House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. It is nice to be back in the Chamber. [Laughter.]
Since coming into office, the Prime Minister has published a new and strengthened ministerial code that places emphasis on the importance of public service and new principles on gifts and hospitality, and includes strengthened powers for the independent adviser on ministerial standards. The Prime Minister has also introduced new rules on severance. Ministers who leave office after having been found to have seriously breached the code are expected to forgo their severance pay, and former Ministers who are found to have seriously breached the business appointment rules are expected to repay any severance too. Colleagues across the House will remember the spectacle of former Tory Minister after former Tory Minister receiving it during the last Parliament, but that has now ended under this Labour Government.
Olly Glover
I was reading the ministerial code just yesterday evening. Paragraph 2.1 states:
“The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.”
That provides clarity on how Ministers can be held to account by the Prime Minister. However, as the old saying goes, “Who watches the watchmen?” When there is a concern about whether the Prime Minister’s conduct goes against the ministerial code, does the Minister agree that the code itself needs strengthening so that the PM can be held to its standards?
Darren Jones
I reassure the hon. Member and the House that the ultimate accountability for the Prime Minister is both to this House and to the public at a general election.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is really great that Ministers have rapidly set about reforming the ministerial code so that never again will the public purse be forced to pay out £253,720 for ex-Ministers who were in post for less than six months, as happened in 2022 under the Tories. Now that we hear about Peter Mandelson, the payoff he wanted and the payoff he got, are the Government open to the logic of applying the same principles of the ministerial code to disgraced ex-political appointee ambassadors, perchance? That way, we can restore consistency.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will recognise that appointments to the civil service are made on the basis of employment law, which is different from the situation for Ministers and Members of this House, but it is right that the Government have changed the rules to ensure that disgraced politicians do not receive payouts for wrongdoing, which is what happened under the last Conservative Administration.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Paragraph 1.6.c of the ministerial code states:
“It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said to the House that Sir Olly Robbins
“went on to say: ‘I…have complete confidence that… recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of’ any ‘pressure.’”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]
What Sir Olly actually said to the Foreign Affairs Committee was:
“I also have complete confidence that their recommendations to me and the discussion we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of that pressure.”
Sir Olly said “that” pressure, not “any” pressure. The Prime Minister materially changed Sir Olly’s meaning. Robbins was clear that he had been put under pressure. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister know whether the Prime Minister intends to correct the record?
Darren Jones
I think the difference between the words “that” and “any” is not of material relevance to the question that the shadow Minister is putting to the House. The Prime Minister has not misled the House. The testimony of the Prime Minister and of Sir Olly Robbins is very clearly on the record, and that makes the case.
Alex Burghart
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is perfectly intelligent enough to know that there is an enormous difference between those two words. I will remind him that the Prime Minister is bound by the ministerial code.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister also told the House:
“Sir Olly was absolutely clear that nobody put pressure on him to make this appointment”—[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 316.]
but that is not what Sir Olly said to the Foreign Affairs Committee. He actually said:
“Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure.”
Again, he said that
“while I think the Department felt under pressure, we were proud of the fact that we had not bowed to that pressure.”
Again, he said that Philip Barton’s handover to him
“contributed to my strong sense that there was an atmosphere of pressure”.
To avoid being in breach of the ministerial code, Ministers must correct the record at the earliest available opportunity. At the very latest, the earliest opportunity is now. Will the Prime Minister correct the record?
Darren Jones
It is not the view of the Prime Minister or the Government that the Prime Minister needs to do so.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the Prime Minister failed to deny that he knew that his team were lobbying for a head of mission role for Matthew Doyle, and that they were doing so with his authority. Under the ministerial code, he has clear duties of transparency to this House. For No. 10 to ask the Foreign Office to find a plum diplomatic job for another Labour mate who was friends with a convicted sex offender, let alone to then keep it secret from the Foreign Secretary, is completely shocking. The Prime Minister has shown another catastrophic lack of judgment. Will the Minister ensure that an inquiry is launched by the Cabinet Secretary to determine who did the lobbying and why, and what the Prime Minister knew and when?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister has spent very many hours at the Dispatch Box this week being held to account and answering questions on a whole range of issues. In respect of the particulars of the hon. Lady’s question, I refer her to the Prime Minister’s words of only yesterday.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As I informed the House yesterday, I am bringing forward a major package of reforms to procurement policy. This includes steps to direct Government procurement in the national interest to support British businesses, to end the era of outsourcing across Departments, and to streamline and simplify the entire process. I will bring forward further details to the House as soon as possible, including when we publish new guidance.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Since 2015, companies that donated to political parties have secured £60 billion-worth of Government contracts. This highlights everything that the public dislike about politics. Does the Minister therefore agree that for the sake of transparency and accountability, it is time to break the link between big-money donors and the Governments they pay to elect?
