House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we start today’s business, I want to make a brief statement about a security matter. I have been informed by the police that a former parliamentary employee was arrested last week under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. The police investigation is ongoing. As the House knows, we do not discuss the details of such issues on the Floor of the House—it is an ongoing criminal investigation. I do not intend to take points of order on the matter, and I will update Members when I am in a position to share more information.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
My Department is providing local authorities with £2.5 billion of capital funding to create mainstream school places. We encourage them to work with planning authorities and housing developers as we build 1.5 million homes to help families on to the housing ladder and to drive growth. Where school roll numbers are falling, we are making use of the extra space by opening Best Start school-based nurseries and special educational needs and disability inclusion bases.
Shaun Davies
Telford is the third fastest growing town in the UK. The Government are investing in my town, and the Secretary of State saw the fruits of that investment during a recent visit. However, teachers and educational staff need us to go further by investing in new school places, bringing a new university campus to the heart of Telford and narrowing the attainment gap of children with SEND and on free school meals. What more will the Government do to invest in fast-growing places such as Telford, and will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss unlocking Telford’s potential?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is a real champion for children and young people in Telford, as I saw when we had a tour of the town, including of the local school-based nursery, of brilliant schools such as the new Thomas Telford primary free school, and of the great further and higher education options. Labour is backing my hon. Friend’s ambition for Telford’s children through accessible and affordable childcare, schools at which every child can achieve and thrive, and the new free breakfast clubs that he opened just last week.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
My constituency has a large and growing Jewish population, but because of Labour’s VAT hike, Immanuel college, a Jewish school in my constituency, announced last week that it was closing. At a time of rising antisemitism, and deep fear among the Jewish community, access to a Jewish education is more important than ever, but that announcement risks depriving many Jewish students in my constituency and the wider area of access to one. What assurances can the Secretary of State give those children and their parents about access to such an education, particularly when local Jewish state schools are enormously oversubscribed?
Bridget Phillipson
I completely agree that there can be no place for antisemitism in our school and colleges, or indeed anywhere in our society. That is why I have asked Sir David Bell to lead an independent review to look at what more we need to do to root out antisemitism from our schools and colleges. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to share any thoughts with Sir David as he takes forward that important work.
On the school that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, I encourage him and the school to work together with the local authority. However, I continue to believe that raising money to invest in our state schools is the right decision.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
This Government are opening thousands of Best Start family hubs and network sites in every part of England, building on our proud legacy of Sure Start, providing families with community and connection, and ensuring that every child is supported to get ready for school. The Conservative party eroded support for families; we are bringing it back.
Perran Moon
Cornwall has a strong network of family hubs, including in Pool and Hayle in my constituency. Although I am sure that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would love for us to forget, it should never be forgotten that the failed austerity adopted by their coalition Government hollowed out such services. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the Best Start in Life initiative, areas with the highest level of social deprivation will be prioritised for funding?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for all that he has done to support family hubs in his constituency and across Cornwall. Yes, we have asked local authorities to ensure that 70% of hubs are in the most deprived areas, so that support gets to the families and communities under the greatest pressure. What a contrast with the Conservatives: on their watch, pressure on families grew while support shrank.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I welcome the Government’s ambitious roll-out of Best Start family hubs, and I am thrilled that Elmhurst family centre in Aylesbury has been selected as Buckinghamshire’s first family hub—something for which I have been proudly campaigning. Will the Minister set out how that programme will make a difference to families in Aylesbury, including on a matter close to my heart, namely the mental health and wellbeing, and the social connection of parents of young kids and their families?
Olivia Bailey
I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything she has done to secure a Best Start family hub in Aylesbury. Family hubs are places where people can drop in, meet other parents and get help without feeling judged, including vital mental health support. They do not just improve outcomes for children; they also create a sense of community for parents.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I welcome the decision to have a Best Start family hub in Kendal West in my constituency, which is a very deprived part of our community. Kendal is the biggest town in our community, but it is only one of 95 parishes in my vast constituency, and many people who live in often quite poor neighbourhoods, from Appleby and Brough to Flookburgh and Grange and all places in between, are nowhere near that centre. Will the Minister think carefully about how to support communities in rural and dispersed areas such as mine so that they have family hubs close to where they live?
Olivia Bailey
I am pleased to hear about the family hub in Kendal West. The hubs that open this month are just the start. We have committed to 1,000 hubs by 2028, and an additional 2,000 network sites within the same time period. The hon. Gentleman’s point about rural communities is important, which is why we are keen to work across the private and voluntary sectors to ensure the maximum possible reach for these services.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Following a 40% drop in apprenticeship starts over the previous decade, we are now seeing them rise for those under 25, and achievement rates are also up. We want an extra 50,000 young people to benefit from apprenticeships. That is why we are introducing new grants for small and medium-sized businesses to take on apprentices, and why we have introduced new foundation apprenticeships.
Lewis Cocking
New figures reveal that 73% of teachers think there is not enough focus on preparing young people for employment while they are still in school. A good apprenticeship can bridge that gap, but the number of starts has fallen for those under 19 in the past year. Will the Minister change course and lead a real change, and shift away from dead-end university degrees to high-quality apprenticeships for every young person across the country who wants one?
Josh MacAlister
I agree with the hon. Member about the need for high-quality careers education in schools. The Labour Government are committed to ensuring that we bring back work experience for every young person, and we will be following the standards set out by other organisations to ensure that we get good-quality careers education and support the Careers and Enterprise Company. We do not need to set up this issue as a debate or a choice between higher education and technical further education. Both need attention, and there has been under-investment and a lack of support for apprenticeships—that we can agree on.
John Cooper
At an awards ceremony in Scotland last month, apprentices said time and again how they were told throughout their school careers that their grades were good enough to go to university, and that they should think again about going into an apprenticeship. Apprenticeships create not just jobs but careers, so what can the Department do to help in Scotland where the Scottish Government have wrecked so much of Scottish education? Can they be prevented from destroying apprenticeships as well?
Josh MacAlister
Education is a devolved matter, so the one thing I can do as a Minister in this Parliament is encourage people to vote for Scottish Labour and for Anas Sarwar to be the First Minister of Scotland. The hon. Member is right to highlight the absolutely shameful record of the Scottish National party on education, not only in its approach to the curriculum, teacher training and standards, but in withdrawing from PISA—the programme for international student assessment. The lack of progress that has been made on education north of the border is shocking. This Government are taking bold steps with SMEs to ensure that we create routes to apprenticeships for 50,000 more young people.
Dr Johnson
On Thursday this week an excellent apprentice in my office will graduate with a first-class degree. Unfortunately, no one will be able to follow in his excellent footsteps, because the Government have withdrawn funding for the chartered management degree apprenticeship. Given the benefits of degree apprenticeships, will the Minister please reconsider?
Josh MacAlister
This Government made changes to the apprenticeship levy and have introduced the growth and skills levy to focus the apprenticeship system where it should be focused. Most Members across the House would agree that with the apprenticeship levy—now the growth and skills levy—we needed originally to create routes for those who were not able to go to university to achieve level 4 and above qualifications. That is where this Government are focusing our attention and we will not apologise for that, because those are the young people who are missing out on opportunities at the moment and need an apprenticeship system that is focused on them.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I recently met a young constituent who is hoping to start a legal apprenticeship. He told me that he has had to research each apprenticeship opportunity himself and, unlike his peers who are applying to university, he is having to apply in the crucial weeks before his A-levels, when he needs to be revising. The Government rejected the Education Committee’s recommendation that information on apprenticeships should be available via UCAS, so that students have a single source of all post-16 and post-18 opportunities, and that the timescale for applications should be aligned with university applications. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to make apprenticeships available to young people on a more equitable basis?
Josh MacAlister
As someone who represents a constituency with one of the highest proportions of young people not going to university and going through apprenticeship or technical routes, I recognise the Chair of the Education Committee’s description of the complexity of the system of applications and the timing issues. I am happy to speak to her and ensure that there is a proper dialogue between the Committee and the Department on that issue.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I appreciate the efforts that Ministers and the Government are making to offer apprenticeships. In coastal towns such as Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate in my constituency, the growth sectors rely heavily on non-graduates, including in clean energy, ports and logistics, creative and cultural industries, nature protection, tourism, and leisure and hospitality, as well as health and social care. Will the Minister outline how “mission coastal” in the Education White Paper could address some of the skills and training gaps that are currently limiting the unleashing of our amazing coastal talent?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. There are a few ways to address this question. Too many of our coastal areas do not have the school standards in place to enable children to make the progress needed to access those opportunities. We need to ensure that there are real routes for young people to get into work opportunities, which is why the new deal that this Government are setting out will give a £2,000 grant for small and medium-sized enterprises taking on 16 to 24-year-olds who are new to work. There will be a new £3,000 youth jobs guarantee for hiring apprentices aged 18 to 24 who have been out of work and on universal credit for six months, and we are fully funding apprenticeship training in SMEs for young people.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Stafford college already delivers an outstanding apprenticeship achievement rate of 77.5%, which is an extraordinary 15% above the national average. Last week, it was announced that it will be one of the four new technical excellence colleges for advanced manufacturing. Its bid was built on its existing brilliant relationships with local employers, such as GE Vernova, Hitachi, Siemens and Moog. However, we know that there is always more to do, so will the Minister set out how the Government will support those extending colleges, such as the Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, and those employers already backing Britain by investing in skills here, so that more apprentices can go through our programmes?
Josh MacAlister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her efforts in campaigning for that technical excellence college. We announced 19 TECs last week, and our package of measures to create another 50,000 apprenticeships for young people will give power to the elbow of institutions such as Stafford college, so that they can continue to make progress.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Apprenticeships should be the building blocks of a stronger economy. That is why the Conservatives are pledging to double the number. If the Minister has done his homework, he will know that any increase in apprenticeship numbers is due to the last-minute rush to do level 7, which this Government cancelled. In fact, if level 7 apprenticeships are stripped out of the figures, apprenticeship vacancies are at their lowest since 2020. With youth unemployment at an all-time high and apprenticeship vacancies at their lowest, it is time for the Minister to come clean: this Government are failing young people, are they not?
Josh MacAlister
The Conservatives’ new deal is funded by cutting opportunities in higher education. The Tory plan—[Interruption.] The Opposition Front Benchers’ proposal—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a question to the Minister, not about what the Opposition might be doing.
Josh MacAlister
I apologise, Mr Speaker.
The proposals we have set out as a Government are all about expanding opportunities so that we get young people out of worklessness and into job opportunities. That is why we have set out a new deal for young people. To put it politely, the shadow Minister’s proposals borrow from a number of the features that we have set out in our plan. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We know that students and graduates have been left facing the sharp end of the cost of living crisis. That is why we are making the system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers by capping interest rates, future-proofing maintenance loans, reintroducing maintenance grants and making care leavers automatically eligible for maximum support. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will share that we are concerned about students affected by providers’ misclassification of weekend courses. As Ministers, we have asked the Student Loans Company to collect any overpayments through normal student finance repayments and pause recoveries of overpaid grants until at least September while we consider the next steps.
Abtisam Mohamed
A recent cost of living survey by Sheffield Hallam students’ union shows that 82% of students are struggling, and many are working more hours at the expense of their studies. Too many are skipping meals and going without essentials, harming their health and their participation in university life. That is compounded by serious financial challenges at our universities, including staff cuts that are putting further pressure on the learning experiences of students. What action is the Minister taking across Government to review and widen financial support for students? Will he meet me to discuss the financial situation at Sheffield Hallam University?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is a vocal champion for higher education and students in her constituency. To help disadvantaged students, we are future-proofing maintenance loans by increasing them by forecast inflation every year. We continue to look for ways to make the student finance system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers overall.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
The number of foreign students claiming fraudulent student loans is at a record high. That is making a mockery of the student finance system and costing the British taxpayer millions of pounds which could otherwise be diverted to support British students. What are the Government doing to reduce this fraudulent practice and fix our broken student loans system?
Josh MacAlister
We take this issue extremely seriously, but the description given by the right hon. and learned Member is of her own legacy in government as a Conservative politician. She is now a Reform politician. Nowhere in her question was an apology for the appalling track record of creating the plan 2 student loans system in the first place and administering it in a way that has led to the results that she describes.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
As the Minister said, on 23 March the Department told universities that weekend courses do not qualify for funding. The Student Loans Company’s own guidance changed only this year, and the issue affected 20,000 students, including those in key professions, such as nurses. The Secretary of State has been taken to court by nine universities, the National Union of Students is demanding that she halt her clawback, and Martin Lewis has said that this is an almighty mess. I heard what the Minister had to say, but I know that this Government always find someone else to blame, so will he confirm that any aggressive debt collection will absolutely be stopped and that payments will not be demanded from innocent students?
Josh MacAlister
I like the hon. Member, but unfortunately his question was written before I gave my earlier answer. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the Tory student loans plan would cost £4 billion and
“would not make an immediate difference to most graduates’ monthly repayments.”
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
Last week we announced an expansion of our supported internships offer to unlock opportunities for more young people with special educational needs and disabilities, so that they can benefit from a seamless transition into the world of work. I have spoken to young people and teachers and heard how transformative supported internships can be for confidence and in supporting children to take those steps into work, and we are determined to get behind the talent of children with SEND.
Jodie Gosling
I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to supporting supported interns and for the announcement of £9 million for non-EHCP—education, health and care plan—pilots. Almost 80% of our brilliant supported interns in Nuneaton go on into paid employment, well above the national average of 5% of young people with learning difficulties. Will the Secretary of State please give us more information about what support will be available to enable our colleges to deliver in line with the SEND White Paper? Also, will she join me at either our brilliant Queen Elizabeth award-winning North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire college, or at George Eliot hospital to see the real impact of supported interns and celebrate their achievements?
Georgia Gould
I am incredibly grateful for the work of my hon. Friend in championing children with special educational needs and disabilities, both before and during her time as a Member of Parliament, and thank her for bringing her expertise to this discussion. I would be delighted to visit and see some of the work of supported internships in practice. As I have set out, we have invested £9 million and are continuing to work with colleges to support inclusion, as well as support into employment.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I have been contacted by a mum in my constituency who is trying to find a supported internship for her son, who has an EHCP. Even with the “Find an apprenticeship” service, parents are left having to research and find suitable options themselves. What further action will the Minister take to ensure young people with SEND are not disadvantaged in accessing supported internships?
Georgia Gould
I welcome the hon. Lady’s question. We want to make it much easier for children with special educational needs and disabilities to find support and access opportunities, and are working closely with colleges to do that. As part of our reforms, we will be delivering new national inclusion standards that set out our expectations, and as I have said, we are investing in broadening supported internships.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Government are opening up access to music, art, drama and—crucially—sport. We want schools to have access to high-quality sports facilities so that children can achieve and thrive. The Department is improving school facilities through guidance and rebuilding programmes, with £2.1 billion of capital funding.
Lloyd Hatton
Budmouth academy has received a record multimillion-pound investment from this Labour Government to rebuild many of the school’s buildings. However, its crumbling outdoor courts—which are home to the South and West Dorset netball league—are currently not included in the rebuild. More than 300 women and girls are part of that league, and of course the courts are also used by students all year round. We desperately want to rebuild the courts, so can the Minister work with us to explore how those courts can be included in the scope of the rebuild?
Georgia Gould
I would like to start by acknowledging the proactive response of the brilliant team at Budmouth academy in response to a recent meningitis case, and I am really pleased to hear how welcome the investment in the school rebuilding programme is at that academy. On top of that investment, the Aspirations Academies Trust has been provisionally allocated investment of over £1.9 million to improve its estates. I would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I hope that schools in South Dorset and—crucially—the Minister will have read the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s “Game On” report, which was published today. It makes the case for increased physical activity in schools and the positive impact it has on a pupil’s ability to learn. However, recent reports suggest that the Government are proposing funding cuts for physical education, so will the Minister please give a very clear commitment today that there will be no reduction in funding for PE in our schools? In fact, I would love to hear from her that there will actually be increased investment in our children’s health, wellbeing and learning through a more active school day.
Georgia Gould
The Government absolutely want to see children engaged in physical activity, and to support that through the school day. We have recently announced funding for school games organisers and will be setting out further information about our new partnership model, which will bring together different partners from across the private, public and voluntary sectors to ensure that children in every community have opportunities.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
This Government are updating the school food standards for the first time in more than a decade to reduce sugar, increase fibre and reduce unhealthy foods. Parents want this, it is crucial for children’s health, and it will drive a transformation in the quality of the food on our children’s plates.
Fleur Anderson
I am pleased that the consultation on school food standards was launched last week. Many constituents have contacted me about the benefits of having more and better vegetarian school meals. Having fewer meals from processed meat is healthier, better for the planet and better value. Does the Minister support updating the guidelines so that the required number of protein-based meals can be met through delicious plant-based options and not just meat and fish?
Olivia Bailey
Our revised standards will ensure that children can enjoy eating nutritious, familiar foods. That includes ensuring that delicious and varied vegetarian options are available every day, including pulses as the main protein three times a week. The consultation closes on 12 June, and I invite Members across the House to encourage their constituents to take part.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I am concerned that we do not serve more British-sourced food in our schools. Indeed, it is estimated that between 20 million and 40 million chickens are imported each year from China. That number has gone up 172% since the general election. What are the Government doing to ensure that our young people are eating British-sourced foods?
Olivia Bailey
I agree with the objective that the hon. Member sets out. That is why we are working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to support our pledge that 50% of all food purchased across the public sector will be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The Department is working with schools to plan ahead and organise appropriately for changing demographics. Falling rolls funding is available to local authorities, and more widely we are looking creatively at how we can turn extra space in schools into an opportunity, including through opening up Best Start school-based nurseries to make childcare more accessible and affordable.
Dame Meg Hillier
Some of my borough’s schools are among the top 1% in the country, but we have a forecast drop of 6.1% for reception and 8.3% for year 7 over the next three years. The picture is poor across London, but Hackney is one of the worst-affected boroughs. Given the patchwork of local schools, with academies, free schools, which fall under the Secretary of State’s remit, and voluntary aided and maintained schools, how will we ensure that the school communities and families work together across our capital and across the country?
Bridget Phillipson
I would be more than happy to discuss further the particular local challenges that my right hon. Friend is experiencing. We are aware of the impact of falling rolls on schools, and we are working with councils, including those in London, to develop a framework to help them manage it. Our aim is to make sure that our schools estate is more resilient and flexible in response to changing local demand, and our Best Start school-based nurseries and new SEND inclusion bases are a great example of that. I know that it is often housing pressures on communities such as hers that cause particular challenges. I am therefore delighted that this Government are investing a record £39 billion to kick-start social and affordable house building, which will make a real difference in Hackney, in London and right across the country.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is true that the effects of the falling birth rate have been felt most so far in places such as Hackney, but it is coming to many more places, and the effect will be felt in a much more magnified way, particularly in small rural schools. Does the Secretary of State accept that the funding formula will have to change away from being so heavily reliant on a per capita amount, so as to support our small rural schools?
Bridget Phillipson
The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that while falling rolls present a particularly pronounced challenge in London, we are seeing the issue right across the country. We will work with the sector to develop a framework for the use of mainstream school space, including pressures such as demographic change, and we intend to publish that in the autumn. I note the point that he makes about small rural schools. We want to make sure that those schools can support their local communities, and we will keep under review all the funding that we operate to ensure that that is a reality.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. One reason for improved academic standards in our schools under the last Government was the ability for good schools to expand and for failing schools to be put under new leadership. How will the Secretary of State ensure that underachieving schools with falling numbers are transformed with new and rigorous leadership, rather than conscripting unwilling parents to send their children to them?
Bridget Phillipson
I do not recognise the characterisation offered by the hon. Gentleman. He will know that through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are making changes that will allow local authorities and local areas to manage school places within their communities better, especially where we are seeing demographic change. Let me add that far too many schools were not serving children well—that was a situation that we inherited—but we are being taking firmer and swifter action to support those schools through our regional improvement for standards and excellence initiative. We cannot wait for late-stage failure before we go in and make change happen. Children and families deserve much more than that, and they deserve much better than the failed approach of the party opposite.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
With falling school rolls in Twickenham, across London and in other parts of the country, school budgets are coming under increasing pressure that is compounded by the underfunding of teachers’ pay rises, breakfast clubs and free school meals. Data from the House of Commons Library predicts a £4.4 billion black hole in funding for teachers’ pay rises alone over the next three years, and there is no way in which “productivity savings” can bridge that gap. Will the Secretary of State commit herself to funding those rises fully, so that headteachers are not forced to cut the number of support staff and extracurricular activities that are so important to children’s education and wellbeing?
Bridget Phillipson
I am pleased that we have been able to give teachers the pay rises that they deserve, because they play an enormous role. We know it is teaching quality that makes the biggest difference to children’s life chances. We are investing record sums in our schools, investing record sums in capital, and ensuring that we have school places.
I disagree with the hon. Lady about our new breakfast clubs, which are being rolled out across the country—more opened just last week—and which are being well received by parents, teachers and heads. I invite her to go and visit one, and see for herself the transformation that it is driving.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We are fixing crumbling schools and colleges, which are a direct consequence of under-investment in our country. Labour is investing £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme, and more than 500 schools are already in the programme, with well over half in delivery. We will select a further 250 by early 2027, and we are also launching a new renewal and retrofit programme to modernise the school estate.
Michelle Scrogham
In January 2023, children at Sacred Heart Catholic primary school in my constituency were forced to evacuate their building after inspectors warned that it could collapse. I am pleased to welcome its headteacher, Simone Beach, to the Public Gallery today, and I know that the whole House will join me in thanking her for her exceptional leadership during three extremely challenging years.
This is one of the starkest examples of the consequences of under-investment in school buildings. I thank the ministerial team for their close engagement over the last 18 months, and for the investment to build a brand-new school which is due to open in September 2027. What further support can be provided as the school’s staff continue to face the financial impact of the evacuation three years later, working across a number of temporary sites?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to Simone, who is sitting in the Gallery. She is a wonderful Cumbrian, and a fantastic example of the excellence of school leaders and headteachers throughout the country. She has stewarded the school through a tumultuous few years, and with our Government support we will ensure that the new school setting is there for children who will need it in the future. Renewing our school estate is a massive challenge for the country: it is not just about building new schools, but about getting ahead of the curve so that we can modernise and retrofit existing school buildings that would otherwise have needed rebuilding altogether in 10 or 20 years’ time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—has been an huge issue here in Britain, but we have some examples back home in Northern Ireland as well. It is important that we share the way in which we address these problems. The Minister is always helpful, and I thank him for that. Will he contact the Education Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that he and the Government can share what they have learnt here with us in Northern Ireland, so that we can address the issue in a similar way?
Josh MacAlister
The RAAC crisis here in England highlighted wider issues with the legacy of the school estate that England is now having to reckon with. I believe that we are now on top of that issue, and the Government are committed to stripping RAAC out of all schools in the years to come and ensuring that we have the school estate that we need. We have learnt a huge amount through that process, and I should be very glad to connect the hon. Member with relevant colleagues in the Department for Education and with Ministers in the Northern Irish Government.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We are undertaking a once-in-a-generation reform of children’s social care, which includes ensuring that children in care are surrounded by enduring, loving relationships close to their communities, their friends and their schools. Creating an extra 10,000 homes in foster care is my top priority as the children’s Minister, and we are now implementing an ambitious action plan to meet that target.
Sally Jameson
I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he outline how he will implement the expansion of foster carers so that more children can stay close to home and in their schools, reducing their vulnerability to sexual exploitation and county lines—something that disproportionately impacts children in residential care? Will he also set out what more he is doing to support foster carers to make sure that they have an independent voice heard in local authorities, but also practical help such as house extensions and modifications, so that they can continue to increase the number of children they support and provide a home to?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that we need to take action on a whole range of fronts to transform our fostering system, so that we can expand it and retain the brilliant foster carers we already have in this country. That is why we are backing the plan with £88 million. We are taking action to bring local authorities together to create new end-to-end fostering hubs with clear targets. That process is currently under way, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the really important action of the Room Makers programme. The Government will fund the extension and expansion of foster carers’ homes so that they can take in more children. That is important, because we are funding a residential care system in this country that is the size it is because we do not have the foster homes that we need.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the Minister accept that if we are to promote fostering credibility, we must move beyond simply running adverts saying that we need more foster carers and ensure that fostering is both financially realistic and backed by strong, reliable support for those who step up to care?
Josh MacAlister
Yes. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight both of those issues. We are expanding and funding the Mockingbird programme so that foster carers can get wider, family network-like support when they undertake this really important role, so that they are not left isolated. We are funding that to expand it across the country. We are also undertaking a piece of research to look at the variation in fostering allowances and fees across the country, and to identify both the variation and the relationship between the amount paid and the retention of carers, to address the exact point that he raises.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
This Labour Government’s record expansion of free childcare is saving working families across the country over £8,000 a year. We have worked closely with early education providers across the sector throughout the roll-out, and I thank them for their tireless work. We are investing over £9 billion in early years entitlements this year, and I am pleased to say that we have seen a huge increase in the number of places that providers have on offer.
Mr Bedford
I recently met several early years providers, who told me that the 30 hours funded childcare scheme is placing real strain on their businesses because the policy does not take into account the setting up time, the packing away time, and the time spent training and dealing with compliance issues with their staff. Combined with the recent national insurance rises, this is threatening the financial viability of these businesses. Will the Minister agree to review the policy’s implementation so that providers, particularly smaller ones that rely on that funding, are kept financially viable and can provide their services to the people who need them?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hard-working staff in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. When the Government say we are prioritising the early years, we mean it. We are investing £9.5 billion this year. Rates have increased more than ever before to reflect inflationary pressures and the increases to the national living wage; we have increased the pass-through rate from local authorities to providers, and we have continued to lift the early years pupil premium. We are determined to give every child the best start in life.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
This Government believe that a collaborative school system is the best way to drive high and rising standards, so that every child can achieve and thrive. In our schools White Paper, we have set out how we plan to support further collaboration while improving accountability to deliver the education our children deserve.
Alison Bennett
There are three schools in my Mid Sussex constituency that were part of the University of Brighton academy trust. Given that serious concerns about financial management at UBAT persisted for years before re-brokerage was triggered, will reforms to the multi-academy trust governance system include early warning systems, so that failing trusts are identified and intervention takes place before reaching the point of failure?
Georgia Gould
I really welcome the hon. Lady’s question. I absolutely agree that we need to spot the early warning signs of financial failure. That is why we are bringing in a new Ofsted inspection framework for multi-academy trusts that will look at other issues, including governance and financial management.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The Secretary of State has made a written statement to the House this morning confirming the timing of the commencement of the higher education free speech complaints scheme and the regulatory conditions. The complaints scheme will be commenced from 1 September this year, and the regulatory powers of the Office for Students from 1 April 2027.
Harriet Cross
I thank the Minister for that update. The scheme is long overdue, but of course it does not go far enough. Let us take, for example, the case of Brodie Mitchell, who was suspended from Royal Holloway for a spat at a freshers fair. Under the new guidelines, he would not be able to complain directly to the Office for Students. Why is that?
Josh MacAlister
The OfS system in place at the moment allows for students to complain about breaches of freedom of speech. The written statement laid this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is all about expanding that coverage to staff, visiting lecturers and other speakers, as well as ensuring we have a system under which the OfS can go back to institutions and hold them to account.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is absolutely right. Whether it is Zionist views, gender critical perspectives, climate scepticism, or challenging the perceived wisdom that diversity is our strength with the need to put terrorism barriers around Christmas markets, there is a clear two-tier approach to free speech on our campuses, and students are the nub of it, which is exactly why the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act gave students the right to go to the Office for Students. Why can academics and visiting speakers complain under this proposal, but not students? It is called the Office for Students, or is the Minister planning to rename it “the office for everybody on campus except students”?
Josh MacAlister
As I have said, at the moment students have a route of redress through the Office for Students. The Government have been focused on pulling together an enforceable regime, and it is welcome that both Labour and Conservative Members, across the House, are supportive of action to protect freedom of speech at our universities.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
It has been a busy month since the last Education questions, so I will give the House a short update on what my Department has done since then to give our children the best start in life. We began opening 200 new Best Start family hubs, building on the proud legacy of Sure Start; we opened 500 new free breakfast clubs to save parents £450 and give children a great start to the day, and announced the next wave of school-based nurseries, as research showed that Labour has halved childcare costs for families; and we scrapped the two-child limit, putting Labour on course to lift a record number of children out of poverty. Labour is boosting family finances and children’s life chances.
Dr Chambers
Last week in my Winchester office, I held a meeting for parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and some were in tears when discussing the fight they have had to get the care to which they are entitled. Can we assure parents that any reforms made to the SEND system—which are much needed—will not cause the absolutely crippling mental health anguish, stress and anxiety that the current system has been causing?
Bridget Phillipson
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said, because I have spoken to so many parents, families and children across the country who have been badly let down by a system that has not put children’s needs first. We are determined to change that through the once-in-a-generation SEND reforms that we are setting out. I am glad to hear that he held an event in his constituency, and I encourage all Members to make sure that parents, educators and others share their views as part of our consultation.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
We are deeply grateful for the service of our armed forces families. I would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend, and I recently met members of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces. We will be bringing forward further admissions reforms shortly.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
We learnt last week that in the tragic Southport case, when the headteacher warned about the killer’s increasing extreme behaviour, the social worker accused the headteacher of racially stereotyping the pupil as
“a black boy with a knife”.
The result was that the warnings were rewritten in many cases. And that was not a one-off. We know it also happened in the Sara Sharif case, where
“race was a bar to reporting possible child abuse”,
and we saw the failure repeatedly with the grooming gangs scandal. Being too scared of causing offence means children are being harmed, so I ask the Secretary of State directly: what concrete action is she taking to stop repeated cases of political correctness overruling the safeguarding of children?
Bridget Phillipson
There is no more important responsibility than making sure our children are kept safe from harm. We will take forward any measures that arise out of the Southport inquiry to ensure we can do everything within our power to keep children safe, whether in school or in the home. We are already taking action to reform children’s social care—we are recruiting more social workers and the numbers are very high at the moment—but it is through our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that we are delivering the single biggest upgrade to child protection legislation in a generation. It should be on the statute book already, but the right hon. Lady and the Conservative party continue to block its progress.
Laura Trott
If the Secretary of State wants to start keeping children safe online, then we will stop our objections—but she is refusing to do that. In another example of so-called progressiveness, local authorities across the country are, unbelievably, trying to stop exclusions when children are bringing knives to school. This is happening right here in London, with Sadiq Khan’s inclusion charter, and in Sheffield, where the policy led to the tragic stabbing of Harvey Willgoose, whose killer had previously brought an axe into school and was not excluded. Will the Secretary of State condemn the spread of anti-exclusion ideology and support schools to exclude when knives are brought on to the school estate?
Bridget Phillipson
School leaders have my full support in taking action on issues such as violence. Of course there should be an expectation—a clear expectation—that action is taken where it applies to cases such as those the right hon. Lady set out, but I would just slightly caution her in talking about some of the details of those cases in the way that she has. We all have a responsibility to ensure we give full and accurate accounts of exactly what has taken place. I look forward to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill allowing us to take further action to keep children safe at home and in their communities—wherever they are. We will not hesitate to act.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 4% of children are diagnosed with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It is totally avoidable, yet it can impact on movement, communication, thinking, concentration and many physiological changes, placing significant demands on the SEND system. Will the Education Secretary work with the Health Secretary to deliver a 1,001 critical days strategy, preventing FASD and rising demand on the SEND system?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that critical issue. It is an area on which we are already working closely with health colleagues, both in our support for families but also in response to children’s SEND needs. We have a meeting later, where we will discuss the matter.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I was deeply alarmed by reports that Labour MPs were being given pre-written feedback to share, following consultation sessions with constituents on the Government’s special needs reforms. The Secretary of State promised to put families at the heart of her changes, so will she assure parents and carers that the SEND consultation is entirely free from political interference and that they will be listened to, especially with regard to their rights?
Bridget Phillipson
I can give the hon. Lady my absolute assurance that, through the consultation we are running at the moment, we want to hear directly from parents, children and those working in education. The first event happened today across the country, and there will be events right across the country and online. I am pleased that Labour Members are speaking to their constituents to understand the changes we want to bring. I would, of course, be happy to discuss any aspect of the reforms with the hon. Lady, because I want to ensure we can build a system that delivers better outcomes for children and that stands the test of time, too.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Our ambitious child poverty strategy puts more money into the pockets of families and working parents. Removing the two-child cap benefits 2,260 children in my constituency, and the Secretary of State is doing much more on top of that, which we are missing out on in Scotland. Does she agree with me that we need a Government in Scotland who are more interested in education than gimmicks?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why people across Scotland should vote for Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour. Last month I was in Scotland hearing directly from parents about the difference that lifting the two-child limit will make—measures that were opposed by the Conservatives, who would plunge hundreds of thousands of children back into poverty. There is so much more that we could do together if we had a Government in Scotland who were as determined to tackle child poverty as this Labour Government are. It is time for change and a new direction in Scotland.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Georgia Gould
We agree that special schools play an incredibly important role in the system by providing vital care for children with complex needs and supporting their wider education. They have an important role in the schools White Paper with regard both to education support and to the outreach they do for mainstream schools. We are proposing the introduction of specialist provision packages precisely in order to end the postcode lottery and create more clarity over what specialist provision should look like.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for visiting St Paul’s primary school in my constituency a few weeks ago to meet the excellent head, Angela Batchelor, and her staff team, where we heard at first hand from parents the importance of the wraparound nursery service and the additional breakfast club. One of the issues raised was SEND, which I know the Secretary of State is really looking at. Can she outline when we will see those changes coming through in order to help the families who are struggling with accessing SEND services from their local authority?
Bridget Phillipson
It was fantastic to visit my hon. Friend and see at first hand the impact of our changes for children and families across her constituency. She is right that our current SEND system just is not working for children or families, and I encourage her constituents to share their thoughts with us through the consultation. However, we are not waiting to drive the change we know is desperately needed; just last week, I announced the first wave of investment in our Experts at Hand programme, which will make a huge difference in ensuring that children can get the specialist support that they need much more quickly.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The Conservatives’ legacy of almost 1 million young people being out of work and education is shameful, but we are cleaning up this mess. I am delighted to share with the House that we are introducing a new deal for young people that includes a £2,000 grant for small to medium-sized enterprises taking on 16 to 24-year-olds to work and a new £3,000 youth job grant for hiring apprentices aged 18 to 24 who have been on universal credit for more than six months. We are the Labour party, which means we are about getting young people into work.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)
Whistleblowers have raised serious concerns with me about the governance of academy trusts in my constituency. I have raised this matter privately with the Secretary of State, but I wonder whether she might arrange for a Minister to meet those whistleblowers so that they can have those concerns taken seriously, as I am seriously concerned myself.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I would, of course, be happy to ensure that a meeting takes place so that that information can be shared and fully considered. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are also bringing forward further accountability when it comes to trusts to ensure that there is an inspection framework around them. Perhaps I could discuss that further with the hon. Gentleman, too.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Georgia Gould
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Member. The new framework has been designed to support the wellbeing of heads and to give a clear and full view of school performance, but I am happy to continue that conversation.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s announcement that there will be eight Best Start family hubs across Bassetlaw—including in Manton, Retford, West Bassetlaw, the Oasis community centre, Hallcroft, Harworth and Bircotes, and Misterton. That is the highest number in the country. Does the Minister agree that this will guarantee an excellent start for hundreds of children across my constituency?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for all she has done for children and families in her constituency. We are determined to ensure that every child gets the best start in life, and that every family gets the community and connection that these hubs will offer.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Josh MacAlister
I was concerned to hear that the school needed to shut last Monday—[Interruption.] Cheering a school closure is no laughing matter. Of course, I am thankful that the children will be back in school on Tuesday. I would be happy to speak to the hon. Member about the situation, but of course it is a legacy of the party of which he used to be a Member.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Experts at Hand service and the £3.7 million that has been given to Cornwall to set it up. We struggle, however, to get occupational therapists, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists in rural and coastal areas. What incentives are there, and what is the Minister doing, to encourage people to come down to Cornwall and work in our services?
Georgia Gould
We were delighted to announce £429 million for new speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and educational psychologists, which will go to communities around the country. We are working closely with colleagues in Health to ensure that there are no cold spots and that every single school and child has access to that essential support.
Security Vetting
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Prime Minister, I wish to make a brief statement. The subject that we are about to discuss is of the utmost seriousness. I expect the discussion to be focused on the facts and the issues at hand, and not on personal attacks against individual Members. Although certain criticisms may be made about the Government collectively, “Erskine May” makes it clear—in paragraph 21.24—that any accusations against individual Members about lying or misleading the House may be made only on a substantive motion; they may not be made as part of an exchange on a statement. The House rule on this is in place to ensure that Members focus on the substantive matters under discussion. If a debate is needed about matters of individual conduct, that must be drawn in the proper terms with notice. I encourage all Members to engage in respectful debate, as our constituents would expect.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States.
Before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with this House that while this statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson’s vetting and appointment, at the heart of this there is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.
Last Tuesday evening, 14 April, I found out for the first time that on 29 January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only that, but the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.
I found this staggering. Therefore, last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority. I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, and who knew. I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating this House, because this is information I should have had a long time ago, and that this House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had a right to know.
I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from the fact-finding exercise that I instructed last Tuesday. Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the Government will comply fully with the Humble Address motion of 4 February.
In December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December. The security vetting process began on 23 December 2024.
I want to make it clear to the House that, for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. This was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, when he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November 2025. Sir Chris made it clear that
“when we are making appointments from outside the civil service…the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post.”
At the same hearing of the same Select Committee, the former permanent secretary to the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, said that Peter Mandelson
“did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.”
After I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that an appointment now cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.
The security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting—UKSV—between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. UKSV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information, as well as interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. Then, on 28 January 2025, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day, 29 January 2025, notwithstanding the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.
To be clear, for many Departments a decision from UKSV is binding, but for the Foreign Office the final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UKSV. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office’s power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week.
I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UKSV. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendations while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.
There is no law that stops civil servants from sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information, to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament. Let me be very clear: the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Let me make a second point: if I had known before Peter Mandelson took up his post that the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.
Let me now move to September 2025, because events then, and subsequently, show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear. On 10 September, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandelson’s history with Epstein. It was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson’s answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that full due diligence is now required as standard. Where risks are identified, an interview must be taken pre-appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest. A summary of that should be provided to the appointing Minister. I also made it clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.
In the light of the revelations in September last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Madelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on 16 September. In that letter, he advised me:
“The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington”.
When the then Cabinet Secretary was asked about that last week, he was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied for Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I set out earlier, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary—an official, not a politician—when carrying out his review could not have been told that UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance. It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly, he could have been told, and he should have been told.
On the same day that the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, 16 September 2025, the Foreign Secretary and the then permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The statement says:
“The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.”
It went on to say:
“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy”.
Let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions that included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office’s response was and whether they were dismissed. That the Foreign Secretary was advised on, and allowed to sign, this statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UKSV had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet Member giving evidence to Parliament on the very issue in question.
In the light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February of this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him. Not knowing that, in fact, UKSV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance, I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. But, as I have set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about UKSV’s denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 2025, I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review of the process, and I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making statements to the Select Committee, again in 2025.
On top of that, the fact that I was also not told, even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process, is frankly staggering. I can tell the House that I have now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review. Separately, I have asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.
I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible. To that, I can only say that they are right. It beggars belief that throughout this whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in our system of government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it is how most public servants think it should work either.
I work with hundreds of civil servants—thousands, even—all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials from the Foreign Office who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world—in Ukraine, the middle east and all around the world. This is not about them, yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions and, therefore, should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. His reputation is at stake, and everyone is watching, so it is finally time for the truth.
Earlier today, Downing Street admitted that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. The Prime Minister has chosen not to repeat that from the Dispatch Box. I remind him that, under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. The Prime Minister says he only found out on Tuesday that Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting. The earliest opportunity to correct the record was Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday, almost a week ago. This is a breach of the ministerial code. Under that code, he is bound to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public in answering questions today, so let me start with what we do know.
We know the Prime Minister personally appointed Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. We know that Mandelson had a close relationship with a convicted paedophile. We know that he had concerning links with Russia and China—links that had already raised red flags. We know that the Prime Minister announced the appointment before vetting was complete—an extraordinary and unprecedented step for the role of US ambassador.
The Prime Minister says that it was “usual” because it was a political appointment, so I remind him, and the rest of the Labour Front Bench who are heckling, that Peter Mandelson was a politician who had been sacked twice from Government for lying. That meant he should have gone through the full security process. We also know that when Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting, he was allowed to continue in the role with access to top secret intelligence and security information. This goes beyond propriety and ethics; this is a matter of national security.
Let me turn to what we do not know. We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandelson failed that vetting. We do not know what risks our country was exposed to. We do not know how it is possible that the Prime Minister said repeatedly that this was a failure of vetting, went on television and said things that were blatantly incorrect, and not a single adviser or official told him that what he was saying was not true. At every turn, with every explanation, the Government story has become murkier and more contradictory. It is time for the truth.
There are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, so I will ask the Prime Minister just six. I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the Prime Minister in advance, so he has them in front of him. I have asked for these questions to be put online for the public. They and I expect him to answer.
The Prime Minister appointed a national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. Let us look at how this happened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told me at PMQs in September 2025 that
“full due process was followed”—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]
in this appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, told him that this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. He did not mention any of what Lord Case said in his statement earlier. First, does the Prime Minister accept that when he said on the Floor of the House that “full due process was followed”, that was not true?
Secondly, on 11 September last year, journalists asked his director of communications if it was true that Mandelson had failed security vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper, and yet No. 10 did not deny the story—why?
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister repeat at the Dispatch Box his words from last week: that no one in No. 10 was aware before Tuesday that Mandelson had failed his vetting?
Fourthly, the Prime Minister says he is furious that he was not told the recommendations of the vetting, yet on 16 September, a Foreign Office Minister told Parliament that
“the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1387.]
That was the Government’s stated process, so why is the Prime Minister so furious that it was followed?
Fifthly, on 4 February 2026, the Prime Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that the security vetting that Mandelson had received had revealed his relationship with Epstein. How could the Prime Minister say that if he had not seen the security vetting?
Finally, Sistema is a Russian defence company that is closely linked to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin’s war machine. Was the Prime Minister aware before the appointment that Peter Mandelson had remained a director of that company long after Russia’s invasion of Crimea?
Everyone makes mistakes. It is how a leader faces up to those mistakes that shows their character. Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the Prime Minister has thrown his staff and his officials under the bus. This is a man who once said,
“I will carry the can for mistakes of any organisation I lead.”
Instead, he has sacked his Cabinet Secretary, he has sacked his director of communications, he has sacked his chief of staff, and he has now sacked the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office. All those people were fired for a decision that he made.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s defence is that he, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, is so lacking in curiosity that he chose to ask no questions about the vetting process, no questions about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and no questions about the security risk that Mandelson posed. Apparently, he did not even speak to Peter Mandelson before his appointment. It does not appear that he asked any questions at all. Why? Because he did not want to know. He had taken the risk and chosen his man, and Whitehall had to follow.
It is the duty of the Prime Minister to ensure that he is telling the truth—or does the ministerial code not apply to him? I am only holding the Prime Minister to the same standard to which he held others. On 26 January 2022, he said from this Dispatch Box to a previous Prime Minister:
“If he misled Parliament, he must resign.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 994.]
Does he stand by those words, or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else?
The Prime Minister
Let me respond to those points. First, when I found out what had happened on Tuesday evening last, I wanted to have answers to the questions of who had made the decision to give clearance on developed vetting contrary to the advice, why that was done, and who knew about it, so that I could provide the information to the House. That is the exercise that has been conducted since Tuesday evening, so that I could come here today to give the full account to the House, which I have just set out.
The right hon. Lady asks me about developed vetting security clearance after the appointment. What I set out was not my words; I read out the evidence of the former permanent secretary and the former Cabinet Secretary in relation to that. I think the quotes that I have given the House are clear enough.
The right hon. Lady asks why Peter Mandelson failed. It is important to make a distinction between the information provided to the review and the recommendation. The information in the review must be, and has been, protected—otherwise, the integrity of the entire system would fall away—but the recommendation does not have to be, and should not have been, protected.
In relation to the answer about full due process, that was the information that I had and which I put before the House, and it was confirmed to me by Sir Chris Wormald. In September, I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me that the process was correctly carried out. He did that and wrote to me on 16 September to give me his conclusions. In relation to reports in the media, No. 10 was repeatedly asked about the facts surrounding Peter Mandelson’s clearance, and was assured that the proper process was followed in that case.
In relation to those in No. 10, let me give the answer. Nobody in No. 10 was informed about UKSV’s recommendation. To be clear, and for the record, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary received information recently, and then sought the necessary and legal advice. Once those checks were completed by the Cabinet Office permanent secretary, I was told. That is in the last two weeks or so, and that was entirely the right procedure—to get the legal advice, and then to bring it to my attention at the first opportunity. The right procedure was followed by my officials in the last few weeks.
In relation to why I was furious about the process, it was for the very reason that I strongly believe I should have been given this information at the very outset. I strongly believe there were repeated times when I should have been told. I should have been told on appointment, and I should have been told when Peter Mandelson was sacked. The Cabinet Secretary should have been told when he reviewed the process. The Foreign Secretary should have been told before she was asked to sign a statement to the Select Committee, and I should have been told when I ordered a review of vetting.
In relation to the point that the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) makes about what I said in February, in answer to a question of hers, I make it very clear that I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that UKSV—[Interruption.] The question asked was about vetting. I knew about the due diligence, which is why I put before the House what I knew about the due diligence in relation to Epstein. I told the House what the due diligence had said. I did not tell it what security vetting had said, because I had not seen the file in relation to that. As for the particular details on Peter Mandelson, I acted on all the information I had available to me. The simple fact of the matter is that I should have had more information; I did not have that information. The House should have had that information, and I have now set it out in full to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Dame Emily Thornberry.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The truth is that my Committee did ask. We asked on the record, and we got a partial truth that could hardly be the whole truth. We are on record as asking the very questions that hecklers on the Opposition Benches say should have been asked. The answers are there, on the record; people can see what we got when we did ask.
A month before Mandelson’s appointment was announced, the then Cabinet Secretary advised that the necessary security clearance should be acquired before a political appointment was confirmed. That does not seem to have been the usual practice. I am glad that it has changed, because the process was clearly abused. Someone—probably Peter Mandelson himself—leaked his appointment as US ambassador to the press, which effectively bounced the Government into confirming it. When the confirmation of his appointment came forward, neither the offer letter to Peter Mandelson nor the Government’s press release made it clear that the appointment was subject to vetting. Does it not look as though, for certain members of the Prime Minister’s team, getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else, and security considerations were very much second order?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Her Committee did ask relevant questions, and that is why I have indicated that it was unforgivable that the Foreign Secretary was asked to sign a statement in response to those very questions without being told about the recommendation. The questions were asked; the Foreign Secretary was advised and asked to sign a statement without being told the relevant information. That is unforgivable. As for the appointment before developed vetting, I have changed that process now, so that it can never happen again; my right hon. Friend the Committee Chair heard me quote the evidence of the former Cabinet Secretary and the former permanent secretary in relation to that.
Let me deal with my right hon. Friend’s third point, which is that somehow Downing Street’s wish to appoint Peter Mandelson overrode security concerns—[Interruption.] No, Mr Speaker, let me be very clear: if I had been told that Peter Mandelson, or anybody else, had failed or not been given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed them. A deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me. This was not a lack of asking; this was not an oversight—[Interruption.] It was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is 2022 all over again. Back then, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, and when it was Boris Johnson who was accused of misleading Parliament and scapegoating senior officials, the then Leader of the Opposition could not have been clearer; he said:
“The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 298.]
He promised “change”. He promised to
“break this cycle and stop the chaos.”
He promised a Government with
“more focus on long-term strategy, not the short-term distractions that can animate Westminster.”
I am afraid that the fact that he has even had to make a statement today shows how badly he has failed—how badly he has let down the millions of people across our country who are so desperate for change.
The Prime Minister blames his officials. He says that he had “no idea”. He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power. The facts remain, even by his own account, that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson had been vetted, despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role. One of his top officials, just three weeks into the job, clearly believed that the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson to be appointed regardless of what the vetting process turned up. The Prime Minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions, so why did he ask so few questions personally about the vetting process?
We all know the truth: the Prime Minister knew that appointing Mandelson was an enormous risk, but he decided that it was a risk worth taking—a catastrophic error of judgment. Now that has blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is take responsibility. Back in 2022, the Prime Minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of expecting others to take the blame while he clung on. That was not acceptable then, and it is not acceptable now. I hope that the Prime Minister can at least tell the House this. We will be listening very carefully to his answer. Was he given advice by Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be acquired before he confirmed his choice for US ambassador? Did the Prime Minister follow that advice—yes or no?
After years of chaos under the Conservatives, we needed a Government focused on the interests of the people—the cost of living crisis, the health and care crisis, and our national security. We needed a Government with honesty, integrity and accountability. Will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way that he can help to deliver that is by resigning?
The Prime Minister
I set out in my statement the full facts. In September, when the Bloomberg emails came to light, I asked the then Cabinet Secretary to review the process. He told me that the process was as it should have been, and as soon as the information about the security vetting came to light last Tuesday, I asked for the facts to be established, so that I could update Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the announcement before developed vetting. He has heard the evidence that I have given to the House from the former Cabinet Secretary and from the former permanent secretary. In relation to the advice from Simon Case, when I asked the former Cabinet Secretary to review the process after September 2025, he specifically addressed whether the process had been followed by referencing the Simon Case letter, and assured me that the process was the right process to have followed. In answer to his question, that was specifically looked at by Sir Chris Wormald in the review that was conducted in September last year.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Prime Minister has gone on at considerable length about process and procedure, but ordinary people do not really care about process and procedure; they want transparency, and they want to know that they can have confidence in the words of elected politicians like all of us in this Chamber.
It was in the ’90s that Peter Mandelson had to resign from the Cabinet for the first time, because of his dealings with the millionaire Geoffrey Robinson. A few years later, he had to resign from the Cabinet for the second time, because of his relationships with the billionaire Hinduja family. Peter Mandelson has a history. Knowing that history, which goes back 30 years, and given what is known, it is one thing to say, as the Prime Minister insists on saying, “Nobody told me; nobody told me anything,” but what this House wants to know is: why did the Prime Minister not ask?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the right hon. Lady’s question, let me be clear: I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. As soon as the further revelations came to light, I did ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the process, so that I could be assured about the process. He wrote to me on 16 September, setting out the conclusions of that review, and assuring me that the process had been followed properly.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Prime Minister has spoken about process, the reviews, and trying to put that which went wrong right. That is to be supported, but he is asking the House and the country to believe that notwithstanding a front-page media splash saying that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process, there was nobody in No. 10 or in any Government Department who even thought to say, “Is there any truth in this? Could I have a briefing on that? We need to knock this story down.” If nobody asked, that is the shameful thing; does it not say to the Prime Minister that the operation of his Government, which seems to be, “Process, strategy, review, never my fault,” is not sustainable, or welcomed by the country at large?
The Prime Minister
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was repeatedly asked, in the light of inquiries. The same answer came back, because a clear decision had been taken that this information was not going to be disclosed—and it was not disclosed to me, let alone anybody else. So, yes, repeatedly the FCDO was asked, and the same answer came back as the answer given to me—that the decision was that I was not to know and nobody else was to know. That was wrong.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Many on the Labour Benches, at least, will appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend’s apology today, but many of us remain bewildered about why the appointment took place, despite the warnings that many of us gave him. Is not the reality this? When he sought to realise his ambition to become leader of the Labour party, with very little base within the party, he became dependent on McSweeney, Mandelson and Labour Together to organise and fund his election. When he became the Prime Minister, the reward for McSweeney was control of No. 10, and the reward for Mandelson was the highest diplomatic office. The unspoken message to civil servants was, “What Mandelson wants, Mandelson gets.” This has damaged the party that I have been a member of for 50 years. I urge the Prime Minister to take steps to clear this toxic culture out of our party, and to take the first step by having an independent inquiry into Labour Together.
The Prime Minister
Let me deal with what is at the heart of that question, in relation to an unspoken message to civil servants. I do not accept that. It is simply not good enough, on a question of national security where the recommendation is that clearance be denied, for anyone, particularly senior civil servants, to do anything other than provide me with the relevant information. That is what should have happened in this case.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Prime Minister has been very clear about his view of the urgency of his response since he learned of this vetting information, so I want to ask him about the events of last week. He will know that the Intelligence and Security Committee asked for any information relevant to vetting to be supplied to it in the first tranche of information we were to consider. We did not receive anything about vetting at that time.
The Prime Minister has now told us that he became aware on Tuesday evening of the information he has set out, but the Intelligence and Security Committee was not told about the existence of that information—information that the Prime Minister must have recognised was within the terms of the Humble Address and would need to be supplied to the ISC. We were not told by his officials about the existence of that information until Thursday, after its existence had been published in The Guardian newspaper. As such, I am bound to ask the Prime Minister this: if that information’s existence had not been disclosed by the press, would we have been told about it? If so, why did the ISC have to learn of its existence from The Guardian and not from the Government?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question. The answer is yes, it would have been provided to the Committee, and as I think he acknowledged, it has now been provided to the Committee. The reason for the delay is that on Tuesday night, I found out simply that the recommendation had been made to deny clearance, and yet clearance had been given. I wanted to understand who gave that clearance, on what basis and who knew about it, so that I could update the House and obviously make the information available to the Committee. That is what I asked on Tuesday night my officials to do urgently, so that the full picture could be put before both the House and the Committee, and I will make sure that the full picture is put before the Committee.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are rightly appalled that someone who betrayed not just our country but every single victim of Jeffrey Epstein was able to serve in such a prestigious position. Whatever the judgment in the security vetting file, that decision to appoint him was wrong, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s owning of, and apology for, that moment. However, many of my constituents are also rightly concerned to learn that not a single democratically elected official in Government was informed about the decision. Given this, what conversations is the Prime Minister instigating right across Government to ensure that, in future, our democratic decision-makers are given the full picture of these crucial judgments?
The Prime Minister
That is precisely why I have asked for the entire developed vetting process to be reviewed by Sir Adrian Fulford, and I have made it absolutely clear to this House and to the civil service that my strong view is that the information that was not provided to me could have been provided and should have been provided.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Prime Minister wants us to focus on process and not his judgment, but this entire sorry episode is the direct result of his decision to make a direct appointment to one of the most senior roles in the FCDO of somebody who was wholly inappropriate for that role. Will the Prime Minister at least confirm to the House that this was a singular error of judgment, and that his No. 10 operation has not proposed a political appointee for any other senior role in the FCDO?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it was my decision. It was an error of judgment, and that is why I have apologised to the victims of Epstein. I have done that again today, and it is right to do so. In relation to the second point of the hon. Member’s question and any other political appointments, I will have to check on that and get back to him, because I am not across—[Interruption.] There are very many appointments made to senior positions, and I will just check that for him.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The House and the public understand the importance of independent security vetting and why sensitive personal information must be protected, but they are also shocked that decisions of such significance could be taken without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. I have worked closely with the Prime Minister, and I know how seriously he takes national security and accountability to this House. Will he set out what steps he will take to remove any ambiguity, so that where there are serious concerns, those risks are flagged to Ministers, ensuring that accountability to this House and to the country is always upheld?
The Prime Minister
That is why last week the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister suspended the power of the FCDO to make a recommendation or to take a decision contrary to the recommendation of UKSV.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister rebuffed first the Leader of the Opposition and then the leader of the Liberal Democrats for saying that the then Cabinet Secretary’s advice to the Prime Minister was to get the clearance before the announcement. I will read one sentence from a document entitled “Options for HMA Washington”, from the Cabinet Secretary of the day to the Prime Minister personally. It states:
“If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice.”
The House does not want to hear about what Mr Wormald said a year later. That was the advice then; why did the Prime Minister not follow it?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member reads out the passage from Mr Case’s advice. The process that was followed was what I understood to be the usual process—in other words, the appointment was subject to security vetting. It is why, when Sir Chris Wormald looked at it in September, he addressed the question by reference back to Simon Case’s letter, because I wanted to know that the process that had been followed was the right process. That is what Sir Chris Wormald looked at. He looked at it expressly by reference to the Simon Case letter that has just been read out, and assured me that the right process was followed when he reviewed it.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)
Anybody who knows the Prime Minister will know full well that he would never, ever deliberately mislead this House, but the reality is this: ex post facto vetting is utterly pointless when the appointment is political. The trouble that we all face is that trust in the Prime Minister and in politics is diminishing as this sorry saga continues. In the 17 days we have leading up to those very important elections, what does the Prime Minister propose to do to win back the trust of the country?
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the hon. Member’s point about vetting in relation to political appointments, but I do agree that the due diligence for direct ministerial appointments should be the same as for any other appointments. It clearly was not, and that is why in September I ordered that it be changed to make sure that it is the same process, whether it is a direct ministerial appointment or any other appointment. In relation to the country, it is important that we remain focused on the cost of living and on dealing with the war on two fronts that we face, and I intend to do that.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The harshest and most important truth in this entire process is that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom chose to proactively ignore the victims of Jeffrey Epstein when he made the political choice to put Peter Mandelson in as the UK’s most senior diplomat in the United States of America, despite knowing that he had maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein himself. We have since seen Peter Mandelson investigated for potential misconduct in public office, and we of course now learn through the media that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The Prime Minister blames all this—all of it—on the judgment of others, but I am interested in his judgment. Does he believe himself to be gullible, incompetent, or both?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. [Laughter.] I have laid out the relevant facts. It is absolutely clear that nobody is suggesting that this information was made available to me. It clearly was not made available. It should have been made available, and I would not have made the appointment had it been made available. That is why I have set out the facts in some considerable detail to the House, with relevant quotes from all the relevant players in this.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister is being candid about some of the challenges in this process. I am sure that he will share the frustration felt across the House as revelations keep coming and this matter keeps coming back to Parliament. He says that he has acted to prevent any further challenges in the vetting system for the Government in respect of senior appointments. Can he therefore give all our constituents, and the House, the reassurance that he has no further sense that there will be any challenges to any other senior appointments through the vetting process that this Government have made?
The Prime Minister
That is precisely why I have asked for a review of the security vetting to be carried out. I have no reason to believe that to be the case, but I want to be assured about the security vetting process, and that is why I have asked Sir Adrian Fulford to look at it, so that he can give me that further reassurance. I will then, of course, pass that on to the House.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Prime Minister has just told us that after he sacked Peter Mandelson, he changed the process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed. Why did he do that if he did not think there was a problem with the security vetting?
The Prime Minister
In September it became clear to me that in relation to the due diligence that had been carried out by the Cabinet Office, Peter Mandelson had been asked questions by my staff and given answers which were not truthful. That was exposed by the Bloomberg emails. At that point, I became concerned about the entire process. I asked for the review of the process by Sir Chris Wormald, which he carried out, but I also made it immediately clear that I would change the due process so that, whether in the case of direct ministerial appointments or that of any other appointments, the same process was gone through. I also wanted to make it clear that I did not think it right that appointments should be announced before security vetting was gone through in any circumstances, and therefore I changed it straight away.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents are deeply concerned about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, and they want to see complete transparency going forward. I am very concerned to read that the civil servants in the Cabinet Office may have had this information about a month ago, and it has taken them this long to be in a position to share it with the democratically elected person making the appointment. What can the Prime Minister share with us today so that we do not have to face this type of issue in the future?
The Prime Minister
May I address that head-on? What happened was that the information came to the attention of senior civil servants who were, in fact, doing the compliance work on the Humble Address. When they saw the information about developed vetting they took legal advice straight away, asking whether it was legal to disclose that to me. They got that advice, and as soon as the advice was given they disclosed it to me straight away, last Tuesday. That was the right and appropriate thing for them to do. There is no criticism of what they did.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
We know that MI6’s finding last September that Mandelson had compromising business interests was accurate—I mentioned it myself on 15 September 2025. He failed his security vetting. We also know that the former Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to carry out security clearance for Mandelson before his appointment. It was reported in The Times yesterday that Mandelson was given STRAP—the very highest security vetting, well beyond DV—despite being failed for DV. It is likely that the Americans will have serious questions about what secrets of theirs a compromised British ambassador might have accessed. Despite all this, we also know that the PM and No. 10 were utterly determined to appoint Mandelson as ambassador to DC, come hell or high water. My question is: why?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Lady that I have ordered a review of any national security issues arising in relation to what I found out last Tuesday. I will obviously update the House when that review is complete.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his heartfelt statement and—if we are judging parties on actions, not words—for reviving the post of anti-corruption tsar. It was vacant for years and years under three of his predecessors, starting with Boris Johnson’s lockdown breaches. Now that we have the heavyweight Margaret Hodge in post, what plans does the Prime Minister have for this broader policy area?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that Margaret Hodge will do a very good job in that role, as she has done in so many other roles previously.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Who first suggested to the Prime Minister that Mandelson should be appointed as our ambassador to the United States, or was it just his own idea? Did it never cross his mind that Mandelson was at risk of failing the vetting process? Before sacking Oliver Robbins last week, did the Prime Minister ask him why he overruled the verdict of the security vetters, and if so, what was his explanation?
The Prime Minister
I did ask him, and I did not accept his explanation. That is why I sacked him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
At the beginning of February 2026, we learned from former Prime Minister Gordon Brown that Peter Mandelson had shared highly sensitive Government information with Jeffrey Epstein. At that juncture, if I had been in the Prime Minister’s shoes, I would have been forensic in recognising a security risk and wanting detailed answers. What is not adding up for me is why we are now getting this information in mid-April, and why the Prime Minister did not drill down to ensure that we had the security information that we have learned Peter Mandelson clearly breached.
The Prime Minister
It was at that point that I ordered the review of the security vetting, because I was concerned that it had failed. In fact, because of information I was not given, it had not failed; it had actually given the recommendation that clearance should be denied. The fact that when I ordered a review of UKSV, senior officials in the Foreign Office did not, at that stage if at no other stage, bring to my attention the information they had not told me is astonishing, because I was ordering a review of the process, which looked as though it had failed when in fact it had flagged the relevant concerns.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I think the Prime Minister owes it to the House to tell us what Sir Olly Robbins’s response to him was when he said he had overruled that advice. In my experience, senior officials are very keen to deliver on the wishes of Ministers, particularly a newly elected Prime Minister. My concern is that implicitly, as other Members have said, Sir Olly Robbins was responding to a desire from the Prime Minister, because it was perfectly clear in all the newspapers that there were allegations about Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister decided to proceed anyway. The official wished to deliver on the desire of the Minister, and that is why he overruled the advice. I fear that it gave the Prime Minister a degree of plausible deniability.
The Prime Minister
Let me answer that in relation to Sir Olly, and let me start by saying he has had a distinguished career. I must say that, and I do say that. Still, notwithstanding that, he should have provided this information to me, and he could have provided it to me. He is giving evidence tomorrow, but I can say to the House that, when I spoke to him on Thursday, his view to me was that he could not provide this information to me because he was not allowed to provide the information to me. [Interruption.] Well, I do not want to put words in his mouth, because it is very important he gives his own evidence. In relation to the question that is being asked of me, when I said, “Why wasn’t this shared with me?” he did—[Interruption.] I have been asked what questions I put to him. I have been asked for the answer, and I am trying to give that answer. I am trying to give it without putting words into Olly Robbins’s mouth, because I do not think that it is fair of me to do so. What he said to me was essentially that he took the view that this process did not allow him to disclose to me the recommendation of UKSV. No doubt he will be asked further questions about that; that is the reason that he gave to me.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
There are 61 conflicts raging around the world, and I have never known international diplomatic relationships to be more fractured. The FCDO is pushing through 40% cuts of aid and 25% cuts of staff, all under the watch of the permanent secretary, so can I ask the Prime Minister what risk assessment was carried out before he was removed?
