir Andy Marsh, the CEO of the College of Policing—and I am grateful to the Minister for arranging that meeting—we were told that for the police to go through all their databases and delete historic NCHIs would be a huge administrative undertaking and a waste of the police’s time.
We accepted that and revised our amendment. The version before noble Lords and on Report asks only that any NCHIs that the police come across in the course of their work be deleted, and not all of them but just those that do not meet the new, higher recording threshold of the successor regime. It would also ensure that if a member of the public discovered that an NCHI had been recorded against them via a subject access request—I remind noble Lords that members of the public are not always informed when they have NCHIs recorded against their names—and they requested that the NCHIs be deleted, the police acted on that request, provided that the NCHIs in question did not meet the new, higher recording threshold of the successor regime. These are modest demands. The noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Strasburger, and I listened to Sir Andy Marsh, and we came up with what we believe is a reasonable compromise.
The same is true when it comes to disclosure. Originally, our amendment asked the police to stop disclosing non-crimes in enhanced DBS checks altogether. No one, we thought, should be prevented from getting a job because they have committed a non-crime. But Sir Andy Marsh persuaded us that there are some very limited circumstances in which chief constables should disclose information about non-crimes in enhanced DBS checks: things employers should know—a point also made by several noble Lords during the debate in Committee. We accepted that too. So our amendment—the one we voted for on Report and which is before this House today—seeks to limit disclosure only to those historic NCHIs that do not meet the new, higher recording threshold. It is, we think, another reasonable compromise.
We listened to the College of Policing. We listened to noble Lords who expressed reservations about our original amendment. We listened to the Minister when he made valid points in Committee. We listened, and we revised our amendment accordingly. I think the fact that what we were asking for is so modest and so reasonable is why our amendment won a Division in this House. It won not because it attracted any support from Labour or the Lib Dems but because it commanded such wide support among the Cross-Benchers and the non-affiliated, who I believe recognised the reasonableness of what we were asking for.
However, the Government have not listened. They have not tabled an amendment in lieu or offered any concessions in the run-up to this debate. They have just cast our amendment aside and have dismissed the concerns of this House as beneath consideration. They have acted, in a word, unreasonably. I think I now have no choice but to move this amendment again so that the Government will be forced to engage with our concerns and to come back with their own reasonable compromise. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, has set out his reasons for insisting on his Motion Q1, which would delete records that the police hold non-crime hate incidents in certain circumstances which he outlined, even when the police had a concern about the pattern of behaviour and that it might lead to a crime.
I take issue with the comments that the noble Lord has made in that the whole Motion talks only about this very narrow area of what should be held and reviewed. The concerns that we have from these Benches are about the repetition of proposed new subsections (1) and (2), which say that non-crime hate incidents
“must not be recognised as a category of incident by any police authority in the United Kingdom”,
and that:
“No police authority or police officer may record, retain or otherwise process any personal data relating to a NCHI”.
Noble Lords will remember that we were lucky enough to have the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, with us after the College of Policing report was published, and he pointed out that there is a balance between free speech and the targeting of vulnerable people. Other noble Lords spoke movingly about this balance too, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, from her and her family’s own experience. So from these Benches, we were pleased when the Government laid their amendments on Report, which set out that balance between freedom of speech, which must be protected, and threats to vulnerable people. Their proposal to use anti-social behaviour mechanisms to record in the future is understandable and appropriate, and we hope that it will work out well. We will wait and see whether it really works.
We on these Benches believe that the combination of the Government’s amendment that is now in the Bill and the new guidance in the College of Policing report provide the balance that is needed to ensure that there is freedom of speech. However, the police will have the capability under the anti-social behaviour legislation to protect the most vulnerable in our community, especially if they are targeted by someone whose behaviour is escalating and the course of that pattern of behaviour could in itself become a crime such as harassment or, even worse, just progress more severely into an actual crime.
If there was nothing on any records up to the moment that a crime was committed, the police would not have been involved. For many vulnerable people who have harassment and other things going on, waiting that long deters and delays police action. There is a difference between that and passing the information on about the files. I believe that the Government’s amendments have dealt with that. On these grounds, we will not support Motion Q1.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for returning to the important issue of NCHIs. Our position as a party has not changed. With 60,000 annual police hours and a quarter of a million cases recorded, which is over 65 a day, this is the extent to which our police forces are having to go to record non-crimes.