Chris Ward
The Government are, of course, concerned about the risks that my hon. Friend has mentioned. There are strong safeguards in the Procurement Act 2023 to preserve the integrity of the procurement process, but the elections Bill that this Government are introducing will tighten up the regulation of donations, including through a ban on crypto donations.
Linsey Farnsworth
Yesterday in this House, when I asked the Minister to include ceramics in the “back British business” procurement strategy, he said that the strategy only covers four sectors that are deemed vital to national security, while acknowledging that he would like to go further. Since then, a further 49 workers have been made redundant at Denby Pottery in my constituency. Ministers across Departments repeat the same message, but the sector cannot wait. More than 50,000 people are backing the #SaveDenby campaign by buying Denby pottery and signing a petition calling for the ceramics industry to be in the British industry supercharger scheme. Will the Minister commit today to matching that public support by including ceramics within the scope of the new public procurement changes before more jobs are lost?
Chris Ward
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue again. As I said in the House yesterday, Denby is an iconic British manufacturer, and I know the anxiety that the workforce will feel at the moment. Ceramics is not part of the original four sectors, but I do not want to stop with those four; we want to go further, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue and work with her on it. I should add that we have announced wider measures that will benefit the ceramics sector, including changes to how we calculate social value and the impact on local communities and jobs. However, I get her point, and I will happily meet her to discuss it.
Justin Madders
Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the Royal Mail depot in Ellesmere Port, where I went in one of its newly purchased vans from the Stellantis factory just down the road—a perfect example of how we should be supporting British industry. I urge the Minister to look further at this issue, because what he has announced is a start, but it does not go far enough. We need to make sure that every school, hospital, council, utility and big provider of services in this country is looking at how it can buy British and support our great manufacturing sector.
Chris Ward
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I also met Royal Mail in my constituency recently and had a similar conversation, and I understand his point. As I say, I am not pretending that we have gone the full journey with procurement reform. We are taking big steps, but we need to go further, and I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend and others to do so.
Chris Vince
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his earlier remarks on procurement, and I agree that £400 billion of public spending is a significant lever that this Labour Government have to better support businesses across our country. How will the Minister and his colleagues across Government work with me to ensure that our public money will be spent well and deliver for well-skilled jobs in—drum roll—Harlow?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Communities should be benefiting much more from the taxpayers’ money we are spending on procurement. I believe he mentioned two businesses in his constituency yesterday—Wright’s Flour mill and Lea Valley growers. To be clear, those are exactly the type of businesses we have in mind when we say we are trying to support local businesses to make a big impact in the community with lots of local jobs and so on. That is the kind of group I want to help going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answers and for his endeavours to try to do better. The Minister and this House must recognise that public confidence is incredibly low due to repeated failures by the Government, I say respectfully, to do the right thing. How can the Government and the Minister ensure that changes take effect that restore confidence and remove any shade from areas of government? We have an obligation as elected representatives to openness and transparency.
Chris Ward
The hon. Gentleman is right to flag that concern, and it is something that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is working hard on with a package of reforms around transparency. On procurement changes, I emphasise that I am trying to work with businesses, unions, charities, the voluntary sector and as many people as I can to bring them in. The more we listen to them, the more we will get this right, but he makes a broader point that I know my colleagues are working hard on, too.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Satvir Kaur)
The issues and delays that a number of civil servants and pension scheme members have encountered when accessing their pensions after a lifetime of service are completely unacceptable. Members of the House will have heard my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General’s statement to the House yesterday on the Government’s robust recovery plan to stabilise the service, while ensuring that support is in place for those impacted. We will continue to use every commercial lever possible to hold Capita to account so that public servants get the quality service they deserve as soon as possible.
Rachel Taylor
Happy Warwickshire day, Mr Speaker, and happy St George’s day.