The Prime Minister
I was dealing with a very serious issue. I asked my team to establish urgently the facts on Tuesday night. I spoke to the former permanent secretary on Thursday night. As a result of the information I had and the exchanges I had, I made it clear that I no longer had confidence in him.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The problem the Prime Minister has got is no one believes him. The public do not believe him, the MPs on this side of the House do not believe him and his own gullible Back Benchers do not believe him. So does the Prime Minister agree with me he has been lying?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but we do not use that word, and I am sure the Member will withdraw it.
Lee Anderson
Mr Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you and your office, but I will not withdraw: that man could not lie straight in bed.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
When Sir Olly Robbins came before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November last year, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) whether, in the context of vetting, Lord Mandelson’s appointment was escalated. Citing a need to maintain the integrity of the vetting system, Sir Olly replied:
“I certainly cannot comment on that, I’m afraid”.
Does the Prime Minister not find it perverse that, when specifically asked by Members of this Parliament about Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Olly declined to discuss the very topic we are now debating in this House?
The Prime Minister
I have read that evidence, and it remains my strong view that the recommendation of UKSV could and should have been shared with me, and could and should have been shared with the Foreign Secretary and thus with the Select Committee—and it should have been.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), is it not pretty poor form that the Prime Minister shovels the blame for this particularly on to Olly Robbins, a fine and experienced civil servant, who was appointed two days after the Prime Minister’s Mandelson announcement? Surely, the buck stops at the top.
The Prime Minister
I say again that Sir Olly Robbins has had a distinguished career, and I have worked with him over a number of years. None the less, he could and should have shared this crucially relevant information with me before Peter Mandelson took up his post, and he should have done at various points after that. It was because of that that I lost confidence in him. That does not mean he has not got a distinguished career; he does have a distinguished career.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I know he is aware that public confidence in politicians needs to drastically improve to retain the public’s trust. With that in mind, Reform has been accepting donations from millionaires in cryptocurrency, making it difficult to trace who actually funds it. Does the Prime Minister agree that Reform relying on millionaires’ dodgy cryptocurrency is a security risk?
The Prime Minister
We have taken a number of measures in relation to crypto—
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In the readout of the Prime Minister’s meeting on 15 April on vetting, it states:
“There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV”
until the vetting document itself was shared with the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office. Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that neither the Chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security nor the National Security Adviser were aware of the security risk with our most important strategic ally until the vetting document itself was shared with Cat Little?
The Prime Minister
I understand that to be the case. Obviously—[Interruption.] No, I am only saying that it was not my decision to withhold it. I understand, if I have understood Sir Olly’s position correctly, that his argument is that he cannot share it, or he could not share it, with anyone. That is as I understand it. It certainly was not shared with the National Security Adviser and I do not think it was shared with anybody else. As far as I know, until it was seen by my officials—legal advice was taken—and then shown to me, it was not shared with anybody else.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the clarity contained within it, and for his apology again. Despite the protestations of Opposition party leaders and Opposition Members, and including some Members on the Government Benches too, I am sure that everybody in this House agrees that the Government of the day should take the advice of our intelligence and vetting services and act on it. In view of everything we have heard—this is the fundamental question for me—how can the Government act on intelligence service and vetting advice if Ministers never get to receive that advice?
The Prime Minister
In many instances, it is the recommendation of UKSV that is effectively the final decision, so of course it is known. In the Foreign Office, there is the additional part of the process in which the final decision is, in fact, taken by Foreign Office officials rather than the recommendation of UKSV. That is what has now been suspended so that in the Foreign Office as well, the recommendation of UKSV is what matters.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Prime Minister knows he is the main character in an ongoing national scandal. Given all the blame apportioned in his statement, it is incredible that only one person has lost their position. Does the Prime Minister also recognise that it is incredible to learn that in Northern Ireland a political appointment was made following the refusal to clear an individual for security access; that they have continued in their post and engaged on issues connected with the legacy of our troubled past with full security clearance, despite security service concerns; and that they continue to this day? If the Prime Minister is ordering a review by Sir Adrian Fulford, will he ensure it includes within its terms of reference or separately a deep dive into the appointment of Marie Anderson, the Northern Ireland police ombudsman: why she was appointed, why the security information was ignored, and how that can be the case?
The Prime Minister
I will ensure that the review covers all relevant issues and material, and I will take into account what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has the right to expect that his senior civil servants will always tell him the truth and the whole truth. He will recall that Mrs Thatcher used to say of Lord Young that she liked David because he always brought her solutions and not problems, while her other Ministers brought her problems. Does he believe that there is a problem within the civil service that promotion and advancement is on the back of not giving your Ministers problems and that on this occasion the senior official at the FCDO knew that if he did tell the Prime Minister what he ought to have told the Prime Minister, he was bringing him a problem?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear. We have thousands of civil servants who act with integrity and professionalism every day and do the job to the very best of their ability. As I understand it, what Sir Olly is saying is that he believed that he could not give me this information—that he was prohibited from doing so. I disagree with him; I think he could and should have given me the information. But I do not think that is any reason to suggest that across the civil service, people act for any improper motive.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I just point out that the developed vetting process has always been highly protected because otherwise it would not work? People would not give information to the developed vetting process if they thought that any detail of it was likely to be disclosed, or even if they thought that the result—the assessment of low, medium or high risk—was likely to be exposed. That is why the previous Labour Government wrote section 3 into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010: in order to prohibit that disclosure. If the Prime Minister is saying that developed vetting information will now be available to Ministers on a routine basis, would he not be undermining the very process upon which we depend for our national security?
The Prime Minister
With respect, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I certainly agree that the information that is provided into the process by the applicant has to be protected; as anybody who has been through the process will know, it is incredibly detailed and intrusive, and it is very important that individuals give full and truthful accounts for all the questions they are asked. That is why that information needs to be protected. I do not accept that that means that the recommendation of UKSV cannot be shared with Ministers, including the Prime Minister. I think there is a distinction between the two; I accept the first, but I utterly reject the second.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Office shared the outcome of the vetting process, but not the conclusions of the vetting reports—not just the detail, but the conclusions. If the Prime Minister is going to own a decision, he needs to know what is within it. What changes will he be making to stop this happening again?
The Prime Minister
That is why I have asked for a review of the entire process: so that it can be looked at from start to finish, including the question of whether there should be any circumstances in which the recommendation of UKSV could not be followed.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am going to try again, because a number of right hon. and hon. Members have asked this question, and I am not quite sure I have heard an answer from the Prime Minister. Why did he choose to ignore the advice from the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, to seek security vetting before confirming Peter Mandelson as his pick?
The Prime Minister
I understood the procedure to be that the appointment was made subject to the security vetting. [Interruption.] That is what I was told. The question the hon. Lady raises is the question I raised in September, which is why I asked Sir Chris Wormald to look at the process, and in particular at the advice in the letter from Simon Case, to answer the question of whether the process was followed, and he—[Interruption.] Well, he gave me the answer that he thought right, having concluded that process.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. For clarity, could he confirm to whom, and when, the UK Security Vetting report outcomes were made available? Could he also say what guidance is given to senior officials on matters that must be escalated to their Ministers?
The Prime Minister
The process was that UKSV informs the FCDO of its findings and its recommendation, and then there is an escalation process, which is part of the process in the sense that it is for the FCDO, in these particular cases, to make the final decision, which is what it did in this case.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Can I return to the nub of what this is about? The Prime Minister knew, as we all knew, of the representations about who should be the ambassador—in this case, a man who had been sacked twice out of Cabinet but, more than that, a man whose clear links with Chinese companies and whose meetings with Xi were in the public domain at the time, as were his time at Sistema, where he stayed after the invasion in 2014, and his meetings with Putin. There was also, of course, his relationship with Deripaska, who was negotiating on the tax levels and tariffs on aluminium when he was the EU commissioner responsible. With all that going on at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement of that man into the ambassadorial position, why did he think he did not know something about him? The Prime Minister knew that he was corrupt, he was corrupting and he was the wrong choice. Surely that is why the Prime Minister overturned Case’s advice to have the review before he made the decision.
The Prime Minister
No, that is not the case. The judgment call to appoint him was my judgment call. That was an error and I have apologised for it, particularly to the victims of Epstein. The developed vetting process was carried out in the way I have indicated to the House. I should have been told at the time of the recommendation. Had I been told, I would not have made the appointment.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Today’s statement may well be about process and procedure, but surely the real issue for the Prime Minister is why, when Peter Mandelson’s reputation was already known, he was ever considered for such an important role.
The Prime Minister
I have accepted that that was my decision and I have apologised for it.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Prime Minister says it is “staggering” and “unforgiveable” that he was not told about the vetting, but what is really staggering and unforgiveable is that he appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting—that he appointed Peter Mandelson knowing about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. What is unforgiveable is that the Prime Minister was more concerned with pandering to Donald Trump than with standing with the victims and survivors. The Prime Minister has not accepted a simple “sorry” from his civil servant—he thinks that is inadequate. The country thinks that a simple “sorry” is inadequate from him. Will he take personal responsibility for his staggering and unforgiveable errors of judgment—and resign?
The Prime Minister
I have set out to the House the facts of what happened in this particular case. I am staggered and I find it unbelievable that I was not given the information I should have been given.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister made the political decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, but central to that decision, along with other decisions about policy and political position, would have been the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House whether Morgan McSweeney passed all his security vetting and whether he ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance?
The Prime Minister
All the appropriate and necessary developed vetting has taken place in No. 10. Everybody has passed that. [Interruption.] They have all passed it.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
If, as we have been assured, there was no law that prevented the permanent under-secretary from telling the Prime Minister the outcome of Mandelson’s developed vetting, then presumably by the same token there was no law that prevented the Prime Minister from asking. Can he be very clear with the House on one point? Did he as Prime Minister ever ask the question, “Did Mandelson fail his vetting?” and if he did ask that question, who did he ask it of and when did he ask it?
The Prime Minister
Peter Mandelson was given developed vetting clearance. That was the clear position.
The Prime Minister
He was given clearance—those are the facts as I have set them out.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has always behaved with the utmost integrity and honour when dealing with this House, and he is an eminent lawyer who understands the consequences of deliberately coming to the House to mislead Parliament. On top of that, he also understands the likelihood of a paper trail unravelling such a deception, so it is inconceivable that he would intentionally mislead this House. But does he agree with me that all the documents relevant to this matter must be made public in accordance with the Humble Address that was passed on 4 February and that no Ministers or officials should engage in trying to prevent any of the documents from being made public?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we will comply with the Humble Address in full. That is the process that is going on.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Prime Minister said today, “I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible.” He is right: we do—along with his staggering lack of curiosity and his inability to take on board warnings about his good friend Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister was given a due diligence document by the Cabinet Office, which told him several reasons why Peter Mandelson should not be appointed, including that he was fired twice from Government, had business dealings in Russia and China, and had maintained a relationship with Epstein after his imprisonment for paedophilia. The Prime Minister knew this but appointed him anyway. Why, Prime Minister, why?
The Prime Minister
Peter Mandelson was asked various questions on the back of the due diligence exercise and he did not tell the truth in his answers. The decision to appoint him was an error: it was my error, and I have apologised for it.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is accepted by many on the Government Benches that the Prime Minister did not know the outcome of the vetting, but the Cabinet Secretary came forward on Tuesday, having spent a month researching whether or not she could provide the advice that she did, so she had clearly thought very carefully about the information that she brought forward. The Prime Minister then launched an investigation, rather than coming straight to the House with the information that she had provided. Was that because the information was insufficient to present to the House? If so, when was the Prime Minister planning to come to the House?
The Prime Minister
It was insufficient because all it told me was that the recommendation of UKSV was to deny the clearance. What it did not tell me was who then provided the clearance, why they did it and who knew about it. They were questions that the House would obviously want to raise with me, which is why I urgently asked for those facts to be established: so that I could come to the House and provide the full account that I have provided to the House.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Developed vetting should be carried out before someone has “frequent and uncontrolled access” to top-secret material or any access to top-secret or coded—otherwise known as STRAP—material. The Prime Minister has promised full transparency, so I ask him these three questions. Did Peter Mandelson have access to any top-secret or STRAP material before his DV clearance on 29 January? Did Peter Mandelson have any restrictions placed on his access to top-secret or STRAP material during his time in Washington? If so, has the Prime Minister assured himself that Mandelson did not leak any of this material, just as he leaked commercially confidential material to Jeffrey Epstein under Gordon Brown?
The Prime Minister
I do not understand that he had access to STRAP material before he took up his post as ambassador. He did have access after he took up his post, and that is why I have ordered a review of any security concerns that may arise.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
We all find it staggering that someone can fail their security vetting and still be appointed to such a sensitive and critical role. It is even more staggering that the Prime Minister was not informed of that failure. I agree with what the Prime Minister said: he did not need to know the details, but he did need to know that Mandelson had failed the security vetting. My question to the Prime Minister is about the detail. If people did not know what the security concerns were of Peter Mandelson, how could any Minister, official or state deal with him on sensitive security issues? I understand that the Prime Minister is doing an inquiry into that, but it is very important that Parliament has oversight of the issue, because I am very concerned that there has been another failure there—the failure to manage our security interests.
The Prime Minister
In a case such as this—in relation to such a sensitive post—I do not think it is right that somebody should be appointed at all if the UKSV recommends that clearance is not given. That would be my position.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
When I was privileged to serve as Security Minister, the Prime Minister was my shadow. As we dealt with matters of the most significant national security, he was straightforward with me, as I was with him, so I hope that he will answer this straightforward question. The Humble Address made it clear that the Intelligence and Security Committee will see any material related to national security or international relations. In the course of the Committee’s work, we have liaised with the Cabinet Office, clearly. When did the Cabinet Office know about this failure in vetting, who knew, and why did they not bring that material to the Committee when they found it? We had not received it when the Prime Minister found out that the vetting had failed, yet others must have known that it had failed.
The Prime Minister
The situation was that, as part of the work being done on the Humble Address, this information came to light. Senior officials immediately took legal advice on whether it could be disclosed. Having got that legal advice, they immediately disclosed it to me. I think that was the proper process, and I think it has now been disclosed to the Committee—albeit, I think, on the Thursday rather than the Tuesday. That was the process. Just to defend that process, I do think it was right for the senior officials, having got that information, to get legal advice on whether they could disclose it, and who to. As soon as they got that advice, they brought it to my attention.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Peter Mandelson’s conduct has disgraced himself and, by extension, brought shame upon the two Houses of which he was formerly a Member. Does the Prime Minister agree that the famous Armstrong memorandum on the conduct of the civil service was correct and holds true today, as it says that
“it is the duty of the civil servant to make available to the Minister all the information and experience at his or her disposal which may have a bearing on the policy decisions to which the Minister is committed or…preparing to make, and to give to the Minister honest and impartial advice, without fear or favour, and whether the advice accords with the Minister’s view or not”?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do agree with that. That is why this information could and should have been shared with me at the first opportunity—and that was before Peter Mandelson took up his post as ambassador.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister is hiding behind a thicket of legalese and procedure, but he has a track record of appointing Labour’s most favoured sons and daughters to plum Government jobs and into the House of Lords. In Wales, we know all about Labour’s crony culture—who could forget UK Labour’s favourite First Minister, Vaughan Gething, who was propped up by No. 10 in spite of dodgy donations and is now tipped for a peerage? On the timing, how will the Prime Minister explain to his party his role in bringing down Labour’s century of dominance in Wales in the forthcoming elections?
The Prime Minister
I am addressing the question about the process in relation to Peter Mandelson. I have set that out in some detail to the House and answered a number of questions.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
In December 2024, the Prime Minister said in announcing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador that he had “unrivalled experience”. That was despite the gravity of what was known about Peter Mandelson’s record and available publicly. Is it not the case that Peter Mandelson’s political appointment, which was personally decided by the Prime Minister and announced in public before the security vetting was completed, needed to progress and had to happen—however it happened—because of Mandelson’s role in the Prime Minister’s own leadership campaign and because it served the interests of one particular faction in the Labour party?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept that that is a reason for withholding from me the information about security clearance.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The result of the Prime Minister’s terrible failure of judgment is that for over a year this country’s interests were represented in the United States by someone that our own security services deemed to be a security risk. Will he assure us that an investigation will take place into all aspects where our national security may have been damaged, and that the results of that will be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee and, where possible, to Parliament?
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I believe that there are two sides to this. One is about process, and the other is about judgment. On process, I believe that the Prime Minister was not told about the security vetting clearance, and that, had he known, he would have sacked Peter Mandelson. We do not have a problem with that. The problem is this: why was he not told that, and who is actually running the country? Are other Ministers being kept in the dark by civil servants? On the issue of judgment, it was completely wrong to put Mandelson forward as an ambassador in the first place. Will the Prime Minister write to me this week confirming that in all the political appointments that have been made, no one is in position who has failed the advanced security vetting process?
The Prime Minister
That is included in the review that I have set up, and as soon as I have the findings I will share them with the House.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
This saga is drawing to a close, and it will come to a conclusion with the Prime Minister’s resignation, whether he can accept that or not. What I cannot accept is the “ask me no secrets and I’ll tell you no lies” regime that he expects us to believe prevailed at the very top of Government between officials and not just Ministers but the Prime Minister. He has talked a lot today about what he did not know and what he was not told. Well, he knew that Mandelson had a serious human frailty for other people’s wealth. We knew that Mandelson was involved with the Russians. We knew that Mandelson was sacked twice as a Government Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain what Mandelson’s actual qualities were that he was pursuing for the role as US ambassador, and what steps he has taken to contain the serious and measurable breach in national security that his appointment of Peter Mandelson facilitated?
The Prime Minister
I have made it clear that it was an error to appoint Peter Mandelson. There is a review going on into any security issues that may arise.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister saying that he should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. In November, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, I asked who saw the vetting and was told this by Sir Olly Robbins:
“Obviously, the vast majority of those are relatively straightforward. Ones that require more senior judgment, and potentially a discussion about managing and mitigating risks, are escalated appropriately.”
Questions being asked by the Foreign Secretary, by Ministers or by officials in No. 10 should have been a signal to the civil servants to escalate this matter, given the controversial nature of this political appointment. Were concerns about links to Epstein, to other countries or to anything else raised in conversations with Peter Mandelson, just before the time of the appointment, that would have signalled that civil servants should escalate this?
The Prime Minister
There were two different processes. One was the due diligence process carried out by the Cabinet Office, in which Peter Mandelson was asked questions. Separately, there was the developed vetting process in which the recommendation of UKSV was not shared with me until Tuesday evening.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It seems to me that there are two different ways in which a Minister can inadvertently mislead this House: one is by the things that they say, and the other is by the things that they do not say. That is why I am particularly interested in the letter from Lord Case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) raised, because it seems to have been written to the Prime Minister in November 2024, advising that a political appointment to an ambassadorial role ought to be preceded by full security vetting before being announced. It was announced by the Prime Minister in December 2024. Did he write that he wanted his decision to be subject to Peter Mandelson passing the full security vetting? What did he write on his box note?
The Prime Minister
I understood it to be subject to developed vetting, but it was because of the process that, in September 2025, I asked Chris Wormald to do a review for me of the process, and he did that by reference back to the Simon Case letter.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the damage that this saga has done to public trust in politics and in politicians. However, will he confirm that his focus and that of his Government is on the issues that matter most to my constituents in Banbury, in particular tackling the cost of living?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely, my focus and that of the Government is on the fact that we are facing a war on two fronts, with serious consequences for our country, and that we absolutely need to deal with the cost of living, which is the No. 1 issue for all our constituents up and down the country.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
How did views from the United States Administration affect the decision in the Foreign Office to persist with Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington DC after the vetting advice was received there?
The Prime Minister
I do not believe that they did. This was UK security vetting carried out in the way I have described to the House. The issue is that the recommendation was not shared with me. That was a matter here in the United Kingdom.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Could he update the House on the proposed legislation to remove peerages from disgraced peers such as Peter Mandelson, who has fallen so far below what is expected of those serving in the House of Lords?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I made a commitment in relation to that legislation, and work is progressing on it.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
At the risk of stating the obvious, the Prime Minister has based his defence today and over this whole sorry saga on his claim that he was not told that Mandelson failed security vetting. In fact, he said 11 times in his statement that he was not told. How many times and on which specific dates did he himself directly ask for that information?
The Prime Minister
It is not a claim that I was not told; I was not told, and I do not think anybody is disputing that. The clearance was given on 29 January 2025. That information was not provided to me. In September, I did ask specifically about the process. Sir Chris Wormald had made it clear to me that, in carrying out that review, he was not told about the security clearance recommendation that was made. I think on both occasions that information should have been provided, both to me and to the then Cabinet Secretary.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), the Prime Minister said that he delayed coming to this House so that he could answer, among other questions, why UKSV was overruled. It seems wholly incredible that this decision was made on a personal whim by a senior civil servant. Is it not that it was made because of political pressure from No. 10 to advance a man who a particular faction of the Labour party has looked to for moral and spiritual leadership for years? Can the Prime Minister explicitly now confirm his understanding of why the decision to overrule UKSV was made?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept that the view of anyone about Peter Mandelson provides an explanation for not providing me with the information that the recommendation was not to grant him security clearance. We are talking about a very serious issue on a very sensitive case. I clearly should have been given that information whatever the pressures, which are always there in government every day.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Prime Minister’s aides have briefed that “angry Starmer” is “furious”, but why is it that he only ever seems to get angry when trying to save his own skin? Is he not angry about the 600 men who crossed the English channel on small boats on Saturday? Is he not angry about the people who are queuing for fuel at the forecourts and cannot afford the Chancellor’s taxes? Is not the truth that his Government are now so paralysed that their only agenda is cleaning up the mess left by the paedophile pal Peter Mandelson?
The Prime Minister
I think any Minister, of any Government, who had not been provided with this relevant information would rightly be frustrated and angry.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I want to take a moment to focus on the young women who were exploited, abused and raped by Jeffrey Epstein and his friends. For years they were trafficked for rape, with no one to turn to, and for years people did not believe them. The idea that Mandelson would call Epstein’s conviction “wrongful” is disgusting, and I cannot imagine how it felt for the survivors to hear that. The Prime Minister was right to sack him. Will he take this opportunity to say again to those young women that this House believes them and the Government stand by them, and is he confident that no person with financial or personal links to sex traffickers will receive developed vetting status in future?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to focus on the victims in this. I started this statement by making it clear that this was a judgment error on my part, and the apology that I have made is to the victims, because I know the impact that this will have had on them, who have already suffered so very much.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked this question, but I do not believe that she received a response. Was the Prime Minister aware that Peter Mandelson was a director of Sistema before he was appointed?
The Prime Minister
I acted on the information that was provided to me in the due diligence process. The information that was dealt with in the security vetting process was not made available to me—nor can that detail be made available to me. It is the recommendation that should have been made available to me.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
One of the things that I find most difficult to understand in this process is why, when this scandal erupted in September of last year, before the Prime Minister made statements in this place and elsewhere—statements that he must have known would have involved talking about the vetting—he did not simply order officials to share the vetting information with him. Why did he not do so, and does he regret it?
The Prime Minister
I did ask Sir Chris Wormald to carry out a review. I worked on the basis that all the relevant information would be shared with him. It was only last week that I found out from Sir Chris that he himself had not been provided with information that he should have been provided with when he was carrying out the review on my behalf.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Can I take the Prime Minister back to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)? She asked quite simply why the Prime Minister did not ask any questions whatsoever about the nature of the security clearing that Mandelson had achieved or why there was any doubt about him. Was the Prime Minister so obsessed with his determination to appoint that tainted figure to be ambassador to Washington that he ignored the rest, and the officials just went along with it? Why did he not ask the simple straight question?
The Prime Minister
Peter Mandelson was given security clearance, and that was clear to everyone, including myself. [Interruption.] He was given clearance; he was cleared. He would not have started the role if he had not been given clearance. As soon as it came to my attention last week that that was against the recommendation of UKSV, I asked for the information that I have now put before the House.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
We all agree that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. The Prime Minister has said that clearly and consistently, and has taken responsibility, including by apologising. That is the right thing to do. Can he give further assurance that the Government will continue to comply in full with the Humble Address?
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister has said various things about Peter Mandelson’s vetting process over the past weeks and months that have now turned out not to be true. Does he accept that he inadvertently misled the House of Commons?
The Prime Minister
No, I did not mislead the House of Commons. I accept that information that I should have had, and that the House should have had, should have been before the House, but I did not mislead the House, and that is why I have set out the account in full.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Bloomberg files, which caused the Prime Minister to sack Peter Mandelson, revealed that Mandelson had been leaking confidential Government information to a convicted paedophile during Gordon Brown’s Government. Mandelson will have had access to highly sensitive and top secret documents in his role as ambassador to Washington, so given his previous behaviour, has there been any investigation by the Government or the security services of potential leaks during his tenure?
The Prime Minister
That is why I have asked for a review to be carried out in relation to material that could have caused any national security issues.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
On 12 September, it was revealed in The Independent that Mandelson did not pass vetting by MI6, and therefore by UKSV. On 16 September, in this Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made the same claim in the presence of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). On hearing that information, did the Minister or the Prime Minister feel the need to ask whether that specific claim was true? The response given was that DV clearance was “granted by the FCDO”. As a KC, how did the Prime Minister not see the clear difference between the question that was asked, and the answer that was given? Does he agree that, in his own words, his explanation “beggars belief”?
The Prime Minister
At various points questions were asked, and questions were put to the FCDO. The answer back was the same, because it took the view that it was not information it could share with anyone, including myself.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Earlier today, NBC released an interview with hospice worker Rachel Benavidez, who was 22 years old when she became one of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse. For 27 years she has been waiting for the crimes committed against her to be recognised, and as she told NBC:
“Until we are heard, until survivors are heard and believed, then I don’t think there’s ever going to be justice.”
Does the Prime Minister agree that we owe it to the hundreds of victims like Rachel to put them first in these debates, not political point scoring, and that he was absolutely right to sack someone like Peter Mandelson, who refused to believe those victims, and if he did, did not care?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for making sure that the victims are central to this, as they should be.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister has now been on his feet for nearly two hours. May I put it to him that the most charitable explanation that could be put forward to explain this sorry saga, is that it has been a bad, probably terminal case of the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the procedure in some detail. Information should have been provided to me. It was not provided to me. If it had been provided, I would not have allowed the appointment of Peter Mandelson to proceed in the way that it did.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
As we have heard, it is staggering that vital information on UKSV recommendations can be withheld from Ministers taking decisions. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in the review he is commissioning, we examine whether there are any other instances in which UKSV recommends against granting DV status, during not just this Government but over the last 14 years? That has the potential to have very serious security implications.
The Prime Minister
I think that needs to be subject to the review, and that is among the reasons why I put the review in place.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It must be clear to the Prime Minister that many of us in this House are totally scunnered with this whole mess, although that is nothing compared with what I am being told on the doors in Scotland by voters who feel that they expected, and that they were right to expect, more from this Government after what they were promised. We have focused on process today, but the Prime Minister would not have had to come here and stand at the Dispatch Box to answer all these questions if he had not made the decision, which he accepts was wrong, to appoint Peter Mandelson. That is the root of this whole thing. Having accepted responsibility, what does the Prime Minister think the consequence should be for that, and how do we restore faith?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A lot of Members are still trying to catch my eye, so can I help the Prime Minister and everybody in the Chamber? Please help each other; let us speed up the questions.
The Prime Minister
I have accepted the error of judgment on my behalf, but I was not provided with information. Had I been provided with it, I would not have made the appointment.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
This morning the Secretary of State for Scotland said that to deal with an “unconventional” US Administration, we needed an “unconventional ambassador”. Prime Minister, does “unconventional” now mean appointing a man to a senior position when we know his lies, corruption and misconduct had allowed corruption at the very heart of our democracy? Will the Prime Minister tell us when he first knew about the evidence and the advice—
The Prime Minister
I first knew last Tuesday, as I have set out to the House.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
For the third time of asking, at the time when the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador, was he aware that Mandelson had been a director of Sistema?
The Prime Minister
I was aware of what was in the due diligence—I have dealt with that—but I was not aware of the issues that were dealt with in the security vetting, nor the recommendation of UKSV.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Mandelson’s appointment was a huge failure of the British state, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s candour in accepting his responsibility for his part in it. Does the Prime Minister agree that restoring public trust is a mammoth task that requires leaders on all sides to be careful with their language and to ensure that they understand the processes that they are talking about, rather than throw about baseless accusations of “lying”?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that he should have been shown the recommendation of UKSV. He knew he had not seen it, so why did he not ask for it?
The Prime Minister
The first I knew that there had been a recommendation to deny clearance was Tuesday evening of last week. The security clearance had been given by the Foreign Office before Peter Mandelson took up the post. As soon as it came to my attention, I sought the information that I have put before the House today.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Members of the public watching this matter will have been baffled by all the speculation about who said what and when, so I thank the Prime Minister for his calm and clear answers today. No Prime Minister wants to be or should be in a situation like this, where governmental processes mean that critical information is not brought to the attention of Ministers, so I welcome the Fulford review. Will the Prime Minister look at the wider relationship between Ministers and civil servants, so that trust can be restored?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will look at that. I want to assert again that thousands of civil servants act with professionalism and integrity every day. On this occasion, this information should have been brought to my attention. Had it been, the appointment would not have been proceeded with.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
During this Session of Parliament, we have seen the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility carry the can and resign due to an error by a member of his team. What will it take for this Prime Minister to carry the can?
The Prime Minister
I was not provided with the information that I should have been provided with. Had I been provided with it, I would not have made the same decision. It was not negligence; it was a deliberate decision not to tell me.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I thank him even more for his apology about the appointment of Peter Madndelson. Speaking in the Chamber today, I want to once again commit to the record the words of Virginia Giuffre, which are particularly relevant to Peter Mandelson:
“Don't be fooled by those in Epstein's circle who say they didn't know what Epstein was doing. Anyone who spent any significant amount of time with Epstein saw him touching girls in ways you wouldn’t want a creepy old man touching your daughter. They can say they didn’t know he was raping children. But they were not blind.”
There is consensus among Members from across the House that we need to get to the bottom of this. I accept that the Prime Minister did not know about the security vetting, but can he update the House on when we can have the next tranche of documents from the Humble Address, so that we can get to the bottom of who did know what and when?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on behalf of those victims and many other victims in relation to abuse and sexual abuse in particular and for her insistence always that we must put the victims first. We are complying with the Humble Address as quickly as possible, and we will comply with it fully.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
In a Foreign Affairs Committee meeting in November last year, I asked Sir Oliver Robbins whether the Foreign Office had a different view about who should be recommended for the posting of ambassador. Sir Oliver Robbins said to me that
“the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.”
Is it not the case that the Prime Minister was repeatedly warned before the appointment that Peter Mandelson carried reputational and political risk, including that due diligence was not exhaustive and vetting was not yet complete, yet he chose to proceed regardless, announcing the appointment, overriding civil service advice and putting our national security at risk?
The Prime Minister
I simply do not accept that there is any good reason why I could not have been provided with the information that was withheld from me. Had it been provided to me, I would not have proceeded with the appointment.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for such a clear and comprehensive statement, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to him for it. In listening to the Conservatives, the old adage about throwing stones in glass houses comes to mind; I do not think there are enough glass houses in Scotland to replace the ones that they are breaking today. However, having set the record straight, does the Prime Minister agree that it is now time to return to the important business of Government in preserving the country’s peace and security?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I agree. The absolute focus needs to be on the fact that we are facing a war on two fronts and a cost of living crisis that this Government are gripping.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Prime Minister has told us that the Cabinet Secretary gave him bad advice, Peter Mandelson lied to him and the Foreign Office did not tell him anything. He is really in danger of being known as the mushroom Prime Minister: he is kept in the dark and fed—I do not know if I am allowed to say it, Mr Speaker.
Sammy Wilson
I will not say it.
Is it not the case that the Prime Minister wished to remain in the dark? He knew in September that there was a security vetting, yet he never asked about it until April. Surely that is an indication that he was quite happy to be kept in the dark, because he had made his mind up anyway.
The Prime Minister
No. What I did was ask for the process to be reviewed, and Sir Chris Wormald carried out that review. What transpired last week was that information was withheld from him in the review, so I asked for the review. I did ask the questions, and he gave me his conclusions, but neither he nor I knew that he too was not told the relevant material in the course of that review.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. I have sat here and listened today to one Conservative Member after another preaching at us about standards of honesty and integrity. Will the Prime Minister remind us whether these are the same Conservatives who voted to change the rules on standards investigations in November 2021 just to get their colleague Owen Paterson off the hook? Will he also remind us whether the Leader of the Opposition chose to abstain in that debate?
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I suspect that most reasonable people have concluded that if the Prime Minister knew and inadvertently misled Parliament, he should resign. If he did not know, he is running an incompetent, shambolic Government and really should resign. If he was lied to yet again, he is simply too gullible and lacking in basic curiosity to serve as Prime Minister. Is he so detached from reality that he is the only person who cannot see that?
The Prime Minister
The information was withheld from me and from the Cabinet Secretary, who was conducting a review on my behalf. That became clear yesterday, and I have set out the facts to Parliament.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On 4 February, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister:
“did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with… Jeffrey Epstein?”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]
The Prime Minister replied, “Yes, it did.” What on earth was it that the Prime Minister received and was talking about that my right hon. Friend referred to as the official security vetting? He said that he had received it.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I have a degree of sympathy for the Prime Minister, I truly do, because he has set out very succinctly how he followed the processes and procedures. However, as members of the Bar, we are taught at a very embryonic stage in our profession that if you take on a client and there is something suspicious, you contact the ethics line. As a member of the Bar and a King’s Counsel, that would have been a trait that the Prime Minister was all too familiar with, so can he answer the basic question for the British public of why he did not take that basic step?
The Prime Minister
Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting clearance by the Foreign Office before he took up the post. It was only last Tuesday that I found out that that was against the recommendation of UKSV.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Times reported last week that the Prime Minister repeatedly sought assurances from the FCDO that Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting. Is this correct, and when did he seek those assurances?
The Prime Minister
Peter Mandelson got DV clearance before he took up his post as ambassador. That clearance was given by the Foreign Office. I found out that that was against the recommendation on Tuesday evening of last week.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I have two quick questions. First, was the decision not to give Mandelson DV the view of the head of security in the FCDO, or only that of Olly Robbins? Secondly, what information did the Prime Minister know after sacking Peter Mandelson that made him change the appointment process so that
“now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed”?
It seems odd to me that this decision was made if the Prime Minister did not know that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process, so what key information did the Prime Minister know then that made him review the appointment process?
The Prime Minister
The decision to grant clearance was made by the FCDO. In September, it became clear to me that the answers to the due diligence that Peter Mandelson had given were not truthful, and that is why I set in place the various reviews that I did and also changed the approach in relation to when developed vetting checks are carried out.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Is the Prime Minister really saying that in the appointment of Peter Mandelson, he did not himself consider that there might be issues with his vetting process, given his track record? Is it not even more incredible that he then did not query whether there had been any issues with that vetting process?
The Prime Minister
The fact of the matter is that Peter Mandelson was given developed vetting clearance before he took up his post as the ambassador, and that was a decision that was taken by the FCDO.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
In September, the Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box and told the House that he had full confidence in Peter Mandelson, a man whose relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein was public knowledge. The Prime Minister knew, and backed him anyway; now, he claims he had no idea that this twice-fired Government Minister had failed MI6 vetting, despite journalists putting that directly to Downing Street that very same month. We all know that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson because he owes his job to him. He appointed him, he defended him, and now he claims to know nothing. He is gaslighting the nation, so let us call this out for what it is: the Prime Minister is a barefaced liar, and if he had any decency left—
Mr Speaker
Order. Leave now—I will name you otherwise. I would go now, if I were you.
Mr Speaker
I am about to name you. I have given you the option to leave—I would leave if I were you, very quickly. Move before I read this out; I am giving you one option.
Mr Speaker
You have no duties. I have a duty to carry out, which is to control this House. One chance—do you want to leave now, or not?
Zarah Sultana
Mr Speaker, I have a duty to the House and my constituents to also tell the truth that the Prime Minister is a liar.
Mr Speaker
Right—I call the Whip to move the motion.
Zarah Sultana, Member for Coventry South, was named by Mr Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chair (Standing Order No. 44).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44), That Zarah Sultana be suspended from the service of the House.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Question agreed to.
Mr Speaker directed Zarah Sultana to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Seven months ago, a national newspaper ran the story that Mandelson had failed security vetting, so how is it even possible that no one in No. 10 knew until last week?
The Prime Minister
A number of inquiries were made, questions were asked of the FCDO, and the answer they gave was the same. They did not disclose to me or anyone in No. 10 that UKSV had advised and recommended against clearance.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
When the Prime Minister asked his officials in January 2025, as he surely did—perhaps with an element of surprise in his voice—“So, Peter actually passed his security clearance, did he?”, what was the scenario that then unfolded? Did Sir Olly Robbins declare, “I’m sorry, I can’t tell you, Prime Minister, I’m not at liberty to say”? Did he actively seek to mislead the Prime Minister by simply saying “Yes, Prime Minister”, or, as seems more likely, did that scenario never take place because the Prime Minister never thought to ask?
The Prime Minister
What happened in January was that developed vetting clearance was given by the Foreign Office. That was the simple fact of the matter. It was only last week that I found out the further circumstances that I have now set out to the House.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
In the box note to the Prime Minister dated 11 November 2024, the former Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, advised the Prime Minister that before announcing a political appointee, he should get security clearance. The Prime Minister ignored that advice. The Prime Minister’s response in that box note is redacted, so I ask him a very simple question: what was his answer on that box note, and will he publish what he said?
The Prime Minister
I have made it clear that my position was that the appointment was subject to developed vetting. I cannot in all conscience remember what exactly has been redacted. [Interruption.] The hon. Member is asking me about what was in a redacted note. I understood that the process had been subject to developed vetting. That is why I asked Chris Wormald to look at the process and reference back to Simon Case.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Foreign Office raised severe concerns regarding Peter Mandelson’s links with Epstein, Russia and China in the due diligence report that the Prime Minister received before the appointment was announced. The Prime Minister, however, brushed those concerns aside and announced Mandelson as ambassador none the less. Given what the due diligence exercise had already flagged, it was surely predictable that Mandelson would fail security vetting for those reasons, but No. 10 had already told the Foreign Office, before Sir Olly Robbins had taken up his post, to proceed with the appointment. Notwithstanding these issues, that is exactly what he did by putting in place the safeguards. Can the Prime Minister please explain why he has sacked a loyal and brilliant public servant?
The Prime Minister
Because he did not bring to my attention information that he should have brought to my attention. Had he done so, I would not have made the appointment.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister dissembles over what he knew about Sistema and Mandelson, but the Cabinet Office due diligence report sent to the Prime Minister on 11 December 2024 stated:
“Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.”
Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he knew that Mandelson was a director of Sistema long after the invasion of Crimea, but appointed him anyway?
The Prime Minister
As I have made clear, I did know what was in the due diligence report, and I have made that clear to the House a number of times today. I have actually made it clear to the House on previous occasions.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
My concern is that this Prime Minister will run out of buses before he runs out of people to throw under them. The issue is this. The Prime Minister has said:
“I never turn on my staff and you should never turn on your staff.”
Well, we have Sue Gray scapegoated, Tim Allan canned, Sir Chris Wormald forced out, Morgan McSweeney axed and now Olly Robbins sacked. Will the Prime Minister accept that the buck stops with him? This is his fault. He should do the honourable thing.
The Prime Minister
The information was withheld from me by the FCDO in the circumstances I have set out to the House.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My question to the Prime Minister is straightforward: did Morgan McSweeney or any of the Prime Minister’s advisers—past or present—know about this issue before last Thursday?
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
To override the outcome of the developed vetting process, the FCDO must have been under pressure from someone. Ditching a tried and tested ambassador for a high-risk one seems odd behaviour for a Prime Minister who claims to be so fond of proper process. Whose idea was it, and who was applying the pressure?
The Prime Minister
I reject the idea that any pressure is a good reason not to disclose to the Prime Minister that UKSV recommended against clearance for a very senior, sensitive appointment. I simply do not accept that that is an adequate reason, whatever the pressure.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Prime Minister is suggesting that the idea that the security services had concerns about this appointment was a bolt from the blue to him two weeks ago, despite the fact it had been on the front page of a national newspaper in September. However, my question is not about the vetting file, because we all know the answer that the Prime Minister is going to give on that. This is separate from the vetting file. Was he at any stage made aware of any element of the security services raising concerns about the appointment of Mandelson?
The Prime Minister
No. What I knew was that security clearance had been given by the Foreign Office, in the way that I have set out to the House.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
My constituents in Lagan Valley, and others across the Northern Ireland and throughout the UK, will be disgusted that we have spent such an amount of time discussing this issue, when it should have been put to the fore the first time it appeared in the press. Does the Prime Minister understand that every time we do this and go through this, we destroy the reputation of this place, no matter who is in the Government of the day? His party does not even stand for election in my neck of the woods, so this is not party political. It is about protecting the reputation of this place. Does the Prime Minister understand?
The Prime Minister
That is why I wanted to give the House all the relevant information, which I have given at some length this afternoon.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
We have now established that the Prime Minister did indeed know that Peter Mandelson had been a director of Sistema when he appointed him. Why on earth would the Prime Minister be so reckless with our national security as to do that?
The Prime Minister
I have made it clear that I knew what was in the due diligence. I have also made it clear that the FCDO granted security clearance before Peter Mandelson took up his post.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
There is a simple question to which we still do not have an answer. Did Peter Mandelson fail his vetting procedure because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, or was there some other reason as yet undisclosed?
The Prime Minister
The information that was fed into the review, and the reasons for the review, are protected. This is not a Peter Mandelson issue; it is about the integrity of the process. What I do not accept is that that means I cannot be told the recommendation that comes out of it.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I wonder whether the Prime Minister knew the difference between the due diligence information from the Cabinet Office and the security vetting that had not taken place when he appointed Peter Mandelson on 18 December.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
After years of sleaze and scandal under the previous Government, the Prime Minister promised integrity and accountability, but my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon are not seeing change; they are seeing more of the same—a continuity Government in which warnings are ignored and standards slip. Why should anyone believe that the Prime Minister is still capable of delivering the change that he promised?
The Prime Minister
I made sure that the relevant inquiries were made so that I could put the full picture before the House. That is the approach I have taken, as Members have seen this afternoon.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
This is a humiliating day for the Prime Minister, and for the House, and for the whole country, yet still the Prime Minister is not being open with us. He is relying on some later inquiry, when the Cabinet Secretary told him in writing, in the official briefing, that he must seek vetting prior to the appointment of a political appointee. That is true, is it not, Prime Minister? And can you give a straight answer, just for once?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, the process was that the appointment was subject to developed vetting checks being carried out. Had I been made aware of the recommendation of UKSV, I would not have made the appointment. What I did after the event was ask Sir Chris Wormald to look back at the process, which he did according to and by reference to the Simon Case letter, and he assured me that the process had been carried out properly.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
If Olly Robbins could and should have provided this information to the Prime Minister at the first opportunity, as the Prime Minister has said today, surely the same applies to Cat Little, Antonia Romeo and the Cabinet Office officials who sat on this information for nearly a month before bringing it to the Prime Minister when The Guardian started asking questions of No. 10. Why does he accept that they needed legal advice to do what he is saying should have been obvious? He sacked Olly Robbins for not bringing him that information immediately; why are the others still in post?
The Prime Minister
They acted entirely appropriately. They came across the information as part of the Humble Address exercise. They took legal advice on who it could be disclosed to, and disclosed it to me as soon as they got that legal advice. That was the right thing to do.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On 4 February, Peter Mandelson was notified by the appointments and interchange officer from the FCDO that he required STRAP-level access in addition to his DV. He started the role on 10 February. On what date did Peter Mandelson receive STRAP-level access?
The Prime Minister
I do not know the precise date, but I will endeavour to find out.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Given that it is widely known that Peter Mandelson maintained a friendship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, had close business links in both China and Russia, and was sacked from two Government posts, what I really want to ask the Prime Minister is this: what are the unique and defining human qualities of the man I have just described that so attracted the Prime Minister to the idea that he should be politically appointed as ambassador to the US, and why is he still defending him behind process, instead of calling out what is wrong, taking responsibility and resigning?
The Prime Minister
I am not defending him behind process. I am setting out the process to the House.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? As the Prime Minister will know, that means “Who guards the guards themselves?” With that in mind, and on the subject of holding those in power to account, can he explain why he took almost a week to come to this House, when the public will have been expecting answers much sooner?
The Prime Minister
Because I wanted to know who took the decision, the basis upon which they took it, and who knew about the decision, so that I could set out a full account to the House, which is what I have done this afternoon.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
This House and the country are being asked to believe that, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Prime Minister, and provoked a raging controversy while making the United Kingdom’s most critical diplomatic appointment, he never asked if his nominee had been security vetted. Is that not staggering and incredible? What was the role of our National Security Adviser? What does he know? Could the House be told that?
The Prime Minister
The attention to the process began very much in September ’25, when the Bloomberg emails were published. That is when I agreed with the Cabinet Secretary that he would carry out a review of the entire process, and I have set that out at some length this afternoon.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Prime Minister has chosen to blame his officials for this debacle, so can he confirm that he knows the names of the FCDO civil servants who made the decision to override UKSV on 29 January 2025—yes or no? Has he made the decision to suspend them all from duty, pending a full independent inquiry—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the facts to the House this afternoon. I have ordered a review of security vetting by Sir Adrian Fulford, so that if any further changes are needed, we can put them in place.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I understand that Peter Mandelson’s vetting clearance was conditional on his being accompanied to meetings with former clients, such as Palantir. Will the Prime Minister clarify why there is no record of his and Peter Mandelson’s meeting with Palantir in Washington, and will he tell the House what it was all about?
The Prime Minister
That was a routine meeting in the course of a visit I was on in the US.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister is repeatedly telling us that either he was not told, or he was not allowed to be told, but what culture has he created around him and across the civil service that meant that no one felt that they could or should tell him this sensitive information?
The Prime Minister
I remind the hon. Lady that, in the last two weeks, my senior officials have brought this to my attention, which is—[Interruption.] No, before the Guardian. They brought it to my attention on Tuesday evening. That is what led me to ask further questions and make this statement to the House.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Prime Minister once promised to end the chaos, and to restore honesty and integrity to Government. Does he think that appointing a man who called a convicted child sex offender his “best pal”, and whose connections with Epstein were already well known, is consistent with that promise? If it is not, will he step aside and let someone else end his chaos and restore honesty and integrity to Government?
The Prime Minister
I have accepted that I made an error in the appointment, and apologised to the victims, as I must.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On 4 February, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether the vetting process had disclosed information about Epstein. The Prime Minister answered, “Yes, it did.” In his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), he said, “I got confused between vetting and disclosure,” but in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), he said that he knew the difference. If that is not misleading the House, what is?
The Prime Minister
I was asked about the vetting process, and the due diligence is part of the vetting process. Rather than rest on a technicality, I gave the House the information that I had about what I knew from the due diligence. It was clear what the Leader of the Opposition was asking; it was about Epstein. I knew that was in the due diligence, and that is why I told the House about it.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
The Prime Minister promised that, unlike the Tories, his Government would govern well and restore public trust, yet this whole sorry Mandelson saga has reinforced the belief, in Yeovil and beyond, that no Government or politician can change. Can the Prime Minister explain to my constituents why he ignored the then Cabinet Secretary’s advice to get security clearance for Mandelson before he confirmed Mandelson as ambassador?
The Prime Minister
I have dealt with that issue on a number of occasions.
Antisemitic Attacks
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Minister to make a statement on recent antisemitic attacks, I should inform the House that in some cases, charges have been brought. Those cases, including the attacks on the Hatzola community ambulance services and at the Manchester synagogue, are therefore sub judice. In respect of more recent incidents in Kenton and Finchley, arrests have been made but charges have not yet been brought. I remind hon. Members that they should not refer to the details of any specific cases currently before the courts, and that they should exercise caution with respect to any specific cases that might subsequently come before the courts, in order not to prejudice those proceedings.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, I will make a statement about the appalling incidents targeting British Jews and opponents of the Iranian regime over recent days. I will begin with the facts. Counter-terrorism police have confirmed that they are investigating a series of arson attacks and incidents that have occurred in London over recent days. These include an arson attack at a synagogue in Finchley on Wednesday 15 April; a suspected arson attack targeting premises in Hendon linked to a Jewish charity on Friday 17 April; a suspected arson attack targeting a synagogue in Harrow on the evening of Saturday 18 April; and a further incident in the early hours of yesterday morning outside residential premises in Finchley and opposite a synagogue.
These events follow the arson attack on a volunteer-led ambulance service run by the Jewish community in Golders Green on 23 March. Last week, there was also an attempted arson attack on a Persian-language media organisation that has previously been the target of serious threats linked to the Iranian regime and its proxies. Eight arrests have now been made in connection with that incident, and four people have been charged. Jewish communities across the UK will be distressed and dismayed by these abhorrent attacks, and I know that I speak for hon. Members from right across the House when I say that there is no place in British life for antisemitism. Attacks on British Jews are attacks on all of us, and we will do whatever it takes to stop the cowards and thugs who seek to intimidate our Jewish communities.
The police response over the weekend has been decisive. Fifteen arrests have already been made. In addition, a range of capabilities have been deployed to deter potential attackers and to reassure communities. Over the weekend, the Metropolitan police significantly increased the number of officers in and around north-west London. Uniformed and plain-clothes officers have maintained a strong presence around Barnet, and additional stop-and-search powers have been introduced across the borough. Response vehicles and Counter Terrorism Policing resources have been deployed, alongside local policing, to respond to potential threats.
To ensure the police response is a sustainable one, the Government have already committed an additional £5 million for this financial year to support the deployment of specialist officers across the country to support vulnerable communities under Project Servator. That is in addition to the record £73.4 million annual funding for protective security at Jewish, Muslim and other faith sites.
This morning, I visited Finchley Reform synagogue with the deputy commissioner and the local MP, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman). I met community leaders and saw at first hand the strengthened police presence and the resilience of those affected, and I reaffirmed our commitment to protect all those who have been targeted.
The Government’s commitment to supporting British Jews is an enduring one. We are taking firm steps to root out antisemitism wherever it appears across public life—from our public services to our universities, our charities and beyond. We are backing up our words with action. This includes launching an urgent review of antisemitism in the NHS, introducing mandatory training, and investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities. This is a whole of society effort, grounded in close engagement with Jewish communities.
We are determined to tackle the issues that have a daily impact on the lives of our Jewish communities. An amendment to existing powers will allow the police to deal with repeat protests by taking into account the cumulative effect of protest activity, and the Home Secretary has asked Lord Macdonald to undertake a review of public order laws to ensure people can go about their lives without fear of intimidation.
The Government have set out our vision for a fair, tolerant and decent country with the recent publication of “Protecting What Matters”, our action plan to tackle threats to social cohesion and counter the scourge of extremism. The plan makes significant spending commitments, including £800 million to expand the Pride in Place programme to 40 new neighbourhoods, plus new investment in community resilience, schools linking and local media. This vital effort requires us to work collectively across Government and with operational partners, and it will be driven forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Furthermore, we are actively protecting Persian language media organisations that are at risk. This includes tailored security advice and cyber-protection through to armed police protection where necessary. We have already seen a number of charges and convictions of those seeking to harm journalists in the UK. Through the implementation of the National Security Act 2023 and other means, we are making the United Kingdom an even harder operating target for hostile actors.
Hon. Members will be aware that a group calling itself Ashab al-Yamin—the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right—has claimed responsibility for a number of these incidents. It has also claimed responsibility for attacks across Europe over recent months targeting Jewish and Israeli interests. I am aware of the public speculation linking that group to the Iranian state. Given that police investigations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment on who may ultimately be behind these specific incidents, but more generally, we have held and will continue to hold Iran to account for its hostile acts.
Let me be absolutely clear: whether linked to Iran or to any other source, we will never tolerate hostile activity on British soil. Alongside the police and our world-leading security and intelligence agencies, we will do what is necessary to keep our citizens safe. On those criminal proxies used by states to do their dirty work, we will continue to ensure that their actions are met with the full weight of the law, as we saw with the conviction of the Chechen-born Austrian national who was imprisoned in 2023 for conducting surveillance on Iran International’s UK headquarters.
We have already seen the first convictions under the National Security Act for assisting a foreign intelligence service, including that of Dylan Earl, who in October received a sentence of 17 years for masterminding an arson campaign for Russia’s Wagner Group. To anyone tempted by offers of financial reward from foreign states to conduct hostile acts against the UK, my advice and my message is unambiguous: “You will be discovered and the consequences will be severe. Turning a blind eye or pleading ignorance is no defence.”
Antisemitism has existed in its many poisonous forms for centuries, but there is no doubt that we find ourselves at a critical juncture as fellow members of our society feel forced in some cases to live a smaller Jewish life. Our response must be unflinching, and I assure the House that under this Government it always will be. We will work relentlessly to ensure that antisemites and those who threaten the Jewish community here have nowhere to hide, and to show British Jews that we stand with them and will do everything in our power to keep them safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The attacks on our Jewish community have become a national emergency. In recent weeks, we have seen multiple attacks against cultural sites and synagogues. The Jewish community has been targeted again and again. As a result, many Jewish people are, tragically, considering leaving the UK.
When the shadow Home Secretary visited the community in Golders Green just after the attack on the Hatzola ambulances, he was told that they feel abandoned by the Government. That morning, he spoke to a young mother who said she was afraid to send her children to school. Matt Jukes, the Met police deputy commissioner, said this morning:
“We’ve…seen hate crime in our communities before…but now what we’ve got is the prospect of a foreign state actually using that as a mechanism to sow discord…and to create anxiety in our communities”.
Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, an Islamist militant group with links to Iran—indeed, many would say it is a proxy for Iran—has claimed responsibility for five incidents targeting Jewish sites in London, including the firebombing of the Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green and the attempted drone attack on the Israeli embassy. Vicki Evans, the senior national co-ordinator for Counter Terrorism Policing, told reporters on Sunday:
“As the conflict in the middle east continues to evolve, Counter Terrorism Policing and our partners remain alive to the threat of Iranian hostile activity in the UK.”
How much more Iranian action on our UK soil is needed before the Government act to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? In opposition, Labour Members, including the then shadow Home Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—said they would do this, but almost two years after winning power, they have done nothing. Many other countries have acted by proscribing the IRGC, including the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and earlier this year even the European Union did so, so why have this Government not delivered on their election promise to proscribe the IRGC? If emergency legislation is needed, the Minister will have our support to get it rapidly through Parliament. Will he accept our offer now from the Dispatch Box?
If Iran is behind these recent attacks, large numbers of Iranian diplomats and those suspected of being Iranian spies in the UK must be immediately expelled, as happened to Russian diplomats and spies after the Salisbury attack. That would send a powerful message and degrade Iran’s ability to act on UK soil.
Besides foreign-directed attacks, there has been a sickening tidal wave of domestic antisemitism. As the Leader of the Opposition has said:
“As a black woman in this country, I have never seen the level of racism, discrimination, intimidation and attacks that have been directed at the Jewish community.”
She has said that
“if people were firebombing black churches, the way that synagogues have been attacked, people killed…ambulance services being firebombed…there’d be a national emergency.”
This should be considered a national emergency.
Of course, antisemitism often goes hand in hand with Islamist extremism, a threat we know all too well. Some 75% of MI5’s terrorism caseload relates to Islamist extremism and 94% of terrorist murders in the last 25 years have been perpetrated by Islamist extremists, yet only 10% of the Prevent caseload is Islamist. When we discussed the Hatzola attacks a few weeks ago, the Security Minister said the Government are looking at what they can do about what he rightly admitted was the “mismatch” in Prevent caseloads. Can he update the House on the progress he has made since saying that?
Will the Government commit to using counter-terrorist surveillance techniques to disrupt antisemitic attacks before they occur? Will they also commit to deporting any foreign national who expresses extremist views, sympathy for violence, terrorism, antisemitism or any other such religious hatred? In October, the Home Secretary said that she was reviewing the use of the power under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 and promised to update the House, but we have heard nothing since. Will the Minister please update the House today? Antisemitism is a stain on our society. Warm words are no longer enough. Real action is needed.
Dan Jarvis
I hope that the shadow Minister will accept that the Government’s response is not about warm words, but about decisive, targeted and effective activity, and that is what we have seen over the past few days.
Let me agree with the hon. Gentleman in recognising the fear and distress that exists within our Jewish communities. It is abhorrent that members of our Jewish community are considering their long-term future in the United Kingdom. Collectively, I am sure we want to assure them that we will do everything we possibly can to make sure that the United Kingdom is a safe place for them and their families, but I recognise the fear and distress they are feeling at the moment. That is why we are making sure that our response is proportionate and urgent in the way that I set out earlier in my remarks.
The shadow Minister, entirely reasonably, raised the spectre of the threat we face from Iran. I have made these points previously, but for the purpose of clarification let me tell him and the House precisely what we are doing to combat the specific threat from Iran. The Government specified Iran under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which is a useful operational tool that will bolster our oversight of Iran’s influence and activities here in the UK. We have sanctioned more than 550 Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC in its entirety. He mentioned proscription. He will know that the Government have committed to take forward the recommendations by Jonathan Hall KC, including the creation of a new proscription-like power to help tackle malign activity by state and non-state linked actors. We have also engaged in extensive activity to go after the criminal networks and enablers that the Iranian intelligence services use to carry out their work, as well as to target those who assist the IRGC and others to launder their money here in the United Kingdom.
The role of the police force right around the country is very important to that work, which is why we have rolled out new training to all frontline police officers to increase their understanding of state threats. We are strengthening our immigration system against Iranian infiltration, including those who promote Iranian interference in the UK. We are also doing this in concert with our allies. We are engaging internationally on transnational Iranian threats, including joining 13 other countries in condemning Iranian intelligence activities, both in the United Kingdom and globally.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work we are doing through Prevent. He will have seen the Home Secretary confirm the appointment of a new independent Prevent commissioner, Tim Jacques, to fulfil the role that has been done expertly by Lord Anderson. This is an important role and we want to work very closely with him to ensure the Prevent programme is fit for purpose. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the detail from phase 1 of the Southport inquiry and that the Government immediately commissioned phase 2, which will be conducted by Sir Adrian Fulford; we have made a commitment to respond in full by the summer.
The hon. Gentleman also made an entirely reasonable and important point about extremism. As I said in my previous remarks, the Government are doing a lot of work led by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. There is also a lot of work co-ordinated across Government to target the threats we face from extremists. That work was set out recently with the publication of the “Protecting What Matters” document, which shows how the Government are delivering a fundamental reset in how we counter extremism, ensuring we have the tools, capabilities and partnership to match the scale and nature of the threat we face. I hope he and the House understand the seriousness with which we take this issue. These should not be matters of cross-party disagreement. We should work together to make sure that our Jewish communities feel safe. That will be our approach.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
On Saturday, my constituents awoke to the news of a despicable antisemitic attack at the heart of our community, at the former headquarters of Jewish Futures on Hendon Way. As the Minister said, this is not an isolated incident; we have seen the abhorrent attacks on Hatzola just a mile down the road in Golders Green, and on Finchley Reform and Kenton United synagogues, both nearby. Many of my constituents face discrimination and abuse every single day for no other reason than that they are Jewish. I am working intensively with the police and I am grateful for all they are doing, but, as the Prime Minister has said, we must not just ensure that our Jewish community is safe; we must ensure that Jewish people in Hendon and across the whole country are able to live full and proud Jewish lives, free from fear. Will the Minister share more about what additional measures are being taken both to protect the community in the wake of these despicable attacks and to ensure that the Jewish members of my community are not forced to live smaller Jewish lives?
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the assiduous representation of his constituents and his constituency. The threats he describes are abhorrent and completely unacceptable. The notion that some members of our Jewish communities might be forced to live less Jewish lives is totally unacceptable. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that our response is proportionate to that threat. Along with ministerial colleagues in the Department, we have been in constant contact with the Metropolitan police over the past few days. I met Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes this morning to look at what more we can do to ensure that the police have the resources they need.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the police for their work in recent times, which has been an impressive effort. They have stepped up to the plate and their response has been impressive, but we need to ensure that, collectively, we have the resources in place to continue that for as long as is necessary, to provide the reassurance required in constituencies such as the one that my hon. Friend is proud to represent. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take this matter and I would be very happy to discuss it with him further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to extend my sympathies to the Jewish community, who will understandably be worried about the disturbing uptick in violence against their community across Britain.
The series of arson attacks on Jewish sites in recent days is an abhorrent trend. The pattern of attacks on Britain’s Jews is clear to see. Without serious intervention, it is only a matter of time before we see another attack like that seen in Manchester last year. We are grateful to hear the Minister’s words today on the action being taken. We must recognise that we have a huge antisemitism problem in this country. We in this House must re-state that again and again until the problem has been stamped out. But that is not enough; the political system must also take action to tackle its root causes.
Earlier today, I met groups representing British Jews, including the Community Security Trust. They told me that British Jews are feeling extremely vulnerable, with some questioning their long-term security in this country. That such sentiment is held by any minority group in Britain in 2026 must give this House pause for thought. That the sentiment is held by the Jewish community, given the centuries of persecution they have suffered, is a tragedy.
A group called Ashab al-Yamin has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks, and others across Europe. What are Ministers doing with our European partners to tackle the cross-country and cross-continent threat that this organisation and others pose? Given the potential links with the IRGC, will the Minister act swiftly to proscribe it? Does he accept that, if those links are substantiated, proscription would be more likely to deliver justice for the Jewish community?
We know that hostile foreign states sometimes try to recruit individuals online to carry out these kinds of attacks on British people. There are rumours that social media has been the recruitment tool used. Does the Minister know what the social media companies are doing to identify, monitor and clamp down on that practice? What are Ministers doing to ensure that social media companies themselves are taking action?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a series of entirely sensible and constructive points. He is absolutely right to raise both the abhorrent nature of the threat and the spectre of what happened in Manchester. Those of us with the privilege of serving in government to ensure our national security and keep our public safe have spent a lot of time looking very closely at what happened in Manchester. I give the hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that we work around the clock to try to ensure that these terrible attacks cannot happen and that we ensure that our intelligence services and police have the resources they need to do the important job that we ask of them.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Community Security Trust—I suspect that every Member of the House knows about it—which does incredibly important work and is held in the very highest regard. I am proud of the resources that this Government have put into that work. He is also right to make the point that we need to tackle this threat via the root causes; walls and cameras and defences are an important part of our response, but they are not the only part. That is why I spoke a moment ago about the need to tackle extremism.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about international engagement, and he is right to do so. I can give him an assurance that we work very closely with our international partners—particularly in Europe, but also in the middle east and further afield—and that there is a lot of activity alongside our partners to identify the particular nature of the threat we are facing collectively. I assure him that whatever tools and whatever legislative arrangement is required, we will bring it forward.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that I have a thriving Jewish community in my constituency—a community that I grew up in and which I feel very protective of. I want to share with the Minister an email from my constituent Richard, who said that
“many in the community are fearful”.
He said that some are not attending synagogue and communal events, and that Sunday schools for children are taking place behind thick security cordons. Richard’s niece attends a Jewish primary school, which had two police officers at the gate this morning. He went on to say:
“Instead of action, we are receiving platitudes from those in power. Why hasn’t your government proscribed the IRGC, who are directly involved in terror against Britain’s Jewish community and against British interests.”