The Government have stated that they are not accepting my noble friend’s amendment, as the College of Policing has now published its review into the instrument, complete with recommendations. I welcome this review and that the Government have accepted its conclusions, but it bears no requirements for action. Similarly, while the statutory code of practice addressing the recording of NCHIs has been revoked, there is little reassurance that this will be replaced by a more satisfactory system. This amendment seeks to commit the Government to necessary action now. This measure needs to be on the statute book. Should my noble friend wish to test the opinion of the House, we will wholly support him.
My Amendment 339B in lieu is a redrafted version of the amendment that I tabled on Report concerning the investigation of police officers for misconduct. I thank the IOPC for its engagement with me concerning this amendment. The version before your Lordships now is a more comprehensive drafting, but the underlying point remains the same. Where police officers are acquitted of criminal charges, all misconduct proceedings concerning that specific offence should be dropped.
I want to be clear about how this amendment would operate in practice. It would not mean that acquittal would shield an officer from any potential misconduct proceedings. For example, if the police officer was acquitted of manslaughter, he could still be liable for misconduct proceedings if due process was not followed on a related procedural matter such as filling in correct paperwork concerning the incident. However, the amendment would mean that the police officer, where he is acquitted of criminal charges concerning the use of force, could not then be subject to misconduct proceedings on that same question. As I said on Report, it is wrong that in the absence of my amendment, police officers can be investigated by the IOPC, referred to the CPS, dragged through the courts, acquitted only then to be reinvestigated. If it is the Minister’s intention to oppose this amendment, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I moved Motion Q at the beginning of the debate but was, I confess, slow out of the blocks. I should have spoken to Motion Q before Motion Q1 was moved, but I was concentrating on the Marshalled List and missed my opportunity. But the principles are the same.
The Government cannot support Motion Q1 but will support Motion Q, because there has been careful consideration on the recording of non-crime hate incidents since Report. I have appreciated the opportunity to engage formally and informally with the noble Lord. However, he will know that since your Lordships’ House last considered this matter on 31 March, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council published their joint review of non-crime hate incidents, a review that was commissioned by the UK Government as well. The review recommended ending the current system and replacing it with a new national standard for incident recording and assessment. Under that approach, non-crime hate incidents would no longer exist as a stand-alone category. Instead, hate-related behaviour short of the criminal threshold would be recorded only where there are clear policing purposes within the established anti-social behaviour framework. The threshold for recording would be higher, more tightly defined and supported by trained police assessment and triage practices.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very relaxed about that, because this side of the House—and I now see the support of Liberal Democrats—are happy to ensure that we have changed the regime, but we are also keeping information that will help safeguard and protect. If the noble Lord wishes to vote against that today and remove it, then it would be on his head if any consequences come from that.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving away. I think the argument he has just made was a bit of a non sequitur. The only thing asked for in this amendment is that any NCHIs that the police come across in the course of their work which would not meet the new higher recording threshold be deleted. If they would meet the new higher recording threshold—if there is a legitimate policing purpose for retaining that information—then that would not be stopped by this amendment. The College of Policing and the joint council have agreed that the old regime is not fit for purpose and the recording threshold was far too low—which is why, as my noble friend said, over 65 a day have been recorded on average over the last 10 years. Given that, why not allow for those NCHIs which do not meet the new higher recording threshold—not all NCHIs, just those—to be deleted?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am not willing to take that risk. It is a matter for noble Lords opposite. We are making a recommended change—we have accepted every recommendation from the College of Policing—but such an approach from the noble Lord risks removing information that may still be relevant. I am not willing to take that risk.
The noble Lord’s amendment also, if I may say so, overstates the impact of non-crime hate incidents on Disclosure and Barring Service checks. Such records do not appear on basic or standard DBS certificates. They can be disclosed only on an enhanced check, and only where a chief officer reasonably considers the information to be relevant, applying statutory Home Office guidance and strict tests of seriousness, relevance and proportionality. Enhanced checks are used solely for the most sensitive roles involving children or vulnerable adults, and there is no evidence of systemic or inappropriate use of non-crime hate incident information in that context.