My constituent Jillian dedicated her life to public service for 34 years before retiring. She is owed more than £2,000 in a lump sum from her civil service pension. She has constantly tried to get in touch with Capita over the past six months. She has submitted online forms, rung multiple times and has been told that Capita is not hitting its complaints target. After being on hold for several hours, a call operator told her that they could not tell her when she would receive an answer. This is unacceptable. Can the Government tell me what they are doing to support retired civil servants who have been left in limbo by Capita?
Satvir Kaur
I also wish my hon. Friend a happy Warwickshire day and a happy St George’s day. I thank her constituent Jillian for her public service of 34 years. I agree with my hon. Friend that the service that Jillian has experienced is completely unacceptable. My hon. Friend will know that we have taken a number of measures, including deploying a surge team to help stabilise the service, and we continue to hold Capita to account for poor service. I encourage her and other Members to direct affected constituents to the hardship loans we have made available to support those impacted. If she sends me the details of Jillian’s case, I will make sure to look out for them.
Christine Jardine
Happy St George’s day. Yesterday, in the statement, the Paymaster General was kind enough to say that he would look into the case of one of my constituents who is afraid that she will lose her house because she has no income and cannot get access to her civil service pension. However, I have several other affected constituents, one who is still working full time and is a full-time carer. They were supposed to retire in January but cannot, because they cannot get access to their pension. Can I meet the Minister to discuss what is happening and how we can get Capita to pay attention to this issue and to look for a way forward?
Satvir Kaur
I thank the hon. Member for raising both of those distressing cases, and I would of course be happy to meet her to discuss them.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As I set out to the House yesterday, this Labour Government are ending the age of outsourcing. We will introduce a public interest test to require all Departments to assess whether a service can be better delivered in-house. We will also require all Departments to publish insourcing strategies setting out how they will make greater insourcing a reality over the medium term. Taken together, that is a step change in how we approach this, and I am proud that a Labour Government are delivering it.
Jodie Gosling
Mr Speaker, I wish you a happy Warwickshire day and a happy St George’s day.
Nuneaton residents are concerned about the performance of Capita since it took over the civil service pensions. I know these concerns are shared across the House, as we have just heard some of the horror stories coming into many inboxes. Those residents will therefore be surprised to see that the Government have recently agreed a £900 million, 10-year deal for the same company to take over the civil service payroll contract under the Synergy programme. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that maintaining current insourcing is the only way to ensure value for taxpayers’ money and a decent level of service for residents?
Chris Ward
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office updated the House on this yesterday, and he has answered a number of questions on that issue. I do agree that insourcing can play a key role in delivering better value for money and higher-quality public services, which is one reason why we are introducing the public interest test and ending the age of outsourcing.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I wish a happy Warwickshire day to my Warwickshire friends and a happy St George’s day to all my English friends. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
We are prioritising paying compensation to those impacted, and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has reached the significant milestone of paying out over £2 billion, including the first payment to all eligible groups. I am sure that the right hon. Gentlemen will be aware that I recently announced substantive changes in all seven areas on which we have recently consulted.
David Davis
I thank the Minister and I welcome what he has just said, but the infected blood scandal left thousands of people with severe lifelong injuries. Many of them have waited decades—some nearly half a century—for justice, and with every week that passes the likelihood that any of them will die goes up. As I am sure he is aware, IBCA announced last week that it will contact 100 people a week to begin claims, but that is not quick enough for the 18,000 people involved. It has dealt with roughly 3,000, who have been paid already, but 15,000 of the 18,000 are still waiting. Victims and families deserve compensation, and quickly, so what can he do to speed up that process?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman quite correctly raises not only the fact that people have waited decades for compensation, but the urgency with which we want to drive this forward. To be precise, 3,304 infected people had received an offer by 23 April, totalling over £2.6 billion. We have started paying the affected cohort, and the milestone of paying out in the first case by the end of last year was met. It is quite right that IBCA is operationally independent, but I nevertheless stand ready to do all I can to support it to speed up payments.