I ask the Minister, who recently visited my constituency and had a conversation with community leaders, what shall I reply to my constituent Richard—why have the Government not proscribed the IRGC?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised her concerns diligently with me on a number of occasions. I had the privilege recently of visiting JW3, in her constituency, which is a truly inspiring place. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Raymond, the chief executive officer, and to all the staff and volunteers for the incredibly important work that they do. I know it is hugely appreciated in my hon. Friend’s community.
The threat that my hon. Friend describes is totally unacceptable, and I can give her an absolute assurance to take back to her constituents of how seriously we take that threat. I also assure her that we will bring forward and use all the tools at our disposal. There has been a lot of commentary about proscribing the IRGC, and I completely understand why. She will understand that the Government have made a commitment to bring forward a legislative tool that was recommended by Jonathan Hall. It was this Government’s view that we did not have the appropriate legislative mechanism to proscribe a state-backed entity, which is why we have made a commitment to bring forward that particular tool. However, she should be assured that we will not wait for that particular legislative tool to do everything necessary to combat and counter the work of the IRGC. I set out the work we are doing to counter the threat from Iran a moment ago, and I hope that provides some assurance to her and to her constituents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am sure that everyone in this House will have heard stories from friends and constituents who are unable to enjoy a full Jewish life in the way that they should. The Minister is right that this is not just about putting in place more police and security, but about driving out the root cause of antisemitism. In this case, it does seem that the attacks are driven by foreign state actors, so I must agree with the calls for the proscription of the IRGC. This is something that the Government must now look at urgently.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the work she does with her Select Committee, and she is right in the point she makes about the root causes. The Government have to ensure that not only are we tackling the root causes, but we have appropriate security and defence mechanisms in place. She will understand the rigour with which Jonathan Hall conducts his work on behalf of the Government. He is somebody with great credibility and experience in this field. It was his view that we do not currently have the appropriate legislative mechanism in order to properly proscribe a state entity, but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) a moment ago, that will not stop this Government ensuring that we have all the measures in place. We have made a commitment to bring forward that legislative tool, and that is what we will do.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
Ministers will be aware that the charity sector is being exploited by extremists, with record amounts of money being pumped into British-based organisations with charitable status by our adversaries and hostile states. While these extremists often target Britain’s Jews, the threats go far beyond them—they do not stop with the Jewish community. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Charity Commission will be granted updated robust powers in the next legislative Session so that it can tackle these growing threats?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which emphasises the fact that the levers that we have in government do not sit within a single Department, and that is why we have to ensure that we have a co-ordinated response. On the point about charities specifically, the Government have announced plans to strengthen the Charity Commission’s powers to close down charities that promote extremism. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with the Charity Commission to speed up the process of investigating charities suspected of engaging in extremist behaviour, including strengthening its powers to close them down if needed. I can also say that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will soon be consulting on plans to automatically ban individuals with a criminal conviction for hate crime from serving as charity trustees or senior managers and will consult on plans to strengthen the commission’s powers to disqualify individuals where there is evidence that they have promoted violence or hatred. This is important work, and we need to progress it at pace.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My constituency is home to many Jewish communities, as well as a significant number of Iranian refugees. This morning I met David Summers, a volunteer who co-ordinates security at one of our synagogues, and Jeremy Havardi of B’nai B’rith, a well-known national Jewish organisation. Given the number of incidents in north-west London, there is a real concern that these incidents are getting closer and closer to home for my Jewish constituents. In the light of the amount of pressure on our police forces, I know that my Jewish constituents would like me to ask the Minister what consideration he has given to bringing in support from police forces outside of the Metropolitan police area so that all our Jewish constituents at schools, synagogues and other community locations can enjoy the level of visible and covert security that they need to be able to live their lives to the fullest.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely reasonable point. Before I come to the substance of his question, I reiterate our commitment to ensuring that no state, regardless of who it is, is able to target people in this country, whether that is members of Jewish communities, as in this case, or Iranian dissidents. I can assure him that a huge amount of work is under way to ensure that cannot happen.
The hon. Gentleman made an entirely reasonable point about ensuring that the Metropolitan police have the resources they need to do a very difficult job at a point of challenge. As he would expect, I have been in regular contact with the police over the course of this weekend, and, as I mentioned earlier, I met with Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes this morning to discuss what further support we can provide. The hon. Gentleman’s question about assistance from other forces is interesting—clearly, that will be for the Met to determine. However, I can say to him that we will work very closely to ensure that the police have the resources they require.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Tonight, a “Panorama” documentary will air featuring members of the Jewish community talking about the existential fear that they feel in this country and about wanting to leave. I urge all hon. Members to watch it when they can.
We know that an IRGC-linked group has claimed responsibility for some of the recent firebombing attacks. I appreciate that the Minister does not want to comment on active police investigations, but whatever the facts of those cases, we can all agree—I am sure he does too—that the Iranian regime poses a threat to the British-Jewish community. Can he set out exactly when the Jonathan Hall recommendations will be implemented? Will he commit to implementing them in full?
Dan Jarvis
I know that my hon. Friend will understand that it is not for me as the Security Minister to set out future parliamentary business—I would get into quite a lot of trouble with the Leader of the House, and no doubt others. My hon. Friend will have heard, however, the commitments made by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and me. We have accepted Mr Hall’s recommendations. He delivered an important piece of work at the Government’s behest and we will move at pace to make good on those commitments. My hon. Friend and the House should understand, however, that we will not wait to take the necessary actions to keep the public safe.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I will share with the Minister some distressing words that I have had from a wonderful man, Rabbi Dr Neil Janes, who leads the South Buckinghamshire Jewish community of which many of my Jewish constituents are members. He said that the recent attacks had become more than just one-offs, and that the
“unacceptable strain on Jewish life has been normalised”.
The South Buckinghamshire Jewish community do not have a building; they meet in different places around the area. Because of that, they do not qualify for funding from the faith communities security grant. Rabbi Janes tells me, however, that after every attack, they have to become more secretive in where and when they meet. That is unacceptable for any group in our society. On top of the words that the Minister has given, which I accept—I think he is a good Minister and I have faith in him—can he set out for the South Buckinghamshire Jewish community and every Jewish community in our country the concrete steps that he will take to ensure that they are safe and can live freely in this country?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman’s constituent’s words are deeply concerning and the situation is totally unacceptable. I hope that he will acknowledge that the Government have put a lot of money into protecting places of worship around the country. Given the particular circumstances of that case, however, perhaps he might drop me a note with the details. I give an assurance that I will look carefully at it and see what we can do.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
This is not a series of isolated crimes; this is a pattern of frequent and repeated targeting of Jewish sites and communities across London, designed to intimidate and make people feel unsafe in their daily lives. If foreign-linked actors like Iran are using individuals in the UK to carry out attacks on Jewish sites, that is not just a policing matter; it is, of course, a national security issue.
I again raise the urgent need for financial sanctions on Iran’s PressTV, where Palestine Declassified broadcasts information about Jewish charities, and its antisemitic presenters have suggested on Twitter that direct action against Jewish community institutions is appropriate. I am grateful for the Minister’s update and his answers, particularly on charities, but I urge him to meet me, other concerned MPs and the CST to discuss how the Government’s approach to antisemitism and the security of Jewish communities can be further strengthened.
Dan Jarvis
Of course, I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and the CST, which I engage with on a very regular basis. He is right to describe this as a pattern of behaviour. I hope he accepts that we are doing everything that we possibly can, not just to deter and disrupt this activity, but to defeat it. He will have seen the decisive action over the weekend—15 arrests. Clearly, I am not going to prejudice ongoing investigations, and we do not know quite where those investigations will lead, but that is a significant level of activity by the Metropolitan police over the weekend. As I said earlier, anybody who is considering undertaking this kind of activity at the behest of some other entity for payment should have a very long, hard think about doing it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In 1945, 300 Jewish children who had survived the Nazi death camps arrived in Windermere, where they received a welcome beyond their wildest dreams. In the years that followed, they fell in love with this country and contributed hugely, and they leave a legacy that we are deeply proud of. Yet today, many British Jews are fearful and that welcome feels like a distant memory to many of them—it is very remote. The story of the welcome of the Windermere children is the story of the real Britain; that is the story of what we are really like when people come here seeking refuge, accepting communities of all kinds. Will the Minister meet me and the families of the Windermere children so we can talk about how their legacy can be used today as a positive message, as we once again go toe to toe with the evil that is antisemitism?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising those points. He is absolutely right that this abhorrent targeting has no place in our society—not now, not ever. Although I completely accept his characterisation of many British Jews currently feeling fearful, it is important to make the point—as I saw myself this morning—that the resilience and enduring decency of our Jewish communities, looking out for each other and working with a range of other community groups, are incredibly inspiring and impressive to see. We should not lose sight of that; that is a real light in a moment of darkness. To answer his question directly, of course I will be happy to meet him and the families.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
To follow the point of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), too many aspects of antisemitism are being normalised in this country. That does not start with attacks on places of worship or on clearly Jewish buildings; it starts with the words and actions of individuals who seek to demonise Jewish people in day-to-day language. It starts with the deputy leader of the Green party publishing a list of British Jews and calling them part of the Israeli lobby, or putting out a list of British-Jewish donors and saying they are part of the Israeli lobby. It starts with the soft approach of demonising a small group of people because of their faith, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) said. What action is being taken across Government, not to deal with the instances after the event, but to tackle the root cause—that scourge of virulent racism—that is being normalised by too many people who ought to know better?
Dan Jarvis
I hope that across the House there is a shared endeavour and an absolute determination to ensure that this does not become the new normal that we have to endure. None of us wants that to be the case. My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of tackling the root causes, and hopefully he will have heard my earlier answers, but he is also right to make the point that this work needs to be properly co-ordinated across Government. Although there is an important role for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in leading this work, it needs a response from the whole system and the whole of Government. I assure him that through the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, and with other supporting Departments, we make sure that that is the case.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I commend the police and the fire brigade for their prompt action in the early hours of Sunday morning. It was a reassurance patrol that spotted the firebombing of Kenton shul and prevented it from burning down completely, so that is welcome. Equally welcome is the extension of the section 60 notice, not just to Barnet but to Harrow and Brent—I think that has been announced while the Minister has been on his feet. We have to recognise that this is a series of terrorist attacks on the Jewish community. I have people contacting me saying, “Am I safe in my own home, let alone going to the synagogue?” That is a disgrace for this country and we have to take action immediately.
Will he look not only at proscription of the IRGC but the immediate proscription of Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, so that membership of that organisation is a criminal offence? Equally, will he make sure that the charities behind these people—the Dar Alhekma Trust and the Abrar Islamic Foundation, which I wrote to the Minister about a year ago—are also proscribed, as well as the 16 other Islamic charities that have been proscribed by the Arab states?
The reality is that we have to take prompt and firm action to stop this terrorist activity now. What starts with the hate marches ends up with synagogues being burned and Jewish people feeling unsafe.
Dan Jarvis
I agree with pretty much all of what the hon. Member said, and I join him in commending the important work of the police and the fire service. On proscription, he knows that it is the long-standing policy of successive Governments that we do not talk about it, because that would be helpful to our adversaries, but we do look very carefully at the extent to which we can deploy proscription in a meaningful, targeted and effective way. The hon. Member should also understand—I know that he does—that it is but one tool in our armoury. There are many other things that we can do, and there are many other things that we are doing and will do.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The hate-filled attack on the Kenton synagogue in my constituency is the latest in the series of disgusting attacks on Jewish buildings that the Minister outlined. But these are more than attacks on buildings; they are calculated attacks on the whole Jewish community, designed to destabilise and instil widespread fear. This is the very definition of terrorism.
I am grateful to the police for their swift response and the arrests that they have made in relation to some of the attacks, but I believe it is vital that the Government and the Met treat these as terrorist attacks, not simply as criminal damage. I would also ask that the Home Office, and perhaps the Home Affairs Committee, examines the involvement of foreign actors and the ease with which they are able to launch such attacks. For too long, London has been regarded by some hostile regimes as a safe base from which to operate and a place where money can be laundered. That British Jewry lives under the dark shadow of antisemitic hatred is something that, sadly, we have all come to understand but must never come to accept.
I pay tribute to the work of the CST and the security personnel at Kenton, who are always there to greet those of us who visit to ensure the safety of us and the whole congregation. In the London borough of Brent, we like to pride ourselves on the multicultural nature of our community and the harmony between all those from different faiths and cultural backgrounds, but good community relations have to be worked at—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will ask his question.
Barry Gardiner
I ask the Minister to reinforce the fact that those good community relations are built not simply on the toleration of the views of others but on—
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of community relations. He is also right that we have seen a number of clearly calculated attacks in recent times. He will understand that I do not want to get in front of a live and ongoing police operation, and it is not for me to categorise the nature of these attacks, but I again make the point that the Metropolitan police has arrested a number of people over the weekend. Should any further individuals be considering conducting any more attacks, I strongly advise them against doing so.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The arson attacks targeting synagogues in recent days are sadly part of a pattern of escalating antisemitism designed to intimidate Jewish people, leaving them fearful for their safety. This vile form of racism can never be tolerated, and we must act collectively to defend our Jewish communities. Given the potential links between recent attacks, will the Minister keep the Scottish Government updated on this developing threat so that we can work together to protect the Jewish community in Scotland?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point and the way in which he made it, not least because it gives me an opportunity to say that while we are primarily talking about London, I have concerns about these kind of activities right around the country. To answer his question directly, yes, it is always my default instinct to work closely with colleagues in the Scottish Government, and I give him an assurance that that is what we will do.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Walthamstow stands shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish community in this country in standing up to these people trying to divide our nation. We recognise the pain and fear in our local community, and are shocked to discover that some of those who have been charged with offences come from our local community. We also understand this pain at first hand, because in February 2025, attacks were organised online in the same fashion against our local mosques. They were reputed to be associated with Russian Telegram channels. It is right that we are hearing calls for proscription, but this is a relatively new form of terrorist association; teenagers and young people from our communities are being recruited online to conduct these offences in our communities. What more can we do to disrupt this recruitment by hostile states?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I can give her an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which operational partners, including the National Crime Agency, the intelligence services, the Metropolitan police and others, take these threats. It is the job of Government to make sure that those partners have the necessary resources to conduct this work. She is right to raise concerns about activity online, but I can assure her that we take this very seriously, and are working at pace to ensure that anyone conducting this kind of activity is brought to justice.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
In Germany in the inter-war period, university students protested for months before violence erupted against the Jewish community. Why are we allowing these patterns here, and modern-day pogroms on the streets of London, and why are we then surprised when violence erupts? History tells us what the outcome will be if this is not stopped. Will the Government commit to taking swift action? Why will they not ban the IRGC?
Dan Jarvis
This Government will take swift action. That is precisely why the Home Secretary commissioned Lord Macdonald to look at the issues that the hon. Member has raised. She will have heard the responses I have given about proscription.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Every community should feel safe. Does the Minister agree that we must condemn racism in all its forms—antisemitism, attacks on mosques, the abuse and intimidation directed at other minority ethnic communities, and attacks on asylum hotels by far-right terrorists? The Government’s approach appears inconsistent. Take the handling of visas for divisive far-right figures, such as Valentina Gomez. Her entry has now been blocked, but why was her visa approved in the first place, given the clear risk that she posed to the safety and cohesion of our—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. These questions are too long. Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member will respect the Chair. I call the Minister.
Dan Jarvis
Every community must feel safe, and this Government will defend against racism wherever it raises its ugly head.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Auschwitz, on a visit organised by March of the Living UK. I joined 200 members of the British Jewish community there, and almost 8,000 people from around the world. We marched between Auschwitz and Birkenau. Many of those there were Holocaust survivors. I heard their stories, from the 1930s and 1940s, and from today. Many told me that they have an exit plan. We were escorted by security the whole time. Will the Minister provide much-needed assurance to our Jewish community in the UK by explaining what steps are being taken to address rising antisemitism here, and will he commit to taking action that is significant enough to reassure British Jews that they do not need a plan B?
Dan Jarvis
I will give the hon. Member that assurance. I am grateful to her for mentioning her recent visit to Auschwitz. I visited Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust. It was one of the most moving things I have ever done, and I recommend that all Members do it.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I joined East London and Essex liberal synagogue for a seder this month. They, and all our Jewish communities, are loved and respected—something that has been made clear to them in the many written messages from our churches and mosques, and from across the community. I truly regret not speaking out louder and calling out the clear increase in antisemitic bigotry across society, which has created fertile ground for malign actors to target young people and draw them into these appalling crimes. Will the Minister describe the measures that he is taking to educate the public about the tactics used by hostile states to target our Jewish communities, and the solid steps that he is taking to address the apparently escalating frequency of these attacks?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right that we all have an absolute responsibility to call out racism and bigotry, wherever we experience it. He is also right that a range of malign forces is seeking to sow division and disharmony across our country and in our communities. I give him an absolute assurance that there is an extensive programme of activity across Government Departments to ensure that we have the requisite tools and resources to counter the misinformation and disinformation from those who would seek to divide us.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Our Jewish community has contributed to our national story for centuries, and we are right to be proud that our country welcomes citizens to our shores who fled persecution elsewhere, including my nan, who came here in the late 1930s, fleeing the Nazis. Much of the discussion this afternoon has understandably been about those from overseas who seek to stoke division, hatred and antisemitism in the UK. I welcome the work by the Government, including the Rycroft review, and the amendments coming to the Representation of the People Bill about funding those who seek to divide us. But there are those in this House who are funded by known British antisemites. Can the Minister tell us more about what he is doing with colleagues across Government to tackle the people who are funding those who seek to divide us?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member is right that we should be—and I think are—very proud of our collective Jewish heritage. I pay tribute to her nan. I hope the hon. Member would acknowledge that the Rycroft review is an important step forward in tackling some of the issues that she raised. I hope she understands how seriously we take the commitments that we have made. As the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has described, we will bring forward amendments as soon as we can.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
For most of my life, the UK was becoming a more tolerant society, so it really pains me that in recent years we have been going backwards; that is particularly true of the hate and violence faced by the Jewish community. That is why it was right that Kanye West was banned from entering the UK.
Last week, I attended a Yom HaShoah event right next to Parliament, in which the Jewish community came together to mark the end of the Holocaust. They also reflected on the fact that there are still challenges ahead in the UK, which should shame us. The Minister has likened some of the recent violence in the UK to that in the Iranian state. What action will we take if there is found to be any connection between the people arrested and the Iranian state? The previous Government cut off diplomatic relations with Iran and its barbaric regime; will he follow suit?
Dan Jarvis
At moments like this, it can be tempting to focus on those who seek to divide our communities, but it is also important to reflect, as I have done, on the extraordinary good work in communities right around our country. On the point that my hon. Friend made at the end of his remarks, the National Security Act 2023 provides us with the legislative framework we need to take action against those who would seek to undermine our national security, and we will do everything we can to keep the public safe.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
I am proud to represent Lancashire’s only synagogue, St Annes in my constituency. Many of the members of the congregation tell me about the difficulties faced, and the fear and intimidation felt, by their friends and family around the country, as UK Jews. They are not interested in new strategies and plans and initiatives; they are interested in seeing handcuffs slapped on those who preach antisemitic hatred on our streets—not after the attacks have taken place, but pre-emptively—and who spill that bile on hate marches and in mosques across the country, and in extremist content. What action will the Government take to increase the number of arrests of those preaching hate, before it is too late?
Dan Jarvis
I have described the actions that we will take, but it is also important to recognise the work that the police do, often in difficult and challenging circumstances. There has been an impressive response from the Met over the past few days; we need to ensure that it has the support to continue that. If the hon. Member has any particular issues with regard to his local synagogue or local community, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Government recently introduced specific legislation to protect the Islamic community, ignoring the very real and greater threat to Jews in the UK. When will we see specific legislation to protect Jews, and indeed Christian preachers, across the United Kingdom?
Dan Jarvis
I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady’s characterisation is not fair. I have been incredibly clear about the work and the support that we are providing to Jewish communities. We take that incredibly seriously. Where there is a requirement to do more, and to do things differently, we will not hesitate to do so. Where we need to introduce new legislation, we will not hesitate to do so. The Government will ensure that all communities are kept safe.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I recently had the pleasure of attending a Passover service at Harrogate synagogue. It saddens me that whenever I meet the Jewish community there, they always talk about their security and safety. In the light of the Chief Rabbi’s comment that attacks on the Jewish community are gathering momentum, may I press the Minister on what further steps he is taking to protect Jewish communities like mine in Harrogate?
Dan Jarvis
We have invested a record amount of money in ensuring that places of worship right around the country have the support, security and defences that they require. That is a priority for the Government. We will always want to ensure that people can practise their faith and go about their business unimpeded by the threats that we have seen. I give him that commitment. I hope that the fact that we have brought forward record levels of resource for this demonstrates the seriousness with which we take it.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I join the Minister in condemning the attacks in Finchley, Hendon and Harrow. There have been four attacks on Jewish sites in London in a week. It is heartbreaking that the Jewish community once again faces horrific antisemitic abuse, just under a month after the events at the Hatzola ambulance station. Tragically for our Jewish friends and neighbours, these attacks are no longer a surprise.
Hate crime in London is rising, and it demands a response. The Metropolitan police must be given the resources that they need to monitor vulnerable neighbourhoods and protect communities. I welcome the measures that the Minister outlined in his statement, but what assurance can he give Londoners that police officer numbers will be increased—and will not continue to decrease—so that we can stamp out hate crime in our capital?
Dan Jarvis
The Minister for Policing and Crime, the Home Secretary and I—and all our ministerial colleagues —will do everything we need to do to ensure that the Metropolitan police and all police forces around the country have the resources they need to do this difficult job. Yes, there are moments of challenge, but we will ensure that our response is proportionate to the nature of the threat. Whatever it takes, we will provide it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for the steps he has taken to protect Jews and their property in the United Kingdom. The latest “Panorama” documentary highlighted that one in five Jewish people would consider moving due to the rise in antisemitism, and gave the disturbing news that more British Jews have moved to Israel in the past 12 months than in any other year since the turn of the century. Fears for their safety play a major role in that. What proactive steps have been taken, and can be taken, to enhance security and send the message that British Jews are as valuable and protected as any other British people? What can be done to persuade them to stay in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, not least because he has consistently advocated for people’s right to religious belief, and to worship safely and freely. This gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the important work of the Community Security Trust. The Government are proud to partner it, and we have put forward record levels of investment to support its work. It does an extraordinary job, and we should all be grateful to it for that.
Peter Mandelson Appointment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to propose that the House debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, that this House has considered the matter of the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. This is a matter of national security, because the Prime Minister has admitted appointing a known serious security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. This goes beyond Mandelson’s close relationship to a convicted paedophile. Today I raised deeply concerning ties to the Kremlin and China, which the Prime Minister admitted he knew about before the appointment.
Despite the Prime Minister’s statement today, there remain serious questions about what he knew and when. He has hidden behind process at every turn and failed to take responsibility. It is quite clear that the spirit and letter of the Humble Address, which this House voted for, have not been met. That is disrespectful to this House. There remain serious inconsistencies in the Government’s position, inconsistencies with the accounts of officials involved in the process, and inconsistencies with the Members of this House and journalists who sought to scrutinise the appointment at the time.
There are also questions to be asked about the Prime Minister repeatedly sacking senior civil servants, on a whim, for his own decisions, and leaving the taxpayer with financial liabilities. The British public deserve to know the truth. Members on all sides were not satisfied with the answers the Prime Minister gave today. I even gave him my questions in advance and still I did not get proper answers. Tomorrow, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office will appear in Parliament. The House should also have the chance to debate what he says at the earliest opportunity. That is why the House should be able to debate this before the forthcoming Prorogation.
At its core, this matter pertains to the Prime Minister’s catastrophic judgment. It pertains to his lack of grip and his failure to ask the relevant questions. It would be unfair of him to palm this debate off on to a junior Minister who does not have the information and did not take the decision. This whole saga has been about the Prime Minister’s leadership. A real leader would come here and answer these questions himself.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member asks for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely, the Government’s accountability to the House in connection with the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. I have listened carefully to the application from the Leader of the Opposition. I am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Does the right hon. Member have the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
As there is no objection, the right hon. Member has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specific matter set out in the right hon. Member’s application.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that Lords amendments 4B and 4C engage Commons financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 12
Private prosecutions: regulations about costs payable out of central funds
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 4B and 4C.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 4B and 4C.
Lords amendments 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 5F.
Lords amendments 6B and 6C.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful once again to have the opportunity to speak on the Victims and Courts Bill. As I have said previously in this House, this is fundamentally a Bill for victims. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have heard the experiences and views of victims and bereaved families and we have listened. I know for that fact that the Bill is now stronger because of this.
I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to some of the victims’ campaigners who have been so instrumental in this Bill, some of whom are joining us in the Gallery today. First, I say to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa: I know that nothing will ever lessen the pain of such an immense loss, followed by the indescribable trauma of an offender who would not face you and would not face justice. We owe you a debt of thanks for your courage and fortitude in campaigning to ensure that offenders will always be forced to attend their sentencing hearings, and that offenders that refuse to attend are quite rightly punished appropriately. Thanks to you, criminals will never be allowed to hide away from justice, and you have ensured that others should never have to face what you have had to endure. This measure in the Bill is brought forward in the memories of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan.
Secondly, I would like to pay tribute to Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that no other family should experience the injustices that they faced due to not being informed about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Tracey Hanson’s son Josh was tragically murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in 2015. Since that devastating loss, Tracey has shown extraordinary strength and compassion, continuing to advocate for and support other victims through her charity, the Josh Hanson Trust. In relation to the ULS scheme in particular, Tracey has campaigned for more than a decade, working closely with academics and fellow bereaved families to bring forward this change in the law. She held a strong and unwavering belief that it could not be right for her request to the Attorney General to be dismissed so abruptly, with nothing more than a “case closed” response.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Minister might remember that, in a debate on these amendments on 25 March, she and I had an exchange in which I described the very long explanation that she had given as a “load of waffle”, and she replied:
“We have listened directly to the families about what they want. We could have brought forward an amendment that simply extended the time limit, but the families told us directly that that was not what they wanted.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 332.]
The amendment to extend the period to 180 days is very welcome, but when the Minister said on 25 March that that was not what the families wanted, was she inadvertently misleading the House?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I was not inadvertently misleading the House; if he looks at the details of Lords amendment 5C, he will see that that is not what it does. The amendment does not simply extend the time limit—it does much more—and it does not extend the time limit for everyone. As I will explain in my comments, this amendment is for the families and for the victims directly. It is not for everyone, as was proposed by the Opposition. This amendment does not just do what the Opposition’s amendment would have done, as Tracey Hanson said in her own words; it does much more with respect to its application, and it is for the bereaved families and victims directly. There is also a statutory duty in this group of amendments to directly inform victims and their families about the ULS scheme, so that they are aware of it in the first place.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
There will be some back and forth about who wants what elements of this scheme and in what ways, but I think the Minister was wrong to say that our focus was on it being for everybody. I have been clear from the start that our focus was also on extending the provision for victims and their families, and not for everybody.
Alex Davies-Jones
I appreciate that clarification. The hon. Gentleman is correct, but Lords amendment 5C does much more than that, through listening to victims campaigners such as Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett directly. The measure is a direct tribute to them, because for them the status quo was neither fair nor acceptable.
I would also like to extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to Katie Brett. Katie, your commitment and courage in campaigning in memory of your sister Sasha has been truly remarkable. I do not need to remind the House that Sasha was brutally murdered at the age of just 16, and since that devastating loss, Katie has worked tirelessly to ensure that the families of victims have the right to be informed about the ULS scheme and that, where they are not told, they are given a fair opportunity to make a request to the Attorney General beyond the 28 day limit. I have felt privileged to get to know you all over the course of this Bill.
Before I turn to the motions that we will debate today, I would also like to thank those who have contributed to recent debates on amendments related to homicides abroad and court transcripts. I thank Members across this House and in the other place for the thoughtful way in which they have engaged with those issues. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who has campaigned to ensure that support is available for families bereaved by homicide abroad as they navigate such tragic events. In the other place, the Government committed to working jointly with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the Home Office, to undertake a review of how support is provided to those families and to assess how current arrangements are operating.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because I have just beat him to an intervention. Can I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for her work on this Bill? Whether we agree on different parts of the Bill, nobody in this Chamber or the other place could fail to recognise her personal commitment to ensuring that victims are at its heart. Could I ask her to mention the victims code and what she has done to make it easier to navigate for victims of crime?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. This Bill goes beyond party politics; this is a Bill, as I have said, for victims. It has been a sincere pleasure to work across political divides to get this right for victims, who are rightly at the heart of the Bill. I have always stated that I will work with anyone from any party if they have any measure that could make the criminal justice system a better place for victims, so that we start to put victims at its heart. The Bill does exactly that: it takes a step towards putting victims back at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they fundamentally belong.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
No one doubts the Minister’s commitment, honesty and integrity. But can I gently remind her that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) outlined the issue of the glorification of terrorism in relation to this Bill? He raised the issue of children wearing IRA slogans. Just last Saturday, I met a lady whose husband was murdered by the IRA on 9 April 1990. She reminded me that, in Northern Ireland, when she went to visit the memorial for her dead husband who was murdered 36 years ago, she faced slogans against her, like “Up the ’RA”, when she was trying to think of her husband. We need things in this legislation to protect against that. We cannot let people take advantage of others’ sorrow and not recognise that they are grieving, by bringing up the past and trying to glorify terrorism, which murders people and destroys lives.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He will know that my family have also faced tragedy and bereavement at the hands of the IRA. My cousin was killed on Horse Guards Parade serving this country by a serving member of the IRA, and that issue has plagued my family for decades and still hurts to this very day. I have spoken about that tragedy and bereavement in the Chamber before. He will know that the victims code is still open for consultation until the end of this month, and I urge anyone who has such feelings of pain to feed into that to enable us to make the code better for victims. The Policing Minister will have heard his views and the views of other victims on how we can support victims of terrorism. I have met families bereaved by terrorism to work with them on what more we can do, and they will be feeding into the victims code.
That brings me on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) about the victims code. I have spoken before about ensuring that those bereaved by homicide abroad have rights under the code; although it is not necessarily the right place, we have listened to them and ensured that there is a specific measure for them in the draft consultation. We are working with the FCDO and the Home Office to ensure that that can be strengthened so that support is available for them. The review will be published in 2027. It will be robust and comprehensive, and will put families at the centre, so that we can improve the support available to them where it is needed.
On court transcripts, I thank Liberal Democrat and Labour Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for all the work they have done on ensuring that victims have access to court transcripts that relate to their cases. As the Minister set out in the other place last week, the Government are acutely aware of the need to consider what further action we can take to support victims to access information on court proceedings relating to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. The Government are also fully committed to strengthening transparency. That is why I am pleased to restate that the Government are commencing a study on AI transcription in the criminal courts. That will look at how AI transcription could lead to producing court transcripts more quickly and at a lower cost for victims. The findings of that study have the potential to reduce fees and improve access to court transcripts. This will mean that further reform will be underpinned by confidence in accuracy, as well as appropriate safeguards, and that it will deliver for victims.
I will now move on to the remaining topics for discussion. The Government have agreed with the sentiment of the amendments to the unduly lenient sentence scheme but, as I have said previously, we needed to return to those to ensure that they were workable and effective and would bring the change necessary, following direct engagement with victims and bereaved families. That is what we have done, and I am pleased to confirm that we have now tabled two amendments to the ULS scheme that will deliver what victims have been calling for.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, Members may wish to refresh their memories. According to the rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons, we must never directly address visitors in the Public Gallery.
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the Lords message on the Victims and Courts Bill.
The Bill has been debated extensively in the other place. I thank the Lords for their care and consideration in trying to improve it, as we tried to do in the Commons. Members will know that, when the Bill was last in this House, we were sadly defeated by Labour MPs on a number of provisions relating to court transcripts, the victims code and the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Since then, the Lords have done a good job in securing concessions from the Government, including an agreement that there should be a clearer and more defined set of rights for victims of homicide abroad, which the Minister mentioned.
Although it is not the subject of the debate, I join the Minister in acknowledging the campaigning by the relatives and MPs of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan, which we have discussed a number of times in the Chamber as we passed specific amendments.
Today we are considering two remaining provisions added in the Lords. I begin with the Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Many Members of this House will be familiar with the ULS and will have used it themselves. Anyone, including a victim, a relative of a victim or a member of the public, can ask the Attorney General to consider whether a sentence should be referred to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient. If the Attorney General considers that it might be, they refer it to the Court of Appeal for review. However, there is a strict 28-day limit within which the Attorney General is able to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal—and, by extension, a 28-day limit within which the victim or a member of the public can refer the case. If the Court of Appeal finds that the sentence is unduly lenient, it may alter the sentence or substitute it for another.
I have used the scheme on occasions when I have considered sentences to be unduly lenient, including, most recently, in relation to the horrific murder of Alana Odysseos, who was murdered by her boyfriend, Shaine March. He stabbed her 19 times when she refused to have an abortion. Despite having been convicted of murder and released on parole for that offence, when he committed this second murder, he was given a second life sentence—a term that is increasingly unfit for purpose—with the prospect of leaving prison again. That was plainly wrong, and after I referred his case to the scheme, his sentence was overturned and replaced with a whole-life order, meaning that he will never be released. I have had the pleasure of speaking with Alana’s sister, Jasmine. She has told me of the importance of that outcome, which means that Mr March is serving a sentence that reflects the gravity of his crime. That demonstrates how effective the scheme can be in certain circumstances, but it does not always operate as we might want it to.
I have had the privilege of being able to meet and work with a number of victims and their families. They explained to me clearly the pitfalls in the scheme, and drew particular comparisons between the rights and privileges of the criminals and those of victims and the bereaved, in relation both to awareness and notification of the scheme and to the time available to use it. MPs and others can refer cases to the scheme, but those most likely to have an interest in making a referral or appealing a sentence are the victims or their families, and they do not always know about the scheme.
There is not much point in people having a right if they are not told about it. The Government have agreed to a statutory duty to notify victims of the existence of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which will mean that victims and bereaved families can easily find clear information about the ULS and about their rights in the victims code. Will the Minister clarify which body she envisages will have responsibility for that? It is important that we have some kind of plan to ensure that notification is working. I am sure that the various bodies involved would say that they like to think that everybody is told about it, but that is not the case, so how do the Government plan to ensure that whoever is given that job follows through on it?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who is no longer in his place, spoke about what the Government did or did not agree to. The Government’s original plan for the ULS in the Bill was not to give victims more time, but to give themselves more time. It was not on their radar, in any way, shape or form, to extend the time available to victims and their families. When we sought to amend the Bill in that respect, we were told that it was not possible and that we would have to wait for the findings of the Law Commission’s review of criminal appeals. I think the Minister must now accept that that was not true—as we knew at the time—because here we are making amendments before those findings are published.
I do welcome the amendments, however. I pay tribute to those I have worked with directly, many of whom the Minister has mentioned. I have worked closely on this issue with Katie Brett from the campaign group Justice for Victims. I pay tribute to her MP, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers), who made a particularly powerful and effective speech on this matter last time it was before this House. She has been very effective behind the scenes in driving forward this change.
Katie’s sister, Sasha, was murdered in 2013. This is difficult to talk about, but it is the reality of what people are going through. Aged just 16, Sasha was raped and stabbed more than 100 times, and her body was set on fire. Katie and her family believed that Sasha’s killer met the existing criteria for a whole-life order, but he was given only a minimum sentence of 35 years. In reality, that meant that there was every possibility that he would end up getting out of prison. Despite all Katie’s amazing work on this issue, the scheme is not retrospective, which is something the family will have to accept.
Katie was so upset about being unable to successfully appeal the sentence that she collected more than 10,000 signatures on a petition to remove the 28-day limit for appeals.
The way that Katie described the situation has always stuck with me, and I have used it in discussions with Ministers and others. She said that 28 days is the amount of time we have to take something back to a shop. Someone has the same amount of time to decide whether or not they like a top that they have bought. How can we have the same test for something so serious? That measure was a cross-party one—we did not amend it when we were in government.
I also met Ayse Hussein, another member of Justice for Victims, who campaigns on behalf of her cousin, Jan Mustafa. Jan’s killer had raped, tortured and imprisoned various girls and young women. He murdered Henriett Szucs and Jan and hid their bodies in a freezer, one of top of the other. He did not receive a whole-life sentence and may leave prison one day. Again, Ayse and her family never knew anything about the scheme.
I have also had the pleasure of meeting Lauren Redmond, who lost her ability to appeal a sentence purely because of errors made by the Crown Prosecution Service. When a request to appeal the sentence was placed, the Attorney General’s office asked for the relevant files. The CPS sent the wrong date to the Government, who then worked towards an incorrect timetable. As a result, Lauren was denied the right to appeal.
I have also had the opportunity to meet Tracey Hanson. You have given us guidance on addressing visitors in the Public Gallery, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Minister has already done it for us. Tracey has campaigned for many years on this issue, and works on victims’ behalf more generally through the Josh Hanson Trust, which is named after her son. I know that she has been supported by the Victims’ Commissioner in that work. As the Minister said, Joshua was 21 when he was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack. Tracey and I have not always seen eye to eye on exactly how the scheme should be reformed, but that in no way diminishes the incredibly vital role that she has played over many years in campaigning for improvements to the scheme. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who has done a great job of advocating and lobbying on Tracey’s behalf.
I am glad that the Government have been persuaded to act. They will now allow up to six months for victims and their families to make use of the scheme in certain circumstances. I want to allow space for Katie and Tracey’s words on those changes. Katie said:
“It’s a relief that, in Sasha’s memory, victims and their families will have 6 months to challenge an unduly lenient sentence, and the new legal duty to be notified means every family will know their rights to be able to do so. No family should ever be left in the dark like we were, every victim deserves support. We’re grateful these steps are being taken to redress the balance that so often feels weighted against victims.”
Tracey said:
“After…years of relentless campaigning through the Josh Hanson Trust, this is a significant and long-awaited victory for victims’ rights. Following our extensive advocacy, the Government has agreed to transformative amendments to the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme. These changes represent a hard-fought victory in ensuring that families are no longer left in the dark or rushed through a traumatising process during the most painful moments of their lives. These reforms are a testament to Josh’s memory and the passion and dedication of everyone who stood with the Josh Hanson Trust. We have moved forward, but the fight for full equality in the eyes of the law continues.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With the exception of the remaining Front-Bench speech, I am introducing an immediate six-minute time limit.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I stand here today proud of my constituent Katie Brett, who joins us in the Gallery. These changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme are being brought forward because of her campaigning, following the most traumatic ordeal for her and her family, and I am proud to welcome the fact that this Labour Government have listened and acted.
For too long, victims and bereaved families felt that the justice system was not on their side. Measures to force offenders to attend sentencing hearings are right. Families should not be denied the chance to see justice simply because an offender refuses to face up to what they have done. The stronger protections for children, especially in cases of sexual violence, are also badly needed, but I want specifically to welcome the changes that the Government are proposing to the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
Katie’s little sister, Sasha Marsden, was just 16 years old when she was brutally murdered, raped and set on fire. It was a crime as horrific and evil as it is possible to imagine, and the pain her family have lived with ever since is something most of us cannot even imagine. After everything they had already been through, Katie and her family then faced another injustice: they had only 28 days to challenge the sentence, and they were not even told that they had the right to do so. That was so very wrong. A trial like that would be deeply traumatic for any family. In Sasha’s case, her family heard all the awful details of what she had endured in the final moments of her young and precious life, and no one in that position is ready, within a matter of days, to get to grips with a complex legal process and start to fight again.
Twenty-eight days is not long enough. It is not a real right for any family; it is a barrier. That is why Katie has shown extraordinary courage. Through her campaign for Sasha’s law, she has spoken not only for her own family, but for many others who felt shut out by the system. Katie’s campaign was clear: more time for bereaved families and victims to challenge sentences that they believe are unduly lenient, and clear information so they know that that right exists in the first place.
I am pleased that this Labour Government have heard the arguments and are acting to put things right. They have listened to campaigners and to families. I thank the Minister for her constructive engagement to ensure that the Government get the change right, and for ensuring that victims have been listened to at every stage of the process. This change will make a real difference to people at the worst moment of their lives. Crucially, the injustice that Katie suffered would not have happened had these changes been in place. It shows what the Government can do when we put victims first, and when we believe that justice must be matched by decency and compassion. The justice system should reflect the reality of trauma, grief and loss.
Finally, I want to place on the record how proud I am that I played a small part in helping Katie make today happen, and to thank the Government for listening. Twenty-eight days was not enough. Victims and bereaved families must be properly informed, and a better system is being brought forward as a result. For Katie Brett, for Sasha Marsden, and for so many other families, the changes will not remove the grief, but they will make the system fairer, more humane and more just. There is of course always work to do on the criminal justice system, but victims should not have fewer rights than perpetrators. These changes go some way to correct that injustice, and I will be proud to vote for them today.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I begin by thanking Members from across both Chambers for their work in getting this legislation to where it is today. I especially thank the Government for their engagement with me and my colleagues in the Lords, in particular the Minister, who I have met multiple times to discuss various issues in the Bill.
A key cornerstone of our justice system must be the support and protection of victims and survivors, ensuring that those who have suffered at the hands of others can go on to live a life without fear and not be defined by the actions of those who harmed them. That will happen only by putting their voices at the heart of the justice system, ensuring that justice is served quickly, with properly funded support, protection from perpetrators and rehabilitation of offenders to reduce reoffending. There are countless examples of that failing to happen, which is why the Liberal Democrats have welcomed the intention of and many of the measures in the Bill.
We are pleased with the Government’s commitment to undertake a study into the use of AI transcription in criminal courts in order to explore whether that can reduce both the costs and time involved in the provision of transcripts to victims. My colleague Baroness Brinton in the other place and I have both tabled amendments to the Bill aimed at expanding the provision of transcripts for victims at various stages, in part inspired by the tireless work of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who I thank once again.
It should never be the case that victims, many of whom might not have even been in the court room to hear the sentence handed down, are asked to pay thousands of pounds to access their transcript. The opposing argument to our amendments is about the costs of redaction in producing the transcripts, but it is clear that there are technological solutions in today’s age and we therefore welcome the Government’s recognition that more action is needed. We will continue to push for greater provision of free transcripts in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which is currently in Committee.
I thank the Government for their commitment to review the provision of service to families whose relatives have been murdered abroad. That follows an exemplary amendment first tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) due to issues faced by one of his constituents. The provision of supporting information for families going through those horrific circumstances clearly has some issues, but the commitment in the other place to a joint review into those provisions between the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is welcome. We look forward to the result of that review, at which point we will consult with victims’ groups in ensuring that the provisions work satisfactorily.
I will take the opportunity to mention to the Minister again that, as she will be aware, the Murdered Abroad annual conference is on 13 June and I know that the organisers—
Jess Brown-Fuller
I am pleased to hear that the Minister will be attending because I know that the organisers were keen to engage with her so that they can continue to see progress.
I turn now to Lords amendments 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F, 6B and 6C, all of which impact the unduly lenient scheme. Again, I thank Baroness Brinton in the other place for her tireless work on these amendments with the Government, and the late Helen Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, and the Victims’ Commissioner for London. I also want to specifically pay tribute to the bravery of Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett, whose campaigns on these issues, in the light of their own families’ experiences, have no doubt played a pivotal part in the Government’s commitment to these amendments.
Tracey going through the trial of the murder of her own son, Josh, with no knowledge of the unduly lenient scheme, is exactly the example that I hope these amendments will address and are testament to her tireless efforts and the memory of her son. As the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) so eloquently expressed, Katie’s tireless campaigning for her sister, Sasha, is an extraordinary example of someone fighting an injustice not for themselves, but for others in the future who may suffer a similar loss. In particular, amendments 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 5F allow out-of-time applications to be made up to six months after sentencing. That is vital for families who are unaware of the scheme who did not submit an application prior to the 28-day limit and will benefit many who experience the same heartache and pain as Tracey.
The Government’s provision in amendments 6B and 6C of a statutory duty for victims to be informed of the unduly lenient scheme is vital, and should provide victims with a clearer picture of the options that they are entitled to following sentencing. The Minister was right to say that many of the campaigners have not just asked for an extension; it is about victims knowing what is available to them and ensuring that there is a mandatory commitment that they are told that the scheme is an option available to them after sentencing. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me recently and then coming forward with these amendments, and we are pleased to support them.
Finally, I turn to Lords amendments 4B and 4C regarding private prosecutions. I am sure many across the House will agree that the ability for criminal prosecutions to be brought forward outside of the regular processes of the authorities, providing an alternative method for charities and commercial organisations, is essential in delivering justice for many victims whose cases have not been taken on by the state. That is especially pertinent against the backdrop of stretched resources facing the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Anneliese Midgley.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I want to focus on one of the flagship measures in the Bill: clause 1, headed “Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing”. This law has been fought for—and will today be won—by my constituent Cheryl Korbel. It will compel convicted criminals to attend their sentencing hearings, and will ensure that there are meaningful consequences if they refuse. Where I am from, we call it Olivia’s law. For me, today is all about Olivia, Cheryl, and Antonia, her cousin.
This has been some journey for Cheryl—one that began in unimaginable circumstances. Cheryl’s daughter Olivia was nine years old when she was murdered in her own home by a stranger with a gun in August 2022. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home. It passed through Cheryl’s wrist before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. To lose a child to murder in your own home, while you are trying to protect them, is a burden no parent should ever be asked to bear, but Olivia’s murderer remained in his cell, and refused to face the court, to hear Cheryl’s words, or to look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward. Since then, Cheryl has been fighting for that injustice to end.
I first met Cheryl and Antonia when they came to my first surgery as their MP. Since that day, we have stood side by side. We have worked to turn this campaign into law. We raised the matter with Ministers, and took it to the Prime Minister. It is fair to say that Cheryl and Antonia have been to the House of Commons so often that they have met most of the Cabinet and half of the parliamentary Labour party.
On Second Reading, Cheryl allowed me the privilege of reading her victim impact statement in the Chamber. I did that because her words carry more power than anything I could possibly say, and I wanted them to be heard by the world. Olivia’s murderer, Thomas Cashman, refused to hear those words. I would like to read a few words from the statement today:
“My nine-year-old Liv was the light of our lives, our beautiful, sassy, chatty girl who never ran out of energy. She was a character, she was my baby…She will never get to make her holy communion, wear that prom dress or have a sweet 16th birthday, walk down the aisle with the man of her dreams or become a mother of her own children. All that promise for her future so cruelly taken away. Now I have to drive to the cemetery to be close to my baby daughter…telling her I miss her smile, her kisses, her cuddles, her voice.”
Cashman should have heard those words, but he could make the choice not to. That is the injustice at the heart of this matter, because Cheryl did speak. She found the strength to put into words the love that she has for her daughter, and the devastation that she has to face every single day. Today, we ensure that turning away and hiding is no longer an option. I thank the Government, especially the Minister, for listening to Cheryl. I know there were times when Cheryl thought that this day would never come; well, Cheryl, it has.
Cheryl and I are two peas in a pod. We have both just turned 50; she turned 50 on Saturday—happy birthday! We are both from council estates in the same part of town. We both had working-class upbringings, and families who did not have much, but worked hard and gave us everything in love. That matters, because it speaks to who Cheryl is. She is someone who lifts people and brings warmth and strength to others, even in her darkest moments. Alongside her has been her remarkable cousin, Antonia. Together, they have been relentless; they have taken unimaginable grief and turned it into change. Because of both of them, victims’ voices will be heard.
This law is Cheryl’s achievement, and it is Olivia’s legacy. We honour her and all the other campaigners and victims who fought for this law, and I am properly proud that it is a Labour Government delivering it.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I will speak to Lords amendments 5C and 6B. Before I do so, may I thank the Minister for working in a collaborative and cross-party way on this issue? I congratulate hon. Members who spoke before me so passionately on behalf of their constituents.
I pay tribute to my constituent Tracey Hanson, who is watching this debate from the Gallery. Tracey’s son, Josh Hanson, was tragically murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in October 2015 at the age of just 21. Tracey has been on an 11-year journey of immense pain, and she has channelled that pain into trying to improve the rights and experiences of victims who must deal with the criminal justice system.
Tracey has campaigned tirelessly to reform the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The campaign is driven by a simple demand: victims and bereaved families should be properly informed of their rights, and those rights should have parity with offenders’ rights under the scheme—something that hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon. Tracey’s campaign was born from personal injustice. She was never informed of her right to challenge the sentence imposed on Josh’s killer. When she discovered the scheme and submitted an appeal on the final day, it was rejected, because it arrived outside of office hours. That is totally unacceptable.
I therefore welcome the introduction of Lords amendment 6B, which will place a clear duty on authorities to notify victims and bereaved families of their right to appeal a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. That change is a direct result of Tracey’s work with academics, campaigners and legislators, and her determination to improve the legislation through the introduction of Josh’s law. Other families who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in such tragic situations will benefit from Tracey’s work, and the work of all campaigners. It is because of that work that I and many others in this House have been educated about the problems with the ULS scheme.
I welcome Lords amendment 5C, which will extend the period within which an appeal can be considered from 28 days from the date of sentence to six months from the date of the sentence, where that is in the interests of justice. That is a significant step forward for victims’ rights, but, while I welcome it, true justice requires absolute parity between the rights of offenders and the rights of victims to appeal sentences. Hon. Members from across the House have made that point today, and I hope that the Government have heard it.
Despite the positive step forward in this Bill, I know that Tracey will continue her fight for full equality for victims in the eyes of the law. On that note, may I thank Ministers for agreeing to meet Tracey later this year to discuss the Law Commission’s review of criminal appeals? In the Minister’s summing-up speech, I would appreciate it if she could confirm that Tracey would be welcome at that meeting.
I also mention my constituents’ disappointment that the Government have decided not to give these legislative changes the name “Josh’s law”. I have already spoken of the undeniable role that Tracey’s campaign has played in bringing about these changes. That sentiment is reflected in the fact that many Members across this House already recognise it as Josh’s law, noting Tracey’s years of campaigning for these changes in Josh’s memory. Baroness Levitt KC, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, said in the other place last week that this Government listen and want to get things right. I truly welcome the fact that Ministers have listened to Tracey, and have introduced amendments for which she has campaigned for more than seven years, but they have not got this completely right. In the eyes of my constituents, to truly honour Tracey’s work—not only her determination to deliver meaningful legislative reform, but the tireless support that she has provided to victims through her charity—this change in legislation should be called Josh’s law.
I understand the Government’s position is that
“this decision reflects a wider shift away from the Government naming legislation or amendments after individuals”.
However, that is inconsistent with other recently passed legislation. I will refer to just one example. Last week, a Minister referred to “Benedict’s law” at the Dispatch Box. That legislation was passed only last month. That highlights that the move away from naming legislation after individuals is not being applied consistently. I ask the Minister to reflect on that at the Dispatch Box.
Together, Lords amendments 5C and 6B represent a positive shift in the way that the criminal justice system in England and Wales approaches victims. I hope that Tracey is incredibly proud of the fact that, by channelling the immense pain of her loss into concrete action, she has helped to shift more focus back to the impact on, and rights of, victims. For that reason, and in Josh Hanson’s memory, I encourage colleagues from across the House to support Lords amendments 5C and 6B.
Alex Davies-Jones
With the leave of the House, I will close this really important and special debate. It moves us another step closer to this Bill becoming a much-needed law for all victims, and I sincerely thank all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers), and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).
This is a really important Bill. It shows the best of Parliament when we all come together on an issue that is beyond party politics to do what we were elected to this place to do—to speak for the people we represent, make life better for those who come after us, and create a legacy for those who have sadly had to endure hardship and pain that we will hopefully never have to feel. I thank the Minister in the other place for guiding this Bill through its stages, and for undertaking such extensive engagement with all hon. Members, here and in the other place, throughout its passage.
Let me answer some of the questions put forward today. Discussions are ongoing about who will have the statutory duty to notify victims and bereaved families about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I will ensure that I update the House on how we progress those discussions. We do not need to put that into law, but we will engage fully with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Home Office, the Victims’ Commissioner and the bereaved families to ensure that we get this right, that full accountability is there, and that there will be scrutiny of the application of the duty under the victims code. I am working with the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that that is robust. I assure the shadow Minister that that will be followed robustly, and I will ensure that we engage with him on that duty as it develops.
I assure the shadow Minister that the consultation on rates will be followed in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, and we will consult with the appropriate stakeholders. This will not be a tick-box exercise—it will be thoroughly responded to—and the House will be informed of that consultation. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood stated, this is just part of the commitment that the Government are making to victims about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We still await the findings of the Law Commission, and I again make the commitment at this Dispatch Box that I made to Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett: I will meet them, once the Law Commission completes its work, to discuss the findings and what more we can do as a Government going forward to ensure that we get parity for victims in the criminal justice system. This is just one step forward, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders on the Bill.
I have been crystal clear that this is the Victims and Courts Bill, and soon it will be the Victims and Courts law. It will become an Act for all victims. It will be a law for Josh, for Sasha, for Olivia, for Jan, for Sabina, for Zara and for all the victims who have been failed by the criminal justice system. This Bill will become an Act for all of them, and their legacy. I will ensure that the importance of having a consistent approach regarding the law’s name is fed back to all Government Departments, because this is a law for all the victims and campaigners who have engaged with the Government and it is important that they are all recognised.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 159 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:06 - The House divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 156 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 61 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 2D and 2E but proposes in lieu of those amendments Amendment (a) to its Amendment 2B and Amendment (b) to its Amendment 2C.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motions:
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 11 but proposes Amendments (a) to (d) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 265D to 265H.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 342, but does not insist on its Amendment 342A in lieu and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment 342.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 359 and 439 but proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendments 359 and 439.
Sarah Jones
I hope we are on the home straight with this enormous piece of legislation. I start by welcoming the fact that the House of Lords has heeded many of the arguments and votes in this House last week—of the 19 issues that I went through in my speech last Tuesday, we are now down to just four. As for those four, we have again listened carefully to the points raised in the Lords and tabled further amendments in lieu.
Let me turn first to amendments 2D and 2E on fining for profit, tabled by Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. I again recognise the concerns expressed about enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour offences where there may be a financial incentive to do so. We have listened to those concerns, and hon. Members will recall that last week we agreed amendments making clear that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 may, among other things, address the issue of the proportionate issuing of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons for breaches of community protection notices and public space protection orders. The Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson in the other place said that discretion to issue such guidance was not good enough, and that there should be a duty to do so. The amendment in lieu now provides for just such a duty. I hope this will persuade hon. Members that the Government are committed to addressing this issue.
Turning to the question of fly-tipping, the Government again recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. Our recent waste crime action plan has set out our zero-tolerance approach to prevent waste crime, pursue the criminals responsible and accelerate the clean-up effort. On the specific issue of vehicle seizure powers, I want to be clear that local authorities already have powers to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe the vehicle is being used, or is about to be used, to commit a fly-tipping offence. However, to further support local authorities, we have tabled an amendment in lieu that makes clear what the statutory guidance on fly-tipping should cover. For example, it must include advice on collecting strong evidence against the offender that can help to secure a successful conviction and advice on what action can be taken, including the seizure of vehicles.
Local authorities are the lead agency for tackling fly-tipping, and it is right that they lead on enforcement, so the power to seize and dispose of vehicles used in fly-tipping properly rests with them. The police already have general powers of seizure under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the item is evidence in relation to an offence. That power can be used to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping. Where the police seize a vehicle, they would be expected to liaise with the local authority, which would then take action to dispose of that vehicle. As such, Lords amendment 11 seeks to close a gap in the law that, in practice, just does not exist.
I turn next to youth diversion orders. We were disappointed by the Lords’ decision last week to reject the Government’s amendment in lieu, which was tabled in response to Baroness Doocey’s amendment 342. Baroness Doocey raised concerns regarding the lack of a requirement for police to consult organisations beyond criminal justice services, flagging that this missed an opportunity to legislate for consultation with other agencies such as health, education and social services.
We respectfully disagree with Baroness Doocey that her amendment would directly respond to the recommendations made by Sir Adrian Fulford in his recent report on the horrific Southport attack. Multi-agency engagement will be critical to the success of these orders, which is why the Bill already includes a duty on the police to consult youth justice services. In England and Wales, this will be through local youth offending teams, which are multi-agency in nature—they include representatives from health, education, social services and probation, as is underpinned in statute by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. They may also extend beyond those mandated agencies to include child and adolescent mental health services, education inclusion teams, voluntary and community organisations, and local early help services. We are therefore confident that youth diversion order applications will be made following consultation with a wide variety of agencies, and will benefit from the expertise of those agencies in working with young people.
Baroness Doocey also raised concerns regarding the police’s consideration of alternative interventions. The statutory guidance, which will be developed by the Home Office and laid before Parliament for scrutiny ahead of publication, will include guidance on alternative interventions that police may wish to consider instead of, or alongside, a youth diversion order.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Minister is using words such as “may”. What she has outlined is incredibly important, but Lords amendment 342 obviously goes further than “may”—it insists that diversion orders will involve those necessary consultations. Will the Minister commit today to making sure that the police will have all these statutory duties, not just that they may have them, and that the consultation will be required?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was going to say. I will explain what we want to see as we go forward. It is important to recognise that the court will need to consider the necessity and proportionality of the order when making its decision, and that will necessarily include consideration of alternative options where relevant. All that being said, in the light of the most recent decision by the Lords, we have tabled a further amendment in lieu that builds on the previous Government amendment. It offers further reassurance on the role of wider organisations, and we hope it addresses their lordships’ concerns.
The amendment in lieu extends the list of considerations that the statutory guidance may advise the police to consider as part of a youth diversion order application to include the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the police to consult others, beyond the youth justice teams mandated in clause 174 of the Bill. That will extend to applications for an order, as well as when the police are considering a variation or discharge of a youth diversion order. It will go further and make it a requirement for the statutory guidance to include guidance on these matters, rather than there simply being a power to do so, as the previous amendment provided for. I trust that with these changes, the Liberal Democrats will now be content that we have met the intent of their amendment.
Lastly, Lords amendment 359 relates to the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the Opposition seek to return to this issue yet again. Successive Governments have adopted the position that it would be wrong in principle to give a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The decision to proscribe an organisation is a serious matter, requiring careful analysis of whether the test in section 3 has been met. To suggest, as the amendment provides, that the Government should review every organisation related to the Iranian Government within one month of Royal Assent is simply not a serious proposition. To help the Opposition and others to understand the proscription process, we have instead brought forward an amendment in lieu that requires the Government to lay before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent a statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to their powers under section 3 of the 2000 Act.
Before I conclude, let me briefly explain Lords amendments 265D to 265H. Members will recall that last week we agreed amendments to criminalise the possession or publication of pornography that depicts sexual activity involving an adult credibly role-playing as a child. This new offence is intended to capture content that mimics child sex abuse and risks normalising such horrific conduct. The Government amendments agreed in the Lords clarify the drafting of the new offence. The revised drafting makes the offence clearer, ensuring that context can be taken into account, where it is relevant to whether the person is being depicted as a child under 16 and whether the content is showing sexual activity. That will ensure that the offence can, for example, capture a scenario of one person on camera being directed by another behind the camera to engage in sexual acts.
I fully respect the role of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. It is entitled to ask this House to think again. On each of these four issues I am addressing today, we have already done that once.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, as always, for her hard work. In the other place, Lord Weir of Ballyholme highlighted freedom of speech in relation to the Public Order Act 1986. Within the Bill coming forward tonight, there is a fine line in terms of the expression of belief, such as through street preaching. Does the Minister believe that the legislation will ensure that people in this Christian nation can publicly speak the word of God in every corner? Some of us believe that it cannot. Can the Minister confirm that, please?
Sarah Jones
As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a fine line to tread throughout public order legislation. We come back to these issues time and again, and it is right that we do so. As times change, the nature of protests changes and the nature of the risks changes. We have new debates about public order. This Home Secretary felt strongly that it was time for a more fundamental look at our public order legislation. That is what we are going through with the review of our public order legislation and our hate crime legislation that Lord Macdonald is undertaking. He will look at whether it is in the right place and doing the right things. I have every confidence in the legislation we are passing today, but the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a review to follow. It perhaps will have more to say, and we will bring it back to this place.
Last Tuesday, this House voted on all four issues that we are debating today and emphatically rejected the Lords amendments. We should again send these amendments back to their lordships with a clear message that they have done their duty but the elected House is clear and unequivocal in its own mind, and the time has come to let this Bill pass. The time for debate has ended. It is now time that this Bill goes to His Majesty for Royal Assent, so that we can get on with implementing the provisions and making our streets, communities and country safer.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Once again, I thank the other place and right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their work on this Bill. The Government had an opportunity with this Bill to create a safer society and to protect people from harm. As I outlined previously, I would like to have seen them tackle off-road bikes and dodgy shops and take a tougher approach to those who carry knives. The first duty of any Government is to protect the public and to crush the crimes that make people’s lives a misery.
I will begin by speaking to Lords amendment 11. Fly-tipping is a scourge on our communities, ruining our environment and our countryside. Today we are asked to consider whether the law as it stands is sufficient to tackle this scourge, or whether we are prepared to admit, as communities across the country already know, that it is not. More than a million fly-tipping incidents are recorded each year, yet only a tiny fraction result in any meaningful enforcement.
Vehicle seizure, which is one of the most effective tools in our armoury, is vanishingly rare, so when Ministers tell us that powers already exist, the obvious question is this: if they exist, why are they not being used? The answer is simple. It is because a power that is fragmented, unclear and buried across multiple statutes is not a power that works in practice. It is a power that sits there, too complicated to implement, while fly-tipping continues to blight our communities. Lords amendment 11 would address that failure directly.
Let us not forget that for most offenders it is their vehicle that enables the crime. That is the means and method by which they are able to act and profit. Remove the vehicle and we disrupt their criminality immediately. Fail to do so and we send a different message: that this is a low-risk, high-reward activity where the chances of serious consequences are low. That is the message that the system is sending, and our communities are paying the price. Ultimately, this is about whether we are content with a system that works in theory, or whether we are prepared to put in place one that works in practice. For that reason, we on the Opposition Benches support the amendment, and I urge right hon. and hon. Members to do the same.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
Lords amendment 11 relates to the police powers to crush vehicles, which are rarely used for fly-tipping. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that similar powers exist for hare coursing. Once one or two high-profile hare coursing cases had been handled that way, it had a dramatic effect on reducing that crime.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Rural communities across the country know only too well the consequences of hare coursing, and making an example of it and that being seen in our community sends a real message to those who would offend in such a way.
Lords amendment 359 relates to proscription of the IRGC. There is simply no suitable argument as to why the Government should refuse to proscribe the IRGC and associated organisations. I am sure that the Home Secretary and Ministers will once again, as justification for inaction, point to the fact that the previous Government did not proscribe the IRGC. The reality is that the international situation is now radically different from when we left office almost two years ago. Even before the current conflict began, it was clear that the IRGC was ramping up aggressive activity. It oversaw the deaths of more than 40,000 protesters, and overseas it has continued to extend its influence through the backing of terrorist cells. In 2025 alone, the security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation.
Jim Shannon
Just yesterday, two young men in their 20s and 30s who had stood up for freedom in Iran were hanged by the IRGC, because it is in charge there at the moment. Four weeks ago, six people whose only crime was fighting for freedom by protesting on the streets were hanged by the neck until they were dead. Is it not now time, regardless of what is happening in the world, immediately to proscribe the IRGC, given everything it has done that is despicable, wicked and evil?
Matt Vickers
I could not agree more. When such evil and such vileness is on display, we need to act, and we need to act in our national interest to protect our people from some of the horrors that we have seen perpetrated abroad by these sick individuals.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I will support the hon. Gentleman’s request for us to back the amendment and not disagree with it, as the Government have asked, although I could easily be convinced that Governments should be making these decisions themselves, rather than Parliament making decisions on proscription or otherwise. Does he think that in the past two years, since the election in July 2024, there has been any indication that this Government will take action on the IRGC?