I pray in aid that the House of Commons has disagreed with the noble Lord’s amendment for clear reasons. Its objectives are being met through the accepted review undertaken by police experts, and a blanket deletion requirement would be potentially harmful, removing information that—I say this again, and slowly—may be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities. Everybody in this House, every noble Lord who walks through a Lobby today to support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, is going to be potentially—I emphasise “potentially”—removing information that may still be relevant to safeguarding vulnerable persons and communities.
I am not willing to do that. I urge noble Lords to recognise the Government’s approach, which has effected and is effecting real change. We have accepted the recommendations of the College of Policing, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who is a member of the Conservative Party and a Peer with that knowledge.
Turning to Motion R and Amendment 339, the Government take police accountability very seriously. We believe it is right to strike a balance between allowing appropriate scrutiny of the police and ensuring that they can carry out their powers. I know that noble Lords opposite agree with that. We made a commitment in the police reform White Paper to commission an independent end-to-end review of the police accountability system. We will confirm who will lead this review and publish the terms of reference very shortly. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that he will have input into that review.
We cannot support Amendment 339 as it stands because it would introduce a blanket presumption that any case involving a police officer that has resulted in an acquittal in the criminal court and subsequently been closed should not be reopened to go forward to misconduct proceedings. Such a blanket presumption would not be appropriate in all cases—for example, in allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers. Anybody in this House today who votes for Motion R1 and the noble Lord’s Amendment 399B will be leaving open the opportunity that allegations of serious wrongdoing, such as sexual offences or corruption by police officers, will be potentially not able to be taken.
We will have honest disagreements in this House, but I say to noble Lords, particularly those opposite—and I am grateful for the support from the Liberal Democrats—that the changes we are making are important and effective. There is a risk in both amending Motions of potential safeguarding issues and compromise for the future, around not being able to look at cases of sexual abuse and others by the police. I am very happy to have a debate about that, but I suggest to my noble friends, and to anybody who wishes to join us, that we vote those Motions down and support Motion Q, in my name.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
On Motion R1, I agree with the Minister, not with my noble friend Lord Davies. It is important to remember—
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We have wound the debate up, and apparently the noble Viscount was not present at the start of the debate. We have had the wind-up by the Minister. We now need to proceed to divide or not divide the House.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
The risk we draw attention to is that information has been recorded against people’s names that the police would not today record under the new regime because they regard it as posing no risk. That is a risk that I and my noble friends are not prepared to take, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 339, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 339A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion R. I beg to move.
Motion R1 (as an amendment to Motion R)
Lord Davies of Gower
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 339B in lieu—
“IOPC investigations where officer acquitted
(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).
(2) In section 13B—
(a) in subsection (1), at end insert—
“but this is subject to the exception in section 13BA.”;
(b) in subsection (2), at beginning, for “The” substitute “Unless the exception in section 13BA applies, the”.
(3) After section 13B, insert—
“13BA No re-investigation on acquittal for the same conduct
(1) Where this section applies, the Director-General may not make a determination under section 13B(2) to re-investigate the complaint, recordable conduct matter or DSI matter.
(2) This section applies where—
(a) the Director-General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be) has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4G) of Schedule 3,
(b) as a result of the determination mentioned in paragraph (a), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and
(c) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.
(3) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply only if—
(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and
(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.
(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);
(b) evidence is compelling if—
(i) it is reliable,
(ii) it is substantial, and
(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (3), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.
(7) In this section—
(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the investigation related;
(b) “relevant authority” means the Director-General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be).”
(4) After paragraph 24C of Schedule 3, insert—
“Investigation where person acquitted in criminal proceedings
24D(1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) an investigation of a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter (“the index investigation”) under paragraphs 16, 18 or 19 has concluded,
(b) the final report has been submitted to the relevant authority under paragraph 22,
(c) the relevant authority has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4F),
(d) as a result of the determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and
(e) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.
(2) In this paragraph—
(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the index investigation related;
(b) “relevant authority” means the Director General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be).