Damian Hinds
I thank the Paymaster General for his personal work in this area. The increase in the unethical research award is a material improvement, and I am particularly thinking of the former pupils at Treloar’s. However, there is still some uncertainty in the community about the evidence that will be required to qualify for the severe psychological harm element under the special category mechanism. Could he confirm how that will work, and will IBCA have discretion and flexibility about what evidence will be required?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s work in providing a voice for the pupils who suffered such heinous medical experimentation at Treloar’s. On the issue of the evidence, generally speaking I have always said to IBCA that there needs to be a very sympathetic approach, because we are talking about not only events of a long time ago, but deliberate document destruction. On the specific issue of severe psychological harm under the special category mechanism, I will write to him very precisely about the position.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the way he has handled this issue and for the way he has moved it on in the short time he has been in office. Everyone is very grateful for that. None the less, he knows that there are still widespread concerns among the community about the compensation process. Will he guarantee that those people will continue to be listened to and that their voices will not be dismissed, so we can adapt the process as it goes forward to address some of their concerns? I am grateful to him for coming to the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood to discuss this directly with the community. I would be grateful if he would do so again before the summer recess, so that people can talk to him directly about their concerns.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I look forward to an invitation from my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his work as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group. What he says about the voice of the community going forward is absolutely right. That is why I have created, and announced to the House, a mechanism by which concerns that are expressed are appropriately elevated to where decisions need to be made. I was determined not to have some sort of glorified post box that people sent correspondence into. If concerns are raised, they must be dealt with at the appropriate level, whether that is the Infected Blood Compensation Authority board, or escalated to the Cabinet Office.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the sterling work he has done on this scandal. As mentioned by those on the Opposition Benches, there are still real issues that need to be worked on. The infected blood community have huge concerns about the stringent evidence required for severe psychological harm compensation. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that IBCA is permissive, flexible and compassionate when setting the special category mechanism criteria for psychological harm and, at the same time, when assessing the claims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the work he has done campaigning for victims. On IBCA and the culture, and on how it treats evidence, as I said, there needs to be a sympathetic and compassionate approach to evidence. In that regard, when I have visited IBCA I have been very impressed with the general ethos that people have been trained in. Specifically on severe psychological harm, I have made very significant changes to the special category mechanism. On the precise issue of the evidence, I will write to my hon. Friend, as I promised to do to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Just this week and last, I have been across the channel to speak to EU counterparts and counterparts in member states. We are making good progress with the EU in our strategic partnership in a changing world. It is a strategic partnership that is good for bills, good for borders and good for jobs.
Yuan Yang
Mr Speaker, I wish you and the Minister a happy St George’s day. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on rejoining the EU Erasmus+ scheme. It is very exciting for students across the UK, including at the University of Reading.
On energy prices, we are all paying the price of Trump’s war in Iran. It is vital for us to work with our European allies to lower energy prices, including reducing the trade costs brought up by the Tories’ bad Brexit deal. Will the Minister give us an update on his negotiations for the UK to participate in EU internal electricity markets?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Erasmus+ will indeed provide tens of thousands of opportunities, particularly for young people. On energy, we are committed to strengthening our energy partnership with the EU to lower bills for households and businesses. On the negotiations my hon. Friend is talking about, I think everybody would see that strengthening this international co-operation is vital to bolster energy resilience against the kind of global shocks we have seen in recent weeks.
Steve Race
Mr Speaker, Happy St George’s day to you and to the House.
From pandemics and health emergencies to the impact of climate change and Russian aggression on our border, residents in Exeter know that the EU and the UK have shared challenges and opportunities. What discussions has the Minister had on forming a UK-EU resilience partnership, as suggested by UK in a Changing Europe, so we can effectively manage those shared challenges together?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK and EU share many challenges. That is why the Government have agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU to bolster our shared resilience through deeper co-operation between the UK and the EU across defence, industry, politics and the wider economy—the foundations upon which our collective European security and prosperity will rest.