Matt Vickers
We have seen significant developments on that front. Only this afternoon we were debating the issue of antisemitism and where that has got to, and the real-world consequences for people in this country of the actions of the IRGC and associated groups—in other words, state-backed terrorism. The Government need to act. They need to wake up. In fact, they could just vote for the Lords amendment this evening.
In 2025 alone, the security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation. We must act against groups that pose a threat to our national security. Ministers have said that the proscription of the IRGC will be kept under constant review, but given the situation that we face now, that is simply not good enough. Many other countries have acted to proscribe, including the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and even the European Union.
Let us remind ourselves of our Government’s record. When it was in opposition, the Labour party said that it would proscribe the IRGC. The now Foreign Secretary said that it was behaving like a terrorist organisation and must be proscribed—“must” not “might”; not “We will keep it under review”; not “should.” What has changed is that those who once demanded action now sit on the Government Benches and have chosen inaction. Now we are told that it is too complicated. Now we are told that it is legally difficult. Now we are told that it would be symbolic. We are told that there are challenges because the IRGC is part of a state, but the whole point of proscription is to confront organisations that operate through intimidation, violence and terror, regardless of the flag behind which they hide. We are told that sanctions are enough, but sanctions have existed for years and the IRGC continues its activities: intimidation, plots, proxies and repression.
Let us be clear: Lords amendment 359 does not ask the Government to take a leap into the unknown; it asks them to do precisely what they themselves argued for, repeatedly and on the record. If it was the right policy then, why is it not the right policy now? If the IRGC met the threshold then, why does it not meet it now—or was that position merely convenient Opposition politics? Today the Government have a choice: they can stand by their previous convictions, or confirm that those convictions were never truly held at all. I urge Members to support the Lords amendment.
The Bill is a missed opportunity to take back our streets. Perhaps that is no surprise from a party that has already removed 1,318 police officers from our streets and begun releasing criminals from prison early, but we can still improve the Bill by supporting these sensible, pragmatic amendments to crack down on fly-tipping and strengthen our national security. Given that these Ministers are so used to U-turning, I hope that they will do it again today.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for opening the debate.
I oppose Lords amendment 11, but I do recognise its merits. Let me begin, however, by talking about the wider issue of fly-tipping, which is an absolute bugbear of mine. When I go canvassing, or indeed when I visit Harlow Town football club, I am often recognised not for being the local MP, but for being the guy who goes out litter-picking with my mate Neil. Neil is the bloke who lives around the corner from me, and apparently he is considerably more popular than me, because everyone knows who he is.
I absolutely recognise the impact of fly-tipping, particularly what I would describe as industrial fly-tipping. Vans full of rubbish are being dumped on an industrial scale. In Harlow, this often involves bin cupboards. When I was a councillor in the fantastic part of Harlow that is called Little Parndon—I hope it will re-elect a Labour councillor in two weeks’ time—fly-tipping was a huge issue, and local residents would contact me about getting their bin cupboards locked up, often at great expense to the council. However, in more rural parts of my constituency such as Nazeing, Hatfield Heath and Hatfield Broad Oak, which I visited this weekend, the problem of fly-tipping is even worse, with farmers genuinely facing intimidation and threats. One farmer told me of a worrying incident when he confronted some of the fly-tippers, only to be told by one of them, “Get out of my way. I know where your family lives.” I think we would all agree that no one deserves that sort of intimidation.
I recognise what Lords amendment 11 seeks to do, but I want to emphasise the Minister’s point that the police and local authorities already have the power to search and seize vehicles under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The shadow Minister made some interesting points about the reasons why that does not happen very often. Personally, I think it is partly down to the previous lack of a rural crime strategy, and I am delighted that this Labour Government are ensuring that we have such a strategy, because it is hugely important that we tackle the issue of fly-tipping. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) mentioned the importance of tackling hare coursing as well, because that too is a huge issue for farmers. We must bear in mind that this is where they live and where their families live. We take that sort of intimidation very seriously.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
We all enjoyed listening to my hon. Friend talk about Neil, and he is right to talk about the impact of fly-tipping in rural communities—not just in Essex, but in Staffordshire too. He said that one of the reasons why the powers have not been used was the lack of a rural crime strategy, but is it not also the case that many police and crime commissioners have simply been missing in action, as has happened in Staffordshire?
Chris Vince
I do not know much about Staffordshire’s police and crime commissioner, but I absolutely take on board what my hon. Friend says. If that is the case, it is hugely disappointing. It is hugely important that police and crime commissioners across the country take seriously all parts of the areas they represent, including rural areas.
Chris Vince
To return my hon. Friend’s compliment, I often like hearing what he has to say. I would say that more is more.
Adam Jogee
The problem is that I am not sure that my police and crime commissioner would like to hear what I have to say.
Chris Vince
I would say that he is not here, so my hon. Friend can carry on. I thank him for his contribution.
Having a rural crime strategy and having community police officers in place are both hugely important. I have often joked with the shadow Minister about this, so he will know that I have previously taught a number of my community police officers, which is something I am very proud of. It is hugely important that we have frontline neighbourhood police officers, and not just in urban communities. Obviously, they are really important in Harlow, but also in rural communities.
It is also important that we ensure that the police have teeth, so I absolutely welcome the Government’s move to put up to nine points on the driving licences of people who are caught fly-tipping. I really believe that this will make those who are thinking about doing that—perhaps as a favour to their mates—think twice about fly-tipping, which has a huge impact on communities. I recognise that there has been a bit of back-and-forth with the Lords on the issue of fly-tipping, and our noble Friends and Members of the other place came back and said, “We hope this matter has been discussed further,” in this place. I hope that my speech and the contribution from the shadow Minister have ensured that we have continued to discuss the issue of fly-tipping, because I take it very seriously. I hope that you do not see this particular speech as being a rubbish contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to talk too much rubbish, although those on the Treasury Benches will object, as usual. As I stated last week, the Liberal Democrats support many aspects of this Bill, but we have some concerns about the lack of a proper rural crime strategy, and about some of the motions relating to protest and freedom of speech that were voted on, and indeed not voted on, last week.
I turn to today’s amendments. The Liberal Democrats in the other place tabled two amendments, which the Minister referred to earlier, that would strengthen this Bill’s provisions on crime and antisocial behaviour—issues that have plagued communities for too long. The Liberal Democrat-backed amendments will help refocus enforcement action towards those offences, and improve outcomes for young people who are already caught up in the criminal justice system. First, we will again support our amendment to prevent enforcement companies issuing fixed penalty notices on behalf of councils from making a profit. A clear ban would remove an incentive that drives lower-level offences to be punished instead of more serious antisocial behaviour. The Government amendments tabled in lieu are significantly weaker than the ban we have suggested, so we will continue to support the amendment today. I urge Members from across the House to support an outright ban on fines for profit.
Secondly, we will again support our amendment on youth diversion orders. This will ensure that when considering a youth diversion order, courts are given a full account of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, and of what consultation took place with the child and other relevant agencies. The Government amendment in lieu suggests that guidance “may” include matters to be taken into account by the police before applying for a youth diversion order. Again, that does not go far enough. Ensuring that all previous interventions are considered will improve the court’s understanding of the relevant factors in each case and bring efficiencies in the longer term. Most importantly, the amendment will result in better outcomes for the young people involved, who might otherwise become entangled in terrorist activity. On matters relating to protests, the Government took a firm line on the difference between the terms “may” and “must” last week, and perhaps they will do the same again today.
The Liberal Democrats will also support two Conservative amendments, the first of which adds fly-tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized. Fly-tipping is a blight on our communities. It undermines the pride that people should feel in their neighbourhoods, and in some cases causes significant damage to the local environment. This was highlighted in Oxfordshire by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), and in some cases it is linked to criminal gangs. If we are to take fly-tipping seriously, we must increase the penalty for the offence, so empowering the police to confiscate vehicles that are used to dump rubbish illegally is a sensible improvement to this Bill. Sadly, no Government concession was proposed on this specific amendment. We supported the amendment in the Commons last time, and we will do so today.
Finally, the Liberal Democrats will also support the Conservative amendment requiring a review of whether to prescribe Iranian Government-backed organisations. We have a long-standing record of calling for past Governments to proscribe the IRGC. There is increasing concern that attacks on our Jewish community are being funded by the IRGC, and it is beyond time that the Government took action to protect British citizens against the threat it represents. This amendment would require the Government to review any organisations related to the Iranian Government. In the interests of our national security, our economy and our Jewish community, we will back the amendment today.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I am very proud of my city and proud to be a resident, but my constituents tell me at my coffee mornings, at “Pint with your MP” events, at surgeries and on the doorsteps that they find it very difficult to feel pride when antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles and electric scooters blight their everyday lives, the places where they live, the parks in which their kids play, and the high streets that they use. We should all feel and be able to feel pride in the place we live, so I am proud that this Labour Government are taking that very seriously not just with initiatives such as the Pride in Place funding, of which I was very fortunate for Paulsgrove to receive £20 million, and the impact funding, of which we have £1.5 million coming to my city, but with legislation and with action.
I therefore welcome the opportunity to speak in the final stages of this Bill, because it has genuinely significant consequences for communities such as mine in Portsmouth, but I want to start by thanking my neighbourhood police teams for the work they do and for allowing me to be involved when I go out on the beat with them on night shifts and day shifts. I would like to highlight some of the amendments to the Bill that will have the greatest impact on my constituents.
On fixed penalty notices and the fining for profit question—Lords amendments 2D and 2E—I understand why the other place has continued to press on this, and the underlying concern is legitimate. However, if residents in Portsmouth believe that authorised bodies are issuing fixed penalty notices to generate revenue rather than from a desire to deter antisocial behaviour, public trust and enforcement will collapse entirely. So I am glad that the Government have tabled amendments (a) and (b) in lieu, and I would like the Minister to confirm that they will directly address the issue of proportionality and ensure that no institutional financial incentive can distort enforcement decisions.
On fly-tipping, which other Members have talked about—Lords amendment 11—I simply note that this blights communities across Portsmouth. Only on Friday night, while I was out knocking on doors in Stamshaw, I saw evidence of this across the whole ward. So the Government’s offer of four amendments in lieu represents a substantive package in response to the Lords’ concerns. As we have heard, local authorities do have the powers they need, but I think there is a need for clarity and confidence to ensure the use of vehicle seizure powers. That will do two things: it will stop this crime in Portsmouth; and it will put beyond doubt whose responsibility it is, giving the local authority no excuse but to enforce the powers it has. To remove any doubt about this responsibility, I hope that the Minister will confirm that the statutory guidance accompanying these provisions will be issued promptly after Royal Assent, so councils can act without delay.
I am glad the Government are agreeing to the amendments about pornographic content depicting adults role-playing as under-16s. I said on Second Reading that this Bill needed to go further on child protection, and these amendments do exactly that. Content that mimics child sexual abuse, even when the individuals depicted are adults, normalises a deeply harmful behaviour, and it is abhorrent.
This Bill has been long in the making, as has been felt by residents across my city, and the remaining points of disagreement are very narrow. I hope that the other place will now accept the Government’s position, so that this landmark legislation can receive Royal Assent swiftly, and start delivering for my constituents and for communities right across the country. Further delays are felt every day and, indeed, every night on our streets and our coastlines, and in our parks and our housing estates. As someone elected to make my community a safer and cleaner place to live, I know this is what democracy is about and what democracy should do.
Adam Jogee
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can tell by your smile that you were not expecting to call me, but I am very grateful that you spied me in this corner at the back of the Chamber.
You will know because I have said it before, Madam Deputy Speaker, that waste crime, fly-tipping and the rest have, sadly, had too much of an impact in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am thinking of Walleys quarry landfill site and the other examples that continue to blight my community, which I have talked about since my election to this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) noted, the impact fly-tipping can have on rural communities and our constituents’ lives speaks for itself not just in our surgeries, but in our inboxes. I am thinking of all the people in Betley, Bradwell and Audley who have shared with me the corrosive impact that fly-tipping, industrial crime and waste crime have on communities such as mine.
Conscious of the fact that you did not plan to call me, Madam Deputy Speaker—and judging by the looks of Members, they are keen to get to the votes—
Adam Jogee
It was very well said, but it is also important that my constituents are heard in the fight against fly-tipping and keeping our communities safe, clean and green.
When the Minister winds up, I hope she will provide confirmation to Members of the House and to my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme that strengthening the statutory guidance on enforcement, including the use of vehicle seizure powers, will help councils. This is important because the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme will be voting in the Newcastle district borough council elections on Thursday 7 May, and I really hope that people in my community vote for the excellent Labour candidates on the ballot paper that day. It is also important because we need our councils to take tougher, more visible action against the fly-tippers who blight our communities. I hope the Minister will provide that confirmation when she winds up, because it is important not just to me, but to the good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Sarah Jones
In the interests of transparency, Madam Deputy Speaker, my glasses are reading glasses, but they also happen to be sunglasses. I will try not to put them on, but my eyes are beginning to go. I do not want to pretend to the House that I am trying to be cool if I put on my glasses; it is just so that I can read the words in front of me.
I want to start by thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in this short but very interesting debate on a wide variety of issues. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Chris Vince), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee).
Chris Vince
I thank the Minister for giving way. I realise she has only just started her speech, but what I did not do in my speech was pay massive tribute to the Harlow Wombles. They are not little creatures from Wimbledon, but representatives of the Harlow community who go out week in, week out to collect rubbish in their local community. I want to thank them for what they do to ensure that our local community stays clean and tidy.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. We all thank the Harlow Wombles for the work they do. I do not think we have Croydon Wombles, but we probably need to get some. We do, however, have many very good people who go out and collect rubbish, like my hon. Friend in Harlow.
All three Back-Bench speeches showed the strength of commitment from our 2024 intake in this place. They are debating the issues that matter to local people and which are important. The Government are already taking action on all fronts, and the Bill will help us to tackle the scourges of everyday crime that my hon. Friends touched on.
Turning to the four issues before us today, I am disappointed, coming first to fixed penalty notices, that the Liberal Democrat Front Bench is not persuaded. Lords amendments 2D and 2E amended the Government’s amendment that allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance addressing the issue of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors for profit. The amendments specify that the guidance must, rather than may, address that point. The Government have had many conversations on that, both with our colleagues in the Lords and in this place, and I hope those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench recognise that engagement.
We believe that a provision for private companies to collect and support the Government and local government in their public spaces protection orders and other such measures is fundamentally important to ensure that people abide by the rules of the land. The Government brought forward an amendment in lieu to provide that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must, as opposed to may, address the issue of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons, so I had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would recognise that that is going some distance and I am disappointed that they have not on this occasion.
We have had many debates on fly-tipping in this place, and we inherited from the Conservatives a shocking situation where it was not seen to be the serious crime that it is. As a consequence, many of our communities are blighted by it, and my hon. Friends have talked about it in this debate. I am disappointed that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) continues to argue for Lords amendment 11. I hope he accepts that the police are not the lead agency for enforcing all criminal offences. They work in partnership with the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, the Environment Agency, the Gambling Commission and many others, including local councils in their guise as waste authorities.
The police do have the powers to remove a vehicle. In fact, when I was out with the police in Kent only last week, we seized a vehicle because a crime was being committed. Four young men were in a car that was not properly insured, so the men had to get out of the car and we took it away. We were very glad to do so, although the men were not very pleased. It is within the police’s power to stop a car if a criminal offence is occurring and to take that car away.
Matt Vickers
Of the million fly-tipping offences that take place in the country every year, how many does the Minister think end in the seizure of a vehicle?
Sarah Jones
When it comes to fly-tipping, if a crime is being committed, the police can take away the car; the issue we are talking about is the subsequent removal and disposal of that car—taking it away permanently—which the local authority can already do. I encourage all local authorities to make use of this power. This debate arises because in the years in which the Opposition were in government, they did not put enough resources into local government, as I think everyone would agree, to allow it to enforce the laws already in place. There are already powers for local authorities, and we are building on those powers in this legislation.
Sarah Jones
I will give way in one moment.
If someone is caught using a vehicle to fly-tip, we can, as a result of this legislation, add up to nine points to their licence, which is surely a really powerful disincentive against fly-tipping. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain why he did not bring this in, when he was in government.
Matt Vickers
I will explain more than that. I was delighted to put forward an amendment in Committee proposing just that, and the Ministers sat on either side of the Minister—the Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department, the hon. Members for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) —voted against penalty points for that offence. I do not think the Minister heard me when I asked this question before: how many of the million fly-tipping offences that take place in this country does she think result in the seizure of a vehicle? In a year’s time, when we come back and have this discussion again, how many does she think will have been seized?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
More than under his Government.
Sarah Jones
I suspect, as my hon. Friend says, that there will be a lot more than were seized under the previous Government. This Government encourage our police and local authorities to investigate any crime, and to ensure proper punishment. That is why we are introducing this very substantial piece of legislation, which also increases the punishment for a whole raft of criminal activities.
Many people are profiting from fly-tipping and making it their business; perhaps they are doing a house clearance, and want to avoid paying fees to get rid of the furniture, so they just dump it on our streets. It is right that we encourage our local authorities to ensure that those people are punished, and that, where necessary, we crush their vans, rather than just taking them away, so that they can never be used by those people again. That is what we are keen to do. That is why my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet have prioritised tackling fly-tipping in all its forms, from very small to very large cases. We have organised criminal gangs fly-tipping across the country, leading to vast fly-tips; this Government will fund their removal, through the legislation we are bringing in.
I move on to youth diversion orders. Again, I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats do not feel that they can support our further amendments in lieu. We have further strengthened the provisions in the Bill in respect of statutory guidance, which must now expressly address the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for chief officers to consult persons other than youth offending teams before making an application for a youth diversion order or the variation or discharge of such an order. This squarely addresses the concerns raised in the other place. We do not feel that we need to go as far as the other place suggests. I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have not listened to us today, and that they feel it necessary to continue to push the issue.
Returning to the fourth issue that we are debating today—the proscription of the IRGC—it is a long-standing principle, adopted by successive Administrations, that the Government do not comment on which organisations are being considered for proscription. It would violate that principle if we mandated the Government to review whether to proscribe Iranian Government-related organisations. The shadow Minister knows that that is the case. The Government cannot support Lords amendments 359 and 439.
Matt Vickers
Was the Foreign Secretary wrong when she said that the IRGC must be proscribed?
Sarah Jones
As we have said, we know the horrors that the Iranian Government and the IRGC have inflicted on their people, and the work that they have done. Of course, we must do all we can. As we have said in this place, we already sanction hundreds of Iranians, who cannot come to this country as a result, and who have had their assets seized. However, the shadow Minister knows that legislation must be passed to enable us to do this piece of work. As a responsible Government, committed to protecting the safety and security of this country, we will not deviate from that position.
Sarah Jones
We are now.
The time has come for the will of the elected House to prevail. We have listened and responded positively to the great majority of amendments put forward by the House of Lords. We should send these amendments back in the hope, and indeed the expectation, that it will be for the last time. We have been debating the Bill for long enough—14 months—so it is time to stop talking. It is time to deliver the changes wrought by the Bill to protect all our communities.
Question put.
Business without Debate
Community-owned Assets: Government Support
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to highlight the case of the Ultimate Picture Palace in my constituency, which shows the need for Government support for community assets.
The Ultimate Picture Palace is the only remaining independent cinema in Oxford. Founded in 1911, it shows an eclectic mix of independent, international and classic films, all in its cosy single-screen auditorium. This beautiful cinema is a real landmark in Jeune Street, abutting Cowley Road in the heart of east Oxford. It was built when dangerously flammable outdoor screenings were being replaced with screenings in safer buildings. The heritage of tented outdoor shows is clear in the beautiful art deco building, not least because of the original box office window, which opens straight out on to the street. The team of staff and volunteers who run the cinema is small but passionate.
In 2022, the cinema became community-owned when 1,200 local people took a stake in it. It is a vibrant place, defying national trends in ticket sales. At a time when thousands of community assets have closed, the UPP stands as a reminder that a different model is possible, and that that model works. It aims to be a leader in community cinema, empowering local people to determine the future of this neighbourhood venue and enabling all local residents, from families to young people, students, workers and community groups, to be uplifted through the joy of cinema. It has hosted numerous festivals, and it really does cater for all. Last year, it screened a wider variety of films than any other cinema in the city, as well as attracting new audiences by, for example, introducing special “Kino Kids” screenings, and through the development of a new education programme. The cinema’s relaxed and welcoming atmosphere means that anyone can come and enjoy a film, whether on their own or with friends or family.
I have heard many wonderful stories about the way in which this small community cinema has shaped local people’s lives. One of the most moving was the story of a new year’s eve screening 50 years ago; it was when a resident who had moved to Oxford finally felt at home in my city. Dame Pippa Harris, co-producer of the Oscar-winning film “Hamnet”, came to the UPP as a young person, and has said,
“Big dreams started in that little cinema and I’m lucky my dream came true”.
Perhaps my favourite quote about the cinema came from the sadly late true Oxford original Bill Heine, who said of his approach to the cinema when he ran it:
“Look, if you’re going to sail why not sail in dangerous waters. Who wants to play around on the beach?”
The UPP has a truly incredible, storied history, from legal fights with Stanley Kubrick and the BBC to the squatted “Section 6” cinema, right through to today’s community ownership.
To be fit for the future, this special cinema needs to invest in better access, sightlines and sound quality, and more efficient use of energy. It has planning permission for those changes, and funders who are keen to support them if their requirements for a long-term lease are met—but herein lies the problem. The landlord of this community-owned asset, Oriel College, will not commit to such a long-term lease. That is because, it appears, the building is in the footprint of its plans for a “fifth quad” to accommodate graduate students. The idea of the cinema’s being used for that purpose strikes me, and local residents, as very strange. The building is Grade II listed, which reflects its historical status and striking exterior and interior. It is one of the oldest independent cinemas in England, and the only one that is community-owned.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady for raising this subject. I spoke to her beforehand, and she is right to refer to the issues affecting her local cinema and to its community-based importance. Does she not agree that community-owned assets are essential to our quest to overcome hidden barriers, such as transport poverty, social isolation among the elderly and digital exclusion—things that go far beyond the cinema—which prevent rural residents in Oxford East, but also in my constituency, from gaining access to essential community and health services? That does not always apply to their urban counterparts. Does the right hon. Lady agree that support for these assets should not be limited to one community group or another, but should be given to entire populations, who rely on these assets, and on Government help, in their time of need?
Anneliese Dodds
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member that community-owned assets are often targeted at those inequalities, because communities understand where the challenges are on their streets, in their backyard or, if we are talking about rural areas, down their lane. They really understand where the need is. That is one of many reasons why community-owned assets are so important. Of course, they are not only important for those communities; they can be nationally significant as well. That is the case with this cinema; the head of cinemas at the Independent Cinema Office has said that the UPP is of national importance.
I and thousands of local residents have called on Oriel College to grant the cinema the long-term lease it needs; indeed, a petition calling for this has gained nearly 20,000 signatures in a matter of weeks. The granting of this lease would be great for local students, and could unlock exciting collaboration between the cinema and Oriel College. There are some brilliant examples of higher education institutions working with arts organisations in the UK, and such co-operation could make the UPP an even more special place. So far, Oriel College appears not to have recognised the potential benefits of engaging with the Ultimate Picture Palace in this way. I urge it to reconsider, and to grant the UPP its long-term lease. I urge the Government to recognise the value of community assets like the UPP, and to go further to protect them.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is painting a beautifully evocative picture of the UPP, and it takes me straight to my favourite film, “Cinema Paradiso”. Does she agree that communities often deliver in a way that the Government cannot? They deliver according to what communities and local people need, but they can also act in a more agile way. They can often access different funding, but they need initial support and the capacity to grow their knowledge and experience in order to deliver.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that really important point, and she is absolutely right. The flexibility that community-owned assets often have cannot be underlined enough, and the fact that they can respond to community needs is just one of the many positive aspects of these very special assets. Of course, community ownership shapes who holds power within organisations and over assets. It shapes who makes decisions about them and who benefits from them, as in the cases she talks about.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The right hon. Lady is outlining a really clear case for community-owned assets. Can she elaborate on that and tell us if the UPP is an asset of community value? We have recently had to fight a campaign to stop Harrogate Spring Water chopping down the much-loved Rotary Wood, which is an asset of community value. If that planning decision had gone ahead and not been voted down, there would have been a moratorium that allowed the community to come together and put in a bid to try to purchase it, but there needs to be more support to make sure that those bids are prioritised, and that multinationals like Danone cannot simply swoop in and outbid a local community.
Anneliese Dodds
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the “asset of community value” designation can be a really powerful tool. Yes, that has been applied in the case of UPP; it is something that the cinema itself and local people pushed for. I am really pleased that the council granted that designation, and in the case of important community assets, we really need to guard against the kind of development that he mentions.
A recent measure that the Government have been working on, and which will help in this area, relates to the community right to buy, which I know the Minister is really passionate about. The community right to buy is about giving local people the right to own and protect the places that matter to them, from pubs and parks to community centres and sports grounds. When communities have a real stake, as they do with the UPP, they do not just preserve assets; they make them thrive. This reflects a core co-operative belief—fundamental for the Co-op party, of which I am a member—that communities are best placed to shape their future. Where communities have succeeded in ensuring that vital shared spaces can continue to exist, they have done so despite the system, not because of it. The current situation brings into sharp relief how many hurdles communities face in trying to take control of the places that matter most.
The Ultimate Picture Palace is just one example of a community-owned asset facing blockages. We know that communities elsewhere are not eligible for funding streams or tax relief, and that there often is not the correct development support for those trying to pursue community ownership. The community right to buy will mark a landmark shift, but we need to go further, and I know that the Co-op party has argued this.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is putting forward a very persuasive argument. In Penn in my constituency, where I live, we have the Old Stag’s Head, a pub that closed down some time ago. Many efforts have been made to allow the community to purchase the pub, so that it can recreate the community value that it provided. Does she agree that community assets can be quite wide-ranging? They can be pubs, community centres or sports halls. This is a very important topic on an issue on which Government support can be so useful.
Anneliese Dodds
Absolutely. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, who is completely right. We have seen many campaigns to keep local pubs open, and we have seen local people working hard to deliver a community asset designation, but they have often lacked the finance. I hope that the new measures coming through will start to deal with that, particularly the right to buy and other measures. I would also mention the community wealth fund and the Pride in Place programme. They all aim to tackle the inequalities, the lack of social infrastructure, including physical social infrastructure, and of course economic deprivation. Too often, as in the case of the UPP, we see a David and Goliath situation for communities that want to control local assets.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister, first, to co-ordinate policy on community assets with other Departments, so that we can truly unlock their promise. Secondly, I urge her to work with Culture, Media and Sport Ministers and Education and Skills Ministers to encourage place-based collaboration between arts and cultural organisations and higher education providers.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The UPP sounds like an absolute cultural gem, and I love anything to do with arts and culture, as a former chair of an arts and culture organisation. The Government have launched the town of culture programme, which will be an amazing way to bring people together. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a positive step forward, and will she get behind Bawtry being the first town of culture in the country?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very fond of my hon. Friend, but I know many other Members are pushing for their amazing towns to become the town of culture. I agree with him that the programme is an exciting new development, as is what we are seeing in community ownership, and the engagement with arts and culture.
My third ask of the Minister is that she comes to the Ultimate Picture Palace and experiences the magic of cinema. She will find a friendly welcome, lovely drinks and snacks, and a dedicated team of staff and volunteers. If she comes, she will experience what promoters of the cinema said it would deliver when it was built right back in 1911: “Real fun and instruction”, in a beautiful building. Long live community cinema, and long live the Ultimate Picture Palace!
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for securing this debate, for speaking with such conviction about the importance of community-owned assets and for highlighting the importance of the Ultimate Picture Palace—I do know it—which is a treasured asset in her community. I know she has been a long-standing champion for communities in her constituency, and I recognise the work she has done to bring local voices to this House. As a fellow Co-operative Member, I share her ambition, passion and commitment for community ownership and power.
Community-owned assets matter because they are not just buildings, but places where people meet, organise, volunteer, learn and support one another. When communities lose them, they lose not just bricks and mortar, but connection, pride and opportunity. That is why this Government believe strongly that communities should have more power to protect the places they value. My right hon. Friend is seeing that at first hand in Greater Leys, as it is one of the neighbourhoods receiving long-term funding and support through the Pride in Place programme. That 10-year commitment reflects both the strength of the community and the challenges it faces, and it gives local people the certainty they need to plan ahead and to shape the area for the long term.
Alongside the Pride in Place programme, the Government have also introduced the Pride in Place impact fund. The fund is designed to provide rapid, visible improvements to community spaces, public places and high streets in areas that need immediate support. Further communities across the country are benefiting from that additional route for action, where quicker intervention is needed.
Together, the two approaches reflect a deliberate choice by this Government to combine long-term, locally-led change with the ability to respond quickly where urgent improvements are required. They serve different purposes, but both are rooted in the same fundamental principle of putting communities in the driving seat and ensuring that they decide what is best for their area and their priorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
But funding alone is not enough, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. Communities also need stronger rights. Too often, valued local assets are sold off, left empty or lost entirely, with residents having little say in the process. That is why this Government are strengthening community power through legislation. Through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we will introduce a new community right to buy. This gives communities the first opportunity to purchase a registered asset of community value when it comes up for sale. Communities will have more time to raise funds, access a fair and independent valuation, and rely on rights that carry real weight.
Tom Gordon
I just want to acknowledge the Government’s fantastic work, which the Minister is outlining, on this particular issue. Does she agree that one of the biggest worries people have in areas undergoing local government reorganisation is that cash-strapped councils will have to sell off such assets? Often when councils are merged, they can be further removed from local people on the ground. Does she agree that these steps will help to give people certainty, in the light of local government reorganisation?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have had this exchange at the Dispatch Box previously; the Government embarked on local government reorganisation as a point of necessity, not because we either desired it or thought it would be fun to do so. Ultimately, local government is under huge amounts of pressure. We need to have local councils—the beating heart of our communities—that are sustainable, that have a footprint local people can recognise and that can do the job of enabling our communities. That is our firm intention through the local government process, but we recognise that alongside that it is critical that we build and support at community level. That is why, in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we are introducing the roll-out of neighbourhood governance and why, through our Pride in Place programme, we are fundamentally empowering communities, which should be at the very heart of how we drive change in our places.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that Pride in Place is a fantastic programme, which will help campaigns such as the Save the Stag campaign in my constituency to buy their local pub, but that it has not reached all corners of the country yet? Will she confirm that she will look at how Pride in Place extends and is calculated, so that areas like mine in Cornwall can also benefit?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are two things I would say: there is the programme and we have just announced another 40 places; and there are more parts of the country that are in need of support. With Pride in Place, investment is already going into place, but we are very keen to take the approach where we also think about how we put communities in control of some of that investment so that they can drive the priorities and ensure that the investment the Government are making in every part of the country actually works for the community. This approach is fundamental to the way the Government do things: we say that communities should be in the driving seat, driving priorities and ensuring that the investment coming into their area is working in their interests.
The Pride in Place programme complements the rights we are giving to neighbourhood boards, and the freedom to invest in community ownership and renewal. That might mean restoring a valued building or bringing empty spaces back into use. Whatever the priority, it has to be driven locally and not imposed from Whitehall.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My concern about the impact of local government reorganisation is the lack of money for community-owned assets. Charities are entitled to a mandatory 80% business relief, with the 20% discretionary top-up from local councils. In areas that have gone bankrupt, like mine in Woking, community-owned assets and charities could be at the forefront of decisions. What steps is the Minister taking to support community-owned assets in council areas that are struggling financially, like Woking?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are committed to working with all councils, which we know are under huge pressure, to ensure that they are sustainable and that they can do the fundamental work that we need them to do to support and empower their communities. Colleagues in my Department are working with individual councils that we know are facing a very difficult time financially, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation.
There is a bigger piece for us, though, which is that we absolutely believe it is right to empower communities to take on assets. This is a principle that we believe in; we believe in co-operative ownership and community ownership. We are conferring rights through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in order to drive that forward. We must continue building on it to ensure that we are giving communities the wherewithal, the resources and the know-how to be able to exercise those rights. We are committed to doing this to ensure that communities can take on and maintain assets, because it is fundamental to our view of how we drive change in place.
Ultimately, this Government are clear that we were elected to do things differently, because business as usual is not working for too many of our communities. That means moving away from short-term competitive bidding and towards longer-term, locally-led change. It means trusting our communities, backing their ideas and giving them the tools to succeed.
I once again thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East for raising the important issue of community ownership and community power so eloquently. She is right to shine a light on this subject. We will continue to work through Pride in Place and community right to buy and by providing targeted support for urgent local needs to ensure that our ambition for communities is matched in practice and in reality.
My right hon. Friend spoke about encouraging collaboration between arts and culture organisations and higher education providers, and this work has begun; we are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education to ensure that we are aligned. I will continue that collaboration, as she suggests. I would absolutely love to accept her invitation to visit the Ultimate Picture Palace—I think it will probably be the highlight of my year. I look forward to working with her and with Members across the House who have a shared commitment and ambition for what we can achieve by empowering our communities to drive the change that they are so desperate to see. The Government are committed to this aim, and we will work diligently and effectively with all Members across the House to make it a reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. These draft regulations are being made under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to lower the minimum age at which the Office of Rail and Road, or ORR, can issue a licence to drive trains on the British mainline railway from 20 to 18 years.
The conditions for driving trains under the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 2010 regulations, will remain the same. The conditions include the completion of at least nine years of primary and secondary education, or vocational training equivalent to level 3 qualifications, and proof of passing medical, psychological, fitness and general professional competence examinations.
I will begin by providing some background on the legislative regime and why the changes are being brought forward. The rail network depends on approximately 19,000 train drivers to operate passenger and freight services. The 2010 regulations require train drivers to hold a licence confirming that they are fit and competent, and an employer-issued certificate authorising them to drive specific trains on specific routes.
The 2010 regulations implemented the EU train driving directive, which sets a default minimum licensing age of 20 across the EU, and gives member states the option to adopt a lower age of 18 for domestic services. The UK did not take that option when it transposed the directive in 2009, but other countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, have since done so successfully.
In February 2024 the Rail Safety and Standards Board, or RSSB, published research on lowering the minimum age to be a train driver in Britain. It found that 18 and 19-year-olds can drive trains safely when held to the same standards as older recruits. Crucially, the research found that training, practice and exposure to train driving, not age, are the determining factors in whether a train driver will perform the responsibilities of the role effectively. Support for lowering the minimum age was reaffirmed in May 2023, post the implementation review of the 2010 regulations.
That research prompted the previous Conservative Government to consult on the proposal. The consultation, published in May 2025, showed broad support from major industry bodies, including ASLEF and the train operators.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and the Government for bringing forward this secondary legislation. As he knows, there is a need to improve the diversity of the driving workforce and to address the challenges of an ageing workforce, so this is a much-welcomed change and a fantastic example of industry, Government and unions working together to deliver for workers and the travelling public. Will he join me in recognising the role that ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, played by working with industry and with the Labour party in opposition to help secure this important change?
Simon Lightwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are proud to be able to contribute towards diversifying the occupation of train driver and giving more people access to becoming drivers and working on the railway. Lowering the age of driving is just one step in the process, of course, and moves us closer to delivering a railway fit for the future. We are grateful to ASLEF for drawing this needed legislative change to our attention, and for working with us in Government to lower the driving age and to deliver the Railways Bill.
For the reasons that I have set out, on 7 May 2025 my Department confirmed that we will proceed with lowering the minimum age to be a train driver, bringing Great Britain in line with many international counterparts. To ensure a smooth transition, we asked the industry to prepare an implementation plan, which was used to inform a timetable for changing the law. The Rail Delivery Group gathered industry specialists, who confirmed that existing safeguards, testing and supervision remain appropriate for younger entrants, reconfirming that a lower minimum age for train driving can be introduced safely.
The Department and the ORR approved the implementation plan in December 2025 and published it on gov.uk on 19 March 2026. The plan proposed improvements that industry will implement to strengthen recruitment, assessment, management and training for all new drivers, not just younger applicants. The improvements include preparing formal guidance for operators to ensure recruitment, training, safeguarding and management practices are updated to support line managers and younger drivers, strengthening entry routes and training through revisions to the train driving level 3 apprenticeship standard, and the development of a new foundation apprenticeship.
Other proposed improvements include developing a communications plan to raise awareness of the new opportunities afforded by the change in law and how applicants can prepare, developing a new recruitment portal with resources and information to support applications for train driving roles, working with pathfinder operators to identify and share best practice, and running a long-term study to monitor the effects and experience of the change to help to refine the system over time. The industry has assured us that the arrangements will be in place by June of this year, which is why we have scheduled this legislative change to take effect on 30 June 2026. From that date, young people will be eligible to apply for train driving positions.
I turn now to the reasons why the Government are bringing forward these regulations. The rail industry is facing significant skills shortages, particularly in train driving. Around 25% of the current workforce are expected to reach retirement age by 2030. We project a deficit of 2,500 train drivers by the end of the decade unless action is taken. It is imperative to address that retirement cliff edge, which risks the industry’s ability to maintain current service levels; indeed, operators are already reliant on overtime for sustained timetables. Lowering the minimum age of train drivers will not on its own solve train driver shortages—it is the responsibility of operators to take steps to secure their workforce—but it is an important first step. The current minimum age of 20 acts as an arbitrary barrier to entry to the profession. By that age, many young people have already committed to other employment, vocations or study. Lowering the minimum age to 18 will allow operators to engage school leavers and offer a clear, structured route into a highly skilled and respected profession.
This policy is about not only creating new opportunities for young people, but taking decisive action to ensure that the railway remains resilient, safe and properly staffed for the future. Alongside this measure, we will be working with industry to support an increase in training capacity to ensure that more train drivers are trained into roles and put into service. The policy’s aims are therefore clear: to lower the average age of the driver workforce, increase the number of train drivers in the industry, and create a more stable and diverse profession that reflects the communities it serves.
I now turn to questions raised by the scrutiny Committees in their consideration of the draft regulations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the draft regulations on 4 March and did not draw special attention to them. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had some questions concerning implementation and policy aims. and wished to draw the special attention of the House to them in its 52nd report, published on 26 February. I will outline and respond to those questions in turn.
First, the Committee asked how regulations will support 16 and 17-year-olds into train driving, and whether the minimum age for the train driving level 3 apprenticeship could be lowered. Since our announcement, my Department has worked with the Rail Delivery Group, Skills England and the Department for Education to explore that. As a result, the minimum entry age for the train driving apprenticeship will be reduced from 18 to 17 and a half, with the intention that that should take effect alongside the regulations. The practical effect of that is to allow young people to begin classroom learning and supervised practical training earlier, while remaining fully compliant with the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Secondly, the Committee asked when the implementation plan would be published. The plan was issued on 19 March and is available on gov.uk. The period between the laying of the regulations on 10 February and 19 March was needed to finalise the apprenticeship offer and ensure that it aligned fully with the new licensing arrangements.
Thirdly, the Committee asked whether there will be a clear pathway for 16-year-olds, so that the train driving apprenticeship becomes a viable option for school leavers. Alongside lowering the eligibility age for train driving apprenticeships, the industry is developing a rail foundation apprenticeship for 16-year-olds, providing a structured skills route into driving. Additional access courses have also been developed to help school leavers to build the non-technical skills needed for driver assessment and selection.
Fourthly, the Committee asked for assurance on operational safeguards and oversight. I can confirm that all existing testing and competence requirements will remain in place. In addition, the implementation plan specifies that operators will update internal procedures and safeguarding arrangements for younger trainees. We expect operators to share learning and best practice to support long-term implementation. That will be formalised through a 10-year longitudinal study to monitor the progression, wellbeing and performance of younger drivers, providing a clear mechanism for oversight.
Fifthly, the Committee asked about the timetable for wider reforms to the train driver licensing regime, noting concerns about training capacity and projected shortages. Reasons for projected shortages and capacity issues vary across operators and across the country. The Department is developing proposals to reform the 2010 regulations to address those issues and intends to consult on them between 2026 and 2027, as part of the transition towards Great British Railways. We will look to GBR to provide strategic leadership on this matter in the long term.
Finally, the Committee asked whether the findings of the longitudinal study will be published. The study will be led by the industry through the Train Drivers Academy, and the Department has been assured that the results will be published annually, ensuring transparency and continued scrutiny.
In summary, these regulations lower the minimum age at which an individual may be issued a train driving licence from 20 to 18, provided that they meet the same rigorous licensing conditions that apply to all drivers, which will remain unchanged. The change in law is scheduled to come into force on 30 June 2026, enabling young people from across Great Britain to apply for train driving positions from that date. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
Today, the Minister will be pleased to know that the Opposition are fully and wholly supportive of his measures to deregulate this sector. Bringing young people into any industry is essential if we are to adapt to the modern world and deliver the services customers deserve into the future. The industry deserves the fresh impetus that is often brought by young people looking to establish themselves.
The National Skills Academy data used by the Government for their proposals show that fewer than 3% of train drivers are currently aged under 30 and, with countries across the continent having an age limit lower than our own and operating safely, these measures are welcome. The last Government wisely brought forward the consultation on this issue, which this Government are building upon, engaging with industry and finding widespread support among key stakeholders.
In principle, there are clearly compelling reasons to back these regulations. Bringing them forward represents confidence in the next generation; bringing people into the workforce is essential if we are to have the skills necessary to operate the railways well into the future.
I am glad for the explanations the Minister has provided on how this will work in practice, and some of the things he mentioned relating to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place. There are still some concerns around the gap between the actual licensing regime and whether this policy will, in fact, lead to some of the numbers needed to meet the challenges the Minister has outlined. I ask him to address a couple of points.
The Government have said that the industry is working with Skills England to reduce the apprenticeship age of entry from 18 to 17 and a half, but there appears to remain a slight lack of detail regarding support for those aged 16 and 17 looking to establish themselves in the sector in future, given that by that age many may have already chosen different educational paths. Can the Minister update us on that, or perhaps write to me about it to say what the Government aim to do to ensure that the widest number of young people, from whatever background, are able to get into the sector? That would be very much appreciated.
At the same time, it is very good to hear about the foundation apprenticeships for some of those earlier age groups. However, it has been pointed out that if the Government truly want to ensure the widest possible profile of a workforce, they may need to consider other working practices that need changing in future, such as Sunday working and other restrictive measures regarding the use and training of drivers.
I also ask the Minister to reflect on why this is limited to trains. I absolutely agree with him that the 20 years of age threshold is an arbitrary barrier. That is the same for other parts of the transport sector, which we should also be looking to encourage young people into, particularly where there are skills shortages.
The last Government also published a consultation, started when I was a junior Minister in the Department for Transport—it seems to have gathered dust somewhat—on allowing bus and coach drivers to undertake longer journeys starting at an earlier age, to provide them with better career prospects and enable them to get into their desired profession. I fail to see why a younger person might be allowed to enter a cab and learn to prepare to drive a five-car class 802 train that could weigh well over 250 tonnes and travel at speeds of more than 100 miles an hour, but not get comparable freedoms to drive buses over slightly longer distances.
This question is particularly important given the comparable challenge of the demographics of both parts of the transport sector. The average age of a bus or coach driver is currently around 52. Why is reducing the age limit for train drivers going full steam ahead, yet we do not seem to get the full zip from the Department when it comes to bus and coach? The Government talk about the importance of the interconnectedness of transport, but they do not seem to have extended that in this sector at the moment.
I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that, but overall I very much welcome these proposals and hope they are implemented effectively so that young people can access these schemes. However, this is just one of many steps that we must take to open up opportunities to young people across transport. We need this attitude across the entirety of the DFT, ensuring that those who can contribute and help our sector are not curtailed by long-standing and unhelpful working practices.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I see a lot of familiar faces from the Railways Bill Committee— I worry that I have become a member of a group I never aspired to join.
I am here to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats; we support this statutory instrument, which lowers the minimum age to obtain a mainline driving licence in Great Britain from 20 to 18, while maintaining the age of 20 for drivers operating in the channel tunnel zone, in line with international agreements. This SI removes an arbitrary barrier that has prevented the rail industry from recruiting directly from school leavers, at a time when the workforce is ageing, we are facing significant shortages and young people are struggling to find employment opportunities.
The regulations do not alter existing safety requirements, or mandatory medical, psychological and competency assessments, which remain in place. A 2024 Rail Safety and Standards Board report concluded that there is no evidence that 18 or 19-year-olds pose a higher safety risk than older drivers. Safety is driven by robust training and supervision standards, rather than age alone. Overall, despite some industry concerns, this is a proportionate and evidence-based reform that supports the long-term resilience of the rail network. As Liberal Democrats, we are always happy to see the UK aligning with our European neighbours on this issue.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespersons for their contributions. The right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay is quite right to mention those stats on the challenges we face. The average train driver is 47 years old, with 40% of drivers over the age of 50 and just 4% under the age of 30. That trend is set to continue, and we expect 25% of train drivers to reach retirement age by 2030.
Turning to other industries, the right hon. Member mentioned coach and bus, but in his time as the Buses Minister he also did not take that forward. We did a consultation in 2024 and we are looking at the topic. We will continue working with Confederation of Passenger Transport and the Road Haulage Association before we take any action, to ensure that it is evidence led and safety focused. But indeed, 18-year-olds can fly planes and join the armed forces; surely they can drive our trains.
The right hon. Member also asked about available routes into train driving for school leavers aged 16 and 17. They will have several clear routes. First, a new rail foundation apprenticeship is being developed for young people from the age of 16; it will introduce them to the rail environment and help them to build the technical and behavioural skills needed before progressing to a full train driving level 3 apprenticeship. Secondly, the minimum age for entering the train driving level 3 apprenticeship will be lowered from 18 to 17 and a half. That will allow young people to begin classroom learning and supervised practical training earlier. Thirdly, operators are preparing new access and preparatory courses that will help school leavers to develop the essential non-technical skills required for the driver assessment process. Together, those pathways will provide a structured and well supported opportunity for 16 and 17-year-olds to prepare for a career in train driving before they are eligible for a licence at 18.
To conclude, these regulations deliver a focused and widely supported reform. They lower the minimum licensing age from 20 to 18 while fully ensuring that the safety, medical and competence standards that underpin the railway are maintained. These changes will widen opportunities for young people and help operators draw from a broader talent pool at a time when many experienced drivers are approaching retirement. In doing so, the regulations will help to build a more resilient, diverse and sustainable driver workforce and secure the long-term future of our railways. I urge the Committee to support these measures and approve the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Use of Biobeads in Waste Water Treatment
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
Maternity Commissioner
(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
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 751174 relating to a Maternity Commissioner.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. The petition calls for the appointment of a maternity commissioner to improve maternity care for mothers and babies. I thank the petitioners, Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke, two formidable women and campaigners who have raised this issue relentlessly over several years. They have spoken powerfully, alongside many others, including the Birth Trauma Association, the MASIC Foundation, Make Birth Better, the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, Five X More and Mumsnet. I also thank the more than 153,000 people, including 203 of my constituents in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh, who signed Louise and Theo’s petition so quickly after it was launched.
We should remember that most births in the UK are safe, and I acknowledge and thank the NHS midwives, nurses and doctors on the frontline, and all those working across the health service, who do outstanding work to care for mothers and babies across our nation every day. However, at the same time, there are clear, deep-rooted and long-standing problems in our maternity and neonatal services, in connection with which I will mention four statistics.
First, the maternal death rate in the UK is one of the highest in western Europe, and UK stillbirth rates are also high. Secondly, the NHS currently spends more on payouts for medical negligence than on the entire frontline maternity service budget. That money should be going towards safer frontline care, not litigation. Thirdly, according to the Care Quality Commission’s latest national review of maternity services, almost half the maternity units it inspected between 2022 and 2023 were rated as “requires improvement” or “inadequate”, with only 4% rated as “outstanding”.
Fourthly, over the past two decades, we have seen a heartbreaking succession of maternity scandals. There was the same pattern across Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury and Telford, East Kent—which serves my constituency—and now Nottingham: women raised concerns, saying that something was wrong and that they were in pain or frightened, but were not listened to. That failure to listen is a theme running through every major maternity report of the last decade, with around 750 recommendations across those various reports reflecting that failure, alongside the issues of unsafe care, toxic culture and weak oversight.
Unfortunately, those were the experiences of petitioner Louise Thompson, who advocated for a C-section but was denied it, resulting in a massive obstetric haemorrhage. My constituent Jo Page also experienced those systemic failures when her son was born at William Harvey hospital in Ashford some years ago. A birthing injury was misdiagnosed and she did not receive the right treatment and support for what was, in fact, a fourth-degree tear. As a result, she has suffered years of pain and indignity, cannot stand for long periods and needs to use the toilet frequently. She had to give up her career and cannot do normal activities, such as taking a flight to go on holiday. Her life has been utterly changed.
Jo now works with MASIC, which supports mothers with anal sphincter injuries, to run a support group for local women in Folkestone, Hythe and the wider Kent area. She also trains midwives and doctors to correctly diagnose tears, and was recently involved in the Sky News production, “Birth Trauma: The women who weren’t listened to”, which tells the traumatic stories of three mothers who were cared for in NHS England hospitals. Jo, you are truly inspiring, and I know that the whole House would join me in expressing thanks for all the work that you do for women up and down the country.
When I spoke to Jo last week, she told me that she continues to receive messages from women who have experienced misdiagnoses and did not feel listened to during their birthing experiences. Those women include a police officer and a social worker who had both been so badly injured during birth that they had to give up their careers, got into debt and suffered immeasurably. I am sad to say that, just last month, I was contacted by a constituent who experienced the same failings that they had read about in the Kirkup report into maternity services at William Harvey hospital.
When I spoke to petitioner Louise Thompson, she said that she is constantly hearing from women who have post-partum physical injuries and mental health issues, and has known people who have committed suicide following maternity service and post-partum system failures. She also spoke of the profound strain on partners, who must support a recovering mother, assist in caring for a newborn and continue to work, all at the same time. She pointed out that a third of women in the UK who give birth experience it as traumatic, and that every year between 4% and 5% of them develop post-traumatic stress disorder, which is around 30,000 women in total. The impact of trauma can last a lifetime, affecting a mother’s bond with her baby, her relationship with her partner, her ability to work and her long-term mental health.
Why is this happening? The petitioners believe that one key reason is a lack of unified leadership and consistency across maternal care in the UK, over many years. When petitioner Theo Clarke was the hon. Member for Stafford, she chaired the first ever birth trauma inquiry with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). They heard from 1,300 patients, including patients from marginalised communities, and from professionals about their experiences of maternity services across the four nations of the UK. The inquiry was prompted by Theo Clarke’s own traumatic birth experience, which she bravely and publicly spoke about in the House, describing it as:
“the most terrifying experience of my life.” —[Official Report, 19 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 495.]
In submissions to that inquiry, mothers reported being mocked or shouted at, being denied the most basic assistance such as pain relief, and being left feeling “terrified”, “humiliated” and “ashamed”. The word “broken” appeared more than any other. The inquiry’s May 2024 report was called “Listen to Mums: Ending the Postcode Lottery on Perinatal Care”, and its 14 recommendations were headed by a call on the Government to publish a national maternity improvement strategy, led by a new maternity commissioner reporting to the Prime Minister. The petitioners believe that these measures would fill a void.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for calling this important debate. I am also very grateful to my constituent Louise Thompson for having the guts and the decency to parlay what was an absolutely horrible experience into a determination to make life better for women across this country and improve maternity services for everybody. I am very grateful for what she is doing—she is in Public Gallery today and I very much welcome her.
As my hon. and learned Friend may be aware, I am a Member of the Health and Social Care Committee. Recently, we produced a report on black maternal health and many of the issues that he has described today also emerged in that report. There is a huge amount to be done.
When it comes to making these changes and making them stick, I echo my hon. and learned Friend’s support for a national maternity commissioner to drive them through. However, if the Government are not minded to appoint a maternity commissioner, how else does he think we might get the drive and the determination to make the changes stick right across Government permanently?
Tony Vaughan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I echo his comments about the petitioner Louise Thompson and her advocacy on this issue.
The petitioners’ analysis is that there has been a vacuum of leadership and accountability across the system. I know that the Government are considering how best to address that, and we will hear more from the Minister later about that; but whatever happens, there has to be a structural way of providing that leadership and avoiding fragmentation and different interpretations of different guidance documents across the system. We need clear systemic change to cure this, because it has been an ongoing problem for many years and so far no answer has been put forward.
The petitioner Theo Clarke told me a story that illustrates the point about the postcode lottery in maternity care, which the petitioners strongly believe would be prevented by measures to create expert national leadership and tighten up the rules. She told me that an obstetrician in London who she had spoken to recently told her that there are 87 different pieces of guidance that apply in maternity care. That does not sound like a framework; to many people, it sounds more like a large number of disparate documents, which leads to variations in interpretation between different areas. Theo Clarke’s strong view is that that leaves room for interpretation, which results in different approaches to care in different areas. In practical terms, that means that something as basic as training midwives in recognising and treating birthing injuries varies hugely between different areas.
My constituent who I spoke about a moment ago trains midwives on this issue, but that training is not available everywhere, and certainly not in the same way as delivered by MASIC.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important point about the disparity in the guidance. If there is someone at the top of an NHS trust who is passionate about maternity care, that is more likely to trickle down, but that is not the same in every trust, and therefore we can end up with a postcode lottery. In Chichester, mothers going to give birth would have a totally different experience if they went to Chichester, Guildford or Portsmouth because they are three totally different trusts with totally different guidance and rules about when mothers should present or the sort of treatment they should get at hospital. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that introducing a maternity commissioner would give us strategic oversight across the country of the experiences that mothers should expect to have?
Tony Vaughan
Certainly, the petition is clear that without expert, national-level oversight, there is no way of turning that thicket of different guidance and frameworks into a coherent, enforceable standard of care. Whatever structural change the Government put forward has to do that job. I spoke to my constituent Jo Page earlier, and she told me that there are people in Folkestone and Hythe who are going to Tunbridge Wells to access maternity services because of their concerns about the local standards of care. Obviously, that has to be fundamentally addressed.
The powerful evidence from the various maternity investigations that we have seen show that when everyone is responsible, nobody is accountable. Appointing a maternity commissioner could well mean that there is somebody with whom the buck stops—a dedicated expert responsible for turning the 750 recommendations, or the 87 guidance documents, into a single national maternity strategy and ensuring that it is implemented. That is not the only way that that could be done; Baroness Amos will shortly publish her report on the national maternity and neonatal investigations in NHS services. The petitioners strongly believe that her report should commit to a maternity commissioner and a maternity strategy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government currently view that proposal. I also ask her to commit to providing an update on which of the previous recommendations committed to may be taken forward.
In conclusion, the Government’s recent decision to introduce a women’s health strategy is hugely welcome and is an important acceptance that women’s health has been neglected for far too long. The petitioners strongly believe that it would make a real difference to women giving birth if that strategy encompassed a maternity commissioner with the authority, expertise and focus to end the postcode lottery in maternity care and break the cycle of avoidable harm once and for all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
I am grateful to Members for bobbing to indicate they would like to take part in the debate.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this important and sensitive debate with his customary eloquence.
I thank the 464 of my constituents who signed the e-petition, placing my constituency in the top 25 nationally for signatories. I also want to thank the many constituents who have been in touch with me and my team—many of whom I have met at constituency surgeries—about their maternity experiences.
This debate is important because of the familial and societal importance of safe, reassuring and comfortable pregnancy and childbirth, and all the anxiety and exhilaration that comes with that. I know that not from my own experience, but from that of friends and constituents. I have never seen people cry so much or so intensely as at the funeral of my friend Steve and Yue’s daughter. They, along with my friend Joel, who also lost a baby, have been superbly supported by Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal charity. They have all now experience successful births.
I want to emphasise what this debate should be about. It is definitely not about criticising hard-working and dedicated individual midwives and health workers, who so often do an amazing job in very challenging circumstances. It is about improving the top-level leadership, culture, staffing levels and processes that affect maternity units.
In my constituency, we have local maternity units in community hospitals in Wantage and Wallingford. These are welcomed by many constituents who would otherwise have to make what is often a long journey to Oxford. Otherwise, births happen in the maternity unit at Oxford’s John Radcliffe hospital. I visited the department in September 2025 and was given a comprehensive tour, including the new bereavement ward. I thank all the staff I met, who were committed to improving the care there. The department-level leadership was receptive to feedback and acknowledged that care at the John Radcliffe hospital has at times gone wrong. That is important, given the many constituents who have contacted me about their experiences at the John Radcliffe hospital.
I have met a number of constituents who have been affected by the traumatic and deeply tragic circumstances of stillbirth, complicated births that have resulted in lifelong and serious disabilities for children, post-traumatic stress disorder for mothers or a lack of support. I will tell some of those constituents’ stories; I am grateful for their consent that I do so.
I met Julie Ray at a constituency surgery some months ago. Her granddaughter Harper Rose was stillborn at the John Radcliffe hospital in May 2023. Julie believes that her death could have been avoided. The mother had a high body mass index. Although it was highlighted early on in her pregnancy, the midwife-led care she received did not always appreciate the potential for serious complications at birth. She was supposed to receive consultant-led care, but that did not happen and important decisions were left to midwives.
Despite the plethora of maternity guidelines provided by bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the website perinatal.org.uk, Julie was surprised that there were no more specific and binding rules that hospitals had to follow. Julie wants to see a maternity system in place, designed to prevent avoidable death and injury. She also wants coroners’ offices to be used for the post mortems of babies. Harper’s post mortem was carried out by the John Radcliffe hospital’s own pathology laboratory, which creates concerns about a lack of independence and the potential for unconscious bias.
My constituent Anna lost her granddaughter Wyllow-Raine. Anna has met the noble Baroness Amos more than once and is actively engaged in the Amos review, for which all my constituents have expressed their gratitude. They have high expectations of the review. Anna’s daughter, the mother of Wyllow-Raine, wants to see real accountability being taken for mistakes. She believes that a blood sugar test should have been done on her baby, as per NICE guidelines, and if it had been, Wyllow-Raine would still be here. They question the value of guidelines if hospitals are not following them. Anna would like to see a national inquiry into the Oxford university hospitals trust and the John Radcliffe hospital specifically.
My constituent Joanna was left to give birth without a midwife or pain relief, so the safe arrival of her children was essentially down to luck rather than to proper maternity care. She has raised concerns around issues of consent, as well as long waiting times after requesting her notes from the hospital.
A constituent who wishes to remain anonymous had birth complications during the delivery of her son in 2019 that left him with extremely severe lifelong disabilities. He requires round-the-clock care and cannot meet any of his own needs. Engagement from the Oxford university hospitals trust has been lacking to date.
Finally, Natasha and her partner tragically lost their first-born son, Arlo Huxley Harewood. After experiencing a tremendously difficult pregnancy, she was left alone in a room with the news of her loss. She felt that she was “fearmongered” when she was informed that if things turned, she would need to go for an emergency C-section under general anaesthetic with a tube down her throat:
“I was being prodded and poked for blood samples, a catheter fitted, induced vaginally, given a blood transfusion, asked to sign away and deliver my passed baby boy, thankfully naturally.”
Aggravatingly, a few days after the birth of her stillborn child, there was mention of HELLP syndrome when she was in the bereavement ward. She has been left with feelings of self-blame, which no grieving mother should ever have to go through.
As we have heard, the petition is part of a wider campaign led by the former Conservative MP for Stafford East, Theo Clarke, and by reality TV star Louise Thompson. I join my constituents in thanking them for their work. This year, they launched this petition to appoint a maternity commissioner to improve maternity care for mums and babies. A 2024 inquiry, led by the birth trauma all-party parliamentary group and by Theo Clarke, recommended that a maternity commissioner be appointed alongside a national maternity strategy to ensure mums and babies are safe and looked after with professionalism and compassion. A maternity commissioner would oversee and introduce past recommendations. Advocates have emphasised that a maternity commissioner is necessary to restore public confidence in NHS maternity services and ensure accountability.
On average, a woman gives birth every 56 seconds in the UK, yet one in three women describe their childbirth experience as traumatic. Sadly, post-traumatic stress disorder affects one in 20 mothers after giving birth. The rate of women dying during or soon after pregnancy in the UK has increased by 20% over the past decade, a trend that I am sure we are all concerned about. A 2024 Care Quality Commission report based on an inspection of 131 maternity units found that 65% of them were not safe for women to give birth in. It also found that 47% of trusts require improvement in safety and a further 18% were rated inadequate. It stated that
“we are concerned about the potential normalising of serious harm in maternity.”
I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats have launched a maternity rescue package to make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby, with high-quality care wherever we live. Our package has much in common with what the petitioners are calling for, and we hope that they will be encouraged that many of us in Westminster are listening.
A national maternity commissioner would oversee improved standards of care nationally, and a director of midwifery would be appointed in every maternity service alongside an extra 300 consultant midwives to drive clinical excellence. It would also see specialist doctors present on every maternity unit 24/7 and provide one-to-one midwifery care to every woman during labour. That would ensure that it is no more dangerous to give birth at night or at the weekend than at any other time. Previous research found that 73% of maternity units in England do not have a consultant present at night, despite most births taking place outside working hours. Many negligence claims for poor maternity care are linked to failings in care outside regular working hours.
Too many families have been affected by birth trauma, and reform is desperately needed. Since 2015, there have been many national reviews into the safety of maternity services, as well as high-profile investigations into care at individual maternity trusts, with calls for a national inquiry into maternity care. That is why I welcome Baroness Amos’s review, which will be valuable as a centralising piece of work, but it is the latest in a string of national and local reviews or inquiries, which together have produced over 700 recommendations. I hope the Minister will enlighten us as to why this latest review will be different.
The reviews show so many similar themes: failure to listen to women, lack of time for training and strengthening teamwork between staff, inadequate staffing and high levels of burnout, lack of proper assessment, poor management of risk, unsuitable estates and failure to learn when things go wrong. After so many reviews, it is clear that we need improved standards of care nationally.
The recommendation for a maternity commissioner is widely supported across the parties. My constituents want to see a clear timeline for the appointment of a commissioner, if that is something the Government decide to support, so that learning and change happen this time.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I will make some comments as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, but also as a bereaved parent: we lost our daughter Mallorie at the age of five days.
First, I want to thank everyone who responded to the petition. It shows the massive extent of concern about this issue. So many of us share that concern as something that is personal and requires immediate and comprehensive action. For the past two years, my all-party group has been listening to families, parents and professionals. We have heard about a litany of failures across the whole sector. I am sure that colleagues will refer to many of the issues and incidents, so I will not repeat them, but we have to recognise that these systemic failures often go very deep within the culture of the health service. We need to recognise that that results in fundamental inequalities in terms of ethnicity and deprivation, with families not being listened to and suffering outcomes that are truly unacceptable.
We also have to recognise that there are islands of very good practice. There are trusts and professionals who continue to do an amazing job. I can cite the birth centre at Burnley that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) and I visited recently, where we saw how things can be done and what “good” actually looks like.
There is an undeniable case for urgent and immediate action, as I think we all agree. I think we also agree that we cannot repeat the cycle of reports, reviews and recommendations. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) said, there have been 700 recommendations, and in many cases they were exactly the same, time after time. We cannot repeat that cycle, which is why it is so important that Baroness Amos’s maternity services investigation is different. I believe that she is entirely committed to addressing the underlying systemic issues across the sector and to bringing forward a report that focuses on the underlying systems and cultures that need to change, rather than just repeating the litany of what has gone before.
Crucially, we also have the Secretary of State’s commitment to establishing a taskforce following the work of that review, to deliver on its recommendations, with an immediate overlap and focus on action. That is why I believe we have a fundamentally different opportunity, right now, to get this right.