(3) Where this paragraph applies, the relevant authority may not—
(a) initiate a new investigation,
(b) re-open an investigation,
(c) continue an investigation, or
(d) order a re-investigation under paragraph 25,
against the relevant person in relation to the same complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter that was the subject of the index investigation.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply only if—
(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and
(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—
(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);
(b) evidence is compelling if—
(i) it is reliable,
(ii) it is substantial, and
(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person;
(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.
(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.”
(5) In paragraph 25—
(a) after sub-paragraph (4D) insert—
“(4DA) The Director-General may not direct that the complaint be re-investigated under sub-paragraph (4C)(b) if paragraph 24D applies in relation to that investigation.”;
(b) after sub-paragraph (4E) insert—
“(4EA) The local policing body may not make a recommendation to the appropriate authority that the complaint be re-investigated if paragraph 24D applies in relation to the conduct to which the investigation related.”
(6) The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 are amended in accordance with subsections
(7) to (10).
(7) In regulation 23 (referral of case to misconduct proceedings)—
(a) in paragraph (3)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (b), for “(whatever the outcome of those proceedings)”, substitute “and the officer concerned has been found guilty”;
(ii) before second “regulation” insert “regulation 23A,”;
(b) in paragraph (9), after “10(3)” insert “and regulation 23A”.
(8) After regulation 23, insert—
“Prohibition on misconduct proceedings where officer has been acquitted
23A.—(1) This regulation applies where—
(a) the appropriate authority has made a determination that misconduct proceedings should be brought against the officer concerned under regulation 23(1)(b), (2)(c) or (3),
(b) the misconduct proceedings have been suspended by virtue of regulation 10(3),
(c) any criminal proceedings have concluded, and
(d) the officer concerned has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.
(2) This regulation also applies where—
(a) the Director General has given the appropriate authority a direction to bring misconduct proceedings against a person under paragraph 23(5A)(e) of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act,
(b) the appropriate authority has brought misconduct proceedings against the officer concerned in compliance with the direction mentioned in sub-paragraph (a),
(c) those misconduct proceedings have been suspended by virtue of regulation 10(3),
(d) any criminal proceedings have concluded, and
(e) the officer concerned has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.
(3) Where this regulation applies—
(a) regulations 23(3) and (9) do not apply,
(b) the Director General must withdraw the direction to the appropriate authority to bring misconduct proceedings against the officer concerned, and
(c) the appropriate authority must direct that the misconduct proceedings be withdrawn.
(4) The Director General must withdraw the direction to bring misconduct proceedings under paragraph (3)(b) as soon as the Director General receives notification that the officer concerned has been acquitted in any criminal proceedings.
(5) The appropriate authority must terminate the misconduct proceedings under paragraph (3)(c) as soon as the Director General receives notification that the officer concerned has been acquitted in any criminal proceedings.
(6) Paragraph (3) does not apply only if—
(a) the appropriate authority or the Director General has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and
(b) the appropriate authority or the Director General is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.
(7) In paragraph (6)—
(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);
(b) evidence is compelling if—
(i) it is reliable,
(ii) it is substantial, and
(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person;
(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (7)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.
(9) For the purposes of paragraph (6), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.”
(9) In regulation 49 (referral of case to accelerated misconduct hearing)—
(a) in paragraph (3)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (b), omit “(whatever the outcome)”,
(ii) after “determination,” insert “subject to regulation 49A”;
(b) in paragraph (4), after “10(3)”, insert “and 49A”.
(10) After regulation 49, insert—
“Prohibition on referral of case to accelerated hearing where officer acquitted
49A.—(1) This regulation applies where—
(a) the appropriate authority has made a determination that is within paragraph (2),
(b) the appropriate authority has referred the case to an accelerated misconduct hearing under regulation 49(4) or (7),
(c) the accelerated misconduct hearing has been suspended by virtue of regulation 10(3),
(d) any criminal proceedings have concluded, and
(e) the officer concerned in those criminal proceedings has been acquitted.
(2) A determination is within this paragraph if—
(a) it is a determination that the special conditions are satisfied under regulation 49(1), or
(b) it is a further determination that the special conditions are satisfied under regulation 49(3).
(3) Where this regulation applies—
(a) regulations 49(3) and (7) do not apply, and
(b) the appropriate authority must withdraw the referral of the case to accelerated misconduct proceedings.
(4) Paragraph (3) does not apply only if—
(a) the appropriate authority has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and
(b) the appropriate authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.