The focus on systemic changes must be accompanied by a real commitment to fixed and firm targets to reduce the harm and inequalities that we see today. Oversight and accountability will be a fundamental part of that. We recognise that we currently have an alphabet soup of organisations, with the CQC, NMC and GMC: the Care Quality Commission, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the General Medical Council. The trusts themselves are essentially autonomous in choosing whether they follow guidelines, so introducing accountability and oversight must be a fundamental outcome of the review. I am absolutely sure that we will see clear recommendations on that point.
Having a maternity commissioner is not a magic sticking-plaster that can address this fundamental, systemic problem. Let us not fool ourselves that any single measure or recommendation will solve this problem. We need to see maternity safety rebuilt from the ground up, with a culture that listens to every single family and every single mother. We need to treat them all as individuals who have their own risk factors, concerns and challenges. We need to learn from the best practice that we see across the country. When bereavements occur, we need parents to be treated with the empathy and individualisation that they require, recognising that trauma does not just affect someone in the days or weeks after birth; it can have lifelong effects. We need to rebuild the regulators, as well as all the mechanisms that hold individual trusts to account, so that they are fit for purpose.
It is only when we get the foundations right—rebuilt from the ground up, with best practices embedded across the board—that a maternity commissioner might possibly be able to deliver the outcomes we want. Let us focus on listening to what Baroness Amos comes forward with, so we can deliver her recommendations and rebuild the culture from its base. Let us concentrate on listening to individual parents and families, so that we can respond to their personal risk factors. Let us make sure that we have a maternity safety system that we can all be proud of in the years to come.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on opening this important debate. I want to reflect the strength of feeling on this issue among my constituents in Esher and Walton; the fact that 568 people from my constituency added their names to this petition reflects a very real and deeply felt concern among families in my community about the state of maternity care in this country.
I am a mother of four, and I am very lucky to have given birth four times, but three of those were traumatic. My first birth was an emergency C-section, the second was a vaginal birth after caesarean that needed lots of intervention and the third was absolutely fine, but during my fourth the crash team had to attend because the midwife failed to pay attention to what I knew, as an experienced mother, was a problem. When I took baby Tom, who is now 14, home—[Interruption.]
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
Order. It might be helpful to know that some Members have approached me to say they have spoken to Mr Speaker, as they may need to move around. They will ask to intervene if they want a Member to give way, and Members can give way if they are specifically asked.
Monica Harding
Thank you for that clarification, Sir Alec. I am trying to do my best on protocol.
When I took baby Tom, who is now 14 years old, home, hugging him ever more tightly, I told only my very close friends and family what had happened. I fear that the stats we see are only the tip of the iceberg, because many are not shared.
Behind all the signatures are stories—of women who feel they were not listened to, of traumatic births and, in some cases, of long-term psychological impacts. There are testimonies in my inbox. One constituent, Lisa—a paediatric nurse with nearly two decades of experience in the NHS—wrote to me after developing PTSD following a traumatic birth. She spoke not only as a mother, but as a healthcare professional who understands the system from the inside yet still feels let down by it. Another constituent, Rosie, who has worked for over 20 years supporting women through pregnancy and childbirth, described a system where too many women feel they must fight to have their voices heard, where decisions are not always fully respected and where trauma is becoming far too common.
Sadly, those are not isolated accounts; they are consistent with what we see in the national data and across the many reviews that have been conducted. One in three women now describes their childbirth experiences as traumatic. PTSD affects about one in 20 mothers. Maternal mortality has risen over the past 15 years, and the CQC has found that a majority of maternity units require improvement or are rated inadequate for safety.
We should be clear: the problem is not a lack of understanding of what is going wrong. Over 700 recommendations have been made across more than a dozen reviews of maternity services. They point again and again to the same issues of training time, poor communication, failures to listen to women, and systems that do not learn effectively.
All the while, workforce pressures are intensifying. At the end of 2025, the Nursing and Midwifery Council found that growth in the nursing and midwifery register had slowed sharply, driven by a nearly 50% drop in international recruitment. That risks putting further strain on maternity services that are already struggling with staffing and retention.
Further behind the headlines on staffing numbers, there is a quieter crisis in the day-to-day reality of the job. A constituent who works as a midwife told me that her colleagues work 12-hour shifts without proper breaks, often not stopping until 5 pm after starting at 7.15 am. They are expected to juggle the workload of two people, stay behind beyond their hours and move between demanding day and night shifts with little flexibility. At the same time, they are navigating constantly changing guidance, a heavy administrative burden and a culture where, too often, the fear is that if something goes wrong, the blame will fall on them. It is a toxic combination of pressure, exhaustion and anxiety, which is totally unsustainable and is driving people out of the profession.
The question is not whether there is a problem, but whether we are prepared to act on what we already know. That is why I support the call for a maternity commissioner, who would provide national leadership, accountability and, crucially, oversight of the implementation of the many outstanding recommendations. Without clear ownership, it is all too easy for reports to be published, welcomed and then quietly set aside. Many of the constituents who have written to me are healthcare professionals themselves. They speak of a system under intense pressure, of understaffing and burnout and of not having the time or resources to deliver the level of care they know that patients deserve. If we want to support those staff, we must fix the system in which they are working.
That is why the Liberal Democrats have set out a maternity rescue package to make Britain the safest place in the world to have a baby. It includes appointing a maternity commissioner, and would ensure that we had a 24/7 consultant presence on maternity units and one-to-one midwifery care during labour. It would invest in the workforce, including hundreds more midwives, restore funding for vital services and guarantee access to perinatal mental health support. It would address the unacceptable disparities that persist in maternal outcomes, with black women three to four times more likely to die during pregnancy or shortly after birth than white women. And it would ensure that when things do go wrong, families are treated with compassion, transparency and proper support.
While the Amos review is important and should be welcomed, it is the 14th major review of maternity services. We need delivery. The families in my constituency who signed the petition are asking not for more reports, but for change. They are asking for a system where they feel safe, listened to and cared for at one of the most important moments of their life. No birth is easy; it is a major, demanding, intense and very painful process, but in 2026, in the fifth largest economy in the world, it should not be dangerous, and it should be equitable.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. For complete openness and transparency, I am a harmed mother. I have been involved in the Nottingham inquiry, I sit on the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, and I am the chair of the APPG on maternity.
I want to place on record my personal and sincere thanks to Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke. After the most traumatic and horrific birth trauma, they chose to speak out, not just for themselves—in fact, not for themselves at all—but for countless other women. That courage matters, because for every voice we hear, there are more still unheard. Courage after trauma should not be a necessity for change. That is why today’s debate is so important.
I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the Baroness Amos review, but I welcome the national taskforce—it is the first of its kind—and the work the Government are doing. Maternity services are systematically failing too many women and babies, and we cannot ignore what is happening across the country. Families having raised concerns for years and years, but those concerns were not acted on soon enough. It is not about one hospital or one failure, but about a pattern of women not being listened to, warning signs being missed, fathers and birthing partners being ignored, and poor practice continuing unchecked, sometimes for years.
We must be honest about this: the system of oversight has failed. That is certainly true in Nottingham, where the Care Quality Commission failed, the Nursing and Midwifery Council failed and the General Medical Council failed. When the system fails, it is about not just frontline care but the structures designed to keep people safe.
Inequalities are profound and, quite frankly, a disgrace. Black and Asian women are significantly more likely to have birth complications and poorer outcomes. If safe care is not equitable, we do not have any safe care at all. That must change.
Maternity systems are failing, but this did not happen overnight. There is also a societal problem. When did childbirth and maternity became a second-class health service? Past Governments allowed it to become overstretched and underfunded. When did we, as a society, become so apathetic towards birth? I stand here as the proud Member of Parliament for Sherwood Forest, but first and foremost—this was the path that brought me here—I was a harmed mother who was dismissed and told she did not understand her own body, and who is still living with the consequences.
Through my work, I have spoken to over 1,000 families and hundreds of organisations with different stories and circumstances from different hospitals. The same themes come up again and again: women not being listened to, their concerns being dismissed and opportunities to intervene being missed. The message is clear and urgent: we need accountability without a culture of fear. We need a system where staff can speak up, families are heard the first time and learning drives improvement.
But we must also confront something deeper: we have to change societal attitudes towards childbirth. Too often, women are dismissed, their pain is minimised and they are told, “This is normal” when something is wrong. That culture then seeps into our systems, and when it does, it becomes dangerous.
Listening to women is not optional; it is fundamental to safe care. That is why we need a maternity commissioner. This cannot be a figurehead role: it must have real authority and independence, and the power to act, access data in real time, identify patterns early and intervene when warning signs appear. We cannot continue with a system where tragedies happen, reviews are written and then we move on. Rising baby loss, serious incidents and repeated failings must trigger action immediately. A maternity commissioner must ensure that poor practice is not allowed to continue unchecked; that people cannot hop from trust to trust to trust when they have caused harm, but that that is followed and tracked; that warning signs are not ignored; and that families are not left to fight for answers after the harm has already been done.
That is one of the most horrific things: families go through the most horrendous situation possible. I was lucky: I walked out of the hospital with my baby. But when my baby was born, he was not breathing. I nearly died as well, but I walked out of the hospital. When I did, I was told it was not known whether my son would have developmental delays. I was also told he was deaf, which was incorrect as well. It was the most horrendous situation, but I walked out of the hospital with my baby. Thousands and thousands of women do not, and it is about time we started to face that reality, rather than using it as a political football. Our maternity services are systematically failing.
Alongside that, we must recognise that there are profound examples of outstanding care across the country—dedicated midwives, doctors and other healthcare professionals going above and beyond every single day to keep women and babies safe. They are working under pressure and short-staffed and still delivering exceptional care. But they cannot do it alone. They need safer staffing and time to care. They need leadership and support. They need a system that works, a system that backs them, a system that protects them when they raise concerns and a system that enables them to deliver the care they know is needed.
This is not about blame; it is about building something better—a system that is accountable without fear, a system driven by data and early intervention, a system that listens to women, families and staff, and a system that acts when it matters most. Maternity care should never be a postcode lottery; it should never depend on where women live and it should never, ever come down to luck. Every woman deserves to be heard. Every baby deserves to be safe. Every family deserves dignity, compassion and answers. Yes, we need a maternity commissioner, but we need more than that: we need a system and a society that finally listen to women, finally act and finally put safety where it belongs—at the heart of every birth.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I want to share a cautionary tale with everyone, and I will just set out the geography. I have the biggest constituency in the UK; it stretches from John O’Groats, way down to just north of Inverness—I invite Members to think about that huge area of Scotland.
What I am about to say in no way reflects on the midwives in Caithness and other parts of my constituency. Some years ago the Scottish Government, in their infinite wisdom, decided to downgrade a consultant-led maternity service based in Wick, which is at the top of the UK, near John O’Groats, to a midwife-led service. That meant that mothers would have to travel more than 100 miles—in each direction—to Inverness to give birth. Travelling from Caithness to Inverness on a sunny day is one thing; travelling in winter is a very different proposition. The A9 gets blocked during many winters and people cannot get through. What happens if a pregnant mother in an ambulance on her way to give birth in Inverness cannot get through? They get hold of the emergency helicopter. But what if there is a road traffic accident in another part of the highlands—say in Lochaber, Skye or Morayshire—and the choppers have gone in different directions? I have posed that question to the Scottish Government again and again and said, “You could have a tragedy on your hands.” I have asked for a safety audit again and again, but there has been no safety audit whatever. What about winter? What about when the chopper does not—cannot—fly? What about when the ambulance cannot get through?
Back in 2018, a mother of twins was on her way down in an ambulance and gave birth to the first baby in Golspie, about 50 miles through a 100-mile journey. A second ambulance had to be called and she was driven on to Inverness to give birth to the second child. I ask Members to imagine how traumatic and awful that was for the mother. Both children and the mother survived—thank God. I well remember somebody called Nicola Sturgeon saying at the time, “This is very serious; we will look into it,” but nothing happened.
Today, the statistics speak for themselves: in the most recent period we have looked at, six babies were born in Caithness general hospital in Wick and 166 were born in Raigmore hospital in Inverness. Think about all those return journeys. Think about a mum coming to see her daughter and the little baby. Where do they stay? It is expensive. We had a superb local service, and we do not have it any longer. Fundamentally, I find that simply dreadful.
Eventually, at the tail end of last year, there was a motion in the Scottish Parliament to hold an independent inquiry into maternity services in the north of Scotland. It passed, and the local population said, “Hallelujah! At long last, it’s going to be addressed.” But then what happened? In their infinite wisdom, the Scottish Government said, “Actually, despite the fact that there was a majority decision by the Scottish Parliament, we’re not going to do an independent inquiry; we’ll have a little in-house look at what’s happening here.” That is where we are today. Can Members imagine what message that sends to mums and families in the north of Scotland?
I have gone on and on about this in this place—as I am sure you know, Sir Alec—and yet it is a devolved matter, so we are completely powerless to do anything. I hope that all the sentiments expressed today about a commissioner come to be reality, I hope that the Scottish Government are told to look at it very closely indeed, and I hope that they are shamed—it is as simple as that—into doing something and sorting out a truly shocking situation, and one that is extremely dangerous. It is a miracle that neither a child’s life nor a mother’s life has been lost yet. I am sorry if I do not mince my words, but I feel very strongly about it indeed.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this important debate.
It is hard to fathom but, over the course of this speech, at least four babies will be born in England—they will come into the world, their tiny hands stretching out and a whole future beginning for them with their first breath. The births of my children were among the most significant moments of my life, as is the case for most parents, but alongside the joy comes something that I think every birthing parent will recognise: just how vulnerable you are in that situation and how frightening childbirth can be. You are placing your life and your baby’s life in the hands of others, in the hands of chance and in the hands of the brutal reality of natural processes.
I first became involved in maternity advocacy after the frankly quite awful birth of my first child in 2014. Only when that happened did I realise how much harm had been done to someone close to me when she gave birth in 2011. I remember apologising to her with a newborn in my arms: “I’m so sorry; I had no idea how bad it is.” This has happened to women up and down the country. Today, I represent Morecambe Bay, where both those births took place, and where baby Ida Lock was born and died in 2019. Ida and her parents are always on my mind when we talk about issues such as this.
I feel obliged to say that the vast majority of maternity care is safe. We talk about all the failings and all the horrors that women have seen, but I do not want that to frighten families. We have to accept that the worst tragedies are exceptions, but the experience of parents who have seen avoidable harm to themselves and their babies is the reason we are here today debating the pros and cons of a maternity commissioner.
I will be honest: I do not necessarily have fixed views on this. It has been really interesting to hear colleagues speak, and I look forward to hearing more. I am also very interested in the outcome of Baroness Amos’s investigation. But we cannot just keep trying to learn lessons; we need to take action right now. We have had review after review and inquiry after inquiry, and yet here we are.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, and she is absolutely right. We had the Bill Kirkup review, which made multiple recommendations; across all parties, the House said, “Now we need to implement those recommendations,” but that never happened. Then we had the Donna Ockenden review, which contained immediate and essential actions; we need to implement those, but the Government have not come forward and said that they will make them mandatory. Now we have Baroness Amos’s review. Does the hon. Lady agree that this must be the last review, for the sake of every single mother who has come and every single mother who is to come, so that they know that they are being well supported when they go into hospital settings?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree. There is work to do to prioritise the actions that have come out of all those inquiries, because trying to do too much will lead to it all being done badly. There must be a real focus on what will make the difference to women’s safety and experience.
Countless national and local maternity reports have revealed persistent issues with care, a failure to listen to expectant mothers, staffing pressures, a lack of transparency and institutional cultures that have encouraged cover-up. That is against the background of increased medical complexity in pregnancy and birth, wider aspects of public health having worsened, and the racism and misogyny that still permeates our society.
These failures are a long time in the making. Failed regulation contributed to the historic problems at Morecambe Bay—and that was under a Labour Government. Structural changes to our care system and wider society under successive Conservative Governments have impacted care. Due to austerity, we had a £37 billion capital investment shortfall in the 2020s compared with our peer countries. We know that increased poverty affects maternal and neonatal mortality, and as a nation we have become more poorly over the past 15 years. It is now on us and the Government to fix the problem.
As a member of the patient safety all-party parliamentary group, as well as through my own work as a constituency MP, I have seen that tragedies are often partly or completely avoidable, whether through effective diagnostics, timely or better treatment, or simply listening to women when they say that something is wrong. The consequences of these failures are devastating. A study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists showed that up to 75% of pre-term babies who died could potentially have been saved with different care. Even when the worst is avoided, bad experiences can leave lasting damage. They can erode trust in services and make families more anxious about seeking care in the future.
I want to touch on a couple of aspects of this issue that have not had the concerted operational effort put into them that they ought to have had. The first is the conditions that midwifery and obstetric staff work in, including the wider picture of the health of the nation. Most midwives, doctors and support staff are doing their absolute best in challenging circumstances, and most people go into maternity care because they want to deliver babies safely into this world and support families. They often go above and beyond, but they are being stretched too thin by the demands of their jobs. They are looking after ever more complex cases on every shift, and in 2023 alone, midwives and support workers put in over 100,000 hours of overtime. Even hospitals that are rated highly for maternity care feel the strain, with staffing gaps leading to interrupted handovers, missed checks and limited time for training. Over time, that pressure leads to burnout, staff leaving, and the loss of the experience that the system depends on. When the system is stretched like that, it is staff and patients who feel the consequences. I hope that the Minister will ensure that while we drive down waiting lists in elective care, we support maternity staff, improve their work environment and do not lose sight of the wider improvements to public health that we need to make to reduce complexity and comorbidities.
The second thing I want to talk about is culture, particularly the ability of staff to speak up, the need for brave and open leadership, and the need for lessons truly to be learned. I am not saying that is easy to do—it is quite tricky, and it takes concerted effort and skilful leadership—but culture simply means, “The way we do things around here.” It can be a tangible thing that we can affect. Unfortunately, long-term failures and the spotlight that comes with them can cause staff to feel under attack, defensive and unsupported. Even where they have not been part of any particular case, staff groups can become entrenched. During the problems at Morecambe Bay and since, we have found that people working in opposition to each other in entrenched staff groups has caused huge amounts of harm.
Poor leadership compounds the effect. I have spoken many times about the harm caused by cultures of silence, where staff do not feel able to come forward to raise concerns, problems are not addressed head on, and families are left without proper answers when things go wrong. We need to create environments where people are able to speak up, raise concerns early and be open when mistakes happen, because if staff do not feel safe to tell the truth and fear being blamed or punished, problems are hidden instead of being fixed. More than that, staff need to be supported when they raise a concern or even when they cause harm, because staff do not listen to what the leadership say; they see what they do, look at their actions and behave accordingly.
To be clear, human beings will make mistakes, and patients will be harmed by those mistakes. That is inevitable. Not all cases of harm can be prevented, but they can always be learned from. In any organisation, culture is set from the top. The leadership have to show through actions that concerns are taken seriously and that no one will be penalised for speaking honestly. Working as a maternity advocate, I was shocked that organisations that are meant to be care organisations would respond to a bereaved family not by reaching out, caring for them and holding them, but by keep them at arm’s length, lying to them and even, when it came to coroner’s inquests, being adversarial. It beggars belief.
Linked to that is the fact that families often feel the need to take legal action simply to get answers. That costs huge amounts of money, still sometimes does not get them answers, and sets up an adversarial approach that can cause further harm to families. I hope that the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, also known as the Hillsborough law, will shift the legal risk for organisations. The current legal risk to many hospital trusts appears to be telling the truth—that seems to be how they see it. I hope that the new law will shift the legal risk so that it is far riskier to obfuscate than to be candid.
There are so many different aspects of maternity safety that I could talk about all day, such as the way that “normal” birth culture still permeates the education of our midwives and some practice, despite having been shown to be harmful. The wider culture around birth seems to say that it must be a joyful, wonderful experience at all times, when in reality it is messy, brutal and quite often unpleasant, even when it all goes well.
We should be learning from other countries. For example, Japan has no-fault compensation for profound cerebral palsy. That separates the process of giving compensation from the process of investigating what happened and what went wrong. It appears to have lowered the legal costs associated with maternity care, but more importantly, it seems to have reduced the number of babies born with profound cerebral palsy.
We all know that maternity care needs to be improved in this country, whether through the appointment of a maternity commissioner or actions such as implementation of recommendations in the Amos review. I thank my colleagues for their contributions, and their constituents for sharing their stories. To make maternity care safe, we need to ensure that services are properly staffed, creating the conditions for safe care, where handovers can be done properly and staff have time to do their jobs well and are supported to rest and recover. That also means making sure that women are listened to, that concerns are taken seriously and that, when things go wrong, they are handled with honesty and care. It means accountability for leaders as well as frontline staff. I urge the Minister to consider whether the leadership of a maternity commissioner can give us the change that our constituents deserve.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I am pleased that we are having this important debate on an e-petition that secured more than 100 signatures from my constituents in Mansfield. Indeed, after meeting the Nottingham Maternity affected families group on a number of occasions since I became the Member of Parliament for Mansfield, I have become acutely aware of how important these issues are to families in Nottinghamshire and my constituency. Although consideration of a maternity commissioner is important, it must be accompanied by something more fundamental.
Donna Ockenden’s work, both in Nottinghamshire and in other parts of the country, has exposed patterns that we cannot ignore: families not listened to, concerns frequently dismissed and failures repeated over many years. What has been most troubling is not just what went wrong in one place, in Nottinghamshire, but how familiar those failings are across multiple trusts. Similar issues have emerged in different parts of the country, at different times and under different leaderships. That points not simply to isolated breakdowns, but to systemic weaknesses that demand a national response.
A maternity commissioner could play a vital role in ensuring accountability, ensuring that recommendations are implemented, giving families a voice and providing leadership to drive improvement. However, a commissioner alone cannot answer the deeper questions: how did this happen repeatedly, in various hospitals, right across the UK, for decades? That is a deep set of questions relating to multiple failures. That is why a full national and public inquiry—more than a taskforce, although that is very welcome—is necessary. An inquiry could compel evidence, hear directly from families and staff, and examine culture as well as clinical practice. That would bring together the experiences of those affected not in fragments but as a whole. Too often learning has been localised and therefore somewhat limited. As a number of hon. Members have already said, reports are written and lessons are identified, but the wider national system fails to absorb them.
The creation of a maternity commissioner, the establishment of a full and proper national inquiry, and action on the outcomes of past and ongoing inquiries are not alternatives; they can be complementary in driving change and properly understanding the failures that have occurred over many years. We owe it to the families in Nottinghamshire and right around the country, and to my constituents, who have suffered life-changing harm and in many cases the deaths of children and mothers, as well as to those who rely on these services, to do all those things. I therefore welcome today’s debate, and I hope that the Government will take note of the points made.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for expertly introducing the debate, and the petitioners, Louise Thompson and Theo Clarke, who I was pleased to work with on the birth trauma inquiry, for their continued work on these issues.
As many hon. Members will know, maternity care is an issue of great importance to me. It is also of great importance to my constituents, as demonstrated by the hundreds who signed the petition. I wholeheartedly support the call for a maternity commissioner; as I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for black maternal health, I am sure that that will surprise no one.
This week is Black Maternal Health Week, so I will speak about the continuing racial disparities in maternity care and why a commissioner would work to address them. Each Black Maternal Health Week, I usually start by addressing the statistics around black maternal health, which make for grim listening. When Five X More, the secretariat of the APPG, was first founded, black women were five times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth than white women. Now, the most recent MBRRACE-UK report shows that black women are three times more likely to die at that time. Although awareness has made an impact, unfortunately that statistic is not necessarily because less black women are dying but because more of all women are experiencing that horrible situation. Black women are still twice as likely to experience stillbirth and baby death. Although the disparities remain unacceptable, I recognise the work that is being done by NHS trusts to identify some of the shortcomings and address racial bias. As Members know, it is not just the death rate where racial disparities exist.
Last year, Five X More conducted its second black maternity experiences report, a large-scale survey collecting the experiences of black women during their pregnancies and childbirth. Of the 1,000 respondents, 54% experienced challenges with healthcare professionals, 28% of women reported discrimination, mostly racial, and 49% stated that their experiences during labour and birth were not properly addressed. I cannot stress enough how deeply concerning it is that women are going through this intensely vulnerable experience and when they raise concerns they are being dismissed or ignored.
The survey also said that 23% of black women did not receive the pain relief they requested, and just one in five women had been informed of how to make a complaint, with only 8% going on to pursue a formal process. The report has many more harrowing findings and I encourage Members to read it.
I recognise the fact that action is being taken to address the overall crisis in our maternity care, and I welcome the Government’s national maternity and neonatal investigation, led by Baroness Amos, which I was pleased to feed into with the APPG for black maternal health. It is a much-needed investigation that I hope will provide some understanding as to why our maternity services are failing so many mothers and babies, as well as give clear recommendations to improve the state of maternity care.
As we have heard many times in this debate, however, it cannot just be another report where we wring our hands and recommendations are produced that are simply ignored. In this country, in 2026, we cannot keep reeling off these statistics in debates such as this one. It makes no sense that a country like ours should be experiencing these issues and that so many women and their babies should be dying.
Can the Minister specifically inform the Chamber whether a clear target to end the racial disparities in maternity care is expected to be included in the recommendations from the forthcoming report—something that appeared in our Labour party manifesto? Was the investigation tasked with offering advice on an attainable target, or will the Government develop a target based on the report’s findings and recommendations? During last year’s Black Maternal Health Week debate, the responding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), insisted that the Government were working towards setting an evidence-base target, but she was not forthcoming about when one would be announced. I hope the Minister will give some indication of that today.
The call for a maternity commissioner is about accountability. A dedicated maternity commissioner would, for the first time, create a single accountable authority, with the mandate, resource and institutional weight to confront the systemic failures driving the black maternal health crisis. Right now, we are seeing a situation where the responsibility is completely diffuse—a commissioner would change that. They could drive the implementation of the recommendations that have been sitting in reports for years; they could ensure that trusts are training staff to recognise and challenge racial bias in clinical settings. They would have a mandate to bring together disaggregated data collection, so that the disparities cannot be buried in averages.
This is about accountability, and about setting clear direction and focus. What I have realised over the years when challenging these issues, particularly in black maternal health, is that without a dedicated focus, black maternal health remains everyone’s concern and nobody’s priority. I have often said that addressing the racial disparities in maternity care will improve the state of maternity care for all women and babies. Establishing a maternity commissioner will make it someone’s job not just to monitor the problem but to actually fix it. We cannot continue to fail women in this way; it has to be somebody’s sole responsibility to fix this issue.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing the debate, and I thank everyone in Altrincham and Sale West who signed the petition.
I am especially grateful to those people who wrote to me to bravely share their often harrowing stories of maternity care failures. Their stories were worryingly similar: avoidable trauma, avoidable complications and, in many cases, avoidable tragedy. That is the reality of our maternity services and it is not good enough. There was a common theme behind each of the failings that my constituents suffered, and that was women not being listened to, their pain not being treated as urgent, and their worries being dismissed. That meant that they went without the compassion, care and understanding that they deserved.
Nobody wants better for women and babies than the thousands of NHS midwives and maternity staff who work so hard to ensure that the vast majority of births are safe. It is clear that the system is not working for too many mums, dads and babies. The experience of my constituent Lauren illustrates that. Lauren gave birth at Wythenshawe hospital in January. Her experience was a litany of failures and, in her own words, for all the hard work of NHS staff, she often felt like an afterthought during her own childbirth.
The failings started when Lauren discovered that her baby was in the breech position at 28 weeks. That was not followed up on. When she saw a midwife before the birth, they seemed too busy to check their notes and they thought that the baby was head down. It was not until Lauren was a good way through labour that her medical team were aware that the baby was breech. By that point, it had become an emergency. Lauren, who was in incredible pain, was suddenly surrounded by frantic doctors and midwives asking her questions that she was in no real state to answer, and she was told she had 10 minutes to make a decision on the birth of her baby. She had an emergency C-section, which was supposed to happen within 30 minutes but took two hours, and throughout that time she was without pain relief as overworked midwives desperately tried to care for others. I cannot begin to imagine what her experience was like—the pain, the panic and the unanswered questions leading into one of the biggest procedures that a person can have.
Thankfully, Lauren’s baby was born safely, but it was a birth that did not need to be such a traumatic emergency. Unfortunately, Lauren’s care only got worse after the baby was born. She was dumped in a C-section ward and her partner was forced to leave, meaning she was alone for hours at a time without any pain relief. She was barely able to move, unable to stand up, and unable to respond to her crying baby. At a time of maximum vulnerability she had minimal care. Doctors spoke about her, but they never spoke to her. She had no explanations, no support and, frankly, no one was listening. The ordeal has, completely understandably, put Lauren and her partner off ever having another baby.
Lauren’s experience speaks to so many of the problems that we have heard today: we have a system that is not putting mothers first, that is riven with inequalities and inconsistencies in care, and, for all the Government’s much-welcomed funding, in which staff are overstretched. As someone who works closely with the campaign group the Dad Shift, I also point out how Lauren’s ordeal highlights the way in which dads are often failed by maternity services, with their ability to support their partner undermined as a result. That is particularly true—as it was with Lauren—when mothers have had traumatic births and their partners are still sent home, leaving them without emotional or practical support when they are at their most vulnerable. I hope that the Minister and the Government are looking at that as part of the Government’s much-needed work to turn around our maternity services. I know that that work is progressing, not just through the investigation of Baroness Amos, as we have heard from others, but through the national maternity and neonatal taskforce and through greater funding, support and accountability for underperforming maternity units.
One of those units is at Wythenshawe hospital, which serves my constituents. I will forever be grateful for the care that my partner Catherine and I received at Wythenshawe, where my two sons were born, but I know that that has not been the experience for too many of my constituents.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is doing right by his constituents, if I may say so; I am sure they will appreciate the account that he is giving. Would he agree that some of the issues with maternity departments can sometimes be much more mundane? For example, at Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton, water is coming through the ceilings and there are temperatures of 30°C in the summer.
Given that the Secretary of State said, when speaking about Musgrove Park hospital,
“if I can bring forward the timetables of these schemes…we will”,
must the Government not do everything they can to hasten their hospitals programme so that maternity services, and the conditions in which mums give birth and staff work, can be improved as quickly as possible?
Mr Rand
I absolutely agree. The environment and conditions within which maternity units are set are clearly of huge importance to mothers, their partners and babies—to the whole system of maternity care. This Government have made significant capital investment into the NHS estate, having inherited a hospital-building programme that had no funding and no clear timetable for building. I am sure the Minister is giving the hon. Gentleman’s request due consideration.
On Wythenshawe hospital, I am pleased that the Government will not tolerate a poor standard of care for my constituents and I am immensely grateful for the recently announced £40 million in funding that the hospital is set to receive to tackle the issues in its maternity care. However, the problems, both at Wythenshawe and across the country, go beyond funding. We are talking about systemic failings that have harmed women and their babies over an extended period. As others have said, in that time we have had countless scandals, reports and recommendations, but no progress. My constituents believe that a maternity services commissioner could contribute to the change we need, and I hope the Government will give that due consideration.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this debate. A huge thank you to Louise Thompson, Theo Clarke and the 150,000 people who signed this petition, for keeping maternity services on the agenda.
The petition before us is motivated by a very real and deeply painful issue: the loss of trust in maternity services following preventable harm and trauma. I welcome the passion behind this petition. However, I fear that maternity care may be too complex, too nuanced and too diverse to be well served by a single national maternity commissioner, and that focusing our energy on that risks allowing the Government to tick a box, when what would make the greatest difference is sustained, courageous investment in maternity services themselves, as many of my colleagues have highlighted.
Much of the current maternity debate understandably centres on trauma, risk and dissatisfaction. Those things matter, and I know others today have focused, and will focus, on how we reduce that. But when those become the only things we measure, we distort the entire system. I will therefore focus my comments today on women themselves, because how women experience birth is not a “nice to have”; it has profound consequences for mental health, family wellbeing and long-term outcomes. Around one in four women experiences perinatal mental health problems, costing the UK £8.1 billion annually when left untreated. That is true no matter what a birth is like.
I would like to put my hand up today and say that I am a bit fed up with people rolling their eyes at the concept of a birth plan, for example. Of course women know that things might not happen exactly as they had hoped; a woman’s birth plan is about being prepared for all eventualities, expressing her wishes and being empowered. Anyone who suggests otherwise is undermining the right of women to feel in control and prepared for this huge change in their lives.
I have had some beautifully powerful discussions with my colleagues over the past few months on the topic of giving birth. Some of them have felt looked down on for having a C-section, and some, like myself, have felt looked down on for wanting a home birth. The fact is that all those choices are completely valid. The problem is not someone’s birth choice; it is anyone judging them for it.
On that point, I want to gently address an elephant in the room. The concept that midwives have sought “the pursuit of normal birth at any cost” entered public policy following the Morecambe Bay investigation in 2015. It was never intended as a literal description of all midwifery practice, yet it became a powerful and damaging shorthand. The report described a “seriously dysfunctional” service, which was
“influenced by a small number of dominant individuals”,
where poor leadership, weak clinical skills and failures in basic risk assessment created a “lethal mix”. The problem was not support for physiological birth; it was unsafe practice and toxic culture.
However, over time, that nuance has been lost. Supporting physiological birth became conflated with recklessness. Midwifery philosophy was portrayed as being in opposition to safety, rather than working in partnership with it, as professional standards make very clear. The result has been a false binary in policy-thinking—safety versus choice, intervention versus physiology, or risk management versus women’s autonomy. That false binary still shapes decision making today, and it contributes to women feeling that birth is something done to them, rather than by them. If we continue talking in this way, I fear that we are making women’s bodies a political football. I believe that we and this Government are capable of better.
I have heard directly from senior clinicians that rising intervention rates are linked to older mothers or decreasing health standards, yet the data does not back that up. The average age of a birthing mother has risen by less than a year since 2014, and the percentage of women giving birth over 35 went up from 23% to just 25%. That small increase cannot explain a 45% increase in interventions over the same period. We have to move away from anecdote and ensure that we are using the data. If this debate becomes another iteration of that same binary, we risk repeating the very mistakes that brought us here. While I welcome the clear passion behind the ask for a maternity commissioner, I worry that it would not capture the nuance of opinion and experience in the birthing space.
There is so much more that I would love to say about how brilliant and resilient midwives are; about how brave every person who experiences and supports someone through childbirth is, even when we are expected to just crack on and deal with it; and about how great it is that our new women’s health strategy focuses on the importance of women being listened to. However, in the interest of time, I will finally focus on what we need from this Government.
If we are serious about improving outcomes, we already know where to look. Continuity of midwifery care is recommended by both the World Health Organisation and NICE, and it is associated with fewer pre-term births, lower rates of loss and significantly higher satisfaction from families. Randomised control trials show that those benefits apply to women at both lower and higher risk. Despite a national commitment to rolling out a continuity of carer model, progress stalled because there were not enough staff to deliver it safely. In 2022, NHS England formally removed the target date, citing “insufficient staffing”. Many qualified midwives have left the profession, but evidence suggests that a significant number would return if they were able to provide relationship-based, compassionate care, with time to do their jobs properly.
Let me conclude by speaking directly to Ministers. The question before us is not whether the Government recognise that maternity services are under strain—that has already been well established. The question is whether Ministers are prepared to act at the scale required. A maternity commissioner may feel tangible and responsive, but it does not avoid the hard truth: women’s experiences will not change without investment, workforce stability and systematic redesign.
As other colleagues have said, there are over 700 recommendations on maternity safety already in existence. If the Government are serious about restoring confidence in maternity services, I ask Ministers: will they publish a fully funded workforce plan for maternity, including midwifery, retention and return to practice? Will they commit to resourcing continuity of carer models, rather than quietly shelving them when staffing pressures bite? Will they address the £27 billion maternity negligence bill not through litigation management, but through prevention?
This Government must decide whether they want to preside over a system that simply manages failure, or whether they are willing to take the brave step of long-term investment to make the UK a place where women’s choices and bodily autonomy are respected, where safety is paramount, where joy and empowerment are not incidental but expected, and where professionals are supported to deliver humane, relationship-based care. We do not need another review, and I am not sure that we really need another title. We need staff, time, continuity, trust and investment. If we get that right, outcomes will improve, costs will fall, trust will return, and maternity care in this country can once again be something that we are all proud of.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for leading this debate. I pay tribute to Louise Thompson, Theo Clarke and the other petitioners for raising the profile of the issue of birth trauma and for helping so many other women to share their own experiences and, crucially, to fight for the changes that will prevent others from having to go through the same trauma. I also put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who has done a brilliant job with the all-party parliamentary group on maternity and who explained today, by outlining her own personal experience, just what birth trauma can mean.
This debate is fundamentally about how we ensure that women are being heard—genuinely heard—by the national health service. However, it is also about how we raise the levels of care, so that the best care is not an exception but the rule. One of the missions for this Government is restoring trust in maternity care. We know that that trust has been eroded by traumatic experiences, poor standards of care and—even more importantly—women feeling that no one is listening to them.
[Christine Jardine in the Chair]
As has already been said, the rise in maternal mortality is seen in the data produced by MBRRACE-UK between 2021 and 2023 compared with that between 2009 and 2011. That is simply unacceptable. What is particularly stark is the increased risk for women from minoritised communities and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2023, women living in the most deprived areas were dying at almost twice the rate of those in the least deprived areas. Alongside that data, there has also been an increase in obstetric haemorrhage, which I know worries both mums-to-be and health professionals. Women who want a second child need to know the risks of severe bleeding and placenta previa caused by previous caesarean sections, which are well-documented.
The NHS is not good enough at not only monitoring maternal deaths and morbidity, but monitoring trends in those areas. It is very good at identifying a trend in stillbirth or maternal death, but it is not so good at spotting trends in postpartum haemorrhage and admissions to intensive therapy units, which need the same attention.
The Government have a responsibility to ensure that whatever choice women make, that choice is informed and that the procedures are safe. If women want a home birth, let us make that a real choice; if they want a C-section, let us make that a real choice; and if they want a midwife-led unit or an obstetrician to care for them, let us make that a real choice. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), who was absolutely spot on in saying that we should move away from making choice in this area a binary decision between safety and choice.
It is time for us to be proactive and not reactive, and to put into place the processes that will protect future mums from negative experiences of maternity care. That is why I am glad that the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, announced by the Government last year, is focused on long-term systemic reform that actually addresses the systematic failures identified by the CQC. The conversation must include midwives who, more than anyone else, want best practice and care for all the mums they work with. It must also ensure that there are oversight, accountability and robust reporting mechanisms that support midwives as well as mums.
Not many people know that word “midwife” is middle English. It literally means “with woman”, which is the crucial point. Midwives across the UK are advocating for women, supporting women and sharing their expertise with women all the time. However, that is also why we need to make continuity of care a reality for women, so that midwives can be “with woman” throughout the pregnancy and the birth. There must also be the investment in staffing that is needed to allow for rotas that provide the gold standard of staffing that everyone wants, both for pregnant women and for midwives.
Earlier this year, I was proud to host a drop-in event for the Royal College of Midwives with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth). I put on the record that my wife is a midwife; in fact, she is one of the main reasons why I am in this building today. I came into politics to change the situation for women who are suffering, but also to help to get more midwives in the profession. It has not been explicitly said today, but let us be honest—the last Government failed to invest in the NHS, including in the right number of midwives.
My wife came home night after night saying, “We simply are understaffed. We are chronically understaffed.” She was really worried about the standard of care that would be provided, and about whether it was safe or not. I said that, instead of writing about the maternity crisis, I want to do something about the maternity crisis. That is why I became an MP—to invest real, hard money into the NHS, including in staffing, but also to ensure that we change the procedures and reform the system.
It is worth saying that this is not just about staffing. It is also about having the right culture and leadership, and about whether obstetricians and midwives talk to each other and are on the same side and. Crucially, it is about whether women are listened to throughout the process. There has been far too much avoidable trauma for far too many women, as several inquiries have found.
For my constituents, Royal Oldham hospital maternity services are often of high quality. I have met senior midwives who are trying to provide innovative solutions to the challenges they face, but let us be honest: there are too many times when women are let down at the Royal Oldham. The CQC survey of patient experience, published in December 2025, found some unacceptably poor levels of care. On labour and birth, the hospital scored much worse than expected compared with other trusts. On staff care and on care in hospital after birth, it was much worse than expected compared with other trusts. On that last measure, it had an appalling score of 5.4 out of 10.
It is clear from the debate that a huge amount of work has been undertaken to deliver what we all want: maternity services that are well informed, personalised and safe for all women, regardless of race or background. We owe it to every family to provide maternity services where mums are given a full range of informed choice, backed by medical evidence, where they are genuinely listened to and where compassionate healthcare is at the heart of every birth. There is excellent care in the NHS, and we should say that again and again, but we need to make sure that every area, every trust and every woman has the high quality of care they truly deserve.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Ms Jardine—it is not Sir Alec any more—to serve under your chairship. I want to speak in the debate as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee and as the Member of Parliament for Worthing West.
At a local level, University Hospitals Sussex NHS foundation trust has implemented huge improvements, following the raising of the alarm about the safety of our maternity services after a number of heartbreaking, avoidable baby deaths came to light. For the families affected, life will never be the same again. There will now be a review, led by Donna Ockenden, to make sure that the truth of those times is fully heard and understood, that the indescribable experience of those families is documented to best effect and that the lessons are embedded in future practice.
The review will also contribute to improvements that are already making a difference in maternity services at University Hospitals Sussex, including at my own hospital in Worthing. In a recent CQC inspection, maternity services were rated as good. That reflects the maternity survey, in which 98% of women said they felt they had been treated with dignity and respect during labour and birth, and 95% felt involved enough in decisions about their care. We have heard from many colleagues this afternoon about the many times when that has not happened, so I take great hope from the fact that the survey is so positive.
Improvements in those maternity services have included 24/7 birth supporters working with experts by experience to create a restorative culture, bespoke antenatal pathways for asylum seekers and refugees, and specialist midwifery support for Traveller communities. There is strengthened staffing capacity, with 40 additional qualified midwives recruited across the trust’s maternity units, which are now fully staffed, compared with a 15% vacancy rate at the time of the previous inspection. What a difference that has made.
That level of service improvement and delivery needs to be a requisite for all maternity services in this country. The soon to be published Amos review recommendations, which we have heard about this afternoon, will undoubtedly provide a clear blueprint for the national maternity and neonatal taskforce to move things forward. But let us be in no doubt: as has been said, we have had 700 recommendations to date, and we probably know what will be in the Amos review, so let it be the last one.
The tragic fact, despite the excellent improvements I have seen in my local area, is that between 2022 and 2024 the overall rate of maternal death in the UK was 20% higher than it was from 2009 to 2011, when the Government of the day set an ambition to halve the rate of maternal mortality in England. Although the life of a precious baby is priceless, clinical negligence does have a price tag. The NHS has faced an estimated £27.4 billion bill for maternity negligence in England since 2019. That figure exceeds the total maternity budget for the same period, and reflects the devastating toll of preventable deaths and life-altering injuries to mothers and babies.
There has been significant investment in increasing the number of midwives over the past 18 months under this Labour Government, with an extra 800 midwives recruited since December 2024, but that is not enough on its own. As we have heard so sensibly from my colleagues, there needs to be widespread system change and a continuum of care.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) about the issues around black maternal health. The Health and Social Care Committee highlighted those issues in its inquiry, when we saw that black women in England continue to face disproportionately poor outcomes in maternity care and the highest maternal mortality rates. Babies born to black women are more than twice as likely to die in their first year, compared with babies born to white women—a fact that I find incredible in this day and age, as somebody who has worked in the NHS as a doctor and who is now a public health consultant. It is entirely unacceptable that that continues to be the case.
The task, therefore, is accountability and co-ordination, and ensuring that evidence-based recommendations drive rapid improvement for women, their babies and hard-working staff. The women’s health strategy, published last week, recognises that women’s birth experiences and outcomes are a fundamental aspect of high-quality healthcare. Maternity services need to be embedded in a model that is based on relationships and wider care. That is essentially what health services live or die on: if we do not have good relationships and good wider care, our health services will struggle.
How we organise our services also needs to change, and that is a core mission of our Government in shifting to community-based care and a neighbourhood health model. Some £200 million has been invested in the healthy babies programme to improve perinatal mental health, parent-infant relationships and infant feeding in 75 local authorities. That is part of the £900 million that has been allocated to Best Start family hubs. The best start in life campaign includes information on pregnancy, but we must ensure that maternity healthcare is fully embedded in the shift to neighbourhood care. Members should be in no doubt: we have talked about moving from hospital to community throughout the 20 years that I have been in public health and medicine, and we have yet to do it. So I am under no illusions that this is incredibly difficult, but the focus we have this time is welcome.
Considering the improvements that have been made in my own area by University Hospitals Sussex; the significant steps being taken by the Government in establishing the taskforce led by the Secretary of State; and the investment in midwives and, more broadly, in women’s health and community-based care, I think that positive action is starting to take hold. Following the publication of the Amos review, the Minister may want to consider the possibility of a maternity commissioner to carry out the work of the taskforce, but the primary driver of that decision must be the aim of embedding the progress that is being made now, and sustainably embedding across maternity services a safe, holistic, person-centred approach that can endure and adapt for many generations to come.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I echo the thanks given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) to all the petitioners who signed the petition, including 262 of my Shipley constituents.
My interest in maternity safety goes back to the time, over a decade ago, when I was director of policy at the King’s Fund. We set up an inquiry into the safety of maternity services, which was chaired by Baroness Professor Onora O’Neill. Despite the fact that that work was done more than a decade ago, the failures that we hear about today are sadly all too familiar. What struck us at that time was that there had been many reports in the preceding decade, including confidential inquiries into maternal and infant deaths, and that the recommendations had not been implemented. It makes me angry that there has been another decade of more inquiries and reviews, with the recommendations going unheeded.
That is why I am pleased to be an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety, and why I have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) to make maternity safety one of our priorities on the APPG. It has been fantastic to join colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), across all-party parliamentary groups to share our insights and to contribute to the Amos investigation. There are still some of the same issues we heard about in the King’s Fund inquiry a decade ago: poor teamwork, weak accountability, defensive cultures and a failure to translate learning into sustained action.
Like many Members, I hear a range of stories as a constituency MP. Those are mainly centred on Bradford Royal infirmary, and I want to share the story of a constituent whose son was born with complications from the umbilical cord being wrapped around his neck. A late crash call was made after he had been delivered, but sadly he suffered catastrophic brain injury and was in a minimally conscious vegetative state. The women and her son were sent home with no diagnosis, and the child has grown up with epilepsy and other problems due to his brain injury. Sadly, it seems that midwives falsified the Apgar scores on the record and the time of the crash call. We have heard about defensive practice. We need a culture that changes it.
My constituent wrote to me:
“I have encountered significant barriers in navigating the NHS complaints system, particularly for marginalized communities. Language barriers further complicate the process, often leading to the dismissal of legitimate concerns.”
I am pleased to say that Bradford Royal infirmary has recently received good and outstanding ratings from the Care Quality Commission, for maternity and neonatal care respectively. I know that staff are not complacent about the care they give.
Others have mentioned the clinical negligence complaints system. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we have looked at how issues with that system have not only a human but a financial cost. One of our conclusions was that patients often pursue legal action because the complaints system itself is so confusing and unresponsive, which echoes the thoughts of my constituent. It is therefore vital that there are timely apologies from clinical staff and that we put in place effective, compassionate local resolutions. That will reduce claims, but is also ethically the right thing to do.
I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the progress of the David Lock KC review, which we heard a lot about at the Public Accounts Committee. Alongside a better complaints system, we also talked about reform of litigation and potentially a no-fault compensation scheme, which would certainly go some way to creating a better environment. At the moment, families often experience long legal battles following harm, which leads to clinicians and organisations becoming defensive.
I want to finish with a brief example of what happens when people are failed but want to share any learnings with the NHS. My friend Martha’s second child died. It was a homebirth with complications. She started labour at 2.30 am. At 5.30 am she called the delivery suite, and staff told her to call back in a few hours. When she did, they sent out a midwife team who did not reach her until 9.40 am. A few moments later, her waters broke and she gave birth to her second daughter, but there was meconium in her discharge. As Members who are clinical will know, that is a sign of baby distress. The midwives called an ambulance immediately. It was another 19 minutes after the 999 call until the ambulance arrived and oxygen was given. Those minutes after birth were crucial, and that length of time without oxygen would have caused global brain damage and severe disability had their daughter survived. Sadly, she died in the care of Great Ormond Street hospital just a couple of days later.
The point of telling that story is that there are many missed opportunities to provide safer care. If the midwives had carried birthing equipment when they were attending, they could have provided immediate care. If the ambulance had prioritised the call from the midwife, it could have prevented the deterioration.
Anna Dixon
I am sorry but, respectfully, I am not going to give way.
If the ambulance had routinely carried a neonatal meconium aspirator, that could have prevented the death of my friend’s daughter. My friend said:
“I was not told who we could complain to following these experiences, or when we should do so.”
Whether it is through a maternity commissioner or another way, we need to learn systemically from women’s experiences so that safety recommendations can be implemented. When we hear from Baroness Amos’s investigation, I hope that Ministers will finally act swiftly to implement her recommendations and back them up with investment, so that families can have confidence that when tragedies like those of my friend and those of my constituent occur, the system will genuinely learn, improve and take action.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for his excellent opening speech. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party groups on patient safety, on baby loss, on maternity and on birth trauma. Campaigners such as Theo Clarke, Louise Thompson and many more mothers and families over the years have been fighting tirelessly for the improvements that we desperately need in our NHS maternity services.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
After lots of campaigning and hard work by NHS staff, Yeovil maternity unit will reopen tomorrow. The lessons learned from the closure of our unit will be included in the current national review into maternity services, but does my hon. Friend agree that the only way recommendations from the review will be properly implemented is with a national maternity commissioner and more consultant midwives?
Helen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—he was quick off the mark. Yes, I agree that it will be useful to have a maternity commissioner to share those experiences and ensure that people learn from them.
The campaigners, Theo and Louise, have shared their heartbreaking experiences. I commend their work in securing this important debate. Liberal Democrats wish to be their allies. As a previous co-chair of the APPG on baby loss, I am all too familiar with the acute need for better standards of care for mothers across the country. I was also a member of the APPG on birth trauma when it was headed so ably by Theo Clarke, when the need for a maternity commissioner was first discussed and recommended. I am delighted to see the traction that this proposal has had thanks to the campaigning of Theo, Louise and many others.
Last month, the Lib Dems launched our maternity rescue package, which would guarantee high-quality care wherever people live and would make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby.
Helen Maguire
I have a constituent who had a history of rapid births. She wanted the safety net and support of a home birth team alongside the community team, as recommended, but she was unable to have both teams involved. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to have confidence in a safe birth if the right medical support simply is not there?
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Patient voice—listening to women, understanding their wishes and understanding the risks that their wishes might represent and how to manage them best—is such a critical part of safe maternity care.
In drawing up our rescue package, I have drawn from my experience on the all-party groups on birth trauma, on maternity and on baby loss. There is so much common ground with the cause of the petitioners. We hope that they are buoyed by the fact that someone in Westminster is listening. With our package, a national maternity commissioner would oversee improved standards of care nationally, while a director of midwifery would be appointed in every maternity unit, alongside an extra 300 consultant midwives, to drive clinical excellence in each unit.
Our plans would invest £600 million to tackle these vital staffing requirements, but the NHS could save billions of pounds on maternal clinical negligence claims, which cost more than £1.3 billion in 2024 alone. Those huge clinical negligence costs have consistently been reflected in the findings of local and national reviews, but most importantly, the package would save babies’ lives and spare families the trauma of injury or worse happening to mum and baby at what should be the most joyous time of their life.
Liberal Democrats welcome the recent interim review by Baroness Amos. The findings of the review were devastating, showing that too many mothers are not receiving the level of care that they need, with devastating consequences for women, babies and their families. But this is the latest in a string of national and local reviews and inquiries, which have produced more than 700 recommendations. Those reviews, with their myriad but similar recommendations, illustrate why we need a maternity commissioner—someone who can bring together the learnings from past failings, along with the best practice from around the country, and oversee a step change in training and culture that will enable all the health professionals in maternity to work as effective teams and give women the personalised and high-quality care that is needed.
People across the country were truly shocked by the findings of Donna Ockenden’s review of the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust, which serves my constituents. The review found that the deaths of more than 200 babies could have been prevented. Over the years, I have heard—sometimes as a friend, sometimes as an MP—from traumatised and grieving parents, each with their own experience of birth trauma, injury to their baby or worse. They have told me how important it is to them that the reports and inquiries spark the vital change that is needed, and do not lead only to warm words from politicians followed by decades of gathering dust on the shelves of the Department of Health.
Since the Ockenden review, the Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust has accepted and taken steps to implement almost all the immediate and essential actions that Donna Ockenden recommended. While that process has not been perfect, it has clearly been conducted with appropriate focus. The latest CQC rating for maternity at SATH is good, showing that with the right recommendations and leadership, positive change can happen. The team at SATH should be commended for that achievement. They demonstrate the value of focusing on the steps needed to get care right.
As we found out subsequently, however, unsafe maternity care was not unique to Shropshire, or indeed to Morecambe, East Kent or any of the other places about which we have heard such awful stories. We know that women all over the country are still not receiving the care they need. None of the services that the Care Quality Commission inspected in its national review was rated outstanding. Some 65% of maternity units were unsafe for women to give birth in. It is a scandal that mothers in this country have to settle for potentially dangerous levels of care at what should be one of the happiest moments in their life.
The introduction of a maternity commissioner is not a quick fix, but a commissioner would provide the leadership required for serious change to the way women and staff on maternity wards are listened to. That commissioner could look at disparities in maternity care and the poorer outcomes that we see for black and Asian women and those in deprived communities, and drive the change needed to make having a baby safe, no matter what your background is. Other improvements are needed, too.
Our proposals are to guarantee specialist doctors on every maternity unit 24/7, and one-to-one midwifery care for every woman during labour to respond to the desperate need for safe staffing highlighted in each of the reviews and in the inquiries by the all-party groups that deal with maternity care. Previous research found that 73% of maternity units in England do not have a consultant present at night, despite most births taking place outside working hours. Many negligence claims for poor maternity care are linked to failings in care outside regular working hours.
The proposals come alongside a new capital investment programme to fix crumbling maternity units in need of urgent repair and to deliver new dedicated bereavement suites. We would start with the 7% of maternity units that are at risk of imminent breakdown, and would restore the 42% of units in need of major repairs. These crucial steps come alongside many other proposals to improve staff training, to invest in bereavement support, neonatal specialists and pre-conception services and to eliminate maternal health disparities.
It is really, really, really important to say that the vast majority of babies are delivered safely, even when things do not go to plan. But we should not dismiss those instances where they go wrong, and we should be tireless about making the improvements required. I congratulate the campaigners on the success of the petition so far. I continue to urge the Government to demonstrate that recommendations will be turned into actions, and that the cries for help from countless mothers and families will be listened to.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician. I have attended more than 1,000 deliveries of babies over my career. More recently, they have been more likely to be the ones where things were going wrong and where there were more concerns about the baby, as my role is about looking after the infant.
I have also had my own three children. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) described having a mixed experience; I had three healthy children, but the first one was a normal delivery, the second a somewhat chaotic emergency caesarean section and the third a nice and smooth, peaceful elective caesarean section, so I had a range of experiences.
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on his opening speech. I particularly thank Theo Clarke—my friend and former colleague—and Louise Thompson for their campaign on maternity safety. They have shown incredible bravery in talking about their experiences and challenging the taboos around the troubles related to pregnancy. In particular, I commend Theo for her talk about perineal injuries, because this has been something spoken about in hushed tones and quietly among women and not something discussed in the public arena, but once it is spoken about in the public arena, that courage enables other women to find the courage to come forward and talk about it. That is how we will ensure that these injuries become less likely and the treatment becomes better, so I thank them for their work on that.
Since the petition was launched, it has received more than 150,000 signatures, including 270 from my constituency. As a parent, I know that bringing a child into the world is one of the most rewarding and exciting experiences in life. As has also been said, it generally goes well—reasonably smoothly, if not completely smoothly—and the outcome is generally good. But for too many women, their experience is deeply traumatic. Every year, 30,000 women suffer negative experiences during pregnancy, and one in 20 of those goes on to suffer from PTSD.
The APPG on birth trauma ran an inquiry into birth trauma, soliciting 1,300 submissions. What it detailed painted a shocking picture. It spoke of mothers left unattended to in hospital beds and some left in their own blood or faeces for hours on end; vaginal examinations undertaken without consent and in some cases triggering a mother’s waters to break; mothers belittled; concerns torn from the records; a baby dying during delivery after concerns were raised 44 times in vain; and significant mental health consequences and debilitating effects of perineal injury.
Every single failing we have heard about today is one too many. As I have said, maternity care is generally safe, but it is not safe enough yet. I am proud that the previous Government identified maternity care as a priority and began making some improvements. There is a way to go, but the previous Government launched a maternity and neonatal safety strategy, funded the saving babies’ lives care bundle, setting out evidence-based practices for providers and commissioners of maternity care in England, and rolled out maternal medicine networks in 2023. They established 17 centres of excellence to help women with high-risk conditions to get the care that they need when they need it. The previous Government’s reforms were backed by £127 million of investment specifically for maternity and neonatal care, and much of that was focused on the workforce.
Because of these efforts, more babies are delivered safely than ever before. Between 2010 and 2022, stillbirths fell by 25% and maternal mortality fell by 17%. The improvements were in large part overseen by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). He has saved countless lives with these improvements and deserves much credit for that.
I am concerned about the trajectory that we are currently on, because as has been said, there is still quite a lot left to do. In June, the Health Secretary agreed. He said that
“we’re not making progress fast enough on the biggest patient safety challenge facing our country”,
but he has responded with another inquiry. He did say that it would be a rapid inquiry, but it took months—in fact, till September—to decide which trusts would be involved in that inquiry, and then that was changed in and of itself. It was announced almost a year ago, has been much delayed and has still not reported. Hopefully it will be a great report when it has reported, but the delay means that action is not taking place quickly enough.
As has been mentioned, Baroness Amos found in her interim report that 748 recommendations had been made over the last decade, but progress in delivering on them had been too slow. Could the Minister update the House on how many remained undelivered on at the point of the general election and how many she has delivered on since?
In June, Ministers also announced a maternity and neonatal taskforce; and in November, I tabled questions asking how many times the taskforce had sat and who was on it. The answer was that they had not decided yet. In January, the question was raised again and they still had not decided. It took until last month for the Government to decide who was going to be on their urgently created taskforce from last year.
Michelle Welsh
Does the hon. Member agree that working with the families to get the taskforce right, which has never happened before with any Government, is key? Getting the taskforce working and getting the right people on that taskforce is essential as well.
Dr Johnson
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that it is important to get the taskforce right, I am just not sure that it needed to take quite so long to do so. We heard a statistic earlier about how many babies are born and how often; I think about how many babies have been born in the intervening time, while the membership of the taskforce was being finalised.
Michelle Welsh
There are more than 2,500 families involved in the Nottingham inquiry, some of whose cases were never reported appropriately. Given that, does the hon. Member agree that it is important to get the taskforce right, because so many bad things happened under the previous Government’s watch that were not reported to the inquiry and are not in the statistics and data that she has spoken about?
Dr Johnson
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but putting together a taskforce should not take months and months, because it is too important that we get on with it quickly. The Minister may be able to give us a reason for the delay because, if this is hitting the ground running, the Government must be wearing lead boots.
I also want to talk about the workforce. The Labour party manifesto included a commitment to train thousands of additional midwives. Can the Minister confirm how many more midwives are in training than under the previous Government, how many additional study places have been funded for each year, and how many places will be available this September? Some midwives have spoken about a lack of more senior midwives on shifts and the balance of care. Can the Minister tell us what figures she has on the number of midwives who are now in more senior roles and not providing clinical care, and what proportion of midwives are still spending at least a day a week providing clinical care?
We know that many midwives are not happy with the Government’s proposed 3.3% pay award—health unions have called it a betrayal and an insult. With resident doctors already striking, what is the Minister doing to avoid yet another industrial dispute, which I worry would contribute to poorer maternity care? At the same time, the Government’s plans to reorganise NHS services and ICBs have put them under financial pressure. Can the Minister confirm what effects she thinks that will have on maternal services and maternal mental health services used by women?
The Government promised 1,000 speciality training places; how many of those that have now been cancelled were for obstetrics and gynaecology? Will the delayed workforce plan, when it comes, have details of the number of obstetrics and gynaecology trainees that are needed, and will the Government have a plan to deliver the right number so that we have the best number of doctors for care?
Hon. Members talked about how births are becoming more complex—there are fewer births, but there are more complex births. What are the Minister’s plans for prevention, for example by ensuring that women have folic acid? We know that around four in five women take folic acid, but what can be done to improve that? I give the Government credit for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, but what is being done to reduce smoking in particular among women who are planning a pregnancy or who are pregnant? Obesity and the effects of chronic illness are also important in making pregnancies as healthy as they can be. Given the Government’s focus on prevention, can the Minister update the House on what is being done in those areas?
The speech by the hon. Lady for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) explained the workforce culture extremely effectively. Where errors happen—I agree with her that errors will always happen—it is important that the response is honest, open and transparent. Those who blow the whistle should be safe to do so, and the balance between accountability and blame needs to be in the right place so that we get improvements in maternity care. I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about the “normal birth” culture.
As many hon Members have said, listening to women is important. I asked the Minister about the abolition of Healthwatch the other day, but I do not think I got an answer. Organisations will always try to represent their interest group as effectively as they can, but there may be women who fall through the cracks. The benefit of Healthwatch is that it will listen to all and any women, whereas groups will just represent cohorts of women.
On travel, it is not uncommon, where there is a baby with a cardiac or neurological condition or extreme prematurity requiring surgery, for the baby to have to be transported significant distances, sometimes hours away from their parents’ home, in order to receive the best care. That can be very challenging for people in the cost of travel, and accommodation local to those units. Some units have excellent accommodation onsite in the hospital for mothers and fathers who have a baby who is particularly sick, but others do not. I asked some written questions on this topic following the neonatal estate review, but I got answers back about bereavement suites, which are a different issue.
I have heard examples of women being asked to stay on the postnatal ward when they have a baby in the neonatal unit. One woman described to me being in a bay with three other women who all had their babies with them; that woman was told to stop pressing the buzzer for help after a caesarean section, as there were other women with babies who needed to be looked after—I thought that was particularly cruel.
In summary, I understand that the Minister is very dedicated to this cause, and I am sure that the Secretary of State is too, as we all are. However, I feel that the delay, the report and the endless inquiries are not creating the actions that we need, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for responding so ably on behalf of the petitioners. That thousands of people wanted us to talk about this subject, many of whom will be watching—many are in the Public Gallery—demonstrates how important the issue is and how it touches so many of our constituents. I am grateful to my own constituents for signing the petition.
I place on record my thanks to Theo Clarke, who is also in the Gallery, who did a lot of work in this area when she was an MP, based on her own experiences. I agree with the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) that, by detailing injuries and raising some of the taboos, she did a great service to other women. I also thank Louise Thompson, also in the Gallery, for the time and effort that she has put into campaigning for improvements in maternity care following her own experiences. All the organisations that work on behalf of women, bringing forward their stories to national attention, do a great service—it is not an easy thing to do, and we thank them for it.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), and my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) and for Shipley (Anna Dixon) all highlighted their constituents’ experiences. To be clear, the Secretary of State leads on this work directly, and a meeting has been set with Louise and Theo to discuss the issue of a maternity commissioner more thoroughly. I encourage both Theo and Louise to continue to engage with the national investigation chaired by Baroness Amos. Their campaigning, along with that of so many others, has led the Secretary of State to directly provide the leadership himself, ensuring that the issue gets attention. We look forward to Baroness Amos’s recommendations.
As many Members have said, the vast majority of births are safe, and there are some outstanding examples of care in the NHS. But where things do go wrong, it can have a devastating impact on women and their families, who are at their most vulnerable when giving birth. We are fighting systemic issues, entrenched inequalities in maternity care, a failure to learn from mistakes, and culture and leadership issues.
It is appalling, as we have heard again in this debate, how in the 21st century in Britain there could be such a difference in outcomes for mothers from different ethnicities and for those from deprived backgrounds, not least in constituencies such as mine. That was a point ably made, as ever, by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who, in leading the APPG, does an amazing amount of work to highlight the issue. I confirm to her that we remain committed to setting a target to close that mortality gap, and will be informed by Baroness Amos’s recommendation. The issue of deprivation and ethnicity differences was also raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper). That issue is why the Secretary of State has launched the national investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal care, chaired by Baroness Amos. She is bringing together the findings from past reviews and local rapid reviews, and new evidence from families and staff, into one clear national set of recommendations.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, previous issues and scandals have produced many recommendations, including, as we have heard, well over 700 recommendations on maternity care since 2015. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley reminded us, some of the information from those investigations has been available for well over a decade.
We know what needs fixing, but changes to processes and procedures here and there are not enough. There is a risk that some recommendations might fix the symptoms, but not the underlying causes. Many colleagues have talked about culture. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae): we cannot keep going round in the same cycle. There is an underlying cultural issue, and systemic change needs to happen. I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he does on the APPG and for sharing the loss that he and his family suffered. That loss is informing that work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) also talked about that culture and the need for deeper questions. Other Members talked about the need to speak up. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, who highlighted the importance of that culture of encouraging people to speak up.
Anna Dixon
Does the Minister agree that training obstetricians and midwives together as a team is an important part of creating that unified culture that we know is so important to underpin safety for mothers and babies?
Karin Smyth
I agree. That is an important point about the culture in clinical roles and clinical leadership within the secondary care setting and across the entire pathway of supporting women. As part of our 10-year plan, we want to put patients across all parts of the NHS front and centre by building services around people instead of expecting people to build their lives around services.
In February, Baroness Amos published her interim report to share the insights she has gathered so far. She and her team have met with hundreds of families as part of the local investigations, and a national call for evidence from women and families has recently concluded. The surveys were open for eight weeks, hearing from women and families across the country about their experiences of maternity and neonatal care. Over 11,000 responses have been submitted.
A separate call for evidence for those who work in the maternity and neonatal pathway was also held recently. The workforce call for evidence received more than 9,000 responses from across 124 trusts. Baroness Amos’s final report, including one coherent single set of national recommendations, will be published in June.
Some of the women and families who have fed into the national investigation will have suffered terrible loss and harm. This subject is just about the hardest that any woman could ever talk about, and I want to thank all of those who have had the courage to share what they have been through. I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for the inspiration that she has provided by, first, getting herself here, and then continuing to use her voice and doing it so well during her time in Parliament.
All those women and their families deserve to know that their voices will be heard and that action will be taken. That is why the Government have launched their new maternity and neonatal taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State. It will be the taskforce’s job to translate the investigation’s final recommendations into action. The taskforce will also hold the system to account for improving outcomes and experiences for women and their families. It is all very well coming up with more reports, but we have had enough of those. The taskforce will develop an action plan so that recommendations from the investigation do not gather dust on a shelf. The taskforce held its first meeting on 24 March and it was very positive and constructive.
The terms of reference have been agreed, with meetings every six to eight weeks going forward. The taskforce is made up of experts and key partners from across the maternity and neonatal sector as well as from the wider health sector. It includes representatives from harmed and bereaved families, frontline clinicians, academics and royal colleges—those who can speak directly to health equity and international expertise. The voices of families, and women in particular, are paramount throughout this process. The taskforce will be supported by several expert reference groups, at least five of which include representatives from harmed or bereaved families. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest that it is important that we get this right and work across this field, so that this becomes a once-and-for-all piece of work.
I think we all want to end the cycle of recommendations that do not deliver, and we have heard a lot about that this afternoon. That is what the taskforce is designed to do. It will ensure that the systemic and national changes we need to see are achieved following the investigation’s final report and recommendations, but we are not sitting on our hands until we get to that report. A number of initiatives are already in place to improve experiences and outcomes in maternity and neonatal care. We have already recruited more than 800 more midwives and begun investing more than £140 million to address critical safety risks on the maternity estate, and we are rolling out programmes to tackle discrimination, racism and avoidable brain injuries. We will improve the NHS consistently week on week, month on month and year on year.
The renewed women’s health strategy, which was published last week, will tackle head on the injustices women face. In that strategy, we acknowledged much of what we have heard during this debate, including the existence of medical misogyny, the fact that women are not listened to and the fact that the culture needs to change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) noted, it is important that women have choice.
The strategy sets out how we will focus relentlessly on delivering women’s priorities. The challenge for this Government over the next couple of years is not just to build on the progress we are already making but to accelerate it. I want women who signed the petition to know that we have heard them loud and clear. We know that there is so much more that needs to be done, but I ask that they do not judge us on the strategies we publish or the people we appoint—we must be judged by our results. Baroness Amos has given us the blueprint for making things better, and the taskforce will hold us to account. We will not just have one person driving action; there will be 18 of them.
In the meantime, we will not make significant commitments that pre-empt the outcome of the investigation, which we will have in just two months’ time. If Baroness Amos wants to recommend, for example, a maternity commissioner, then we will consider that carefully. The taskforce, with the Secretary of State chairing it to drive accountability, will deliver the action that we all need to see.
Tony Vaughan
Thank you, Ms Jardine, and I thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate today. I also thank petitioners Theo Clarke and Louise Thompson and the 153,000 signatories across the country who have brought this debate before Parliament. This opportunity to debate how we improve maternity care is crucial, and it has been brought about by the petition.
There has been unanimity among all speakers on the urgent need for action. The experiences of the petitioners and constituents and the mountain of evidence we have all heard leaves us in no doubt that action to address these long-standing and entrenched problems is long overdue and extremely urgent. The Minister and Baroness Amos have rightly accepted that the challenges we face are systemic and that a whole-system view, looking at people, culture, organisation, processes and infrastructure, is needed. We have heard many hon. Members talk about the ways that those problems have manifested themselves in their examples.
The Minister said that the Health Secretary will chair the taskforce composed of 18 experts to provide the accountability and oversight that the petitioners are calling for. I ask the Government to have the taskforce in place as long as is necessary for us to see these changes. The petitioners have asked for a maternity commissioner to be installed permanently. I do not know whether the taskforce has a time limit, but it is important that it is in place for as long as is necessary to see the change that we all want.
The women’s health strategy is to be welcomed. It is important that the strategy accounts for the needs of all groups, particularly minority groups, who suffer disparate impacts, and disabled people who are losing out because of the current system. I thank everyone who signed the petitions for participating. I think the Petitions Committee allows members of the public to participate in our democratic process quite successfully.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 751174 relating to a Maternity Commissioner.
Written Statements
Higher Education: Freedom of Speech
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Academic freedom and free speech are fundamental to our world-leading universities, and this Government are committed to protecting them. In January 2025, following my review of the potential impact of the legislation, I announced the future of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. This included my intention to seek a legislative vehicle to repeal the tort and duties on students’ unions, to amend the complaints scheme and conditions of registration, and to commence these duties on higher education providers and the Office for Students in their current form. I set out in a policy paper in June 2025 my commitment to protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom, and how I intended to achieve that through a more workable, proportionate and effective approach:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-future-of-the-higher-education-freedom-of-speech-act-2023
I have also continued to keep all uncommented provisions in the Act under review, as I committed to last year.
On 1 August 2025, I commenced key provisions from the Act that strengthened provider duties on free speech and placed a requirement on the OfS to promote free speech. The OfS has also issued extensive guidance to the sector on the new duties and continues to work with providers to offer advice and share best practice, so higher education providers themselves are more effectively protecting free speech. I am confident that the new provisions in force from August 2025, together with the OfS’s advice and guidance, have led to improvements in how seriously free speech and academic freedom are taken by the higher education sector. However, I am aware of examples of academic staff who believe that their right to lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom is still being curtailed, and who are not permitted to express their lawful views on controversial issues.
I will now act quickly to provide a suitable route of redress for staff, external speakers and non-student members to an OfS complaints scheme, and to give the OfS the powers to regulate providers where there are serious and systemic issues in relation to free speech protection. Although I still intend to make the amendments I announced last year, pending suitable legislation, I am making this statement to inform the House that I will make commencement regulations by mid-June, to bring into force the following elements of the Act:
The complaints scheme for staff, external speakers and non-student members. I will not be commencing the scheme in relation to students, who already have access to an excellent complaints scheme at the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, which can consider free speech issues as well as wider student complaints, or in relation to complaints about students’ unions. The commencement regulations will bring this provision into force on 1 September 2026 in time for the start of the new academic year, and at which point the OfS will have published its complaints scheme rules.
The mandatory OfS conditions of registration. I will be commencing the duties on the OfS to put in place initial and ongoing conditions of registration set out in section 6 of the Act from 1 April 2027. These conditions will require not only that HE providers’ governance documents and arrangements ensure compliance with their duties under the Act, but that HE providers comply with their duties under the Act. The OfS will consult on and prepare conditions and guidance, and take forward other important work on provider governance, in time for those provisions coming into force.
I will seek a suitable legislative vehicle to repeal the tort and duties on students’ unions and will keep their commencement under review in the meantime.
I want to be clear that these new protections for freedom of speech will not protect any of the abhorrent and unlawful extremist speech and harassment that we have seen at some universities, which should not be tolerated on campus. Our social action cohesion plan has already set out how we will root out extremism and tackle division:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protecting-what-matters-towards-a-more-confident-cohesive-and-resilient-united-kingdom/protecting-what-matters-towards-a-more-confident-cohesive-and-resilient-united-kingdom
I will also keep commencement of the overseas funding measures under review. The OfS already has extensive powers to require information from providers, to investigate any breach, and to impose sanctions where breaches have occurred. The OfS has made it explicitly clear in its regulatory guidance that universities should not tolerate attempts by foreign states to suppress academic freedom. If we are to introduce new reporting requirements, we must ensure that they add value without being overly burdensome.
Our universities’ world-class reputation makes them a prime target for foreign states and hostile actors, who seek to erode that reputation by shaping or censoring what universities can offer. To tackle this enduring threat, we are investing £3 million to bolster existing support and access to expert advice on national security risk management, including a new academic interference reporting route and new guidance. We also recently worked with MI5 and cyber security services to deliver briefings to over 70 vice-chancellors on the threats of foreign interference to universities, as well as a suite of workshops with academic staff and students’ unions.
We have been clear to the sector about our expectations for providers to meet their regulatory requirements, and, where there are concerns, robust university processes and relevant national security legislation will be enforced. The commencement of the complaints scheme and the conditions of registration will also ensure that where foreign interference impacts freedom of speech or academic freedom, there are routes of redress for staff and external speakers, and the OfS has an opportunity to take action.
Commencement of these provisions will support protection for freedom of speech and academic freedom of campus for years to come, enabling staff and students to explore new and controversial ideas, test their thinking and for students to receive a higher quality education.
[HCWS1525]
Widening Access to NHS Careers
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am pleased today to announce that the Department of Health and Social Care is taking decisive action to break down long-standing barriers to NHS careers and to open up opportunity to people from every background.
For too long, where you grow up and how much your parents earn has had too big a say in whether you can become a doctor, a nurse or a healthcare professional. That is bad for opportunity and bad for the NHS. Too many talented people are being locked out of careers that they are more than capable of succeeding in. This Government are determined to change that. We are taking decisive action to ensure that careers in the NHS are open to everyone with the ability and ambition to succeed, and to build a workforce that truly reflects the communities it serves. The professions should be elite, not elitist.
First, we are setting a clear national ambition to widen access to medicine. By 2035, we will increase by at least 50% the proportion of students entering medical school who received free school meals. Today, just 7% of accepted students come from these backgrounds. That is not a reflection of talent, it is a reflection of unequal access to opportunity, and it must change. Progress will be tracked transparently, supported by a new advisory group bringing together schools, universities and social mobility charities, such as the Sutton Trust and the Social Mobility Foundation, to drive sustained improvement.
Secondly, we will better target medical school places to the parts of the country that need them most. This includes areas with poorer health outcomes, ageing populations, and communities that have historically been under-represented in medical careers. By training more doctors locally, we will not only strengthen the workforce, but improve care for patients and tackle health inequalities.
Thirdly, we are taking action to make medical training more accessible and more sustainable, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. From 2026, up to 25% of students at participating medical schools will be allocated to local foundation training places, enabling them to train and work closer to home. Alongside this, we will pilot new approaches to postgraduate training that reduce unnecessary geographical movement, to see resident doctors stay in one place for longer, easing the financial burden and disruption to family life.
Fourthly, over the next three years we will fund 2,000 places on access to medicine programmes to support young people from England’s most deprived areas to apply to university. This will see a significant expansion in opportunity, with the intention that this will result in nearly doubling the number of places on these programmes each year, by delivering 650 places in 2026-27, 650 in 2027-28 and 700 in 2028-29.
Fifthly, we will deliver 2,000 additional nursing apprenticeships over the next three years, backed by a £65 million investment for nursing apprenticeships. These “earn while you learn” opportunities will be focused in areas with the greatest need, allowing people to build skilled, well-paid careers in the NHS without needing to leave their communities or take on up-front costs.
Finally, we will go further to ensure that NHS recruitment reaches those who have too often been overlooked. Building on the success of the Widening Access Demonstrators programme, which has already supported over 1,000 individuals into pre-employment training, we will now extend this work across 14 integrated care boards. Alongside this, we will roll out successful proven pre-employment models nationally through £15 million in Government funding over the next three years, helping more people to take their first step into NHS careers.
These measures will deliver more opportunities for thousands of young people across the country, break down barriers and tackle inequalities. As part of our 10-year health plan, the Government are ensuring that the health service has a strong, diverse workforce that is critical to building an NHS fit for the future.
[HCWS1526]
Legacy Benefits: Abolition
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Transforming the way the Department for Work and Pensions delivers its services is key to ensuring that we improve the customer experience while delivering value for money for taxpayers.
The purpose of the “move to universal credit” programme was to modernise and simplify the benefits system by replacing older legacy benefits with a single, monthly payment. Completing the implementation of universal credit is critical to that outcome. Universal credit is now claimed by more than 8 million people and therefore plays a hugely significant role in the fabric of our society.
On 31 March 2026, we completed the transition of customers receiving income support and income-based jobseekers allowance to universal credit, allowing the Department to close these outdated systems. In addition, I am setting out my intention to close income-related employment and support allowance and applicable housing benefit on 30 June 2026. Giving sufficient notice and support to some of our most vulnerable customers was important in enabling everyone who wanted to transition to universal credit the time needed to make the move.
The DWP recognises that, for many people, engaging with universal credit is a very different experience from ESA, with the transition process highlighting changes to appointees for customers as well. I am therefore further setting out that the DWP intends to exempt customers who require time to find an appointee from the initial abolition date. The DWP will provide customers with the additional time needed while a personal appointee is found, or a corporate appointee is agreed, finalising a later date for final closure when it is safe to do so.
The DWP will proactively engage with customers and their representatives to support them in making the move to universal credit.
The Department’s “move to universal credit” official statistics, published in February 2026, show that—as of 31 December 2025—2.4 million individuals across 1.8 million households have been notified of the need to make the transition to universal credit across all legacy benefits, with over 1.5 million households going on to make a claim to UC.
The continued engagement and collaboration of our external stakeholder network has been invaluable in ensuring that we continue to move those who remain on legacy benefits across safely.
It is right that we now continue to review carefully the support that universal credit provides, that we make sure we understand our customers fully, and that universal credit remains fit for the next decade and beyond.
Leading the UC review, I have engaged with a wide range of organisations and people, including those with first-hand experience of claiming universal credit, those who support them, and those with expertise in the system and how it works. The DWP has hosted workshops, roundtables and focus groups, and undertaken research, including a survey of nearly 10,000 customers. This insight has proved invaluable and I thank those whose time has gone into fulfilling our manifesto commitment.
[HCWS1524]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Civil Preparedness for War
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Harris of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s civil preparedness for war.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my defence interests: I am patron to the various RAF regiment associations, and I have just heard from their group captain that their gunners have shot down more Iranian drones, by quite some margin, than any other UK defence unit. I am sure that the Minister will want to congratulate them on that. I would also like to thank our fantastic Library’s research staff for their excellent briefings.
This short debate cannot really address all the issues the Government will have to face if we find ourselves in any situation in which we as citizens must react in order to survive any attack on our country. Geopolitical storms are raging in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere, and I am concerned that we are not prepared for what I feel may well be the future: strikes on our critical infrastructure; drones—now the favoured form of bombing; sabotage; air and maritime invasions; online disinformation; cyber attacks; attacks on our underwater cables, which carry more than 95% of our international data; and attacks on the one single pipeline which carries 77% of our gas, said the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in his speech during the strategic defence review debate in July 2025. And then, of course, there is climate change.
That excellent review, however, says little about how we citizens should prepare ourselves for any future crises that will occur when we find ourselves without the life-sustaining structures around us that we are used to—unlike Europe, which appears to be alerting its citizens to major disruptions to their lives. The EU has adopted its preparedness union strategy, which aims to
“enhance the EU’s civilian and military preparedness and readiness for future crises so that all actors are ready and capable to respond quickly and effectively if needed.”
It sets out 30 actions across seven areas. They are too numerous for me to go into this afternoon, but one of the seven areas is population preparedness and societal resilience: supporting citizens and communities to prepare for and respond to crises—not the first responders or gold commanders, but we, the citizens.
Finland, for example, to take just one of the EU countries, is telling its citizens that they must prepare in advance for disruption to internet banking services, and for natural phenomena such as storms and wildfires, pandemics, military conflicts, etc.; there is a long list of topics that can be brought up on the website. It is also maintaining its bunker network, allowing shelter for 4.4 million people. Professor Tim Lang, a food policy expert, has urged our Government to follow the example of many other countries by encouraging us to begin stockpiling foods such as dried goods, which need no cooking—and lots of water. Finland, Norway and Sweden have all issued updated preparedness guides to their citizens. Finland does this digitally. Norway and Sweden have sent physical copies and instructions to all households. Do we have any intention of doing something similar?
The strategic defence review talks about a “whole-of-society approach” to any impending emergency and, in recommendation 26 on page 92, it welcomes
“the Prime Minister’s launch of a national conversation on defence and security”.
So I ask the Minister: when will this happen, and will it provide instructions for communities on how they can begin to prepare themselves? Further, a home defence programme to meet defence’s needs in the event of escalation to war will include mobilisation of reserves and industry, but there is no mention of what we citizens should be doing. Can the Minister update us on this, please?
What has happened to the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—programme, which was supposed to start but broke down in November? We need to connect better with Europe now and learn from it how to prepare ourselves in the event of war or large-scale disruption. It has a culture of resilience and uses targeted information campaigns and educational programmes, with accessible online courses, developing household emergency plans and stockpiling essential supplies. The EU Parliament has an action plan for indicative preparedness. Do we?
Page 87 of the SDR talks about building “national resilience”, but I am not sure how we will do this if we are not told what to expect and when. I do not wish to be alarmist but, in talking to senior friends in our Armed Forces, I am aware of their concerns about any future conflicts. I simply want our Government to be clear with us about what they advise us to do in order that we can prepare ourselves in case of national disruption. The aim should be a public understanding of the challenges we face—one that feels capable of contributing to our collective response, rather than one that is either complacent or alarmist.
Iran’s rockets, and certainly those of Russia and China, can now reach mainland Europe. I am sure there are missiles out there that can reach us. Can we at least have some idea what we should be doing to help ourselves? For instance, are the Government drafting legislative measures to improve defence readiness? How will they increase public awareness, engagement and understanding of our defence? What are they doing to improve the resilience of critical national infrastructure? Finally, how are the Government advertising the GOV.UK Prepare website, getting us prepared for an emergency? The clock is ticking. We are near midnight.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble namesake for securing this debate. I declare my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.
Not only are we closer to widespread war than we have been for 60 years, but conflict has become much more hybrid, with increasingly hostile cyber activity coupled with deniable sabotage and other disruptions already affecting us here at home in Britain. That is to say nothing of the misinformation and disinformation that floods people’s social media feeds non-stop.
Despite the events since this debate was originally scheduled, the public remain blissfully unaware of the various threats and risks that the nation faces, let alone their urgency and scale. This must change. We urgently need the national conversation called for in the SDR, but it should not be couched solely in terms of defence; it must encompass everything else on the national risk register. The whole of society needs to be engaged. It is not sufficient simply to rely on the GOV.UK Prepare website; we need messages that are repeated in household booklets, as in other countries and as referred to by the noble Baroness. These then need to be amplified through broadcast and social media platforms. Think back to the major public health programmes that have taken place in the past: these were multimedia and you could not escape them. Everybody knew about them and everybody understood them.
We should also be building the sort of civil reserve they have elsewhere: a reserve of volunteers, with skills, that can be deployed in an emergency here at home. It is an emergency whether it is caused by a hostile state, by severe weather events or by another pandemic. Perhaps we could have a register of electricians who have had extra training to repair the grid, or retired doctors to be brought back into the NHS, or those willing, with the right skills and equipment, to clear fallen trees or masonry from roads and railway lines. We could also have people to help pile sandbags. The list is endless. Why do we not have such a public register of reserves for use in those circumstances?
My questions for my noble friend the Minister are as follows. When will the national conversation called for in the SDR start and what will it consist of? It must be much more than a top-down message; it must also foster dialogue at local level and within communities. Will it recognise that this is not just about war preparedness but all the other acute and chronic threats we face as a country? In advance of the defence readiness Act called for in the SDR, will steps now be taken to seek volunteers to offer their help and skills in emergencies and crises? Resilience and preparedness must not be an optional add-on; it is our obligation to future generations—to our children and grandchildren.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for securing this vital and timely debate, and it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who is such an expert on resilience.
I am on this House’s National Resilience Committee, which is looking inter alia at how to take the whole-of-society approach essential for civil preparedness for war. As we have heard, the Nordic ambassadors’ already publicly available evidence to our committee describes their countries’ decades-long approach to civil preparedness, given their proximity to Russia. It is too soon to know what the committee will recommend, but I personally admire the ambassadors’ Governments’ highly informative booklets, which are available in every single household and which we have already heard about from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. These describe not only the importance of storing water but things such as how to dispose of human and pet waste. I suggest to the Minister that this would be a low-cost implementation to start with immediately.
The Swedish ambassador defined resilience as “public support through awareness of risk, readiness to act and trust in institutions”. We must be healthily sceptical about how well the UK measures up to that. Currently, despite heightened awareness of the risks facing us, the UK population is very divided. The idea that people need to be good citizens and act in a concerted way is treated with suspicion, and trust in institutions is low. Culturally, we are not in a promising place for public support to grow.
Anthropologists say that culture is shared, deep-rooted assumptions that are powerful resistors to change. Our assumptions include that patriotism is naive and politically or culturally loaded, efforts to encourage citizenship are suspect and potentially exploitative, and hyper-individualism is the priority. An effective whole-of-society approach needs to challenge these. We talk blithely about cultural change, but people fear changing their deep-rooted assumptions, so they resist—unless they realise that their survival depends on it.
Such survival anxiety must exceed fear for cultural change to take place. Survival anxiety is currently amplified by national and international threats, but any project fear leads to panic, blame and resistance. Leaders should unashamedly draw attention to other aspects of our national culture, particularly our dogged resistance to tyranny in the 1939-45 war. Constantly criticising our past, judging its actions by today’s mores, does not illuminate a path forward—it simply denies our roots and makes concerted action virtually impossible. A whole-of-society approach must emphasise strong relationships, which, in the new infrastructure, family hubs are helping people to build. In crisis, people primarily lean not on the state but on their relationships with families, communities and, dare I say, with God. It is not sensible to think otherwise.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I add my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for bringing this vital Question forward, and I declare my interest, having served for a brief while in chaplaincy in our Armed Forces. Both the SDR and the 2025 resilience action plan raise this whole-of-society approach as a “fundamental element” of our national security. We have heard comparisons with the Nordic states. I would also draw comparisons with such countries as Ukraine and Taiwan, except the difference is that social inequality is far greater in this nation.
I had intended to make some erudite points about faith communities, which are brought in by the resilience action plan—I am sure that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester will make them far more eloquently than I could—but I was hijacked by an accidental focus group that I found myself conducting over the weekend. As I discussed this matter with my nieces, nephews and godchildren—a group of highly intelligent 18 to 27 year-old adults—some clear and, for me, shocking themes emerged.
The first was their surprise that this issue is on our radar. They said, “Surely war is a thing of the past”. Secondly, when I asked what we needed for civil preparedness, they said, “We do not feel like a cohesive group. We don’t really have a sense of national pride”. One of them even said, “Rather, it is more a sense of national shame. When people fly our national flag, we are concerned”. I asked them, “What about Covid, when we pulled together?” They said, “That’s true, we did”. I asked, “Would we do it again?” They said, “The problem is that, in the end, Covid diminished trust rather than increasing it”.
Three themes emerged from this informal conversation. The first was a really serious diminution in trust. The fact that our political system across the nation, at every level, is addicted to tearing down rather than building up will end up biting us.
The second theme was a serious reduction in willingness to volunteer or serve. One of the things my research has turned up—I struggle to believe this—is that, today, we have 12,000 fewer firefighters than we did in 2000. To me, that is a really interesting statistic in terms of what we give to serve the other.
The third theme was the well-known rise in mental health issues across society, particularly in the community made up of our younger adults and older teenagers. As I have said a number of times in this place—I deeply believe this—the question is not so much how we make Britain great again but how we make Britain kind again. The fundamental social building blocks on which civil resilience rests come down to all of us. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to invest in what one might call the softer side of this societal infrastructure, on which previous generations have fallen back and which has enabled us to stand together?
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for tabling this debate.
A resilient economy and resilient households are key requirements for national defence, yet successive Governments have degraded them. Some 13.4 million people now live in relative poverty, and 25.3 million people live in households that fall below the minimum income standard. Work does not pay enough. Some 4.4 million people earn less than the real living wage, and 32% of universal credit claimants are in work. Millions rely on charity to survive.
Further, one in four young people in England has a mental health condition. Victorian illnesses such as rickets and scurvy have returned. Three million people in the UK are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. In 2023, 800,000 patients were admitted to hospital with malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies. Years of real wage cuts, austerity and unchecked profiteering have made people less resilient. Some 16% of UK adults have no savings, and 39% have less than £1,000 to negotiate emergencies. Some 6.11 million individuals await 7.22 million hospital appointments. Some 300,000 people a year die prematurely while awaiting a hospital appointment, and 100,000 people die every year in poverty. This is the state of our resilience.
We are not self-sufficient in food, energy, auto, steel, bricks, cement, shipbuilding or semiconductors—and more—yet there is no reform of corporate governance and short-termism in the City of London. Neoliberalism has provided neither economic growth nor household resilience, yet welfare cuts are being mooted to make the poor poorer. The poorest 20% already pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the richest 20%.
It is interesting that the Ministers mooting this are silent on corporate welfare spending and the tax perks of the rich. HMRC has failed to collect more than £500 billion in taxes since 2010. In the past three years, banks have received £100 billion in subsidy in the form of interest in central reserves, yet no one is talking about ending any of that. The bones of the less well-off make poor cement for national security, and it is the bottom 50% who need to be strengthened. Can the Minister say when a different approach to managing the economy and society will be unveiled?
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I too congratulate my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, on securing this extremely timely debate.
As we know, we are living in dangerous times. What makes matters worse is the stark reality that they are times for which we, the United Kingdom, are woefully unprepared. This was made clear last summer when His Majesty’s Government published the strategic defence review. At that time, the esteemed noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who oversaw the review, expressed his frustration that government funding was too little and too late to match the ambitious defence overhaul that was—and is—urgently required. He has since expressed even starker views, for which he should be commended.
There can be no doubt that years of underfunding under previous Administrations left the current Government with an abominable legacy to deal with. However, what now seems to be lacking is a sense of genuine urgency for putting the country back on its feet militarily. I do not blame the Ministry of Defence for that; instead, the problem seems to lie at the feet of His Majesty’s Treasury. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself essentially conceded that point when appearing before the Liaison Committee in another place.
We are many months on from when the defence investment plan was due to be released, yet it seems the Government have no clue as to how they will pay for it. The finger of blame is often pointed at the Chancellor but the Prime Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury: he needs to make that decision. In the 1950s, the UK spent 8% of GDP on defence, 6% on the NHS and 5% on welfare. In 2026, we spend a little over 2% on defence, 8% on the NHS and 12% on welfare. That imbalance is indefensible.
But there is some good news, thankfully. Replying to a Written Question from me last month, the Minister confirmed that:
“The Ministry of Defence will launch the Northern Ireland Defence Growth Deal in Spring 2026”.
That is positive; I hope that the Northern Ireland defence sector will have cause for celebration very soon. I support the Government’s resilience action plan, which focused on UK domestic resilience as a fundamental element of the national security strategy. Given our troubled past, there is no more resilient part of the United Kingdom than Northern Ireland, and I assure your Lordships that we are keen to step up and do our bit to keep the nation safe from external threats.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, gave me a copy of his Salisbury speech last week. I want to quote the final sentence because, in some ways, that speech was a cry of despair that nobody has yet taken seriously the strategic defence review. He said:
“Eighteen months ago, a national conversation about defence was promised by the new government. It is about time to get it started”.
I was very struck when I read the SDR by what a radical set of ideas it presents. It proposes the remobilisation of people throughout the United Kingdom. It also proposes a home defence programme and a new home defence force. A lot of it has to be done at the local level. A joined-up Government would not at the same time have been pushing through a complete restructuring of local government to remove local government to a further distance away from ordinary people, in which there will be lower-level councils representing half a million people, which is slightly larger than the population of Iceland. That is not local mobilisation; it is not even really local government.
What we now need, clearly, is political leadership and money. What I am hearing from those who have already spoken is that we have a political culture that encourages all political parties to attack each other and not to co-operate with each other. We have to change that. It is also a political culture in which anyone who says that we ought to raise spending rather, and that we should perhaps under the current emergency raise taxes, will bring down the wrath of the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and everyone else upon them. Political leadership requires you to change the political agenda and to call for the sort of money which is going to have to be spent on home defence as much as on reviving our ability to operate outside the home territory and home waters. So, there is a huge amount to be done, and it is extraordinarily ambitious.
If I may end, I will quote what the Prime Minister said to Parliament last February, that we should
“use this to renew the social contract of our nation—the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/25; col. 634.]
I agree with him. I only wish he had done more to make people aware that this is what we need, and to try to create the sort of atmosphere in which we co-operate more with each other.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for securing this debate. Like other speakers, I will not just talk about civil preparedness for war but acknowledge that we are in the age of shocks, and that we face not just geopolitical and terrorism threats but threats from climate, from the collapse of nature and of course from pandemics, which continue to loom over us.
It is not just me or the Green Party saying this. I can go back to October 2025, when, as we now know, the Joint Intelligence Committee security assessment report for Defra warned that
“biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse”
threatened the foundation of our lives. That was in October 2025. That report was supressed by the Government and finally published on 20 January 2026. That report may only be in the redacted form. This is unclear—perhaps the Minister can tell me whether that is the full report.
Then, there was a second repressed Defra report, finally released on 24 March, which warned of the risk of the “catastrophic failure” of the UK’s food and water systems by 2030. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: would he acknowledge that the first step of preparedness has to be the Government being honest with the public about what they know and the risks that we face?
To focus on those risks for a second, the government advice—which noble Lords may not know, because it is not very widely publicised—is that every household should keep three days’ worth of food in the cupboard. Here, I reference the very powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka: how many households cannot afford to buy three days’ worth of food and stick it in the cupboard? There are very many. So, it is no good giving that advice if they cannot possibly do it.
Then, there is our oligarchic food system. Some nine big retailers supply 94.5% of all retail food. Tesco supplies nearly one-third of retail food sales and sends those out from 20 distribution centres. It is not just me who points out the vulnerability of that; it is obvious to anyone who might want to disrupt British society. Across all the retailers, it is 131 distribution centres.
I am going to be party political here for a second and address a question of philosophy. For the Green Party, resilience is at the heart of our political philosophy. We know we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. We know that an over-fertilised seedling with a thin, slender stem and very shallow roots that races up for the light will not be resilient. To be resilient, we have to build a healthy society, which is what is at the core of Green Party political philosophy.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for securing this timely debate.
The United Kingdom faces serious and growing security threats—Russia, Iran, China and North Korea—alongside non-state actors, criminal networks and terrorist organisations. Last year’s strategic defence review was right to say that we must engage wider society if we are to meet those threats and keep our country safe. That conclusion is becoming more and more urgent every day. An Ipsos poll conducted ahead of the review found that almost half of all Britons say that there are no circumstances under which they would be willing to take up arms for Britain. That is deeply troubling.
Sadly, it is not entirely surprising. For too long, British history has been denigrated, distorted and stripped of context. Too many people have been encouraged to feel ashamed of this country and their association with it, and they believe they should feel no pride in being seen as British. If people feel that way about their nation, it is no surprise that they are unprepared to defend that nation. As retired Army officer Tim Cross put it, we need to tell our young people that they are part of a nation and a society that needs them, including within our Armed Forces.
One practical answer to this is the cadets. As many of your Lordships will know, I am the proud holder of the office of honorary colonel of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers cadets, so I have seen personally the value that the cadet system can provide to the country. It builds confidence, discipline, resilience and public spirit, and a sense of belonging. This is good not only for the individual but for the country. I therefore welcome the review’s conclusion that reconnecting defence and society must be the cornerstone of home defence and resilience strategy.
In particular, I welcome the ambition to expand the cadet force by 30% by 2030, with a longer-term ambition of reaching 250,000 cadets alongside the education department. That matters because the cadet force helps young people understand the Armed Forces, gain skills and qualifications, and see a pathway into future service. Critically, it opens up opportunities for young people from diverse backgrounds across the country. That supports both national resilience and economic growth.
But this cannot just be about numbers. As Michael Martins of the British Foreign Policy Group has argued, our defence strategy must engage the rest of society. That means building a compelling national narrative that wins public support, builds cross-party consensus and reminds people that national security is not the business of the Government alone but the business of this whole nation. That is the challenge we face.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I share the gratitude already expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for securing this debate. In the short time available I will make just three brief observations, and I assure the Minister that none of them would lead to much expense.
First, on faith communities, I applaud that documents often refer to faith communities, but sometimes we appear to be wrapped up into a generic voluntary, community and faith sector. Faith groups are not just another example of voluntary or community activity; their reach goes much deeper into every corner of society. Their numbers far outweigh other bodies. They have different decision-making structures and are often networked in complex but effective ways, and many have significant links to the memberships of international bodies.
Our faith groups can and will have a major role to play in any situation that requires civil engagement and response, but that requires them to be seen as what they are, not lumped into a more convenient category. I am very grateful in my own diocese that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority fully recognises that distinctiveness. Having a very informed and supportive mayor means that we are recognised for who we are, and I believe that we make a major contribution already to civil society, as we could in terms of preparedness for a war situation.
Secondly, one word that has been uttered several times today is resilience. When I devoted my “Thought for the Day” on Radio 4 last Monday morning—that is an advert—to an exploration of that concept, I had not at that point decided that I would speak today. What I suggested then—that moral resilience is just as vital as military—remains my firm belief. Moral resilience in the face of war, or the threat of war, matters because war is not just about defending territory; it is about defending the values that underpin our society. Those currently attacking us online are deliberately seeking to pick away at those values, so the thrust of our response must be to bolster the principles of a just and open society. It must not undermine them.
Civil liberties matter, including the right to protest peacefully. The expression of diverse and dissenting viewpoints, legitimately held within Britain and in the public square, lies at the heart of who we are as a nation. These are not “nice to haves” or values that can be readily disposed of should they prove inconvenient. They are what has helped many of us to be proud of Britain, as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, reminded us—and being able to be proud of our country is pretty vital.
Finally, and briefly, any incorporation of civilians or civilian organisations into the defence of the realm must ensure that there is absolutely no scope for the creation or legitimation of the kinds of paramilitary or vigilante groups that presently so deeply scar the reputations of many nations. With those provisos, I am grateful that matters of civil preparedness are now being taken seriously.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I sincerely thank my noble friend for her excellent introduction and for talking about the national conversation. My point is that this national conversation needs to be very honest. Do not let us have a return to the 1980s, when the Government pretended you could survive nuclear war with their disgraceful leaflet Protect and Survive, which suggested that you could cover your dining table and hide under it and you would be okay.
I was surprised when the Government chose to vote against the UN resolution on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. I bring this up because, as the Minister knows—I hope he is going himself—next week the review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will start in New York. There is no civil defence against nuclear war, so we should not pretend to the population that there is. But I hope that the Government, as chair of the P5, will seriously look at risk reduction. The last two NPT conferences have abysmally failed, and I hope this one will at the very least make a strong statement about how nuclear war cannot be fought and would never be won. I wish the Minister all the luck with that.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I echo the gratitude that everybody has expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for this debate. The interest in it suggests that we need more time, and I suggest that government time should be made available to extend it properly.
The Government talk about a whole-of-society approach, but where is it? The helpful Library briefing suggests that little progress has been made since the Commons Defence Committee report said that the UK “lacks a plan” on homeland defence. It said that cross-government working on homeland defence and resilience was
“nowhere near where it needs to be”.
Websites like Prepare and Ready Scotland focus on disasters such as flooding, fire, storm damage and power cuts and they provide useful checklists, but they give no guidance on where people should turn to in a war scenario.
Technology has changed mightily since the last war, but people know that we had the Home Guard, civil defence, the Royal Observer Corps and many volunteer organisations engaging citizens across the piece. Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that this is irrelevant in a nuclear war, but we are hoping that something short of that would be the worst scenario. By common consent, we are already in a war situation, with deniable threats to our critical infrastructure, including arson attacks, digital disruption, other cyber invasions, hybrid attacks and misinformation. But citizens surely need to know how they can deal with these, share information and help to prevent them—or at least secure a quick recovery. Russian submarines, ships and planes are already invading our air and sea spaces, and not with benign interest. Breaching a major pipeline or severing cables would cause major and sustained disruption to daily life. People need to know how they should act.
I am pleased that this House has established the Select Committee on National Resilience, which echoes one around five years ago and which I hope will advance the agenda. Just today, as has already been mentioned, a cross-party group of MPs led by Lib Dem Michael Martin announced an advertising campaign to highlight our lack of military preparedness for war. But, according to a poll, the majority of citizens do not believe that the UK is prepared for a major conflict and, perhaps understandably, do not want services to be cut in order to boost defence. There is the dilemma.
We need cross-party, all-of-society engagement to confront the real and growing threats and to ensure that we can build the necessary military and civilian response before it is too late. I plead with the Minister: it really is time for the Government to launch this; to engage citizens fully; to reach out across all parties and all aspects of society, including the public and private sectors; and to build not just awareness but real resilience so that the country is prepared because, currently, it is not.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. This is a timely debate. Sadly, the impossibly short speaking time precludes a normal wind-up, so I hope that noble Lords will indulge me.
I want to talk about money, consequences and national conversation. You cannot sensibly discuss civil preparedness for war without also embracing our military readiness for war. If we are militarily on the front foot and prepared with all the necessary technology, assets and personnel, it may be possible to avoid war, shorten any conflict or mitigate the consequences of war, with a beneficial effect on our civil preparedness. Yet, nine months on from the defence review being published, the Chancellor still does not have a funding plan on her desk. There has been a scathing critique by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, which I shall not repeat it because he has, far more eloquently and authoritatively than I could ever have done, brought us up to date on where we are.
Let me make some suggestions to the Minister. I want to see a much more politically muscular approach adopted towards the Treasury. The Chagos deal, which is moribund for the foreseeable future, allows the Government to free up imminent payments that would have gone to Mauritius now to go to defence. As the MoD struggles to balance the books, with the current £3.5 billion black hole, it has to prioritise. Getting warships out of maintenance seems a glaringly obvious priority.
The lack of clarity on funding and the absence of the defence investment plan have real-time consequences for safety and national security. When the Middle East war was triggered, we had no warships or naval assets in the region. It took weeks to get HMS “Dragon” out there. That is shocking. Defence companies are existing on a wing and a prayer, which is not sustainable. They need to be clear about their own financial planning, investment and retention of a skilled workforce. They need an order book. Who or what is blocking the defence investment plan?
The national conversation proposed in the SDR is sensible. The question being asked this afternoon is: where is it? I hope that the Minister and his colleagues are not facing the Whitehall block of every department under the sun wanting to get its oar in and create stasis and stagnation. We do not have time.
I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Defence should lead this, and lead it now. I am prepared to help the Minister. I have ideas about how to structure this and deliver it. Some of it can happen quickly. I make myself available to meet his officials, and I hope that that proposal might appeal to him.
These Benches do not always disagree with the Government, but this debate is another important opportunity to repeat to the Government the anger, frustration and warnings of failing political leadership. We need change. What can the Minister report by way of progress and encouragement?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Harris—it is very good to see her in person again—for bringing forward this really important debate.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about whether we can have a longer debate on these matters—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned this to me beforehand—let us see. That would be really helpful for all of us in taking this forward. Notwithstanding the King’s Speech, which will I am sure include a day on defence and foreign affairs—if that is agreed—there may be some other point to have that debate. I am sure that all the people who have spoken in this debate would value it, so that people can make longer contributions—so that is a very good suggestion.
Let me set out the context for this, because it is really important. A number of noble Lords made the point about the need to engage the public. For a number of years since what has been designated as the end of the Cold War, the country has focused on the terrorist threat—that is, on Afghanistan, Iraq and those sorts of threats to our country. The threat of the sort of conflict that we face now is, in many respects, something that people think is of a bygone age and not relevant to contemporary society. What we have seen recently—although we can argue what “recently” is—has been a rude awakening for all of us. This is not to ignore any terrorist threat, but there is a need to recalibrate to the state-on-state threats and the geopolitical change that there has been.
Alongside that, as the noble Baroness pointed out, it is really important to understand that warfare has changed as well. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others made the point that it not just a tank versus a tank or a fighter aircraft versus a fighter aircraft: it is the threat to underwater cables and threats of cyber attacks, fake news and all of those other types of grey-zone warfare that need us to respond. That is why it is so important to have this conversation with our population. In other words, the traditional perception of war is not as relevant to today’s threats as it would have been in the past; it is not irrelevant, but the threats have changed, so we need to build a multiplicity of responses.
As noble Lords will know, the Cabinet Office has the overall responsibility for co-ordination across government, with the home defence programme, but defence obviously has a very important role to play within that. The MoD, for example, has recognised that we need to respond to the challenge in the report and to move to war-readiness in order to respond to the changed circumstances in which we operate. We are, therefore, trying to do that.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the urgency here. There is this idea that nothing has happened, or that it has not happened quickly and needs to happen more quickly. I totally and utterly accept that, particularly in terms of the point that the noble Baroness and others made about the need for us to involve citizens. There was a recent meeting with 38 local resilience forums, which were brought together to discuss what they might do to respond to the changing circumstances. We need more of those sorts of thing. There have also been two big conferences of private industry chief executives to see how private industry might respond to all this. Again, more of that needs to happen.
We are drafting a defence readiness Bill to ensure that we have the legislative framework within which we can respond to some of the challenges that we may meet in future. I understand the impatience and the need for us to act as quickly as possible—we will do so. I very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for bringing this debate forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, talked about the need to inform the public. I could not agree with him more. It is not only about informing the public through traditional media; we have to get into social media and multimedia, particularly if we want to speak to our young people. I am sure that many noble Lords have children, or, like me, grandchildren. They do not read newspapers. They get their information from social media, yet some of us still put out press releases. There is nothing wrong with that, but we have to get smarter if we want to get this information across to them.
I could not agree more with the point about how we use civil volunteers. Let us take this on. All of us have to be a bit more confident in talking about civil volunteers and all the things that we might use to support resilience. We have to ignore the barracking that we will get to do with “Dad’s Army” and all that. We have to get over that because the population understands that what we are talking about is, where possible, using people’s experience and ability to help in the face of a national emergency.
That is why, in the Armed Forces Bill, should it go through Parliament, we suggested increasing the maximum age of reserves to 65. Nobody is expecting a fully-fledged combat soldier of 65—though there may be one or two. The point is that a 65 year-old plumber, electrician, doctor, nurse, surveyor, architect, civil engineer, or any other member of all of those professional occupations and trades, could be of immense use. Yet the headlines in many of the papers were that the Government were seeking to recreate “Dad’s Army”. That is the sort of nonsense we must have the confidence to take on because, when you speak to people, they say that, of course, this is something—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I was saying, I reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that this is a really important debate for which we certainly need more time. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Farmer, Lord Sikka—in a particular way—Lord Rogan, Lord Wallace and Lord Bailey, and the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Chester and the Bishop of Manchester, talked about pride, patriotism, culture, self-worth and self-esteem. This is a big question for the Government and society, and I wonder whether we could sometimes be a bit more confident and strident in what we say about it. I say that because, just beneath the surface, there is patriotism, pride and a sense of self-worth and community.
I will give an example that I am sure many noble Lords in this Committee would use. In a few weeks’ time, on 27 June, it will be Armed Forces Day. I guarantee that, across our country, in all four nations and all regions, there will be numerous examples of pride in our country, in our Armed Forces and in what we do. That will be demonstrated and celebrated in numerous ways—not by everyone, but there will be a massive series of events that will celebrate and do all the things that we are talking about.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who talked about inequality and what we should do for a fairer society, but that debate takes place within a democracy that allows those debates to happen and in a society that allows us to freely express fundamentally different views, to freely celebrate different faiths and to worship in the way that we want. Those freedoms have not just been granted; at times, they have had to be fought for and defended. Events such as Armed Forces Day need to remind people about those things.
Of course, the biggest examples of that are Remembrance Sunday and Remembrance Day. Every single community has some sort of remembrance event where we do the very things that everyone here has said are important. At the heart of that are our Armed Forces, the cadets—which the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, mentioned, and which we are seeking to expand—and other uniformed organisations, such as the Scouts, Brownies and Guides, marching with pride through our streets with their parents. There is also wreath-laying at various memorials. That is the sort of thing we need to capture and to perhaps speak up about more than we do. It gives me the sense that we can do these things, and we perhaps ought to use them to remind ourselves of what they represent and speak to. It would be helpful if we could bottle that and use it more in many other examples.
Alongside that, if you look in the strategic defence review, we are going to talk to the Department for Education and others—we need to do this—about what we might do with our schools, colleges, universities and other institutions in order to take forward these debates and arguments, which are particularly important, in an appropriate way.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. She will know the Government’s position on deterrence, which is that we support the NPT. We will be going to the conference in New York to try to ensure that the treaty remains as strong and as important here as it has been over there.
I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about flood defence, climate change and the need to be resilient in the face of some of the challenges that we see around those issues. Of course, how we will do that will be part of any plan as well.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her offer of a meeting. Of course I will meet her and others to discuss how we can take the national conversation forward. She made points about our spending and military readiness. We recognise that we need war readiness. Various actions are being taken. The debate around the level of investment will continue; the debate that the noble Baroness has initiated will certainly be part of that.
As I have said before, a whole-of-society approach and effort is needed. This is about our freedoms, our democracy and our country, along with our friends and allies across the world, defending the sorts of things that we would all defend. That is in all our interests. Patriotism is not something that belongs to one party or one aspect of society. All of us can unite around pride in our nation.
I finish on this point. Sometimes, I think, we feel almost as though talking about patriotism and pride is something that belongs to a bygone age. I do not think that that is true. Patriotism and pride are perhaps of more relevance today than they have ever been. All we have done today is be reminded of that. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country and proud of the things we stand for; we should remember that sometimes, and a reminder of that for us all should be at the heart of any national conversation.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Skidelsky
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on Wednesday 15 April. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to his family and friends.
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 17 April, of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and, with effect from 20 April, of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.
Schoolchildren: Swimming
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cryer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the levels of swimming attainment among school children.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, swimming and water safety are vital life skills, and every child should have the opportunity to learn how to swim and how to keep themself safe around water before they leave primary school. The latest figures indicate that 73% of children can swim 25 metres by the time they leave primary school. We are focused on improving that figure through our forthcoming changes to the curriculum and the support for schools to deliver PE and sport.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, but I have a slightly different figure for 11 year-olds. According to Swim England, only one in four 11 year-olds leaving primary school can swim 25 metres. That is not entirely unrelated to the fact that we have lost 500 pools in the last 16 years. That is not the gross figure; that is the net figure.
Will my noble friend undertake to publish all information and statistics relating to school swimming attainment? Will she also undertake to work with Ministers at the DCMS, among others, to drive up the number of pools, so that the number of operating pools at the end of this Parliament is greater than at the beginning? Will she also undertake to work with Swim England, among others, to reverse this downward trend and make sure that we have more children able to swim when they finish primary school? The bottom line is that swimming is the one sport that can make the difference between life and death.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Starting with the last point first, we are already working with Swim England, among others, to improve both the resource and the curriculum when it comes to swimming and water safety. My noble friend is right about the big fall in pools between 2010 and 2026. In fact, I have a slightly higher figure than 500: my figure is 591 fewer pools. Of course, that is a challenge not only for schools but for local government. I know it is something that colleagues at the DCMS are not only concerned about but have also included in the additional investment they are providing for community facilities.
Baroness Davies of Devonport (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, for bringing up this subject. He mentioned the loss of pools. I add that 1,200 pools are now more than 40 years old and are coming to the end of their maintenance life. We are losing 25 pools a year at the moment, which are not being replaced. Obviously, wages are up, energy bills are now twice what they were before Covid and those facilities are very expensive to maintain. The loss of that water space means that children are risking swimming in dangerous places instead of in swimming pools, which is where they should swim.
In the 1980s, I gave evidence to the Select Committee that helped to get swimming on the national curriculum. We are not getting our kids swimming. As mentioned, 25% are not learning. At Easter, I went to see a school where they brought a pool in and managed to get 150 classes in instead of its normal 10 because it costs £250 to bus their children to the local swimming pool. Can the Government please tell me that they will think outside the box about how we make sure that our children are taught to swim, because it is a vital skill, not a luxury?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We agree that it is a vital skill, not a luxury, which is why it and water safety are key parts of the national curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. We are also aware that factors including pressures around energy costs and ageing facilities may impact the future provision of sports facilities, including swimming pools. That is why, in June last year, the Government committed £400 million to transform sports facilities, including public leisure, across the whole of the UK over the next four years.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I return to the data and, in particular, swimming attainment by region and socio-economic background. I think many in your Lordships’ House fear that there is a huge disparity. If there is, what plans do His Majesty’s Government have to close that gap in regional variances? If the Minister has the data, it would be really useful. If she does not, will she write to us?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that there is a disparity between ethnic groups, in particular, and between more and less disadvantaged children, which is why this is a national entitlement through the national curriculum. Clearly, we need to do more to ensure that every child is getting opportunities, such as, for example, the £300,000 per year to a consortium led by the Youth Sports Trust to deliver Inclusion 2028, which is a programme that upskills teachers to deliver high-quality, inclusive PE school sport and physical activity, including swimming, to pupils with SEND.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that these pools did not just disappear? They were part of the austerity model that was pursued by the last Tory Government. Have they learned that lesson or are they going to pursue similar policies which starve public resources?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend has put rather more clearly what I slightly pussy-footed around in drawing a comparison between 2010 and 2026. He is right. Those 591 pools did not just disappear by virtue of planning. They disappeared because of a failure of the last Government to invest in not just swimming but local government and public facilities for activity.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is not just a question of young people, although that is terribly important. A very high proportion of adults in this country cannot swim. They may have had opportunities, or they may not, but can we also encourage adults, older people, to learn to swim? They are never too old to learn, and they can act as guardians to help others who may get into difficulties. Can we please encourage older people also to learn?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My ministerial responsibilities do not quite stretch to adults and swimming. However, it is a very fair point and, as we have discussed in response to this Question, I will continue working with my ministerial colleagues in DCMS and in MHCLG to ensure that there is provision for adults as well as children to be able to engage in sporting activity, including swimming.
Lord Storey (LD)
Swimming is an important part of water safety, and we welcome the fact that the Government have included classroom-based water safety education in the curriculum from September. Bystander rescue, including members of the public safely rescuing a person in distress, remains a weak link in the chain of survival for drowning. In the review of the PE curriculum, will the Minister consider including safe water rescue such as line throwing, using public life-saving equipment and participation in life-saving sport?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that it is already the case that in the strengthened RSHE guidance we have increased the focus on water safety. We have the opportunity, in the review that we are doing post the curriculum and assessment review, to redraft the national PE curriculum. In doing so, I am sure that some of the points made by the noble Lord about essential life-saving competencies will be borne in mind.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I have to declare my interest, but I try to swim every day. Sadly, I am not quite as fast as my noble friend, but I keep trying.
Could the Minister update the House? The Prime Minister made an announcement in June 2025 about school sports partnerships. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that partnerships are happening with national governing bodies and local clubs in relation to swimming, including for top-up classes?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well done to the noble Baroness: I am rather more a floater than a swimmer, it would be fair to say. She is right that last June the Prime Minister announced a new national approach to PE and school sport in the PE and School Sport Network, which will bring together the department and schools, along with national governing bodies and local clubs. We are in the process of procuring a national delivery partner for that, and we expect that partner to be in place from autumn 2026.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that in the Navy we are all taught to swim. Does she agree with me that it is rather important that we enhance our swimming ability, because the reduced number of ships we have do not now have the weapons they require to defend themselves, and unfortunately that may mean that people have to swim more than they should?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is always clever at turning a question to his advantage. I will simply say that I absolutely know, as I think he does, the significance that this Government place on increased investment in our defence capacity, which is why we have seen the largest increase in defence spending pledged since the end of the Cold War, and why I know this is being actively considered not only by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence but by the Chancellor.
Charity Giving
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the finding in the Charities Aid Foundation’s UK Giving Report 2026, published in March, that the total amount donated to charity by the British public has fallen for the first time in five years; and whether they have any plans to promote a renewed culture of giving in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
This Government are proud of our incredible culture of giving in the UK and are committed to doing what we can to promote and foster it. While the CAF research shows a fall in overall donations, charitable giving has broadly kept up with inflation over the last decade and the proportion of those who give is the same as the previous year. Published last week, the Government’s plan for growing place-based philanthropy, Our Place to Give, will create stronger enabling conditions to strengthen links between donors and places, build better partnerships, and unlock further philanthropy and giving.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that response. The road map that she mentions is indeed an excellent and most welcome initiative to boost place-based philanthropy, and it is much appreciated by the voluntary and community sector. However, the fall in the amount donated is of great concern to charities, which are under increasing pressure to meet growing demands while their incomes are falling. Will His Majesty’s Government consider introducing policies that promote giving, both from corporates and individuals? Examples might be simplifying gift aid, encouraging payroll giving, or indeed anything that might renew the culture of giving, which, as my noble friend said, has always been so central to life in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is important that we focus on how we can support an already incredibly generous public, without playing down the reasons why people might be reluctant to give. We are putting in place measures to tackle the cost of living issues affecting people currently. As for some of the ways that my noble friend mentions, HMRC is providing over £2.5 billion of relief through gift aid and higher rate relief, and reviewing current gift aid claiming processes to try to help charities gain as much as they can through that route. I know my noble friend is interested in payroll giving, which 4,000 UK businesses offer. We are actively supporting ways to encourage more people to give. We will continue to work with the sector to ensure that we maximise funding through personal, public and corporate giving.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, according to the Charities Aid Foundation report, nearly one in three non-donors indicated that they were not engaged with or interested in charities, with an even higher figure for young people. Initiatives such as the Family Volunteering Club show how young people can engage in building relationships with charities through volunteering. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done, particularly in our schools, to encourage and support a culture of engagement with charities among young people?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The first time I was asked to volunteer was through school, so I know that the noble Baroness makes a valuable point. Volunteers are critical to civil society. We are committed to enabling more people to get involved in working with the voluntary sector and to modernising volunteering through the civil society covenant, which will promote flexible working for modern work-life commitments. The noble Baroness focused on children and young people, and I thought the CAF report made an interesting point. Through our youth strategy, which intersects with this and, helpfully, is led by the same Minister, we are looking at ways to get more young people involved.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will recognise the role of trustees, not just in helping to raise funds but in undertaking the statutory and regulatory functions within charities—all unpaid and in the spirit of public service. An NCVO report found that 85% of charities are struggling to recruit high-quality trustees. Can the Minister say what the Government can do to support charities in recruiting, training and retaining high-quality trustees? Will she join me in acknowledging the important role of trustees in running charities? I declare an interest as, like many of us, I am a trustee of charities.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Unfortunately, when those of us on the Front Bench took up our roles, we had to give up our trustee roles. I know that noble Lords across the House are committed to working directly with charities and giving their expertise. One of the first things that the Government committed to was the civil society covenant. The civil society council, to be chaired by the NCVO’s chief executive, will meet quarterly in Downing Street to drive forward the covenant’s implementation. I have no doubt that this will be one of the big issues it discusses, but, like everyone in your Lordships’ House, I encourage more people to get involved where they can.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to turn to the micro level of this, we do not carry change in our pockets now so many charity collections are not going to work. What are the Government doing to make sure people can feel confident about using a card to make payments and making sure with the banks that we are secure when we give spontaneously?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
A huge number of charities now use card readers, and it is shifting quite rapidly. The noble Lord is correct that a lot of people would not necessarily have change. I am not clear, but I will go back and check whether the department has seen a corelation between people not carrying cash and the reported fall in personal donations. It is an interesting point and one made well.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I particularly welcome the Minister’s earlier response referring to place-based donations. Many local charities are quite small, and small charities are the most vulnerable. Can the Minister give us more of an indication as to how small charities can be supported? They are the ones which are most in touch with their local communities and most likely to go to the wall if donations are falling.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There are two things to say in relation to smaller charities. Some of the measures put in place last year mean that smaller organisations pay less employer contributions. That was done to support smaller organisations. I am happy to arrange a briefing for the right reverend Prelate on the place-based approach to philanthropy, which is around making sure that you can leverage large amounts of money. It is entirely intended to make sure that smaller organisations, as well as larger ones, can benefit from the huge generosity and opportunities that philanthropy offers.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as the report makes clear, this is the first reduction in giving for five years. If the British public were still giving at the level they were a decade ago, another £12.5 billion would be available to charities across the country. The Minister is right that the British people are a generous lot. However, does she agree that part of the problem is that they balk at paying the extra tax bills that charities are facing through additional employment costs and national insurance contributions? For the National Trust alone, this costs £10 million per year.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord will be entirely aware of the difficult decisions this Government had to make on winning the election in 2024. My noble friend Lord Livermore is not here, but I think he would probably refer that back to the Benches opposite. If the noble Lord has not read the report—it is a really interesting read—that was not one of the specific things I recall coming up in it. We would prefer to look at it in a much more positive way and to make the case for people giving. We will continue to do that as a government.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, the new Queen Elizabeth Trust has been established to regenerate shared community spaces, reflecting Her late Majesty’s commitment to public service. These spaces could be of enormous benefit to young people, who, according to the Charities Aid Foundation, have the lowest level of charitable engagement of any age group at the moment. Do the Government have any plans to promote youth volunteering, particularly as a means of skills development? If so, does my noble friend the Minister agree that organisations such as the Queen Elizabeth Trust, as well as the King’s Trust, could help mobilise that youth involvement?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Like other noble Lords and my noble friend, I was very pleased to see the announcement of the launch of the Queen Elizabeth Trust over the weekend. Her late Majesty, whose 100th birthday it would have been tomorrow, was exceptional at bringing people together. In response to my noble friend’s question around youth engagement and social action, we recognise that participation in youth social action, including volunteering, builds young people’s skills and increases their confidence. We are supporting the #iwill movement, which aims to increase the scale, sustainability and impact of youth social action and volunteering. I have already referenced the national youth strategy, and this is part of what we are trying to encourage through that.
Trains: Punctuality
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans train operators have to improve the punctuality of passenger train services in every season of the year.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, performance is already improving, as the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act enables management of operations and infrastructure together, progressively, for each route and operating company. Harmonising performance measurement, reducing driver shortages and improving industrial relations are already making a difference. Passing the Railways Bill will enable Great British Railways to drive further systemic action, share good practice and encourage innovation, technology and investment, including on climate change, further improving performance, whatever the season.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his very comprehensive Answer and the very important work that he is doing to improve the quality of our railway. When I was responsible for delivery in No. 10 years ago, I asked DfT officials why performance was so much worse in the autumn than in the rest of the year. They rolled their eyes and said, “Leaves on the line. The leaves fall off the trees in the autumn”. I said, “Oh yes, I realise that—what I want to know is why that takes you by surprise every year. Where’s the plan for autumn?” The result was that there was a plan for autumn and, if we look at the data from 2003 to 2013, we see that autumn performance improved every year. Why do people who run the railways so often leap for improving excuses rather than focusing on grinding out improvements in performance?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The prevailing culture on the British railway system for the past 30 years is to blame somebody else when things go wrong. That is why the Government have come forward with the proposition to create Great British Railways. As I know from my own experience of running Transport for London, you want somebody in charge who has nowhere to go who fixes problems. Autumn is regular—it happens every year—and so does winter and so does summer. The railway has plans that are altered according to the weather, and the weather is getting worse because of climate change. I am confident that the structure that we are going to put in will drive better performance in all those seasons.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what are the Government planning to do to put a stop to the current situation where Northern services in the north-west have had their timetable cut by half on Sundays, because Sundays fall outside of conductors’ regular working week? When will that be resolved so that passengers can travel by train whatever the season and whatever the day of the week?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is completely right—the Northern conductors’ dispute started in 2019—actually, before 2019—but there was no obvious movement on it for many years prior to the accession to power of this Government. I am hopeful that there will be a resolution very shortly; it is a complex issue, but we are on the case. She is right that people in the north deserve better on Sundays and, indeed, on every other day of the week.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that, in future, when a train is cancelled or severely delayed for over 30 minutes, it is the public purse that will reimburse people for those delays and cancellations? How is the department intending to budget for this, and from which budget does he intend to take that money?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think that the noble Baroness will find that the public purse is recompensing that delay replay now. It is a good scheme to compensate people properly for significant delays, but the object, which I have been talking about in this Question, is to reduce the delays by better management of the railways. That is what is important here. It is not compensation that should count but running the railway properly.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, in the last year, just under 10% of British train journeys were either cancelled, truncated or arrived more than 10 minutes late. The prime causes identified were unavailability of crew or fleet and signal and points failures. Recently, my wife and I holidayed in Japan for almost three weeks, travelling on national, regional and local trains. Every single train, without exception, arrived to the very minute on time and delivered us to our destination to the very minute on time. Will we ever attain that level of reliability?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Virtually the whole of the world, in countries that run railways, is incredulous that this country managed to separate the infrastructure from the operations for more than 30 years. That is the primary reason why people have spent so much time in the railways discussing not how you fix delays but whose fault it was and who pays the compensation for them. The Japanese railways are renowned for their reliability, but one thing that the Japanese have never done is to contemplate splitting the infrastructure from the operations. That is what Great British Railways will solve.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we will not get improvements in performance on the railways unless we also get improvements in productivity and efficiency of staff. In January this year, the RMT put out a press release boasting that it had secured a 3.8% pay rise for its Network Rail staff, with no productivity or efficiency conditions attached. Can the noble Lord say whether Ministers will be insisting that future pay settlements will be directly linked to productivity?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The previous Network Rail pay settlement, which was carried out but curiously not much publicised by the Government, produced not only a one-off productivity improvement by a substantial amount but continuing productivity, so the staff involved in the pay deal for Network Rail this year are delivering increased productivity compared with that agreed at the time of the previous pay rise. This Government have been able to do that. We have settled over 50 pay deals in the last 12 months with virtually no industrial action, which is entirely contrary to the record of the previous Government.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend explain whether, in addition to making the trains run on time, he has any plans with Great British Railways to offer some food on the trains? My journey from Cornwall took five hours and we were offered sandwiches, but they had not arrived. It was the same last week: we were offered sandwiches, but they did not arrive. The staff are doing their best to serve customers, but if they cannot supply sandwiches, maybe that should be put out to the private sector.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Of course, the irony of my noble friend’s journey to Fowey last week is that it was the private sector train company that failed to supply the sandwiches to him. It is a serious point and his complaint has been well aired, because he wrote to me, he wrote to the managing director of the train company, I think he wrote to the Secretary of State and he has now raised in the House of Lords that the trolley did not have any sandwiches on it. It is a valid point that the customer offer which is made to people should be reliable, and a five-hour journey without anything to eat is not much fun. I hope he got a drink though.