(5) In paragraph (4)—
(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);
(b) evidence is compelling if—
(i) it is reliable,
(ii) it is substantial, and
(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person;
(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.
(7) For the purposes of paragraphs (4) to (6), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.”””
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move and test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 342 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 342A in lieu.
“(1A) The guidance may in particular include guidance about—
(a) matters to be taken into account by chief officers of police before making an application for a youth diversion order, including alternatives to making an application;
(b) how chief officers of police are to comply with their duties to consult under section 174.”
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion S, and I beg to move.
Motion S1 (as an amendment to Motion S)
Baroness Doocey
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 342.”
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I move Motion S1, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 357, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 357A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion T and I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 359, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 359A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion U—there is a pattern here—and I beg to move.
Motion U1 (as an amendment to Motion U)
Lord Davies of Gower
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 359.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say about the intelligence that the Government have, but I think the evidence has been very clear, on our news channels, about the terror that the IRGC has caused in its own country. The threat to the UK from the IRGC is evident to all but the Government, it seems, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 360, 368, 369, 370, 371 and 372 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 372A in lieu.
“Section (Power to amend Online Safety Act 2023: AI): duty to make progress report
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 31 December 2026, lay before Parliament a report about the progress that has been made towards making regulations under section 216A of the Online Safety Act 2023 (power to amend Act in relation to illegal AI-generated content).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under that section is laid before Parliament before 31 December 2026.”
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, we return to the extremely important subject of the regulation of chatbots, and I am grateful to all those who have engaged constructively on this issue throughout the Bill’s passage. We all share a determination to keep people, especially children, safe in what is a fast-changing online world. Noble Lords from across the House, but most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to whom I pay tribute, have spoken powerfully about the risks arising from AI chatbot services, particularly for children, and about the pace at which these technologies are being deployed.
On many occasions, the noble Baroness has raised her concerns that there are gaps in the Online Safety Act regarding unregulated AI chatbots. The Government agree with this assessment, which is why we tabled on Report Amendment 367, to which the House has agreed, granting the Government the power to address that gap. The Online Safety Act provides a strong and workable foundation for tackling illegal content online; updating it to bring unregulated chatbots in scope is the most effective way of ensuring that these risks are addressed quickly and effectively. Building on the Act, rather than creating an overlapping and duplicative criminal regime, will be the most effective route to enforcing clear rules. Our power will ensure that all relevant services, including those operating from overseas, have to comply with illegal content duties, and will place them in scope of Ofcom’s considerable enforcement toolkit where they fail to act.
I also recognise the strength of feeling expressed in the House about the need for urgency and appropriate scrutiny. Our Amendment 372A now includes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, no later than 31 December 2026, a report on the progress made towards making regulations with this power. This report will set out what work the Government have undertaken to develop and deploy the regulations. That is a clear and concrete demonstration of the Government’s intention to close this gap—and we will act quickly to do that.
In recognition of the valuable scrutiny that Parliament would provide of these powers, I also confirm that the Government intend to share draft regulations with the relevant Select Committees in both Houses, opposition spokespeople and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in advance of them being laid, for any constructive—and, I hope, positive—comments. These powers will create a much clearer and more effective approach than the criminal offences proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. Creating a new criminal regime would create new legal uncertainty and inconsistent enforcement, and, crucially, it would not apply overseas.
The Government’s concern is that the proposed criminal framework risks being disproportionate, legally uncertain and, in practice, less effective than a clear regulatory approach under the Online Safety Act. It would create uncertainty about what compliance looks like and risk capturing those acting in good faith, while failing to focus enforcement on the most culpable for high risk conduct. Most importantly, criminal offences of this kind would, in practice, be far less effective against overseas services, which is precisely where we see some of the greatest risks. One of the strengths of the Online Safety Act framework is its reach and the regulator’s ability to take action in ways that are designed to be effective across borders.
The Government are putting forward a coherent package to address these risks. We have a clear route to close regulatory gaps and to ensure that unregulated AI services can be brought within scope of the Online Safety Act. We have strong enforcement mechanisms through Ofcom. We have a commitment not only to action but to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny in the exercise of these powers. Strengthening our existing approach will be far preferable to the confusion and delay of creating a new parallel regime. I hope that noble Lords will support Amendment 372A. I beg to move Motion V.