Lord Morse (CB)
I have a very brief question, because I know we are supposed to be brief. Does the Minister think that the quality of our transport services is helping us to deal with the problem of underemployment in this country, or is the idea of having to use the transport system a further disincentive to go into work?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is a very reasonable point. People should be able to rely on public transport, particularly those who do not have access to a car of their own. One reason why I am so passionate, and the Government are passionate, about good performance on the railway, and indeed on the rest of the public transport system, is so that people can rely on it to go to work and create economic growth in this country.
Lord Redwood (Con)
When will we be able to catch an HS2 train to Birmingham? This is a fully integrated, nationalised railway with enormous financial resource, but it never goes anywhere.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord needs to get up to speed with the history of HS2, because it has been comprehensively mismanaged by every Government who have had anything to do with it, and by the board and, sadly, by the management of the company that is building it. This Government have faced the most enormous task of sorting it out. I know that Mark Wild, who successfully managed to open the Elizabeth line after many delays from the people who were constructing it, and Mike Brown, who is the chair of HS2, are working as hard as they can to get HS2 open as soon as they can, having first established how much it will cost and how long it will take to deliver—which are two facts that were unavailable at the time this Government took office.
Business Improvement District Ballots: Digital Voting
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential for piloting digital voting in Business Improvement District ballots in order to improve participation and test secure digital voting systems.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the very important role that BIDs can play in regenerating their local areas and I thank my noble friend for his work across BIDs in London. In the Pride in Place Strategy published on 25 September, we committed to strengthening the BID model by expanding property owner BIDs, raising standards and consulting on improvements to voting procedures in BID ballots, which will include introducing an option for digital voting. Further details will be published in due course.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which leads to my further question. Business improvement district ballots involve a clearly defined electorate of registered voters. They are overseen by local authority returning officers, and they determine real financial commitments through the bid levy. Yet participation is constrained by the continued reliance on postal-only voting, which can be administratively cumbersome for businesses and local authorities. If the Government recognise that potential, will they now move beyond assessment and commit to enabling a small number of pilot schemes for secure digital voting in BID ballots and bring forward the necessary legislative power to do so, subject to appropriate safeguards?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have heard that the postal voting system does not always work as effectively as it should for BID ballots and we want to make sure that BID ballots are as efficient and as accessible as possible, which is why we have committed to consulting on those improvements to BID voting procedures. We will consult on the introduction of digital voting for BID ballots as part of this, including how it will work in practical terms. Of course, we need to make absolutely sure that it can be done safely as well. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, we will then decide how the proposal should be implemented.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, a quick look at international comparisons for introducing digital voting suggests that experiments in other advanced democratic countries have shown that it is okay at the local level, where the likelihood of cyber attack is low, but at the national level it is open to too many risks to try it out. Is that also the Government’s view?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We absolutely understand the interest in online voting but, when it comes to electing representatives, the integrity and security of the process must come first. At present, serious concerns are shared internationally about the risks of online voting, including cyber threats, fraud and the challenge of ensuring a fully secure and anonymous ballot. That is why we currently have no plans to introduce online voting for statutory elections in the UK, but we are focused on strengthening the current systems for absent voting, such as postal and proxy voting, so that they remain secure, reliable and accessible for everyone.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, is right about the importance of generating interests in BIDs wherever they may happen to be across the country, and there is inadequate participation in voting in general when it comes to BIDs. Can the Minister please indicate the timetable that she is talking about for the process of consultation, in relation to both trialling digital voting and other elements of the process of introducing BIDs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that BIDs bring very significant investment in the areas they operate in. There are now more than 340 BIDs in the UK; cumulatively, they invest more than £169 million each year in local areas. We need to ensure that we are doing our very best to ensure that those BIDs operate in a way that works for the people who are engaged in them. We want to get this consultation and its analysis done as quickly as possible so that, if we consider it possible and safe to introduce digital voting for them, we can get on with that and do it as quickly as we can.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I have recently been involved in election monitoring programmes, for example in Moldova, so I am very aware of the threat of cyber attacks that the noble Lord raised. When the Minister looks at the security of digital voting systems, can she draw on the experience of organisations such as the OSCE, so that—even though she says we may not be use them at the moment—we can make sure that our systems are watertight and safe from cyber attacks in the future?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly as she reminds me of the days when I was doing election monitoring in Moldova and Georgia, which was a fascinating experience. I very much appreciated then the work of the OSCE, and still do. She is quite right that we have to do all we can to make sure that voting is safe. I believe that the Representation of the People Bill is completing its Commons stages today and will come to our House in due course. Where good practice is developed and promoted by the OSCE and others, we will look at that with great interest.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, BIDs do much good work for our town centres, but this is being blown away by the massive damage caused to our town centres by higher national insurance contributions, higher business rates, increased minimum wages and employment regulation. For example, UKHospitality figures show over 100,000 job losses since this Government came to power. Will the Government recognise the impact of these damaging policies on our town centres and reverse course?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The decline in our town centres—I speak from personal experience—started long before this Government came to power. Our Government are delivering on their manifesto commitment to protect the high street and rebalance the business rates system by introducing permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We will bring forward our high streets strategy later this year.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Is my noble friend aware of research showing that low-paid workers are much more likely to spend their wages on the local high street and in the local economy? Will she join me in encouraging noble Lords to talk to workers on the national minimum wage so that they realise what a difference that rise will make to their lives and those of their families?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that everybody should be paid a proper wage for the job they do. She is quite right that money earned in local areas is often spent locally by those on lower wages, so it is very important that we do that. One thing that really affected our high streets was the legislation that made shop theft of below £200 a summary-only offence. That has now been removed by this Government so that we can make our town centres not only vibrant and viable but safe.
Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 and 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 April.
Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 March be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 15 April.
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February be approved.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 April.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 28A, 28B, 28C, 29A, 29B and 29C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 28A, 28B, 28C, 29B and 29C were tabled by the Government in the other place to correct an error arising from amendments made in your Lordships’ House on Report. Without these amendments, trading standards officers in Wales would lose the ability to issue certain fixed penalty notices for the existing offence of proxy purchasing for a short period of time. The error would also have prevented trading standards in Wales from being able to issue fixed penalty notices for the sale of tobacco to those under the age of 18 before the smoke-free generation policy takes effect on 1 January 2027. This is in contrast to England where trading standards will be able to issue fixed penalty notices for these offences. This was obviously an unintended error and, if left unresolved, would have created a difference between the enforcement regimes in England and Wales. I am pleased therefore that we have been able to resolve the issue with these six narrow amendments, and I hope noble Lords will be supportive in their considerations. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I understand the background, having been involved in the early stages of the Bill. Nevertheless, it upsets a great many people in that industry that the Government have not listened to the strong representations of the retailers and those who have knowledge of the industry. We have a situation now where we have a £200 penalty, which is huge by any yardstick, for the revised incidences. We are expecting a new Welsh Government fairly soon, and they may not be too happy with what has now been amended. However, I will say no more than that I think the time will come when the present Government and—I am sorry to say—those on my own side who believe in this idea as a whole will accept that it is totally out of date in relation to what is happening in the world. What we really need is a proper understanding of how we educate people not to take up smoking.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I should be clear that, given this Motion brings forward an amendment that corrects a technical error and the Government have explained their rationale, we will not oppose it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank your Lordships’ House for its attentive scrutiny throughout the passage of the Bill. I pay tribute to the Front Benches and to noble Lords on all sides of the House.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that, as I have explained and his own Front Bench has confirmed, these are purely technical amendments to make this area of the Bill workable. It is a matter that had much debate. I assure the noble Lord, as I have done on a number of occasions, that we have worked closely with retailers and will continue to do so. I appreciate that he is not a supporter of the Bill, and it is on that point that I differ with him.
I urge all noble Lords to accept these amendments and note that this afternoon marks the end of the Bill’s journey through Parliament. This is a landmark Bill that will create a smoke-free generation, and it will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation. I assure all noble Lords that it will save lives. I commend it to the House.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:35 - Division on Motion A2 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 284 / Noes: 158 - Motion A2 agreed.
17:18 - Division on Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) - Ayes: 259 / Noes: 180 - Motion C1 agreed.
17:31 - Division on Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 169 - Motion D1 agreed.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38J to 38P.
“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 214 insert—
“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
214A Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of protecting relevant children from a risk of harm (including harm presented by content), make provision by regulations requiring providers of specified internet services—
(a) to prevent access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services;
(b) to restrict access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.
(2) “Relevant child” means a child who is of, or under, a specified age (and different ages may be specified for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)).
(3) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes provision—
(a) about the steps that must or may be taken by a provider for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(b) about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) includes, for example, provision requiring a provider of an internet service to—
(a) limit the amount of time per day, or over the course of a specified period, for which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(b) limit the times of day at which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(c) restrict access by relevant children to a service or to a feature or functionality of a service by virtue of which—
(i) a user of the service could receive unsolicited contact from a person who is not known to the user;
(ii) a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by a person who is not known to the user;
(iii) a person who is not known to a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by the user;
(iv) a person who is not known to a user of the service could identify the actual or approximate location of the user.
(5) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(c) includes provision for a requirement to be an enforceable requirement for the purposes of Chapter 6 of Part 7.
(6) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the fact that children of different ages may be affected by an internet service, or a feature or functionality of an internet service, in different ways.
(7) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make provision applying any provision of this Act (with or without modifications);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions;
(f) make consequential provision.
(8) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(f) may amend or repeal primary legislation.
(9) OFCOM must, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) carry out such research or provide such advice as the Secretary of State may request for the purposes of making regulations under this section, and
(b) do so by such time, or within such period, as the Secretary of State may specify in the request.
(10) As soon as reasonably practicable after providing advice under subsection (9), OFCOM must publish the advice.
(11) In this section—
“primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.”
(3) In section 225 (parliamentary procedure for regulations), in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) regulations under section 214A(1),”.”
“Progress statement
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—
(a) what progress has been made towards making the first regulations under section 214A(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (inserted by section (Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services) of this Act) (“the first regulations”), and
(b) a timeline for making the first regulations.
(2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply where the first regulations have been made before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1).”
“Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services
(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 8 (child's consent in relation to information society services), after paragraph 2 insert—
“2A. The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) amend paragraph 1 so as to change the age for the time being specified in that paragraph (but not to an age lower than 13 years or higher than 16 years);
(b) make provision in relation to services specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations for a different age to apply for the purposes of paragraph 1 (but not lower than 13 years or higher than 16 years).
2B. Regulations under paragraph 2A are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
(3) After Article 8 insert—
“Article 8ZA
Child’s consent in relation to information society services: age verification
1. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about verifying—
(a) that a data subject who has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data in relation to the offer of information society services is at least the age for the time being specified in Article 8(1);
(b) in the case of a service specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under Article 8(2A)(b), that a data subject who has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data in relation to the offer of information society services is at least the age for the time being applicable by virtue of those regulations in relation to that service or description of service.
2. The provision that may be made by regulations under paragraph 1 includes—
(a) provision imposing requirements on persons specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations;
(b) provision about the steps that must or may be taken by such persons for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) provision about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(d) provision about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
3. Regulations under paragraph 1 may—
(a) make provision amending, repealing, revoking or applying (with or without modifications) any provision of the data protection legislation (within the meaning given by section 3(9) of the Data Protection Act 2018);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions.
4. Regulations under this Article are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
5. In paragraph 1, the reference to information society services does not include preventive or counselling services.””
“(aa) section (Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services);
(ab) section (Progress statement);
(ac) section (Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services);”
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall also speak to Motions A1, A2, D and D1. In this group, we will debate amendments on restricting social media for under-16s, digital literacy in the school curriculum and mobile phones.
I turn first to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which disagrees with Amendments 38J and 38P and proposes new Amendments 38Q and 38U. I will also speak to Motion A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Amendment 38Q would require social media services to set their own minimum age of access based on their children’s risk assessment under the Online Safety Act. Amendment 38R would amend UK GDPR, so that the digital age of consent is raised from 13 to 16 for some social networking services. Motion A2 seeks to amend government Amendments 38A to 38C, requiring the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Nash, and other noble Lords for their sustained commitment on these vital issues. Let me be clear that it is a commitment that the Government share; protecting children online is as much a priority for this Government as it is for noble Lords. The question is not whether but how and what action will be taken and who is involved in making sure that that action is right. It is to facilitate this that the Government launched their consultation in March.
I am pleased to see that the noble Lord’s revised amendment considers the variety of measures on which we are seeking views through the consultation. It acknowledges that there are numerous approaches to securing the safety and well-being of our children: a blanket ban for under-16s to access social media; restricting specific “addictive” features or functionalities and risky features; and raising the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR. This is what our consultation is focused on. This shows that the noble Lord agrees with the Government that it is important that we take not only swift action but the correct action. Let me be clear that the government consultation, and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment, is the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes that will last.
The Government’s amendment allows for clear and decisive action. Amendment 38Q, while well intentioned, may give too much discretion to services in setting age restrictions without considering the evidence from the Government’s consultation. Amendment 38R would change the age of digital consent in the UK GDPR only for social networking services, whereas the Government’s consultation asks whether this change should also apply to other online services.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, in calling Motion A1, I must inform the House that, if it is agreed to, I will not be able to call Motion A2 by reason of pre-emption.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Leave out from “disagreement,” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 38J to 38P, and do propose Amendments 38Q to 38U in lieu—
“Protection of children from harmful social media services and features
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision for the purpose of protecting the wellbeing of children in relation to regulated user-to-user services likely to be accessed by children in the United Kingdom.
(2) Regulations under this section must, in particular, make provision requiring providers of such services—
(a) to assess and specify a minimum age of access for the service, or for specified features or functionalities of the service, as part of a children’s risk assessment carried out in accordance with provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023, with the expected minimum age of access for social networking services being 16 years;
(b) to use highly-effective age assurance measures to prevent access by children below the applicable minimum age;
(c) where a user is identified as being under the age of 16, to apply proportionate measures designed to—
(i) limit the supply of addictive design features and design features that are inappropriate for children, and
(ii) prevent access to content that is harmful to children;
(d) to display to users under the age of 16 clear, accessible and age-appropriate health and wellbeing warnings about the risks associated with prolonged or excessive use of the service;
(e) to keep under review the impact of the service’s design, functionalities, algorithms and business practices on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of children.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), “addictive design features and design features that are inappropriate for children” include, in particular—
(a) infinite scrolling content feeds,
(b) auto-play of sequential video or audio content,
(c) algorithmic recommendation systems designed to maximise continuous user engagement,
(d) sycophantic or manipulative features, or features that are likely to make a child understand the technology as human,
(e) push notifications and alerts, including at night and during the school day,
(f) the demand for unnecessary data in exchange for services.
(4) Regulations under this section must require OFCOM to publish guidance about—
(a) the criteria for determining an appropriate minimum age of access;
(b) the evidential requirements for children’s risk assessments relating to minimum age determinations;
(c) the identification and regulation of addictive design features in relation to children; and
(d) the form and content of health and wellbeing warnings.
(5) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom,
(b) OFCOM,
(c) the Information Commissioner, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) Regulations under this section shall be treated as imposing enforceable requirements for the purposes of Part 7 of the Online Safety Act 2023.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) In this section—
“child” means a person under the age of 16;
“content that is harmful to children” has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023;
“regulated user-to-user service” has the same meaning as in that Act; “social networking service” means an online service that—
(a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and
(b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images or videos, with a wider audience.”
“Child consent for harmful social networking services
After paragraph 1 of Article 8 (child’s consent in relation to information society services) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data insert—
“1A. In the case of a social networking service processing personal data for the purpose of delivering personalised content, targeted advertising or algorithmically curated recommendations, references in paragraph 1 to 13 years old are to be read as 16 years old where OFCOM has determined that the service, or a description of service into which it falls, presents a material risk of harm to the wellbeing of children.
1B. For the purposes of paragraph 1A, a “social networking service” means an online service that—
(a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and
(b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images or videos, with a wider audience.
1C. Paragraph 1A does not apply to—
(a) educational platforms and learning management systems provided in recognised educational settings where personal data processing is solely for educational purposes, or
(b) health and wellbeing services where personal data processing is necessary for the provision of care, counselling or support.””
“(aa) section (Protection of children from harmful social media services and features);
(ab) section (Child consent for harmful social networking services);”
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I personally welcome the noble Baroness back to her place after a short period of illness and thank her for taking the time last week to engage with us to better understand where we are coming from and give us the opportunity to understand where she is coming from. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, for her engagement over the Easter period. Both engagements have been very helpful for us.
My reason for tabling this group of amendments is that we have some concerns around the Henry VIII powers that the Government are seeking. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, may not hold as strong a view as I do on the Henry VIII powers, but noble Lords across this House have issues whenever a Government want to take on lots of powers, and I note that the noble Lord proposes a sunset clause. I have concerns about how the Government intend to make changes once the consultation happens. My view is always that, if these are powers that are required for a set period, so be it; however, I still have concerns around what may happen in future if another Government come in and want to use them. I am sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has proposed but, through my amendments, we hope that the Government may take the opportunity to support our quest and bring in their own primary legislation.
There is also the issue of whether we have a ban or regulate addictive features. We have always been clear in the amendments we have proposed previously that we did not favour an outright ban for under-16s, but wanted an age rating so that the duty fell upon the social media providers to deal with those features that young people get addicted to, such as constantly scrolling and so on. That is where we stand, and I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House, if they were able to vote on our amendment, might well be there as well. That is what we need, rather than an outright ban.
I get that your Lordships’ House has previously voted for the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to make sure that this issue stays live. It will be interesting to see what happens later today when some of those amendments will no doubt be proposed.
Secondly, as the Minister mentioned, we have issues around the collection of data and GDPR, particularly around the age of consent. Currently it is 13 and we want it to be 16. I hope the Government address that.
On enforcement and additional harms, while empowering Ofcom on the issue of guidance on addictive features, it will also introduce specific requirements for platforms used to access services to mitigate the risks of them being used to create and distribute child sexual abuse materials. This includes mandating human moderators and co-operating for law enforcement. In all our efforts, we have tried to do the best for our young people. We have tried to help and assist the Government and nudge them in the right direction, and that is what we will endeavour to do today.
Ultimately, from speaking to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and others in your Lordships’ House, I do not think we are too far away from where we should be. It is just a matter of the speed and pace of implementation. I note that the Government keep saying, “It will come out after our consultation”, but we have been debating this since last year. I will put on record again—I have said it in meetings before—that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, was the first to have flagged this, to his credit. To be honest, I do not care which political party someone belongs to if they are here to safeguard our young people: credit where credit is due. We have tried to work across parties, with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and with the Cross Benches to ensure that we get to where we are.
I will briefly move to smartphones in schools, rather than mobile phones, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, because we have always been clear that it is with smartphones that we have a problem. At the meetings that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and others have been to, parents and head teachers have said that the issue of concern is with smartphones, social media, WhatsApp groups and others.
We have noted some parents’ concerns around being able to access or get in touch with their children and young people, particularly in rural areas. That is why we often talk about being able to have the more old-fashioned phones that many of us had 20 years ago, which basically allowed you to make phone calls and not much else. Therefore, we have been clear that it is smartphones that are the issue for us.
I know that my noble friend Lord Addington was very clear about supporting what he often refers to as the “devices” that enable people who need extra support in school and how to deal with that, but that issue clearly fell in your Lordships’ House when we tried to propose it. I take reassurance from the Minister’s commitment about enhancing that guidance, because head teachers have been looking for that. They have been saying that there is a small but very vocal group of parents who, whenever we bring in a policy like this, stop them managing those schools and supporting the teaching of young people, as they constantly have to fend off those parents.
In that sense, the Government are heading in the right direction. They might not be quite where some of us want them to be, but I thank the Minister for that and look forward to hearing other contributions from your Lordships’ House.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister back to her place, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for his remarks. I will speak to my Motion A2. For anyone who has studied them, the verdicts in the two US cases are clearly game-changers. The evidence from the social media companies themselves is damning. I have a treasure-trove of these documents, if any noble Lord would like them.
Immediately following these cases, the Prime Minister made some very strong statements about protecting children from the harm of social media, and the right honourable Liz Kendall spoke only yesterday about the importance of highly effective age verification to ensure that children cannot access the harmful features of social media. This is exactly what my proposal does. I listened very carefully to what she said yesterday and, if you can get a fag paper between us, it is a pretty thin one indeed—so I have decided to take the Prime Minister at his word and, instead of batting my amendment back again, to lay an amendment to the Government’s amendments to the effect that they must, rather than just may, raise the age for access to those harmful social media sites to 16 within 12 months. Those sites would be chosen very selectively and, I am sure, would be very few in number—definitely not an outright or blanket ban—and this would be stated in the Bill. I have also proposed in the amendment a sunset clause of two years on the Henry VIII element of the powers that the Government are proposing to take.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, during the short time we have been debating a ban on social media for under-16s, several countries have brought in or are discussing such a ban. Even China is due to bring in restrictions on the use of mobile phones and social media. Those who argue that our children will be at a disadvantage for not accessing social media should realise, that most children will be in the same boat: they will not be at a disadvantage. That is why I am supporting the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think we have all agreed that there are troubling aspects of social media usage among young people, which are taken very seriously. It is very appropriate for parents, teachers and policymakers to be concerned and to discuss how best to help children navigate the digital world. From previous contributions, people will know that I am not sympathetic to the banning approach. I am not going to rehearse that, but I want to make a couple of points.
First, I am still very concerned about the Government’s proposed Henry VIII powers. I appreciate the sunset clause from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but I tend to go along with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, has explained it, because we cannot just keep handing over power to the Executive and saying, “We trust you to get on with it”. I am not convinced that that trust is merited.
In general, however, I appreciate that the Government have been more open about consulting on this difficult issue. I hope that continues and I encourage the Minister, and the Government in general, to consider new evidence as it comes in. The experiment in Australia shows things not just about social media or the big tech companies, but about the way that children have got around the ban and are now using unregulated sites, with some danger to themselves. If the Government are still open, that is very important, because there are enough experts—scientists and other people working in this field—who really are concerned that the pressure for a drastic policy such as this, with social media harms becoming a go-to explanation and bans becoming a go-to solution for a wide range of the cultural and political challenges facing young people, is something we need to be careful of. Oxford psychologist Lucy Foulkes describes it as a “neat explanation”. She says that
“social media makes a nice bogeyman, but the claim is just not backed up by the data”.
Can the Minister clarify, in terms of the consultation and the gathering of information to inform policy, whether there will also be discussions about weighing up the pros and cons of bans and so on, with the unintended consequences for vital democratic freedoms? Could age-gating, for example, lead to a form of digital verification for adults, which would be illiberal? There is also the impact on socialising the young. I know we have heard that, if everyone is banning it, that is okay; I am not convinced that China banning anything is something I want to be excited about, personally. We have to weigh up whether putting an emphasis on safetyism outweighs the potential benefits of teaching young people how to negotiate the digital world, rather than just taking them off it.
On the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, there are a couple of things that I am not sure about and need clarification on. In the phrasing
“are likely to cause, encourage or facilitate compulsive, obsessive, addictive or other unhealthy behaviours”,
“are likely to cause” seems to me to be the opposite of evidence-based. How does that decision get taken on board?
On the use of “addictive” and the allegation that these are addictive apps and so on, should we just uncritically accept that? I know that it is being used in the law courts in America, but accepting the “addiction” label medicalises bad habits and relieves the young of any responsibility for their own behaviour. Is there a danger here of teaching the young that they have no control and peddling a myth of powerlessness in relation to technology and young people’s own desire in just wanting to do things? You can imagine that, “It’s not my fault; it’s the algorithm what done it”—always blaming someone else—is a danger that undermines the lessons that young people should learn about self-discipline in order to grow up as independent moral agents.
Finally, on teaching lessons—maybe I misunderstood this—in Motion A2, under the heading,
“Supporting children’s understanding of user-to-user services”,
which sounds very educational, and obviously we are discussing a schools Bill, it seems to me that there is a danger in the curriculum of overintervention. It is one thing teaching business models and implications of online collection of children’s data. The Minister explained the issues around digital literacy well and I am all for that; it is a positive thing. But adding to primary legislation such centralised, specific demands, as they seem to be, that the national curriculum
“should contain age-appropriate material to explain the reasons for children under the age of 16 being prevented from accessing different kinds of regulated user-to-user services”
just feels to me like PR for the Bill. I am not entirely sure that it is helpful for children. It sounds far too much like politicising the agenda rather than making it open-minded.
I am involved in a schools sixth-form debating competition called Debating Matters. We have a motion that is for or against the ban on social media for under-16s. There are two sides to this debate and, even if there is law change, I would not want the curriculum to teach only one side of the debate as though it is the truth and the final word, because that would be manipulative and not right.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tabled his amendment at the first stage, when we were battling with the House of Commons on the drafting of the Bill, I gave him my support and voted against the Government. I voted against the Government not because I was against them but because, as I told my noble friend the Minister, I wanted them to have another thought about this issue. They have now had another thought about this issue and proposed legislation that is considerably stronger than the legislation we last looked at. Therefore, I welcome the position that the noble Lord has now taken.
A few years ago, in professional circumstances, I had the duty to look at some of the pornography that is available, and I have to tell your Lordships that it is quite vile. I have no reason to think that it is any better now: it is probably more vile.
The other thing that we should take strongly into account is the access that is required to get into and view the pornography that is available on the internet. It is a much bigger problem than we might perceive.
So, my present position is that I again support the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but in his more sophisticated approach of accepting the government amendments but suggesting that there could be some improvements. I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept the proposed improvements that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has moved.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I say at the outset that I shall support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, should she choose to test the opinion of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash. What I have already said at great length is recorded in Hansard, so I will just say that the scope, the timing, the lack of scrutiny, the consultation itself and now the idea that a report to Parliament is an effective form of scrutiny are all problematic. I would prefer banning unfit companies’ access to children rather than banning children.
However, even if the amendments in front of us were perfect in all those ways, they still would not be effective. I met Ministers last week, and they freely admitted that neither their plans nor the amendments address the fundamental problem of enforcement. If we pass any one of the amendments in their current form we will simply give Ofcom more duties but no powers, and parents will still have absolutely nowhere to go when their child is in danger. Over the past six weeks, I have put forward measures on an individual redress mechanism, injunctive powers for parents when their child is at immediate risk of harm, individual liability to concentrate the minds of senior executives, and a review of Ofcom’s wider enforcement powers, including its ability effectively to issue a business disruption notice. Each is essential to making this regime work, and each has been rejected by the Government. None is included in the amendments, none is included in the consultation and none, I am told, will be in the King’s Speech.
The Prime Minister said last week that this cannot go on. I agree. It is staggering that, two years into his Government, every promise made to parents has been kicked down the road. The Government are building on top of a regime that they know does not work. In the best-case scenario, we will get regulations with more unenforceable duties that have not been scrutinised in 2027, maybe in 2028—indeed, if we do not pass the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, maybe not at all.
I too heard the Secretary of State yesterday. She announced that she would extend her newly acquired powers over chatbots—put into the Bill only last Thursday—to child online harms, having rejected the very possibility that the House put forward on Thursday. This is not a serious approach. The Government should come back with an amendment that offers a proper prospect of immediate and meaningful change and proper enforcement to tackle this so that our children are safe online.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I shall briefly add to the eloquent contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I recognise that all parties have moved and that the groups of amendments are much closer than they were when we last debated this topic. However, I worry that the pressure is still on the child, not on the tech companies.
I too will support my noble friend Lord Nash should he choose to divide the House, but I ask the Government to think carefully, when they bring back the next group of amendments—as I suspect they will need to—about what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, just said about setting up a regime that, in technical economist-speak, internalises the risks within the company so that the company has to bear the cost to work out how its products are safe enough for our children to use. That is what we do in the physical world. We do not ban children using toys; we enforce health and safety legislation so that toys cannot be sold to children unless they are safe. Unfortunately, I fear too much of this is banning children and not enough is holding executives and businesses to account to make their products suitable for children.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I largely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who brings all the rigour that you would expect from an MBA from Harvard Business School to the analysis of this problem. Ultimately, it is a business issue. These companies are making a vast amount of money from, basically, monetising the time that these children are spending on what are designed to be addictive products. That is the simple truth. Until and unless we find a way of disrupting the business models of the companies behind those platforms in such a way that it hurts them—the point at which individual directors and senior executives know they will be held personally accountable and may well go to jail, as well as the companies being fined vast amounts of money—there will really not be a tipping point. This often feels like pushing water uphill.
I want to make a point about educational technology. We are focusing very much on smartphones and the terrible effects they are having on so many young people. Simultaneously, the Government have been promoting, quietly but overtly over many years, the increased use of technology in schools, from primary schools onwards, partly as an understandable result of Covid, when your Lordships’ House even managed to embrace technology to a degree that many of us would have thought completely unthinkable. Schools have indeed been embracing technology, and in many cases the effects on the young people in those schools that have done so are not good.
Many countries of the world have recognised this and are doing a complete U-turn on their previous eagerness to get children in front of touchscreens and computer programs. They are trying to reverse the effects because they have been doing it for long enough that they have seen the evidence produced of the effect that it has on children: reduced attention spans and reduced vocabulary. In Scandinavia—surprise, surprise—libraries are doing the unthinkable: they are bringing back books, having largely decided to no longer invest in them five or six years ago.
I appeal to the Government, and particularly to the Department for Education, to look carefully at what is going on in schools. Schools need advice from the Government about how to deal with this issue. The blandishments of these companies, which are large, sophisticated and profitable in selling their products to schools, have all the smoothness of a tobacco or asbestos salesman, but in many cases their terms and conditions mean they are monetising those children and their details, along with the schools’ details, and the educational product they are producing is substandard.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D on the phone ban. The Minister talked about strengthening guidance and Ofsted being able to inspect schools’ mobile phone policies, but I speak as a parent as well as a teacher when I say that parents do not understand statutory footing; they understand a legal ban. If the Government want to reduce unnecessary burdens on head teachers then, from what we have seen over and again, that has to mean an outright ban in the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley in his Motion A1. We are united across this House and, indeed, across Parliament in our desire to protect children from the significant harms of the online world, but, as we consider these amendments in lieu, we are presented with three rather different legislative strategies.
The Government’s proposal in Motion A asks this House to grant sweeping, enduring Henry VIII powers to the Secretary of State, allowing them to amend or repeal primary legislation via secondary regulations. The Government’s amendments remain completely silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government are fighting big tech with one arm tied behind their back, regulating, as we have heard today, the user rather than fixing the product.
I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his tireless and principled campaigning in this area, and I welcome the fact that his Motion A2 attempts to rein in the Government’s executive overreach by applying a two-year sunset clause to these Henry VIII powers. I recognise that his amendments are no longer a blanket ban, but his core proposal remains a blunt instrument. Although well-intentioned, this approach is built entirely on exclusion. It risks creating a dangerous cliff edge for young people: rather than helping children to safely develop digital resilience, it would potentially suddenly expose them to the unfiltered internet the moment they turned 16.
Motion A1, by contrast, offers a far more precise, workable and future-proof alternative. Instead of handing unchecked powers to Ministers or trying to build an impossible wall around the internet, it places direct statutory duties on tech companies to clean up their platforms. As we have heard, that is essential. Under our Amendment 38Q, where any user is identified as being under 16, the platform must apply proportionate measures to limit the supply of addictive design features and prevent access to harmful content. As my honourable friend, Munira Wilson MP, stated in the Commons:
“This needs to be big tech’s seatbelt moment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/26; col. 920.]
Recent US court cases, which the noble Lord, Lord Nash, mentioned, have exposed internal documents showing that tech executives deliberately designed these platforms to keep children hooked. Motion A1 would dismantle this addictive architecture, preserve parliamentary sovereignty and spark a race to the top for safe, enriching online spaces. I urge the House to support that approach.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend’s Motion A2 and my Motion D1. My noble friend has once again laid out the arguments in favour of his Motion A2 most eloquently and elegantly and the Minister in her opening remarks talked about it being
“not whether but how and what action will be taken”
by the Government. Her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today have at different times made a commitment to act. But that is not what we have in the Government’s amendment. Their amendment is not a commitment to act; my noble friend’s amendment is. I hope that the Ministers opposite will forgive me for pointing out that the only charities they ever quote are those which have caution about the approach that my noble friend is advocating. As he said, over 40 charities have signed the principles document that has been developed with them. Of course, that gives those of us on this side of the House reason for real concern as to why no other charities are ever quoted in interviews by the Government.
My noble friend’s amendment has several material advantages over the Government’s current approach. First is the simplicity in that the commitment to act is in the Bill. Your Lordships are very familiar with the risks posed by putting everything in secondary legislation, particularly secondary legislation with an enormous Henry VIII-shaped power. Secondly, it puts into effect the Prime Minister’s commitment but also allows the Government to use the consultation to shape the “how”—including on enforcement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly pointed out, and in relation to breadth and scope—but it sets out very clearly at proposed subsection (4)(a)(i) to (iv) the principles that would be followed in relation to addictive behaviour, serious harm and exploitation, illegal content and loss of privacy; your Lordships, I know, will have read the amendment. Thirdly, with great simplicity, it also sunsets the Henry VIII powers, which I think we can welcome across the House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, on Motions A, A1 and A2, the Government, as I think I made clear in opening this debate, recognise the concerns raised in this House and the strength of feeling among parents about protecting children online. As I and other Ministers have said, we share that commitment. This is a complex issue, with a range of views, expressed once again today during this debate, about how it is best approached.
Points were made by noble Lords about enforcement, the development of the online safety regime, and other issues that my noble friend Lady Lloyd and others in DSIT will continue to think carefully about. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, slightly took us back to discussions that we had earlier on the issue of edtech. I am happy to provide him with further information, expanding on the information that I gave in Committee, about the approach that the Government are taking, particularly to develop the evidence around what is and is not appropriate use of technology in the classroom. Given the strength of feeling, we have been clear in government that it is important that we act not only quickly but in the right way.
The cases in the US, as commented on by noble Lords, have rightly and understandably raised interest. While we do not comment on foreign court judgments, we welcome international efforts to strengthen online safety and will want to learn from what is happening around the world. However, I note that the UK has the most robust online safety framework in the world, with a regulator empowered to issue fines of the same order of magnitude or larger. That is why the Government have announced that we are going to take further action to protect children’s well-being online through our consultation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others have identified, there is a range of action in different countries; I agree that it is not the same action in different countries. I was fortunate, before I was confined to my bed before recess, to go to New York, to the Commission on the Status of Women, where I attended a useful session with a focus on the action taken by different countries to protect children online. What I thought was notable was the wide range of different approaches being taken in different countries—different ages, different scope and different speeds at which it was happening. We cannot simply look abroad to find a consistent approach. That is why, while watching very closely what other countries are doing, we want to be confident that what we introduce here works and works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why testing options now, taking evidence from families themselves and putting in place the legislative powers to act quickly once the consultation closes is the right thing to do. It means that we can move in months, not years.
As has been said on numerous occasions, the Government’s consultation looks beyond a simple social media ban to a wider range of harms, from addictive design to time spent online, allowing for a more comprehensive and effective response with long-lasting outcomes. It considers at least some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In other developments, as I outlined in my opening speech, the Government are taking action through the curriculum, supporting schools to enable children and young people to be much clearer about media literacy and the nature of what they will encounter online at some point, whenever that may be in their lives, when they have access to it. This is clearly an important development, both in the curriculum and in the way in which our schools are teaching.
We have listened to concerns about pace, which was another important theme of the debate today. The argument is that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would enable faster movement, because we would not need to consult. The Government have laid the groundwork to act swiftly on the outcome of our current consultation without the need for lengthy primary legislation. It is a short, sharp consultation, which we believe is the right thing to do to make sure that we take the right approach. I reiterate that we have been clear that it is not a question of if but how we act. In addition, the government amendment would allow any subsequent regulations to capture a wider range of harmful features and functionalities and to tailor measures to where harms are actually occurring. We are committed to working as quickly as possible to deliver additional protections. We will not wait years, as with the Online Safety Act. We are determined to get it right and we will not compromise on what is best for our children’s future.
There is concern about scope—I think I have responded to some of that concern—and scrutiny. That is why we have tabled legislative powers to act swiftly on the basis of evidence, alongside a clear commitment in the Bill to report to Parliament within six months. We have made it clear that these powers can be used only for the purposes of protecting children. I hear the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Clement-Jones, about Henry VIII powers. To be clear, the power permits the Secretary of State to apply only existing parts of the Online Safety Act, with modification if needed, to ensure that the new regulations are effectively incorporated into the legal framework. The power would not allow this Government, or any future Government, to amend the existing online safety duties. We have been clear that the powers must have due regard to the effects on children of different ages and we have provided, as I outlined in my opening comments, for meaningful scrutiny, through engagement with relevant Select Committees, before any regulations are laid. We have been clear throughout, as demonstrated through these new legislative powers, how we will do this both quickly and effectively.
Moving on to the issue of mobile phones, it is important to reiterate that there has already been progress in the ways in which schools deal with mobile phones. We know that the majority of schools have policies that prohibit mobile phones, which is why we believe that Amendment 106 is unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, slightly understated the changes that we have made to the guidance and the range of other measures that we have put in place around the guidance to support head teachers and to enable it to be implemented more quickly.
On the specific issue of whether “not seen, not heard” as an approach is appropriate, she is right—we have now taken that out of the guidance, and we would be willing to consider whether we should be stronger on that. The question that the noble Baroness asked was whether the use of guidance would make this impossible. She knows that the point of guidance, whether statutory or non-statutory, is to provide clarity in the broadest context about how we expect schools to operate in this area. It is a complex area where different schools and different head teachers might have different ways of achieving the outcome—we are all clear that there should not be access to mobile phones for children at any point in the school day—but it is not possible for me to say that it would be impossible, as she knows.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, both the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I raised the issue of smartphones as distinct from mobile phones. I understood the Minister to say that she would consider improving the guidance to make it clear that “not seen, not heard” was not in line with the spirit of the guidance. Will she also undertake to look at whether there is any refinement that could be considered in relation to smartphones?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I will undertake to do that. I think it is interesting that that type of question is exactly the reason why the use of what will become statutory guidance is a more appropriate way of dealing with the nuances of this issue than the type of legislative ban on the face of the Bill that some people are arguing for. Because of that flexibility, I will undertake to do that.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her comments and response to the points raised. I thank all noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out clearly, alongside myself, our position on social media. I welcome the comments on having better clarity on the smartphones issue. I am not minded to test the opinion of the House on this occasion.
(8A) Regulations made more than two years after the day on which the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is passed may not amend or repeal primary legislation or apply any provision of this Act with modification.”
“214B Use of section 214A powers in relation to regulated user-to-user services
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 214A(1)(a) requiring providers of specified regulated user-to-user services to use highly-effective age assurance measures and reasonable anti-circumvention measures to prevent access by children in the United Kingdom under the age of 16 to those services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.
(2) A draft of the first such regulations must be laid before each House of Parliament within eight months of the day on which the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is passed.
(3) Subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the first such regulations must be brought into effect within one year of the day on which the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 is passed.
(4) When making the regulations described at subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—
(a) seek to protect children under the age of 16 from any general or specific characteristics of those services, features or functionalities which it is reasonable to believe, having regard to any advice provided for that purpose by relevant experts—
(i) are likely to cause, encourage or facilitate compulsive, obsessive, addictive or other unhealthy behaviours among children,
(ii) could expose children to risks of serious harm, manipulation or exploitation,
(iii) could expose children to illegal content or primary priority content, or
(iv) could expose children to serious loss of privacy or to contact from strangers;
(b) have regard to the desirability of facilitating studies by charities and independent researchers of the safety and appropriateness for children of the characteristics of regulated user-to-user services;
(c) make any necessary provisions or consequential amendments to ensure that—
(i) the duties on the providers of regulated user-to-user services under those regulations are enforceable requirements for the purposes of section 131 and Part 7 of this Act, and
(ii) section 49 (relationship between duties and codes of practice) of this Act does not apply to those duties.
(5) In this section, a “relevant expert” means OFCOM, the Children’s Commissioner, any of the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom, the Medical Royal Colleges, and any other persons from whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to seek relevant expert advice or input.
214C Supporting children’s understanding of user-to-user services
The Secretary of State must take action to ensure that, effective for the academic year commencing in September 2027, the national curriculum contains age-appropriate material to explain the reasons for children under the age of 16 being prevented from accessing different kinds of regulated user-to-user services, or features or functionalities of such services, including—
(a) the implications for children’s wellbeing of their use of or exposure to services with characteristics of the kind described in subsection 214B(4)(a), and
(b) the range of business models, methods and motivations for and the implications of the online collection and processing of children’s data.””
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41C.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion B, I shall speak also to Motions B1, C and C1. In this group, we will debate amendments relating to school uniforms and admissions.
Motion B relates to Amendment 41B. Motion B1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to review the effectiveness of a numeric limit on branded uniform within 12 months, alongside consideration of a monetary cap. His subsequent Motion would require a review of the effectiveness of measures to control branded item costs within 12 months.
I thank the noble Lord again for his championing of this issue. I know from our conversations how dear this issue is to him and how determined he is to make a difference for the children and families in his home town and up and down the country. I admire his commitment to thinking about the various ways in which we can achieve that. I make it clear that we share the aim of bringing down costs for parents, in particular for those who find it most difficult to afford school uniforms. This Government of course want to understand the impact that our manifesto commitment has made and whether it is meeting our shared objectives. As required with legislation, we will conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the policy and consider any modifications that may be recommended.
Furthermore, the DfE has engaged with parents and school leaders extensively, over many years, on school uniform policies, including conducting detailed cost surveys. We will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence. For this reason, legislation on this is unnecessary.
The priority now is to provide certainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent. We fear that these amendments might risk some uncertainty at a time when schools will be focused on implementing a numeric limit, which was not only a government manifesto commitment but was backed by both parents and the British public. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and enforceable, and we have committed to further strengthening existing statutory guidance to be clear that high-cost compulsory items should be avoided.
Motion C relates to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, insists on this amendment. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number—PAN—following an upheld objection. The Government are committed to ensuring that quality and parental choice are central to PAN decisions. Our amendment in lieu, introduced in the other place, makes this clear by ensuring that regulations will require the adjudicator to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference when specifying a school’s PAN following an upheld objection.
However, the noble Baroness’s amendment would create a blanket exemption for a significant proportion of schools, with no allowance for local circumstances such as the scale of demographic change. It would hinder sensible, community-focused decision-making. For example, in areas such as London, where most schools are performing well, significantly falling pupil numbers are impacting even good schools. Local authorities and schools are already taking tough decisions about closures, amalgamations and PAN reductions. This measure can and should be part of the solution to ensure that all pupils continue to have a choice of high-quality school places close to home.
Our amendment in lieu will be reinforced through new statutory principles that we intend to apply through secondary legislation, as set out in the policy paper we distributed before the recess. These will inform adjudicator decisions and help ensure that the reduction of good school places will only ever occur as a last resort.
As I emphasised, we are committed to ensuring that school quality and parental choice are central to any decisions on PAN, as set out in the published policy paper and reflected in the amendment passed in the other place, which we are considering today. That is why I can confirm that, should this House desire it, the Government will bring forward an amendment in the other place. This will reflect our commitment that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of decisions on PAN by placing in the Bill a requirement on adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN following an upheld objective.
I also commit that we will require the adjudicator, through a mix of primary and secondary legislation, to consult key parties, including the admissions authority, the local authority and the relevant DfE regional director, on their views on alternatives to reducing the PAN before making a determination.
Collectively, this will ensure that reducing places at great schools is only ever a last resort and deliver a choice of good local school places for communities. We will continue to engage with stakeholders, including the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including proposed changes to secondary legislation and the School Admissions Code. We will ensure that a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education. The CST has welcomed the amendment made in the other place to the Bill as a step towards achieving that. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 41D in lieu of Amendment 41B—
“551ZB School uniforms: review of limits on branded items
(1) The Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of measures intended to limit the cost to parents of branded items of school uniform required by the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use during a school year.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the coming into force of section 551ZA, lay the review under subsection (1) before Parliament.””
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the time she gave last week. It enabled me to better understand where she and the Government are coming from and gave me the opportunity to highlight why I think school uniforms and their cost are important, hence my amendment. As your Lordships may recall, I benefited from a policy that David Blunkett—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—brought in. When my father lost his job in the steel industry in Sheffield, I was on free school meals. We were able to go to the local education authority and get some clothing for school. That lived experience is driving me to try to do the best for young people in Sheffield and across the country.
I absolutely do not doubt that the Government want to reduce the cost of school uniforms. Their measure is to reduce the number of items required, while mine asked for a cap on the cost. As noble Lords may have seen from the amendments we have now tabled, I have stopped asking for that, but I am saying to the Government that, at some point, 12 months from implementation, when they have that review, I hope they will be willing to at least re-look at the possibilities of a cap.
More important for me, going back to that lived experience, I want to keep pushing the Government to say how they will provide help and support. They are going to limit the cost of school uniforms by potentially limiting the numbers, but there is still a cost involved. I want the Government, as and when they can—once the economy picks up, I hope—to support every child who is on free school meals. I hope the Minister can comment on that when she gets up to respond.
On the amendments on the PAN, I will read out information I got this morning from the Confederation of School Trusts. It said: “We are grateful to the Government for the work they have done to bring forward this amendment, which goes some way towards addressing our concerns about the potential impact of this policy on the quality of educational provision in the area. We think the amendments need to go further. Specifically, we believe that schools adjudicators should be under a legal duty to consider”—and this is in bold—“other ways of achieving effective and efficient provision in the area if the local authority is seeking to reduce the PAN for high-performing schools. In order to make a good decision, the school adjudicator should therefore be required in law to consult the relevant DfE regional directors”.
Therefore, we still have concerns, given that the CST has been in touch with us and our colleagues down the Corridor to ask the Government to go further. I hope that, when the Minister gets up, she can give us the confidence that the CST wants.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, in relation to school uniform and the focus that he has brought to this in the later stages of the Bill.
I will speak to my Motion C1. I recognise that the Government have moved on prioritising quality and parental preference—and it sounds as though they are going to move a bit further, if I followed what the Minister just said. However, we do not believe that the amendment as drafted resolves the issue at the heart of this. On this side of the House, we of course recognise the pressure on schools and local authorities from falling rolls in certain parts of the country. Our concern is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for local authorities. The easiest thing for them to do is cut the published admission numbers of the larger and more popular schools, particularly if those schools are academies, as a way of addressing that problem.
The Minister described my amendment as a blanket exemption. There are an awful lot of blankets in the Chamber this afternoon, and I do not see how one could interpret it as such. My amendment covers both academies and maintained schools, and its starting point is that consideration must be given to effective and efficient provision in an area. I am not entirely clear why that is a blanket exemption. It would require the school adjudicator to consider the shape of local provision and to explicitly consider mergers and closures.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support Motion C1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I emphasise to the Minister that schools with falling rolls receive enormous support at the moment through lagged funding. They receive payment for pupils whom they no longer have, for at least a year.
On the other side of the coin, for those of us who are trying to improve previously failing schools, the opposite applies. We are part of something called estimated funding. Under the current Government—I respect the difficult financial position—estimated funding is zero funding. To add to that, they are proposing a new system, with an adjudicator who can make the decision to go to an improving school—as happened to us before this legislation was proposed—to reduce the size of the PAN. It was administratively convenient for the local authority to do that, because it would have suffered no financial harm itself.
The noble Baroness’s Motion strengthens the protection. We are still left with uncertainty in how the adjudicator process would work and how long it would take, and whether we should budget for increasing roles or not, pending some decision which will take I have no idea how long. I urge your Lordships to support the noble Baroness’s Motion to bring some common sense to this.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I support the points made by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew. We are approaching the end of our consideration of this legislation, which comes as we all reflect on the huge gains that have been made by English schools in the last two decades. Improvements in schools in England have not been matched by schools in Scotland or Wales. This is not because students in Scotland and Wales are less intelligent or teachers less motivated but because the reforms that were introduced under Tony Blair and sustained during the coalition years and thereafter had two principles at their heart: greater autonomy for the front line and support for good schools to expand, so that their practice could be adopted by schools that were performing less well and so more students could benefit.
Of the two final elements that we are considering here, a government cap on the number of labelled items of school uniform that a school can require of its students is a preposterous piece of micromanagement, driven by the worst sort of virtue signalling. It is designed to convey that the Government are on the side of the poor, even as the measures on planned pupil admission numbers restrict the access of poor students to the very best schools.
When it comes to school uniform, we know from the voices of head teachers on the front line the benefits that an effective school uniform policy can have in contributing to ethos, discipline and a sense of inclusivity when our society is increasingly tribalised and polarised. Rather than listen to the testimony of head teachers—including the country’s very best head teacher, Katharine Birbalsingh, who has pointed out the folly of this policy—the Government insist that the best way of helping the poor is price capping and telling head teachers that they know better. All the evidence of history flies in the face of the course that the Government are setting. The fact that we have an absurd question about whether or not there should be an overall price cap or a price cap on particular items just shows the folly of going down this micro-interventionist line.
The second element that we are debating is pupil admissions numbers. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that there are reasons why we should take account of quality and of the wishes of pupils and parents, but the most effective way of doing so is by not capping the growth of good schools. This legislation allows the Government and their agencies to cap the growth of those good schools to keep less-good schools open and provide a less-good education in the name of bureaucratic and local government convenience.
The purpose of school reform is to give pupils a better education, not to make life easier for bureaucrats or head teachers who are not performing their responsibility. Once again, I wonder what the point of the last two decades of education reform was if the current Government are going to look at those two decades, when politicians across parties were united in increasing autonomy at the front line and helping good schools to expand, and diminish the force of both those changes. It is not too late for the Minister, who played a very distinguished role in the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, to say to the current Prime Minister and the current Education Secretary that it is time to learn the lesson from those who went before, rather than repeating the mistakes of a socialist and interventionist past.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, several noble Lords have spoken in this small debate. I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gove, to the consideration of the Bill. I am not sure that he contributed in the very many sessions we have had up until this point, but better late than never. As always, he had something interesting to say, even if I think he is wrong and disagree with him.
Let us focus, as this group does, on Motion B and Motion B1 on Lords Amendment 41D, which seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. As I said in my opening speech, we believe that these amendments are necessary, and I commit to the noble Lord that we will monitor the impact as we implement the limit. That does not need to be in legislation, and the amendment risks creating some uncertainty for schools and parents at a time when schools will be implementing the limit.
For noble Lords’ information, the limit was included in the Government’s manifesto, is widely welcomed by parents and others, and is focused on what we believe is the simplest way to deliver this, which is a limit on branded items in school uniforms. We have been clear about our concerns with a cost cap, which is not the proposal here, and do not believe it would be the most effective way to reduce costs for parents. Our proposal for a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, will deliver savings more quickly and is overwhelmingly backed by parents.
On the discussion about admissions, several noble Lords have spoken to Motion C, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, which insists on it. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admissions number. This proposition in this legislation is very much a function of the time, in terms of demography, that we find ourselves in. If we were in a position where the number of children in our schools was growing then all of us—as was the case with the previous Labour Government—would be very relaxed about allowing good schools to expand with no control or very little limitation, but that is not the situation we find ourselves in.
As I suggested in my opening speech, the fall in the number of children coming through the system will create difficult decisions to be made in some areas. They will make the local authority responsibility to ensure a sufficiency of places more complex and risk a situation where good schools are forced to close because of a failure to be able to consider the impact of falling numbers across a range of schools. That is the context in which we are introducing this measure.
This Government support good schools expanding where that is right for the local area. In fact, this measure may help to secure more places in high-performing schools in areas where they are needed, but the noble Baroness’s Motion does not allow sufficient nuance to ensure that local circumstances can be taken into account, especially in this time of changing demographics. Our amendments in lieu will ensure that an independent decision can be taken by the adjudicator, in the local context, and with school quality and parental preference at its heart.
I will respond to a few of the charges made by noble Lords opposite. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is understandably concerned that local authorities might misuse this power to reduce the number of places at academies. To be clear, and I know that the noble Baroness knows this, local authorities will not be able to set an academy’s PAN. The schools adjudicator, not the local authority, will be the final decision-maker. The adjudicator is independent and impartial, and will come to their own independent conclusion on whether to uphold an objection to the PAN.
The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, suggested—given his experience, including his ministerial experience, I am not sure that he meant this—that we were inventing a new set of bureaucrats, in his and others’ words. That is not true. The school adjudicator system has existed and played a very similar role throughout the whole period of the previous Government and the period of the previous Labour Government. This is not something new. What is more, of course, the statutory School Admissions Code and the new regulations that we have committed to will set out what the adjudicator must consider where they uphold an objection and subsequently set the PAN for the school.
As reflected in our amendment, school quality and parental choice will be central considerations and ensure that this power is not used to prop up failing schools. School adjudicators, as I have said, have existed for some time and are independent. They have significant experience of considering objection cases and already consider both objections to PAN reductions and requests by maintained schools to vary their PAN downwards, in the light of a major change in circumstances. They possess considerable, extensive and comprehensive knowledge of the education system and they include MAT CEOs, head teachers, education lawyers and local authority directors, so the characterisation of them as bureaucrats is both factually inaccurate and unfair.
Our amendments would ensure, as I have said, that the independent, expert adjudicator—the system which has existed for very many years throughout several Governments—will be required, in making this decision, to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference. They also enable the Government to make regulations on other matters which the adjudicator must or must not take account of when deciding on a PAN.
I just reiterate the point that I made in opening. We recognise the point made by the Confederation of School Trusts about the requirement for the adjudicator to consider, in addition to quality and parental preference, the effectiveness and efficiency of the provision in an area and to consult key parties, including the relevant DfE regional director, on their views on alternatives to reducing a PAN before making a determination. It is clear that alternatives must have been considered as part of that process.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response to the issue of the cost of school uniforms in particular. I am partly reassured by her commitment. I wish her and her Government well in trying to help with dealing with the cost of school uniforms. She can rest assured that it is not a topic that I will let go of in the next 12 months. I will be constantly snapping at her heels to make sure that the commitments she has given from the Dispatch Box are fulfilled. With that, I am not minded to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102C to 102G.
“(6A) The provision made by virtue of subsection (6)(a) must include provision requiring the adjudicator to have regard to the potential impact of the determination on—
(a) the quality of education provided at—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area, and
(b) the ability to give effect to parental preference for—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area.”
““relevant area”, in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in section 88F (see subsection (4) of that section).”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Baroness Barran
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 102 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 102C to 102G.”
Baroness Barran (Con)
They should have known better. What we have heard this afternoon is that, at the 11th hour, the Government are focusing on trying to get an amendment right on published admission numbers. We have not seen that work yet and it is the 11th hour. As a result, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106C to 106E.
“Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
In Part 10 of the Education Act 1996, after Chapter 2 insert—
“CHAPTER 2A
GUIDANCE ON MOBILE PHONES ETC: SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND
550C Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions relating to the conduct of the school.
(2) The guidance referred to in subsection (1) is guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State about registered pupils at schools having mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices with them, and using them—
(a) during school hours, and
(b) on school premises.
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply for the purposes of this section.
(4) The “appropriate person” is—
(a) for the following kinds of school, the head teacher—
(i) a community, foundation or voluntary school;
(ii) a community or foundation special school;
(iii) a maintained nursery school;
(iv) a pupil referral unit;
(v) a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 (approval of non-maintained special schools);
(b) for any other kind of school, the proprietor.
(5) “School hours”, in relation to a school, means any time between the start of the first school session on a school day and the end of the last school session on the same day.
“(aa) section (Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England);”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D, and I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Baroness Barran
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 106 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 106C to 106E.”
Security Vetting
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will repeat the Statement the Prime Minister made earlier today:
“With permission, I would like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States.
Before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with the House that while this Statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson’s vetting and appointment, at the heart of this there is also a judgment I made that was wrong. I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.
Last Tuesday evening, 14 April, I found out for the first time that on 29 January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only that, but the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, or even to the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald.
I found this staggering. Therefore, last Tuesday I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority. I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis, and who knew. I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating the House, because this is information I should have had a long time ago, and that the House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had a right to know.
I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from the fact-finding exercise that I instructed last Tuesday. Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the Government will comply fully with the humble Address Motion of 4 February.
In December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December. The security vetting process began on 23 December 2024.
I want to make it clear to the House that, for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before the individual starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. This was confirmed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, at the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November 2025. Sir Chris made it clear that
‘when we are making appointments from outside the civil service … the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up post’.
At the same hearing of the same Select Committee, the former Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, said that Peter Mandelson
‘did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance’.
After I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed.
The security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting—UKSV—between 23 December 2024 and 28 January 2025. UKSV conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information, as well as interviewing the applicant, in this case on two occasions. Then, on 28 January, UKSV recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. The following day, 29 January, notwithstanding the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied, Foreign Office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.
To be clear, for many departments a decision from UKSV is binding, but for the Foreign Office the final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UKSV. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office’s power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week.
I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UKSV. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendation while maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires.
There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UKSV recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information, to allow Ministers to make judgments on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament. Let me be very clear: the recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Let me make a second point: if I had known before he took up his post that the UKSV’s recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.
Let me now move to September 2025, because events then, and subsequently, show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear. On 10 September, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Peter Mandelson’s history with Epstein. It was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson’s answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process so that full due diligence is now required as standard. Where risks are identified, an interview must be taken pre-appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest. A summary of that should be provided to the appointing Minister. I also made it clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed.
In the light of the revelations in September last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Mandelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on 16 September. In that letter, he advised me:
‘The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former HMA Washington’.
When the then Cabinet Secretary was asked about this last week, he was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UKSV recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied for Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I set out earlier, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary—an official, not a politician—when carrying out his review could not have been told that UKSV recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance. It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly, he could have been told, and he should have been told.
On the same day that the then Cabinet Secretary wrote to me, 16 September 2025, the Foreign Secretary and the then Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The statement says:
‘The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February’.
It went on to say:
‘Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for Developed Vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy’.
Let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions that included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office’s response was and whether they were dismissed. That the Foreign Secretary was advised on, and allowed to sign, this statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UKSV had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet Member giving evidence to Parliament on the very issues in question.
In the light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him. Not knowing that, in fact, UKSV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance, I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. As I have set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about UKSV’s denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 2025. I do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review of the process, and I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making a statement to the Select Committee, again in 2025.
On top of that, the fact that I was not told, even when I ordered a review of the UKSV process, is frankly staggering. I can tell the House that I have now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead that review. Separately, I have asked the Government Security Group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s tenure.
I know that many Members across this House will find these facts to be incredible. To that, I can only say that they are right. It beggars belief that throughout this whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in our system of government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it is how most public servants think it should work either.
I work with hundreds of civil servants—thousands, even—all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials from the Foreign Office who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world: in Ukraine, the Middle East and all around the world. This is not about them, yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UKSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions and, therefore, should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this is a tortuous and, frankly, somewhat embarrassing Statement—stable door after stable door pushed shut long after the obvious national security risk had bolted through them. The Prime Minister is still answering questions on the Statement in the other place; it would surely have been better if it had been repeated here in prime time, at a time when your Lordships had had a chance to digest the Prime Minister’s words, the reactions to them, and the response of Sir Olly Robbins tomorrow. We made that reasonable request, and the Government rejected it. Will the noble Baroness, our Leader, give an assurance that, if asked, she will come back to this House tomorrow to answer questions on Sir Olly Robbins’s response to today’s account of events?
The noble Baroness must know what everybody knew—apart from, it seems, the Prime Minister—that Peter Mandelson was totally unsuitable to be our ambassador to the USA. The Statement’s repeated defence, as we have just heard, is that the Prime Minister would not have appointed Mandelson if he had known his vetting had failed. But you did not need vetting to see that Mandelson was a proven liar. You did not need vetting to see that he was twice forced to resign in disgrace from government. You did not need vetting to hear that he revelled in the company of what he called the “filthy rich”, from whatever dubious nation that might be. You did not need vetting to know that he was a known associate and defender of the convicted paedophile, Epstein. You did not need vetting or process—you needed gumption, judgment and common sense, and you cannot subcontract those things to a Whitehall committee. Was there no one at any stage in this who asked the simple question, “Is this wise?”
The Prime Minister says that Mandelson lied in the course of his vetting. Should we be surprised? Well, no, though it seems the Prime Minister was. That is the crux of the matter. What is absolutely staggering is the truly spectacular scale of the failure of judgment of the Prime Minister in appointing such a man. It embarrasses the Labour movement, which does not deserve to be embarrassed in such a way. No amount of casuistical argument, such as we have just heard, can efface that personal responsibility. One man picked Mandelson, one man pushed him, and the issue is not the “who knew what when” about Mandelson’s vetting, but what everybody knew about Mandelson before he was appointed, all of which the Prime Minister ignored.
This is a Prime Minister on his third Cabinet Secretary—three in under two years. A legion of advisers has been selected, then shoved out of No. 10 as scapegoats for some panic or crisis of confidence. Is not the truth that it is always someone else to blame? I valued the old conventions that Ministers took responsibility. Civil servants were rarely named in this place and never blamed. Whatever happened to those conventions? Why was an outstanding ambassador shoved out of Washington to make way for the likes of Mandelson? It is because the Prime Minister wanted it, and wanted it quick. Why was the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, sacked? It is because the Prime Minister wanted a scapegoat, and wanted it quick. Is not the fact of the matter that the Prime Minister wanted his man Mandelson, come hell or high water, and the Civil Service sought to accommodate his instructions?
Can the noble Baroness tell the House this: did Sir Olly Robbins act against the law, against the Civil Service Code or outside proper process in any way in enabling Mandelson to go forward, despite vetting advice? If so, will she tell the House his specific offences? If not, can she say on what grounds Sir Olly has been fairly dismissed?
The Prime Minister has admitted that he was aware that vetting had not been done on Mandelson when he named him. We know that the then Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Case, advised him to wait for that to be done. Why did the Prime Minister ignore that advice? Can the noble Baroness say whether the Prime Minister or No. 10 at any stage asked about the vetting and Mandelson’s links to China or Russia? Is it true that the National Security Adviser warned that the process was “weirdly rushed”? Is it true, as the Deputy Prime Minister said just this weekend, that there were “time pressures” to get Mandelson cleared? Is it true, as the Foreign Secretary said at the weekend, that officials were instructed to give “priority clearance” to Mandelson?
It looks as if, on the Prime Minister’s wishes, the process for Mandelson’s clearance was put in what was called—how was it in the Covid era?—the VIP lane, and we all know what became of that. Due process was followed by Sir Olly; that has not been challenged. All the problems arose from the undue haste of the Prime Minister to force through his man and glad-hand it with him in No. 10.