Motion V1 (as an amendment to Motion V)
Baroness Kidron
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 360, 368, 369, 370, 371 and 372.”
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, the supporters of Motion V1 have decided, in the interest of time, not to speak, but they are very keen to indicate that there is passionate support across the House for what I will say now. Also, I have cut my speech very short, so that we can get to the vote.
I am grateful to the Minister and Minister Narayan from the other place for their time last night, but I am disappointed that they agreed to meet only after they had already laid their amendment. At every point during the passage of the Bill, I have tried to get the Government to address the substance of the issues—the presence, right now, of chatbots that are grooming and coercing children, and that parents with a child in crisis have no one to turn to—but I have been met with process, not action. The Government’s amendment in lieu that offers a report by the end of the year to say what they have or have not done is an indication of process not action.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we have heard harrowing evidence in this House on AI chatbots, including the tragic case of Sewell Setzer, a high-achieving child who was captured, coerced and encouraged to commit suicide by a companion chatbot. Today, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, gave another example. She has brought forward essential amendments to tackle this head-on by creating strict offences for supplying chatbots that produce harmful material, outlawing coercive design and holding senior tech executives personally liable. I pay tribute to her campaigning skills and absolute determination to hold these tech companies to account.
The Government’s response is entirely inadequate. They have replaced targeted primary legislation with a sweeping, open-ended Henry VIII power for the Secretary of State to amend the Online Safety Act via secondary legislation at a later date and a statutory duty to write a progress report by December 2026. The progress report will protect absolutely no one today.
Crucially, the Government’s approach focuses exclusively on illegal AI-generated content. It completely omits the harmful but technically non-illegal coercive designs that mimic human relationships and foster emotional dependency in children, and it abandons the principle of senior management liability. We need immediate ex ante risk assessments and clear statutory duties, not delayed reports and the convenience of executive powers. I urge the House to reject the Government’s Motion V and insist on the robust protections drafted by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, by supporting Motion V1.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the Government are clearly very well meaning. They are very strong on discussion but weak on action. It is very sad that they should be so weak, and I strongly support the speeches that have been made so far.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
First of all, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has been an indefatigable campaigner on this issue. I share the objective of trying to ensure that we protect children from chatbots, and I want to be clear that the Government share the House’s objective as a whole. We are aligned on the need to address the harms that arise from AI-generated illegal content. This is a disagreement about the question of what is the most effective and enforceable way in practice. The amendment in lieu reflects the balance the Government wish to bring. Our regulatory approach maintains a coherent approach under the Online Safety Act and reinforces Parliament’s ability to scrutinise delivery. For those reasons, I urge the House to support the amendment in lieu.
I know we are going to have a Division on this, but I hope that whatever the outcome of that Division, we can agree after it that this House is committed to ensuring that we protect children through regulation on chatbots. I hope the noble Baroness will not press her Motion V1, but if she does, I urge my noble friends to vote against it.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, there will indeed be a Division. I am grateful to the Minister for suggesting that he will bring to the House, to the committees and to me personally his regulations. But those regulations do not extend to enforcement or to redress, and they do not give parents and children anywhere to go. I am absolutely willing to work with the Government, but I will give them one more opportunity to work with me on this, and the only way I have is to send these amendments the other place so that they can bring forward plans for real change. For that reason, I ask the House to agree with Motion V1.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 361A to 361E.
“(3) A relevant data controller must delete from relevant official records, so far as reasonably practicable, any details of which they are aware of a conviction, caution, arrest or investigation detailed in subsection (1).
(3A) In subsection (3)—
(a) “relevant data controller” and “relevant official records” have the same meaning as in section 95 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012;
(b) “delete”, in relation to relevant official records prescribed for the purposes of the definition of “delete” in that section, means record with the details of the conviction, caution, arrest or investigation concerned a statement that the details are to be treated as deleted under this section.
(4) Other”
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Levitt has already spoken to Motion W. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 439, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 439A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion X. I beg to move.
Motion X1 (as an amendment to Motion X)
Lord Davies of Gower
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 439.”
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 505, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 505A.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion Y. I beg to move.