The Statement reveals a world beyond “Yes, Prime Minister”—a bureaucracy of bizarre complexity, in which you cannot see the wood for the legalese, where people have to seek legal advice before they talk to each other, where there are inquiries into inquiries into inquiries, where the Prime Minister sits staggered, unbelieving and unknowing the heart of a system over which he has presided for two years, processing and reprocessing process, for all the world like Sir Humphrey Appleby.
We have not had time to assess in detail the minutiae of this Statement. We have not been permitted to hear Sir Olly’s side of the case before being asked to consider it. We will come back to those things, but what must be clear to all is the astonishing lack of judgment by the Prime Minister in making this appointment, the dire consequences of his undue haste, and the rank smell of the blame game and dumping on senior civil servants—things which should have no place in the conduct of good government.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, one thing I agree with in this Statement is the recognition of the victims of the crime of Jeffrey Epstein. We are able to know what we know about an appointment which should never have been made only because of the patience and the persistence of the victims, and they should be at the forefront of all our minds.
At the start of this, on 11 November 2024, the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case—now the noble Lord, Lord Case—gave very clear and appointment-specific advice to the Prime Minister if he chose to make a political appointment for the ambassador in Washington. I quote from the advice published in the first release of documents on 11 March this year:
“If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice”.
This advice was specific. It was not about seeking clearance after the appointment; it was about seeking security clearances before confirming the choice.
In the House of Commons, Ed Davey asked the Prime Minister why this advice was disregarded and Peter Mandelson’s appointment was confirmed, approved by the King and announced prior to necessary security clearances being acquired. The Prime Minister replied that the subsequent review of the process had confirmed that it was followed. This was a non-answer, because the process was the Cabinet Secretary providing advice, which he did, that the Prime Minister chose to disregard. In the bundle of papers released in March, there was missing a minute between this advice and a reference on 12 December, a month later, to Peter Mandelson being referred to as the lead candidate. Can the Leader confirm that Parliament has been presented with all the information between the advice from the Cabinet Secretary in November and 12 December, when it was indicated that Peter Mandelson was now the lead candidate? Why is there no record of what the Prime Minister did with the advice issued on 11 November?
Just a few days later, on 18 December, the Palace was informed of the decision to appoint Mandelson, contrary to the advice that necessary security clearances should be acquired. What is all the more concerning is that we were told that the Prime Minister subsequently regretted making the appointment as a result of Mandelson’s lies in the due diligence process. But that an appointment was made in the first place, when the Prime Minister had been given the advice on 11 November on due diligence in respect of Peter Mandelson, is staggering. I remind the House of what that advice on the due diligence process was, and I remind the House that this was the lead candidate for appointment. It stated:
“After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein's House while he was in jail in June 2009 … In 2014 Mandelson also agreed to be a ‘founding citizen’ of an ocean conservation group founded by Ghislaine Maxwell, and funded by Epstein”.
Surely this information alone should have been the basis on which, prior to any announcement, the Prime Minister should have decided that the reputational risk was too high, given the ongoing legal and congressional actions in the US at the time. He did not. The Prime Minister made a decision to set aside advice on acquiring vetting approval prior to making the announcement on 20 December and to set aside the reputational risk linked with Epstein’s crimes. Can the Leader confirm that the Foreign Secretary had seen the due diligence checklist report, as on business conflicts and the Epstein links, when he said in the government press release on 20 December:
“It is wonderful to welcome Peter back to the team”?
The Statement today puts all the blame on FCDO officials and none on accountability of Ministers. The Prime Minister stated today that
“given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UKSV’s recommendations”
after Mandelson had been announced and his name had gone to the Palace two days before the press release. Given the seriousness and significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept the Prime Minister’s rationale for disregarding the advice given to him on 11 November that vetting should be acquired before the appointment, not before taking post. But quite astonishingly, the Prime Minister says
“if I had known before Peter Mandelson took up his post that the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment”.
But the appointment had already been made. Now, we must assume that there are questions on the accountability to Parliament.
The Prime Minister’s Statement today refers to the letter that the Foreign Secretary, alongside the Permanent Secretary, Sir Olly Robbins, provided to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which said that vetting
“concluded with the DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up the post”.
This misled Parliament, and the Government are saying that those who are accountable for that should not be the Ministers but officials—dismissed. We will hear from the sacked official, but the Prime Minister’s Statement alludes to other officials prior to Sir Olly taking up his post, and we are left with the uncomfortable position where only people who cannot answer to Parliament will be blamed, and no Ministers who are accountable to Parliament will be held to account. We await the work of parliamentary committees and the ISC, and I suspect we will also await the ministerial adviser report. Other Ministers have been held to account for what they have told Parliament; surely it must be the case that the Prime Minister and Ministers in this Government are held to account also.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will do my best to answer the questions in the time available. First, in response to the noble Lord, Lord True, who complained about the timing of the Statement, he usually asks me to repeat Statements made by the Prime Minister as soon as possible. It was my judgment, given the seriousness of the issue, that we should do it as soon as possible. He said about doing it in prime time; I think the House is pretty full to hear the Statement, and it is right that it is so, given the seriousness of it. He asked if I will come back tomorrow. I will always repeat the Prime Minister’s Statements in this House and take questions from your Lordships on any issue raised by the Prime Minister in the normal way and take questions in the normal way.
I think the noble Lord has got slightly confused between vetting and due diligence. There is no evidence that Peter Mandelson lied during the vetting process because we do not know what the vetting process had said. The Prime Minister said that he feels that he was not given accurate answers during the due diligence process, and he said that appointing Peter Mandelson was the wrong decision, for which he has apologised.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for raising the issue of victims, because too often we have just political debates. This started when the Epstein files were released, and I do not think, had those Epstein files not been released, we would have known the extent of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. Certainly on the issues around the information he was sending to him and the depth of the contact, we were not aware.
What we are talking about here is a failure of government, and it is extraordinary—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is a failure of good governance, in that there should be information made available to Ministers who are taking decisions. The fact that it was not made available is, as the Prime Minister said, extraordinary. Sir Chris Wormald has reviewed the process that was taken and it was correct. I will correct the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who said that Peter Mandelson did not getting vetting approval. The whole point is that he was given vetting approval; that is why people are quite astounded by this. The UK Security Vetting form—which is on the Government website for people to see—has two blocks; there is green, amber and red; and it has what the issues are and then what the recommendation is. The recommendation on that was not to give vetting, but the Foreign Office made the decision that it could pass the vetting.
It is one of those things that is a recommendation, but the vetting was then granted by the Foreign Office, so he was granted that vetting. No one could imagine that, with that information—when the Prime Minister and other Ministers are being asked and they are given the information that he has had the vetting—somebody did not flag that concerns were raised and that the recommendation was not to grant that vetting. The Prime Minister apologised for the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but in this case I think he is quite right to be angry and concerned that he was not informed of the red flags that were raised.
I was asked about what Olly Robbins did wrong. It may be that he lost the confidence of Ministers by quite clearly not giving the information. In terms of the process that was available, I think most of us think that there is an issue of judgment in how Ministers and officials would deal with information they are given. He had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. But I find it hard to believe that anybody in this House who had had that information would have considered it appropriate not to provide that information to the Prime Minister and other Ministers who were making the decisions.
This has been difficult. It is a difficult way forward for the Government, but the Prime Minister’s decisions on changing the process so that we do not have such a process in future—it should be absolutely clear that due diligence and vetting have been passed before any appointment is announced—would be a more sensible way forward. The review that Sir Adrian Fulford is taking forward should shine a light on this and look for a better way forward.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to up to 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions. This is set out in the Companion, in chapter 6, pages 86 and 87—paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8. The first question will come from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her repetition of the Statement made by the Prime Minister earlier. I went to the other place to listen to the Prime Minister, and I have listened again to what the noble Baroness has had to say this afternoon. I find it impossible to work out, from both the original Statement and the repetition, why on earth the Prime Minister wanted this man to be the ambassador in the United States in the first place. Every dog and cat in the street knew that Lord Mandelson was a wrong ’un. What went wrong?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The Prime Minister said that he made a wrong decision, but I have to say to the noble and learned Lord that the number of people who praised the decision at the time and then criticised it later is quite surprising. Yes, all evidence shows now that this was the wrong candidate for the job, but part of that would have been exposed had this process been more open and transparent for Ministers. If they had had more information, we may have seen a different outcome.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, the totally new twist to this long-running saga is the discovery that the Foreign Office officials failed to give any information about this failed vetting to their ministerial masters, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. So far, I find this as mystifying as everybody else. Surely by this afternoon, Olly Robbins and other officials have been asked to give their explanation for this incredible behaviour. We cannot do anything or know where we go next on this extraordinary feature of this multifaceted case until we know what on earth induced these senior and responsible civil servants to do anything as irresponsible as to withhold this from the Prime Minister. As the noble Baroness the Leader and the Prime Minister are giving Statements today, can we be told—because they must have asked this question and had an answer—what the answers are and tell us what explanation and what reason Olly Robbins and the FCDO have been giving for completely withholding this information?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right. When you see the multiple opportunities to inform the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary that the recommendation from UKSV was that the vetting would not be granted, it is extraordinary that it was not passed on to Ministers. The reason for the Statement today is that the Prime Minister said he wanted, as soon as he had more information, to present it to the House at the earliest opportunity, and he has done that.
I understand that Olly Robbins is giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee tomorrow and there will be information available after that. I do not want to paraphrase—like the noble Lord, I am looking at the papers and reading it—but I think he thought he was doing the right thing. I have concerns that his interpretation of the law may not have been right, because it seems extraordinary that he could withhold information of this seriousness from Ministers.
The very reason and the purpose for such a process of vetting is that those making the decisions have the information they need on which to make those decisions, and if they are not given that information, I think most people will just find it extraordinary. There would be, I think, a natural assumption that when you go through this process, those who are making the decisions have access and information provided to them. If any red flags were raised by the vetting process, they should have been provided to Ministers. But there will be the opportunity; there is a Select Committee tomorrow, and we may hear more about this.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the humble Address that Parliament passed gave the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I chair, the responsibility to consider those documents that, if released, would affect national security or international relations. This February, we asked the Cabinet Office to prioritise all the documentation relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. When we received that information, there was no documentation concerning his vetting. We raised this with the Cabinet Office, only to be told that it did not exist. Last Thursday, the Guardian indicated that the document did exist. We have now received it and will consider it this week at one of our meetings. Now we have the vetting documentation to consider, but I have asked the Cabinet Office about the decision-making process in the Foreign Office to reject the recommendation in the vetting of Peter Mandelson. Again, the Cabinet Office has told me that nothing exists. If it does exist, could my noble friend somehow expedite that information and ensure that it gets to the ISC as quickly as possible?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and his committee for their work on this. He underlines our concerns; the humble Address was very clear that all information should be provided. In terms of information that is missing or was not available at the time—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made this point, and I apologise for not answering it before—the Prime Minister has made an absolute commitment that all available information should be made public under the humble Address. National security information will be referred to the committee and anything that the police consider could be essential for a prosecution, and, if disclosed, would damage a potential one, may be delayed. The Foreign Office has gone back to the FCDO and is very keen to get all available information. It may be that some documents that were not available in the first tranche should be available in the second tranche or later. I think it is clear to everybody—the Prime Minister was extremely clear on this today—that all information should be available and the humble Address should be complied with in full.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will join me in paying tribute to our many diplomats around the world who do a sterling job in representing our country. I have a very simple question. She talked about the judgment of the then permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins. Surely there was an onus on the Prime Minister not just to listen but to ask. Why did he not?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I agree that our diplomats around the world do an amazing job in difficult circumstances. Anyone who has had to contact our embassies at a time of trouble or difficulty abroad will know how professional and excellent they are. The noble Lord is right that this all comes down to judgment. The Prime Minister has apologised for his judgment in making the appointment, but others must stand by the judgments they made, be questioned on them and account for them. That is what is happening as we get more information. Those of us sitting on this side of the House trust the Prime Minister’s judgment. It takes a big character to stand up and say sorry when they have made a mistake. That does not always happen. It has not always happened in the past. On the big judgments, we look at the international situation, where the Prime Minister refused just to follow in the wake of President Trump and acted in the national interest. That shows true judgment. That is why we on this side of the House trust the Prime Minister’s judgment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we have had a lot of discussions in this House over the last year about employment rights and particularly about unfair dismissal. To be fair, a dismissal must have a valid reason—we cannot make a rigid judgment on the dismissal of Olly Robbins at this stage—but it must also follow fair procedure. That typically means investigating the issue, informing the employee in writing, holding a disciplinary hearing and offering an appeal. According to the press, Olly Robbins was dismissed in a phone call on Thursday night. Can the Minister confirm that due, fair procedure was followed? If not, can she explain why the Government are so strong on insisting that all other employers should follow it, but it does not apply to them?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there have been times when the Prime Minister has said that he has had to act quickly, as when he sacked Peter Mandelson. I do not think any Member of this House raised due process when he was called and told that he would lose his position. I will look further into this, but I expect the Prime Minister would have been given advice on how to proceed. It is a serious matter when a Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary say they do not have confidence in an official, but I expect due procedure to be followed as this goes forward.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for her clarity and for repeating the Statement, as others have echoed. My question is about risk in the wider system. I speak as someone who has been through this system, understands how intensive the questioning was, and is aware that thousands and thousands of these clearances are processed every year for the security of the nation. Will the scope of the review include whether there have been other breaches or lapses in judgment in questions of clearance at the most senior level because of the volume of people who pass through the system, and where there might be other risks?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and I think we are all relieved to know that he has been through the process. It is a very intrusive and robust process, which is why it is right that the details are not conveyed to anybody outside those undertaking it. However, the results and conclusions should be. My understanding is that Sir Adrian Fulford’s investigation will look at the process in the round. My noble friend makes an important point, because there are many positions that need this degree of developed vetting. It is robust and intrusive, but if information is not passed on in a timely and accurate way then the value of that process is not fair, including on those who go through it. I will double-check this, but my understanding is that it will be a full investigation into whether the process is fit for purpose or whether changes need to be made.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Prime Minister ignored the advice of the then Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Case, to do the vetting before the appointment was announced?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Prime Minister received a number of items of advice. He receives advice every day on different issues. That has been investigated since and the then Cabinet Secretary said that the appropriate, right process had been followed.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Roe, I have been through the developed vetting process. It is intrusive and extremely thorough, going line by line through your bank statements, with detailed and intensive questions about personal relationships and everything else. I was doing so for a ministerial appointment. It was made quite clear in writing that if I failed the vetting process, I could not be appointed or continue in that role. I have also chaired a public body where one of our committee failed the vetting process and was removed from office. Are ambassadors in some way separate from that process? I think that is the question that noble Lords would like answered.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Yes, there is a difference, although the process undertaken by UKSV may be very similar. A summary is provided, but it is not a pass or fail. It will look at concerns, whether low, moderate or high. On the overall decision, it can approve clearance, it can approve it with risk management, or it can be denied. The difference here is that the Foreign Office, on getting that recommendation, did not have to follow it. It did, and was able to, override it. The concern is that it did not inform Ministers of the outcome of the vetting. What has caused Ministers most concern is that, at the various opportunities there were to inform them that, although vetting was granted, it was against the recommendation of UKSV, the information was never passed on.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, is it possible that the reason the Foreign Office did not inform the Prime Minister that it had overruled the security advice—which it is perfectly entitled to do—was that it knew very well that the Prime Minister was so wedded to the appointment of Mandelson and had appointed him, as we have heard, prior to the vetting process taking place?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is hard to say what is in somebody’s mind when they make a judgment call. However, the Prime Minister has been very clear that he would not have made the appointment against the vetting recommendation. I do not think it should be the case that officials could make that judgment and not let the Prime Minister or other Ministers know that they are making that judgment. They might think they know what is in the Prime Minister’s mind, but they have to give the Prime Minister the information.
It is also the case that the Prime Minister was clear that, had he known this—and I think this also goes for other Ministers—there would have been a different outcome. What is the point of such a system if those who actually make the decisions on appointments are not given the outcome of the process?
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would have not made the appointment if he had the information from UK Security Vetting. At any point, did the Prime Minister or those working for him ask what the result of the UK security vetting process was? If not, why not?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My understanding is that the Foreign Office was asked to provide this to No. 10 and the Prime Minister. I could not tell the noble Lord who asked who, but the information was requested as it had been raised. However, they were never informed that there had been a recommendation; they were told that the appointment had been passed by the Foreign Office, but were not told that it was against the recommendation of UKSV.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I first echo the comments made by my noble friend Lord True, who had some very searching questions. I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for the Statement today. My question is one that I have raised twice before. There will be long and thorough discussions concerning the vetting process. However, we know that, despite the vetting process taking place following the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Lord Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States of America, at the time of the appointment, the Prime Minister knew that Lord Mandelson had remained friendly with a convicted paedophile. These are two separate issues. When we look at judgment, therefore, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House really consider that the Prime Minister showed any judgment at all?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have already been clear to the House that I trust the Prime Minister’s judgment. The noble Baroness is raising two quite separate things. On the first, the Prime Minister is clear that, when the due diligence process was undertaken, he was not given accurate information by Peter Mandelson. He has said that he would have made a different decision based on that information.
The issue of vetting is different and covers issues such as national security. It is inconceivable that, when the recommendation from UK Security Vetting was that clearance should not be granted, it was not accepted by the Foreign Office, and that the Prime Minister and other Ministers were not told. I come back to the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: what is the point of having this intrusive and robust process if the information is not given to those who make the decisions?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of whether the Foreign Office has turned down red flag security briefings on ambassadors before? How many times has this happened before? If it has, what is the point of spending money on security services if nobody listens to them?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is not just ambassadors; a number of public appointments are made under this process, and this is something that must be looked at. I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness’s question; I do not know whether others know, but we need that answer as to whether recommendations have been ignored in other cases.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister used his considerable communication skills to make it clear that he wanted to appoint Lord Mandelson to the post of ambassador. Why did he not use the same skills to make clear to officials that this would be only on the condition that Lord Mandelson passed the vetting process? If that had happened, the noble Baroness would not be at the Dispatch Box now and the Government would not be in this mess.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think it is reasonable that the Prime Minister should be given information. If you make an appointment to such an important position, the expectation is—as we all know—that it is subject to security clearance. The Prime Minister was told only that Peter Mandelson had passed the security clearance; he was never told that it was against the recommendation of UKSV. The fault-line is between the recommendation of UKSV and the decision that was taken to grant developed vetting. That line is what has caused the most concern. We will have to investigate it, look at the process in future and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, learn whether it has happened in any other cases.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:05 - Division on Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E) - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 144 - Motion E1 agreed.
20:17 - Division on Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F) - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 148 - Motion F1 agreed.
20:28 - Division on Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G) - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 150 - Motion G1 agreed.
20:40 - Division on Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J) - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 151 - Motion J1 agreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, B1 and C. The Commons have disagreed with Amendment 1 on the grounds that it could introduce, rather than mitigate, risks that the provision in Clause 2 could be used in unintended ways. Amendment 1 would place an explicit prohibition on regulations made under Clause 2, including any provision requiring investment in particular assets or asset classes, or in particular locations.
I acknowledge the concern that lies behind this amendment, and I wish to reiterate the Government’s position clearly for the benefit of the House. The Government have no intention of using the powers in Clause 2 to require asset pool companies to invest in specific assets, asset classes or locations. The Bill, as drafted, does not provide a legal basis for the Government to tell asset pool companies what investments should be made or where those investments should be located. Indeed, by expressly setting out particular matters that regulations may not address, the amendment risks introducing ambiguity about the scope of the regulatory making power. It could invite the inference that matters not explicitly excluded are in fact permissible; such an approach could therefore weaken the clarity of the legislative framework and increase the risk of misinterpretation or challenge.
I note that, in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the powers to make LGPS regulations had to be interpreted in line with Parliament’s intention, which was that LGPS investment decisions should be made in a way consistent with funds’ fiduciary duties. Although the Bill provides for asset pool companies to take investment decisions rather than funds, there is nothing in the Bill that overrides this broader intention, meaning there is nothing in the Bill that allows Government to tell asset pool companies to invest in specific assets, asset classes or locations. For these reasons, the Commons were of the view that Amendment 1 is both unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. The Government agree with that assessment.
Motion B sets out that this House do not insist on its Amendment 5 because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate to impose the publication requirements mentioned in the amendment, and that any additional requirements should be considered after the next report under Section 13 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 has been prepared. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for his amendment in lieu in Motion B1, the intent of which, I believe, is already substantively met by the Government Actuary’s statutory Section 13 review of the LGPS valuations and the consultation on Regulation 64A, which relates to interim valuations, that MHCLG has already committed to running later this year.
The 2025 LGPS valuation has recently concluded. I am pleased to note that, taken across the whole scheme, the average employer contribution rate reported at the 2025 valuations of the LGPS in England and Wales has reduced by slightly less than 5% of pensionable pay, relative to the equivalent amount quoted for the 2022 valuations. This figure has been confirmed by the GAD’s analysis of the published valuation reports. There is of course variation to this across the country, and I understand the concern with ensuring that valuations are balancing stability for the scheme with value for money for the taxpayer.
As I have referred to both in Committee and on Report, under Section 13 of the Public Service Pension Schemes Act 2013, MHCLG appoints the Government Actuary to undertake a review of the valuation. As part of this review, I have already committed that the department will ask the Government Actuary for a consideration of the issue of prudence. Specifically, the Government Actuary’s Department will look at the levels of prudence inherent in the contribution rates set by funds, to ensure that a balanced view of liabilities is being taken in the context of an open scheme. This will include any prudence margins used within the discount rates, as well as other sources of prudence, such as the stability buffers and stabilisation mechanisms used by funds. While the Government Actuary’s Department does not believe that any of the actuarial firms would characterise their valuation methods as being gilts-based, they recognise that some of the rates used by funds in the 2025 valuation are similar to prevailing gilt yields at the valuation date. Discount rates have therefore been set by reference to the long-term investment horizon and characteristics of the actual assets backing funds’ liabilities, but are then reduced by some funds to gilt-rate levels by the inclusion of prudence and stability margins.
I further commit that the department will ask the Government Actuary to consider the methods being adopted by fund actuaries for managing risk and reflecting the long-term funding objectives of the scheme. It will ask whether there would be benefit to including additional illustrative valuations in valuation reports, and, if so, what they should be based on. It will also ask whether pension funds and their actuaries are engaging effectively with employers on the setting of contribution rates, including whether the information is being provided in a way that is comprehensible to the lay reader. The Government Actuary has already committed to publishing its Section 13 report next spring, an acceleration of previous timetables.
In addition, the department committed to consulting on interim contribution rates later this year. This consultation will consider how and when it might be appropriate for an employer to use this review mechanism, including significant shifts in financial pressures on local authorities and other employers. It will also consider whether there should be a link to the Section 13 review of the valuation.
I trust these points give reassurance that the Government take noble Lords’ concerns seriously and that the Section 13 review will address them. I respectfully ask that the noble Viscount does not press his amendment.
Finally, I turn to Motion C. Amendment 6 seeks to update the current regulation that allows employers to seek an interim review of contributions within the three-yearly cycle of valuations. As I said previously, on the question of access to interim reviews of contribution rates, the department has already committed to consulting on interim contribution rate reviews later this year. This consultation will consider how and when it might be appropriate for an employer to use this review mechanism, including whether there should be a link to the Section 13 review of the valuation, and the relative balance of responsibility between the fund actuary and the administering authority. Any such changes would then be brought forward by the Government in regulations, having followed the proper process and met the statutory requirement to consult.
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that departmental officials have already made clear to administering authorities that, should they receive requests for an interim review of their valuations, they need to engage with their substance, communicating clearly and transparently the process, and that any review must be in line with the policies set out in the funding strategy statement.
I urge all noble Lords to support Motions A, B and C, and that the amendment in lieu in Motion B1 is not pressed. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to Motion B1, I welcome that the Government have committed to a review of Regulation 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013. That is an important and necessary step, and their further commitments today are most welcome.
However, if the GAD review is to be meaningful, it must first focus on the factors that directly drive employer contribution rates. In particular, it should examine the effectiveness of consultation between fund actuaries, administering authorities and scheme employers.
Secondly, the GAD review must examine outliers in valuations. There is increasing evidence that some funds are applying discount rates that are significantly more prudent than those implied by gilt yields or insurer pricing, despite the Local Government Pension Scheme being an open, funded and asset-backed scheme.
Thirdly, Section 151 officers are rightly expected to scrutinise expenditure rigorously, including pension contributions, just as they would any other area of spending. When budgets are tight and local taxpayers are under strain, those responsible must be able to understand the methodologies being used, weigh the trade-offs and, where necessary, challenge the conclusions reached by fund actuaries.
It was with these concerns in mind that amendments were tabled in Committee, as the Minister is aware. Where such issues arise of the kind that I have outlined there is currently little recourse. Employers may be forced to wait up to three years for the next valuation cycle before any action can be taken. That is a considerable period to carry contribution rates that may be excessive or difficult to justify. The principle in our amendment is simple: the review identifies the problem and the interim review under Regulation 64A provides the remedy.
On these points, I am glad that the Government have broadly recognised the concerns I have raised in my amendment. I shall listen to the remainder of the debate on this group, but I am more reassured now that this is a priority for the Government and that they are aware of the concerns that we have been outlining. I thank the Minister for his movement on this.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining things in great detail from the Government’s perspective.
I will speak to Motion B1, which the Minister said has already been met. The Local Government Pension Scheme already has mechanisms to review and amend employer pension contributions and funding practices; for instance, under Regulation 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013. There is even an existing GAD reporting mechanism under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, which reports on compliance, consistency, solvency and long-term cost efficiency, with such reports having been carried out in 2018, 2019 and 2024. Therefore, we on these Benches think that the Government’s efforts should be focused—as they are, I think—more on implementing the recommendations of those reports, rather than duplicating efforts. We will probably abstain on Motion B1; we recognise its importance but think it is already being met.
Motion C is a government Motion, so I come to Motion D. Amendment 13 would extend the period before a pension pot is classified as dormant, increasing the threshold from one year to three years. We supported this increase earlier in the passage of the Bill, as it would provide greater flexibility for savers such as mothers, those on sabbatical or mature students. Motion D1, from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—
Lord Katz (Lab)
Motions D and D1 are the opening Motions of the next group.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I see. I am sorry. Forgive me, I was going on to the next group.
On Motion B1, we will abstain rather than vote against it, because we think that these things are already in process, if dealt with properly.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am glad that, for once, our debate on the LGPS has been short and sweet. I thank both opposition Front Benches for their engagement on this issue. I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, recognised that there has been movement. We understand the importance attached to the nature of the reviews. I hope that what I said has met his need for us to demonstrate that we are taking it seriously, which, of course, we are.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I hope that he will be in a position where his abstinence will not be needed because the noble Viscount will not be testing the opinion of the House, but we shall see. I beg to move.
Lord Katz
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 13, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 13A.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Motions J, J1, K, K1 and L.
As I have previously outlined, we cannot accept Lords Amendment 13 on small pots or Amendment 13B within Motion D1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which would extend the dormancy period for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 36 months or 24 months respectively. Extending the threshold would materially lengthen the period for which a pot remained dormant. This would be detrimental both to individual members, who would incur multiple sets of charges for longer, and to the wider scheme membership, which, in effect, subsidises the small deferred pots, which are uneconomic for schemes to administer. We estimate that extending the dormancy period from 12 to 24 months would generate additional industry costs of around £25 million a year, which would most likely simply be passed on to members.
The Government did not invent this scheme. The 12-month timeframe formed part of the proposal that was consulted on in 2023 with stakeholders across the pension industry and consumer representative bodies, and it reflects a supported middle ground. The previous Government concluded that a period of 12 months struck the appropriate balance, allowing eligible pots to be identified for consolidation while seeking to avoid certain situations; for example, where individuals who, for a range of reasons, may have temporarily ceased pension contributions but remain with their existing employer and are likely to return to pension saving. The 12-month figure was not plucked out of thin air; it was a judgment underpinned by consultation and evidence, not speculation. It is supported by a strong set of safeguards, most notably the individual’s right to opt out of consolidation.
Throughout the development of this policy, my department has engaged with a range of stakeholders, including consumer representative bodies. For example, Which? was part of our small pots delivery group, and it welcomed the safeguards that we have put in place, which it agrees are sufficient.
I understand from previous debates that noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, have concerns that 12 months might be too short for certain individuals, particularly those who take career breaks, say, for maternity leave or caring responsibilities, and experience fluctuating earnings. But the 12 month dormancy period is triggered only where no contributions have been made for a full year. Periods of paid maternity leave, for example, would see contributions continue, and a pot would become dormant only after 12 months of unpaid leave.
Currently, only pots worth £1,000 or less will be eligible for consolidation. For context, a full-time worker on the national living wage would typically exceed that threshold after nine months of saving. That means that individuals with longer periods of continuous employment are unlikely to have pots that fall into scope. It cannot be a common occurrence that someone who has saved less than £1,000 and then had no contributions for at least 12 months would recommence saving with the same employer once it had entered dormancy. Nevertheless, we recognise that such circumstances could occur. That is why we have built strong safeguards into the policy. Most importantly, every member will receive a transfer notice ahead of any consolidation, giving them a clear opportunity to opt out if they judge that consolidation is not in their best interests.
Finally and crucially, the Bill already requires regulations to set a minimum 12 month period for a pot to be classified as dormant. That threshold could be set at a longer period or extended in future through secondary legislation if the evidence justified such a change.
I think we all agree on the need to consolidate small pots to protect savers and all other members from multiple years of charges on multiple pots eating away at their savings. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, can see that extending the dormancy period would harm the vast majority of members in a known and avoidable way to add further protection for a very small number of hypothetical cases. The best way to protect those cases is through building full and proper safeguards into the policy, which is what this Bill does. After that compelling argument, I hope that she will be willing not to press her amendment, when we come to that point.
Lords Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to conduct and publish a review of the long-term affordability of public service pension schemes. The Government cannot accept the amendment as it is unnecessary and technically defective. It is unnecessary, as detailed information about the cost of the unfunded public service pension schemes is already publicly available. The OBR undertakes analysis of both the near-term and long-term cost of the schemes, including the Treasury’s central measure of affordability: 50-year projections of pension payments as a proportion of GDP. Contrary to suggestions made in Committee and on Report, the cost of the schemes is forecasted to fall under this measure, from 1.9% to 1.4% of GDP.
On Report, we heard suggestions that savings arising from the Hutton reforms had not and would not materialise. That is simply incorrect. The coalition Government forecasted savings of around £400 billion by 2065 as a result of the substantial reforms made to the schemes in 2014-15, but implementation of the reforms was, in effect, set back because the courts found that the way in which the coalition Government had introduced them was discriminatory on grounds of age. That incurred costs of around £17 billion, but crucially, it will not impact the savings going forward. Those are the key drivers behind the fall in costs over the long-term.
Every four years, detailed actuarial valuations of each of the schemes are undertaken and published. They set out the cost of providing benefits to current staff and the cost of meeting all accrued liabilities. The valuations test the cost of the schemes against the cost control mechanism, introduced by the coalition Government as part of the Hutton reforms, and they provide for benefits to be adjusted if those have deviated from target levels. Pension costs are also set out in the financial accounts for each of the schemes and collectively in the whole of government accounts. This information is produced in accordance with international accounting standards.
The amendment is not necessary because the risks arising from changes to longevity are already managed in the design of the schemes. This came up on Report. The retirement age in the schemes, except those for police, firefighters and the Armed Forces, is the state pension age. In any case, the cost control mechanism would be triggered if costs rose due to longevity improvements that were not managed by changes to state pension age.
The suggestion made on Report was that the fact that some of the public service schemes are operated on a pay-as-you-go basis means that they must be unaffordable, but “unfunded” does not mean “unaffordable”. In general, the Government do not pre-fund future liabilities by holding assets at all. Details of the Government’s policy on whether to hold assets in relation to specific liabilities is set out clearly in Annex 4.16 of Managing Public Money, should anyone want to look it up.
There is clearly an opportunity cost to holding assets in a fund, which are invested with the sole objective of having enough returns to meet future liabilities. Holding funds can create technically allocative inefficiencies across the public sector. The liability can clearly be more efficiently managed in the round with other unfunded liabilities, met out of general taxation as they fall due.
The amendment would not work, because it would require the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to undertake a review on a matter that does not fall within their responsibilities and for which statutory responsibility sits elsewhere, including with the devolved Administrations.
Comprehensive information is already available, published and regularly updated on the cost of public service pensions. There is demonstrably already transparency on all the points raised by noble Lords during the debates, and the amendment is, in the Government’s view, therefore unnecessary. We will continue to ensure that public service pensions are properly costed, transparently reported and kept under review through existing mechanisms. So, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
I turn to Amendments 78 and 86. These amendments engage Commons financial privilege. The House of Commons has therefore disagreed with the amendment and has not offered any further reason. As noble Lords will know, it is a long-standing convention that this House does not insist on amendments which the other place has rejected on grounds of financial privilege. But I will briefly explain why the Government do not agree with the policy intent. These amendments would not do what I suspect the movers hoped they would, which is to enable the PPF to pay lump sum payments to its members on top of the periodic compensation it provides.
Baroness Altmann
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 13B in lieu—
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and her helpful remarks relating to Motion D, which is mostly what I will speak to in my remarks.
The Government say that allowing small pots to be moved without member consent after just 12 months is essential because, otherwise, any longer period would be detrimental to scheme members. I do not think that would stand up to market scrutiny. This is about providers not wanting to have to administer small pots, the economics of which they find rather challenging. As to the idea that if people with small pots move somewhere else or are moved somewhere else, that will lead to lower fees being charged by the pension providers, I think the providers simply making higher profits is the far more likely outcome.
It will not particularly be detrimental to most members, but for those whose money is moved, without their consent and potentially without their knowledge, I have concerns that allowing just 12 months and then shipping the money off elsewhere to another scheme, which could be worse and could perform worse but just happens to be an approved scheme under the regulator’s supervision, would be a rather dangerous thing to approve after such a short space of time. Members may have paused their contributions temporarily, and I point out to the Minister that members who have decided to opt out of auto-enrolment, who will then be re-enrolled after three years, may decide not to opt out but the money that they previously put into the scheme will have gone somewhere else. This to me suggests that the policy needs to be reconsidered.
Yes, of course, we need to look at the economics of auto-enrolment but we have to also balance fairness to members who have paused temporarily, whether it is for unpaid carers’ leave—perhaps a relative who is terminally ill and it has gone on for slightly over the one year, but their money may have been moved before they get back to their employer—with the costs to providers of administering small pots. I do not believe 12 months is the right balance. It is too short.
I just ask noble Lords whether they feel we should allow a bank to move somebody’s money in their account to a different bank because they have not got a lot in there and the bank cannot make any profit on keeping that current account. I do not think we would feel the same—that after just 12 months, without member consent, their money could be shipped off to another bank.
I agree that we have to find some way of administering small pots. I hope that, when the noble Baroness points out that there is a minimum of 12 months being provided for in the Bill and that regulations will set the required time period, after further consultation there is a chance that we will perhaps have a longer period than the current 12 months. On that basis, I hope that the situation for small pots will turn out to be better after regulations than it currently would seem. I will not press my amendment tonight.
Very briefly on Motion K1 in the name of noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I too am extremely concerned about the problem of the AEAT pension scheme members. I feel that there is an obligation in some way on government to look more carefully and to take careful consideration of the findings of the various inquiries that have happened more recently. I hope that, when the meeting takes place, those of us who are particularly interested in the AEAT situation will be able to have a proper discussion with the Ministers on that issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Motion J1 reintroduces my proposal for a review of the long-term affordability, intergenerational unfairness, fiscal sustainability and accounting treatment of public service pension schemes. I am trying to help the Government to fill a lacuna in their important work on pensions, so I was taken aback by the Commons’ reason for rejecting it—namely,
“that it is not necessary to duplicate existing information regarding public sector pension schemes”.
The presentation of the liability represented by public sector pensions is widely seen as inadequate, and the PAC itself has expressed concerns—in particular that pension liabilities are not being presented in a way that allows Parliament properly to understand their real costs in the long term.
I will highlight four reasons why a review is needed. First, the cost is huge. As we have heard repeatedly, unfunded pension liabilities represent the second-largest government liability after gilts. Currently, we commit future taxpayers to about £60 billion of new expenditure every year, in the form of a stream of index-linked new expenditure. According to the OBR, the long-term liability is £1.4 trillion, but it may be more as a lot depends on the assumptions made.
Secondly, it is an unfunded pay-as-you-go scheme. The problem with that is that the current generation of older and former public sector workers are taking money from younger generations of workers already weighed down by trying to finance housing, young families and, in some cases, repaying student loans. This is unfair, and it is why I put intergenerational unfairness at the heart of the review.
Thirdly, the coalition did well to reform some public sector pensions following the Hutton review, as the Minister acknowledged, but the new arrangements have turned out to be more costly than expected. Sadly, growth, which helps to ease things, has been modest. Moreover, substantial increases in the pay and size of the public sector make things look better in the short term, as employer and employee contributions increase. However, this is a mirage, as it stores up even more trouble for the future, as greater payouts on higher salaries will be needed as those people in the system retire.
Fourthly, there are serious accounting issues, as we know from the PAC. The scale of liabilities is not clearly visible from the public accounts. Moreover, as I have learned from my unique experience as a civil servant and a Cabinet Office Minister, the costs of future pensions are not properly taken into account in decision-making across the public sector—for example, on restructuring or adding to the workforce. In conclusion, there is a real need to establish whether the system is fair and sustainable, and whether anything could be done to improve things.
I emphasise that I support the work of public sector workers and that I am not making any recommendations. That is for the experts, who would look at the whole area objectively, and it is for the Government to decide what, if anything, needs to be done.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I want very quickly to ask the Minister a question on Motions D and D1. I say at the outset that I agree with almost every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said. I entirely agree that one year is too short. I have at least two pensions that have not been touched for that long, which would fall into the dormant category; I would not consider them dormant, but there we go.
My concern is that if we start moving people’s small pots around, potentially without their knowledge, we increase the problem of lost pots. The answer to that is the pension dashboard. So my question to the Minister is: will we have the pension dashboard in place, as a method of being able to retrace a lost pot, before we start moving people’s pots around?
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on Motion K and my Motion K1. I have rehearsed the arguments around this question fully both in Committee and on Report, so will therefore not do so again. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and I am extremely grateful to her for the engagement that I have had with her on several occasions, when her sympathy was obvious, even if her ability to do something about it was clearly limited.
When the time comes I will not move that amendment, but I will certainly take up the offer of a meeting. I hope I can move from the tea and sympathy that have been so evident to having a little power of persuasion over the Minister and demonstrating that this is a particularly exceptional case that needs to be dealt with. I thank the Minister and her team for their engagement, and I will not be moving my Motion when the time comes.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I note that my noble friend the Minister went out of her way to mention pre-1997 increases, even though they do not come up in any of these amendments. The House will welcome future increases being paid, but the failure to do anything about lost increases is still a big topic that is not going away.
I share many of the concerns about small pots expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on Motion D1. However, I was reassured by the comments that my noble friend the Minister made in introducing this group about the flexibility inherent in the proposals in the Bill. I hope she will reassure us that the issue will be kept under review and that, if the problems that some of us worry about arise, the necessary action can be taken without the need for primary legislation.
I also support the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I am glad to hear that the issue is being taken forward—more power to his elbow.
I could speak at great length on the issue of Motion J1, picking up the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her speech introducing it. However, I very much welcome what my noble friend said in introducing this group. I fully agree with all the arguments she made, so I will leave it there.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, prior to this debate we had a Statement showing what can be done in haste, when you should stop and think, in the appointment of Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States of America. I use that analogy here, because one year to move pots is a miniscule amount of time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said that two years would also be short but would be more appropriate. I hear that she has decided not to press this Motion. If she had, we on these Benches would have supported it because one year is not enough, just as a flick of the Prime Minister’s eye was not enough to appoint Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States. We need two years. I understand that it is not going to happen here today but, before the Bill is finalised, I ask the Minister and her colleagues in the House of Commons to consider tweaking it to make one year two years. It would please a lot of people and would be a safeguard for people with small pots, who are the least interested in how their pensions work until they find that they are not what they thought they were, they cannot find them or whatever it is. The point about the pensions dashboard was well made.
I welcome the consultations that we have had with Government Ministers. In many ways, we have worked together on this Bill, and we have managed to make some of the points about which we feel strongly. On the pots, I hope that one year could be two years. It does not have to be done now; it could be done quietly, with no fuss at all.
Motion J1, the Conservative Motion, would insist on Amendments 77 and 85. We on these Benches supported these amendments on Report, because we agreed that it would be important for the Government to comment on this issue. However—and I think this shows what I was saying before—we have been convinced by the arguments made by the Government on the content of these amendments overlapping with existing reporting mechanisms. We are happy that that has happened.
I hope that the Government Ministers will take cognisance of the fact that we are not making problems just for the sake of debate in this Chamber. We think that, for small pots, it should be one year, not two. We will be talking in the next lot of amendments on mandation and we hope to convince the Government on that and on the size and range of pension funds.
We will not be voting on the Motion by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. If the Conservative Benches call a Division on Motion J1, we will probably quietly abstain.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for their Motions in this group. In the interest of brevity, I shall focus my remarks only on Motion J1.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is fundamentally asking the important question of whether we are being sufficiently clear about the long-term sustainability and transparency of the system as it currently stands. The central concern is this: unlike funded schemes, these pensions are not backed by accumulated assets. They are paid out of current taxation, and that means that the cost is not contained within a fund but passed forward, year by year, to future taxpayers. As the number of public sector employees grows, and as people live longer, those obligations grow with them.
There is also a question of incentives. Decisions about expanding the public sector workforce or adjusting pay inevitably carry pension implications that stretch decades into the future, yet those costs are often diffuse, uncertain and ultimately borne by the Exchequer. Without a clear and accessible understanding of the long-term consequences, it is difficult, if not impossible, for decision-makers to weigh those trade-offs properly. A review would allow us to bring together the evidence, to test the assumptions and to ensure that policy is being made on the basis of a clear and realistic understanding of the facts.
For those reasons, including the four key reasons outlined by my noble friend, I believe that there is a strong case for the review proposed, and I am very pleased to support this Motion.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their questions and comments. I spoke at some length at the start, and I think I answered most of the questions pre-emptively—or tried to—so I will not dwell on them.
On a couple of specifics, and to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as I stressed, the Bill says a minimum of 12 months simply because we want to be able to respond to any changes. If there is evidence that we need to make it longer, we can; if there is evidence we need to extend it later, we can do so in secondary legislation. It is set up to do that, and I can give her that assurance.
I am not going to get into America. For me, as parallels go, whether we have one or two years’ opt-out and who is the ambassador to the United States are probably slightly separate categories of decisions. Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go there.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the two policies operate independently but the intention is that dashboards will be available before the small pot consolidation. I reassure the noble Lord, with the small pots he has scattered around, that he will be written to and given the opportunity to opt out, so that they will not be consolidated without his knowledge or against his will. I hope he will look out for that in due course and can then make appropriate decisions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the presentation of information. The Treasury is exploring options to present pension liabilities on a constant basis. It is important to be clear that any such presentation would be supplementary. It would not affect the underlying liability, as the noble Baroness knows well, or the way they are presented in financial statements, but it would help to add an extra level of clarity to those who are reading them. I think I have made all the arguments around affordability and the nature of them.
I have one final word for the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, who feels there is no way for decision-makers to make appropriate judgments about the affordability of pension schemes without a review such as this. I think he should have more confidence. The coalition Government, of which his party was the leading member, reformed almost all the public service pension schemes and created a new system, and that is what we now have. A lot of work was done then and is being done now. The measures of affordability that I have described are such that the schemes have that corrective factor straight in them. The fact that the information is out there and published will, I hope, be enough. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press their Motions.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. As I said, I will not press Motion D1 to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 88A to 88C to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must secure that a description of asset is prescribed under that subsection in respect of each example mentioned in subsection (5)(a) to (d).”
“(6A) Regulations under this section may not have the effect of requiring, as a condition of a scheme’s approval under subsection (1)—
(a) more than 10% (by value) of the assets held in default funds of the scheme as a whole to be qualifying assets, or
(b) more than 5% (by value) of the assets so held to be of a UK-specific description.
(6B) In subsection (6A)(b) “UK-specific description” means a description framed by reference to whether an asset is located in the United Kingdom or meets any other condition linked to economic activity in the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion E, that this House do not insist on its Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88 and do agree with the Commons in its Amendments 88A to 88C, I will speak also to Motions F, F1, G, G1 and H.
Motion E deals with Amendment 15 and those connected with it, which sought to remove the reserve power on asset allocation from the Bill. The case for removing the power was pressed firmly in Committee and on Report, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and supported by a number of other noble Lords. The Government have always taken those arguments seriously, and I hope our response demonstrates that. However, the Government continue to believe that the reserve power is necessary.
The collective action problem in the defined contribution market, where competitive pressure on costs discourages providers from diversifying even when they recognise it would benefit their members, is well-evidenced and has been acknowledged by the industry itself. The Mansion House Accord represents a welcome voluntary commitment, but the risk is real that individual providers defer action until others move first. The reserve power exists to underpin those commitments, giving each provider confidence that the rest of the market will move too.
This collective action problem is not simply a theoretical concern or a government preoccupation. Last autumn, signatories to the Mansion House compact—a predecessor agreement on private markets investment, negotiated under the previous Government—published their own progress update. What was the single biggest barrier to delivering on their commitments? In their words,
“market dynamics continue to focus on minimising cost instead of maximising long-term value”,
and that without intervention to shift that culture,
“‘too much focus on cost’ remains the key barrier”.
That is the collective action problem in a nutshell: providers recognise that greater diversification can benefit their members but competitive dynamics hold them back from acting on it.
However, I gave undertakings during the passage of the Bill to reflect on the concerns raised by noble Lords, and I have done so. The amendments in lieu before the House today respond directly to those concerns in two important respects. First, the Government have placed a cap in the Bill so that regulations may require not more than 10% of default fund assets to be held in qualifying assets overall or more than 5% to be of a UK-specific description. This is a significant step. The Government have always been clear that the power is a backstop to the Mansion House Accord, which applies those specific targets to DC providers’ main default funds and no more.
I heard the argument—pressed particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, in amendments that they tabled, with the support of others—that that commitment should be written into primary legislation rather than resting on ministerial assurance alone. This amendment does exactly that. It gives the industry and savers alike the confidence that no Government can use these powers to go beyond the accord’s percentage commitments.
Secondly, the Government have established a principle of neutrality between asset classes. These amendments remove the ability for regulations, should they try to do so, to weight the requirement towards any single category of private asset, and require that qualifying asset descriptions are prescribed across each of the private market categories set out in the Bill—so the Government could not, for example, concentrate the entire requirement in infrastructure, still less direct it into a particular sector or company. This responds to a type of concern expressed by noble Lords during the Bill’s passage about the breadth of the power and the risk that a future Government might use it for purposes unrelated to the accord. The neutrality requirement, taken together with the established principles of public law to which any secondary legislation must conform, provides a robust constraint against such misuse.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
Moved by
As an amendment to Motion E, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 88A to 88C to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, the Commons has asked us to accept a clause that reintroduces strict mandation of pension scheme asset allocation, traducing trustee fiduciary duty. There are two problems with the clause: the mandation itself and the discriminatory definition of investment vehicles that excludes listed investment companies—one of the two vehicles explicitly endorsed by the productive finance working group, composed of regulators, HMT and the wider investment industry.
Both defects are fundamental. Until this clause appeared, there was broad political and industry alignment on the direction of travel, supporting trustees to consider a wider range of assets and ensuring that the Government play their part through the enablers set out in the Mansion House Accord. Nothing in that shared approach required coercion.
Further, the Government’s own consultation evidence contradicts the justification for mandation. Ministers say that employers choose schemes based on cost and that private asset investment is too expensive. But the DWP’s own data, quoted in the consultation document, shows that investment charges are not in the “top three factors” for employer decisions. The top factors are convenience, professional advice and employer fees.
Most schemes are already priced well below the charge cap and only 5% of employees ever switch schemes at all. The consultation stated that investment charges are not likely to feature heavily in employers’ decision-making. If that is so, the rationale for strict mandation simply does not stand, although I can see how the allegation helps to escape competition policy concerns about strategy co-ordination. But do not forget that value for money is meant to solve the focus on cost.
There can be perfectly good reasons why a scheme has not invested in a particular asset or asset class—reasons recognised explicitly in the Mansion House Accord itself. Ministers say that this clause is just a back-up to the accord, but it does not reflect the accord’s own terms: its dependence on government actions and the critical enablers. Instead, the clause is a doubling down, not a codification. The Government admit that it is intended to be and will be coercive merely as a reserve power.
Ministers have also spoken often about crowding in investment and using pension capital to give confidence to the wider market, but coercion does the opposite. If investment has to be compelled, the signal to the wider market is not confidence but doubt—crowding out, not in. Wider market effects have consistently been overlooked in the drafting of this clause, but it is not something that this House should ignore.
The overriding principle is that government must not undermine fiduciary duty, whether by mandation or coercion. Therefore, we should continue to insist on our amendment and disagree with the Commons. I intend to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, it is beyond doubt that mandation is, rightly, the most serious and contentious issue in the Bill. We have made our views on this very clear, as have many other noble Lords. The state should not be directing the investment of assets held by private funds. The power that the Government are setting out in the Bill directly undermines the principle of fiduciary duty on which the entire pensions system relies. It must by now be plainly obvious to the Government and the Minister that any investment that has to be forced by the Government is not in the interest of savers.
We are absolutely opposed to this power, in principle and in practice. We have met with many representatives from industry, including signatories to the Mansion House Accord, to which the Minister claims this power is designed to be a backstop. They have been crystal clear that this power crosses a line and must not proceed. We will support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, if she seeks the opinion of the House on this Motion.
On Motion F1, the argument for scale exemptions is now well rehearsed and I will not repeat it today. Our amendment would preserve the policy intent and provide two clear and targeted routes through which a scheme may qualify—both tightly drawn and firmly anchored in member outcomes—that introduces a rigorous evidential threshold and places the responsibility firmly with the regulator, who must be satisfied not only that the conditions are met but that any claimed benefits are material and demonstrably in the interest of members. The Government committed through the Mansion House Accord to taking a pragmatic approach to scale. This amendment gives effect to that commitment. I put on notice that I will seek to test the opinion of the House on this Motion when it is called.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Motion G1 in this group. The Bill will consolidate today’s pensions market into a small number of large firms. It may well bring benefits, but it also carries the risk that the market will ossify around those large firms. Healthy markets need to be open to the challenge of new entrants, which can provide healthy competition to the incumbents. In turn, that has the potential to deliver for pension savers in the long run. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what is good for savers. I agree with the Minister on that.
In rejecting my Amendments 35 and 43, the other place said that
“it is not necessary to impose further requirements relating to innovation and competition”.
The Bill does not mention competition at all. It talks about restricting new entrants, and it mentions innovation only once. Innovation and competition are absolutely central to markets that work for consumers. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott’s Amendment 37B in lieu now incorporates innovation, so I have confined my Amendment 35B in lieu to the broader concept of competition. My amendment would require only that regulations have regard to competition among providers of pension schemes; it is no more onerous than that. It would apply to the several regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State attached to Clause 40 and to the powers of the regulators to make regulations under Clauses 42 and 44.
Regulations can create barriers to entry, which is why large firms love them. I believe that the Secretary of State and the regulators should use their powers to foster competition so that barriers to entry are not erected and new entrants are given a proper chance to flourish. If those making the regulations do not secure this for the benefit of pension savers, no one else will. My amendment in lieu would help to ensure that the scale provisions in the Bill deliver long-term benefits for pension savers.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I offer Motion E1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, my wholehearted support. I also say in passing that I wholeheartedly support Motion G1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
The Minister has once again explained that the mandation powers are intended to backstop the voluntary Mansion House agreement. She has tabled an amendment that simply limits the amount of assets the allocation of which may be mandated to no more than 10% by value and 5% in the UK, with the UK to be defined later. The Mansion House agreement is a voluntary agreement. If the Government have a mandation power, they are basically saying, “If you do not do this, we will force you”, which would mean that it is not, in reality, voluntary. The trustees would be forced to act against what they believe is in the best interests of scheme members. Why else would they not want to invest in these apparently fantastic assets?
Under the Bill—and the Minister’s amendment in lieu does not change this—the only exemption to that would be if the trustees could prove that the mandated asset allocation would cause,
“material financial detriment to members of the scheme”,
not just that it would not be in their best interests, but would cause material financial detriment. It cannot be right to force trustees to invest in a way that they would feel would cause any financial detriment, let alone material financial detriment, even if limited to just 10% by value.
The Minister’s amendment still does not put any restrictions around the type of assets or, indeed, specific assets that can be mandated. Here I very much disagree with what she said earlier. It does not limit it to the assets in the Mansion House agreement. Despite the proposed new subsection (5A), which requires the regulations to describe the examples that are listed in subsection (4), these remain just examples. Subsection (5) remains very clear that a qualifying asset does not have to be one of the examples. The Minister’s amendment does not change that in any way. I do not agree that the deletion of subsection (8) has any such effect. The Bill will now just be silent on the allocation of assets within the 10%. There is nothing here that stops mandation in a single asset type or class.
There is nothing here to prevent any future Government mandating any assets they please. While the Minister might point to the report that the Secretary of State must publish under subsection (12), which, among other things, sets out how the financial interests of members would be affected, it is important to note that that applies to only the first set of such regulations under this subsection. Any further future mandation, perhaps under a different Government, is subject to no such safeguard, just the negative process. Such assets could be mandated for any reason they wish to give. As an example, what if Nigel Farage were to find himself in a position of influence? He is a well-known enthusiast for and investor in cryptocurrencies. There is nothing in this Bill that would stop him mandating that the relevant funds should have 10% invested in cryptocurrency. Any Government could use this power to mandate whatever pet project they wanted. Let us be clear that the definition of assets in the Bill is sufficiently wide that it could be mandation into specific assets, specific projects, rather than a class, if that is what they wanted to do.
Even if it is to be used only as a backstop to the Mansion House agreement, is that such a good thing? Let us look at the example assets set out in the Bill. One is private debt. You do not have to be an avid reader of the financial pages to know that there are growing concerns about whether private debt may be the cause of the next big financial crisis. Many investors are trying to get out, which is why many large funds are now restricting redemptions. When someone like Jamie Dimon starts talking about cockroaches, we should take notice. Any sensible pension fund would be treating private credit with huge caution at the moment, but this is specifically one of the asset classes that the Government want to encourage and mandate. Government mandation of asset allocation has no place in the regulation of pensions. The fiduciary duty should remain sacrosanct. I urge all noble Lords to support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in her amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has just said. I declare my interests as a non-executive director of a pension administration company and a board adviser to a master trust. I support all the amendments in this group, but I shall speak particularly to Motion E1 so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
A fiduciary obligation is one of the highest standards of duty in common law, yet this Bill would override the best judgment of trustees. Although the 5% and 10% amendment laid by the Government is welcome, it does not deal with issues such as those outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. If trustees do not believe that the case for, for example, private assets is strong enough, they will still have to buy them or they will not be able to participate in auto-enrolment. This is not incentivisation. Incentivising financially, perhaps via tax reliefs, would change the calculation of the potential outcomes, but mandation does not do that.
The dangers of mistiming are clear. A McKinsey study published in February shows that, for example, private equity is under structural strain with constrained liquidity, valuation uncertainty and returns that have been weaker. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, outlined, the same applies to private credit, particularly that held in open-ended fund structures. In infrastructure, we have recently seen the returns offered for solar power degraded from in line with RPI to in line with CPI, which has put international investors off some of the infrastructure opportunities in the UK.
If the Government persist in their idea that closed-end funds, which are much more appropriate and have their own diversified, expertly managed portfolios of qualifying assets cannot qualify, that simply further reinforces the idea that the Government does not know best and that it is not safe for this House to authorise the Government to mandate these investments. Not all pension funds have the in-house capability to manage alternative or illiquid assets. Just being large does not give them instant expertise. Australian and Canadian funds have taken decades to build up this kind of ability. A strict time limit simply does not and cannot fit with the requirements that the Government seek to impose on pension schemes. I hope that noble Lords will stand firm in the resolve to send this back to the other place.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, this is probably the final time that noble Lords will have the dubious pleasure of hearing from me, and I assure the House that I will be brief. I wholeheartedly support Motion E1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and all the remarks that have been very supportive of that that noble Lords have made to date for the reason that she has so eloquently expressed. I also very much support her remarks about the unwarranted discrimination in this Bill against investment companies. Suffice it to say that a provision that is wrong in principle is not rectified or remedied by restricting the width of its application in the Government’s amendment.
I would like to venture just one additional observation. As we have heard, the Mansion House Accord is a voluntary agreement specifically targeted at UK assets to drive growth and improve returns. It aims to improve financial outcomes for savers while supporting UK economic growth, one of the Government’s core objectives. It is necessarily a voluntary initiative expressly subject to fiduciary duty and consumer duty, and it is dependent on implementation by the Government and regulators of critical enablers. Yet here is the rub: had the industry’s best intentions towards investing in private markets not been formalised in this way, there would be nothing for us to discuss here today. There would be nothing for this reserve power to backstop, so it would be redundant. Given the Government’s expressed intention never to use a reserve power, they would hardly be putting forward a primary power to compel institutions to invest moneys in ways in which they—the Government—see fit. At the time of the signing of the Mansion House Accord, there was no indication that the agreement would be anything other than voluntary and that the Government were proposing to take the powers of compulsion now proposed. I believe that the signatories entered into this accord with the best of intentions and with every expectation of meeting their commitments, and I believe that they will do so, but there is no certainty that they will not be blown off course, whether through scarcity of available opportunities or otherwise.
Should that happen, this or any future Government could undoubtedly consider the use of the reserve power that the Bill grants them. There is every reason to believe that the industry’s perhaps justifiable reasons for falling short would not find favour with the Government, and that the interpretation of the caveats built into a voluntary accord in terms of fiduciary duty, consumer duty and regulatory and governmental enablers would be disputed and the caveats overridden. All in all, it would be a mess, and City institutions would rue the day they had tried to be helpful towards the Government in playing their part in meeting their growth objectives.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it is utterly ridiculous that only 5% of UK pension funds are invested in the UK. The figure was 50% when I was a pension fund manager. The difference is entirely down to us as politicians. The solution is not to compel financial managers to do things; it is to understand what we did to make this happen and undo at least some of it. If the Government want quick access to priorities, they should turn to the members. The members believe in this country. Their interest is in it being a prosperous country, with lots of investment coming into it. Give them more influence over what pension funds do. They should not go for this government mandation; it is a dead end and, at its heart, poisonous.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their comments. Having spoken at some length at the start, I will not respond at length. I shall just pick up a few points.
On the question on fiduciary duty, nothing in the Bill disapplies trustees’ existing duties of loyalty, prudence and acting in members’ best interests. Those continue to apply in full. Were this power ever to be used—I repeat, the Government do not expect to use it—and the asset allocation requirements were in place, the savers’ interest test allows a scheme to seek an exemption if it can show that compliance would cause material financial detriment to members. Not only would they be enabled to do that but we would expect the fiduciary duty to require the trustees to make such an application to the regulator. Trustees are not directed to invest in any specific asset or project, and if they believe that the requirements are not in the members’ best interests, again, they should apply for an exemption.
The neutrality amendments provide a meaningful constraint. The Government must prescribe qualifying asset descriptions across each of the private market categories in the Bill, so they could not load an entire requirement into a single asset class, let alone a pet project or specific investment. Any future Government who attempted to define qualifying assets in a way designed to serve their own policies or a pet project, rather than savers’ interests, would clearly be vulnerable to legal challenge on rationality grounds.
I am not going to debate this at length since the noble Lords have made clear their intention to test the opinion of the House irrespective of whatever I say. I have just two other comments, on scale. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, that the Government should be pragmatic. I completely agree. My problem with her amendment is that it is not practical, so I cannot be pragmatic in trying to apply an amendment that is really clear in the matter of scale but would simply be too difficult to apply, because it is not clear what the nature of the test would be and it would end up getting bogged down in the courts for years, giving the regulator an impossible job. That simply does not work.
I have made the point about competition in our previous, long debate, and I do not doubt we will return to it again should the Bill not all disappear tonight. In the light of that, I hope that noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, we have heard continued disagreement with mandation and coercion from across the House. As the Minister has said, we do not need to re-rehearse all the things that we have already said, but something that stuck in my mind from a previous stage was when the Minister said that if we did not have mandation, it would rest on good faith alone. That is the whole point: I think there is good faith in the City to deliver on this, and not to trust it, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, has said, damages relationships and any good faith and trust in government. This is therefore doubly, trebly and quadruply a bad thing for the Government to have suggested, and I hope they will have a change of mind. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 26 and 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
As an amendment to Motion F, at end insert “and do propose Amendments 37B and 37C in lieu—
“28BA Exemptions from scale requirement
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the Regulator may determine that a relevant Master Trust or a group personal pension scheme is to be treated as meeting the scale requirement in section 28A or 28B only if the Regulator is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) or (3) is met.
(2) The Regulator may make a determination under subsection (1) where the trustees or managers of the scheme have demonstrated, on the basis of robust and independently verifiable evidence, that there is no reasonable prospect that consolidation of the scheme into another arrangement would be likely to improve outcomes for members.
(3) The Regulator may make a determination under subsection (1) where the trustees or managers of the scheme have demonstrated, on the basis of robust and independently verifiable evidence, that they are delivering good outcomes for members as a result of innovation.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a relevant group personal pension scheme is to be treated as meeting the innovation condition if the managers of the scheme can demonstrate that it provides specialist or innovative services.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the definition of “specialist or innovative services” for the purposes of this section.
(6) In determining whether the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Regulator must have regard to evidence demonstrating that the scheme delivers outcomes for members that are at least equivalent to, or better than, those reasonably expected from consolidation into a scheme meeting the scale requirement, including—
(a) net risk-adjusted investment performance;
(b) independently assessed governance quality and operational capability, including compliance history, trustee expertise, and administrative performance;
(c) whether the scheme derives material and demonstrable benefits for members from integrated, pooled or cross-scheme investment arrangements not reflected solely in the total value of assets counted under section 28A(4) or 28B(4), and whether those arrangements are likely to result in outcomes for members that would not be materially improved through consolidation;
(d) whether the scheme invests wholly or substantially in a default arrangement operated by another scheme or manager meeting the scale requirement and that arrangement demonstrably determines the majority of member investment outcomes;
(e) whether participation in a wider asset management group of substantial scale provides direct and measurable benefits to members, including reduced costs, improved diversification, or enhanced access to investment opportunities.
(7) In making a determination under subsection (1), the Regulator must be satisfied that any benefits identified under subsection (3) are material and demonstrably in the interests of members.
(8) Regulations under this section may make provision about—
(a) reasonable evidential requirements and assessment processes for applications under subsection (1);
(b) the duration, renewal and withdrawal of a determination under subsection (1);
(c) reporting and disclosure requirements.””
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 35, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 35A.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I beg to move Motion G.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
Baroness Noakes
At end insert “and do propose the following amendment in lieu—
“Sections 40, 42 and 44: regulations and competition among providers of pension schemes
(1) In section 143 of the Pensions Act 2008, after subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) In making regulations under section 20(1A), 20(1C), 26(7A), 28A, 28B, 28E, 28F and 28J the Secretary of State must have regard to the benefits of competition among providers of pension schemes.”.
(2) In making regulations under sections 42 and 44 the appropriate authority must have regard to the benefits of competition among providers of pension schemes.””
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I beg to move and wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 43, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 43A.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H. I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 77 and 85, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 85A.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 77 and 85 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 85A.”
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 78 and 86, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 86A.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K. I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 79 and 87, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 87A.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.