Bradley Thomas
The European Union currently allows for food production methods that are either banned or being phased out in the UK, which is undercutting British farmers. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with the European Union to ensure parity of welfare standards so that British farmers are not priced out of the market?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The common understanding that we agreed with the EU last year allowed for particular carve-outs, which the Government are negotiating. I will say to the hon. Gentleman, though, that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—the food and drink agreement—will mean that we will be able to export to the EU products that we are currently unable to export, and will take away costs and fees that businesses have to pay. I used to think that the Conservatives were the pro-business party—they might want to actually approve of that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Is the House right to understand that the Government believe that the economy has grown significantly less—measurably less—as a result of leaving the EU, and that this is one of the purposes behind the reset? [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] I hear Government Members saying yes. Could the Government then set that out, with all the evidence and arguments proving the case? Looking at the evidence, the British economy grew at about the same rate as France and Germany when we were in the EU and, since we left, we have been growing at about the same rate as France and Germany; in fact, this year, the British economy is growing faster than Germany’s. Where is the evidence that Brexit was economically damaging? Will the Minister publish a proper statement on that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman and I work very well on other issues; I suspect that over the next 12 months, this is an issue on which we are going to disagree. If he is genuinely asking me at the Dispatch Box to provide evidence to the country about the lamentable performance of the economy in the latter years of the previous Conservative Government, then what a pleasure it will be!
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I thank the Government for the grown-up approach they have taken to improving our relations with our friends and neighbours in the EU. In contrast—as we can see today—the Conservative party is still playing politics with our closest allies, and my generation has paid the price. With that in mind, will the Minister set out what steps are being taken to ensure that young people in Kettering and across the country take up the opportunity to study in the EU, now that we have rejoined the Erasmus scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The new UK-EU strategic partnership will bear down on household bills, provide opportunities for young people and create jobs. The Opposition, for reasons best known to them, have decided to oppose all that.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I wish the House and you, Mr Speaker, a happy St George’s day. I welcome the fact that the Government are taking steps to improve and deepen our trading relationship with Europe, which is absolutely crucial to businesses right across my constituency, which have told me again and again of the challenges they face as a direct result of this flawed Brexit process. Could the Minister set out what plans he has to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny is given to anything relating to improving relations with the EU, given that we no longer have a Select Committee that deals directly with those issues?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There will be a Bill—a piece of primary legislation—going through Parliament this year, which will of course have appropriate scrutiny, as will our relationship with the EU going forward. I very much look forward to those debates. I will just give one example of how we are helping businesses. Businesses in the UK have had to pay up to £200 for export health certificates—more than 1 million of them—since 2023. I say that they should not have to pay those fees any more; the Conservatives and Reform say that they should.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The UK has become a global leader in agri-tech and particularly selective breeding, largely because of our flexible regulatory framework, including the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. That would not have happened if we were still members of the European Union. The BioIndustry Association says that dynamic alignment would threaten UK leadership in biotech innovation. Will the Minister commit to securing a carve-out for precision breeding so that our success in this vital sector is not threatened by new or future EU legislation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The common understanding agreed between the UK and the EU last May provides for carve-outs, subject to negotiation. But if the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that all the export costs and fees that businesses are currently paying, which the SPS agreement will take away, should continue, he should say so.
Mike Wood
I think the House and the public outside will have heard that the Minister is refusing to give that commitment to the representatives of this vital sector. However, he will know that the high cost of fertilisers is one of the biggest pressures on British farming and food prices. Raising carbon prices to the level of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism is projected to add around £100 a tonne to that cost. At a time of high food costs and squeezed food security, does he really think that now is a sensible time to hammer British farming yet again?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That is an absolutely absurd question. The hon. Gentleman is asking that question when his party’s position is to keep in place all the fees that we currently have to pay on exports to the EU. He also talks about the emissions trading system linkage. Without mutual exemptions from the carbon border adjustment mechanism, businesses will have to pay around £700 million in carbon taxes. The consequence of his party’s position is that they would have to pay them.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Satvir Kaur)
Departments are responsible for setting their own performance plans, subject to centrally set performance management frameworks. This Government are focused on a high-performing civil service, which is why we have recently announced changes to the senior civil service performance system that will see the performance of top civil servants linked to key performance indicators set by their Ministers, and underperformers held to tougher standards.
Mr Bedford
Our constituents must interact with many Government agencies each week to renew their passport or driving licence or to submit their tax returns. Despite record numbers of bureaucrats, productivity remains low, which results in many errors and vast delays for our constituents. The answers to my written parliamentary questions confirm that there is no proper performance management of our civil servants, corrective action or even dismissals for continued poor performance. Without the usual platitudes about how hard civil servants work, I want to know what the Government are doing about the thousands of poorly performing civil servants who are costing our constituents millions of pounds each year.
Satvir Kaur
I think it is ironic that Opposition Members complain about civil servants but did nothing when they were in power. Instead, this Government are updating the performance management framework, incentivising those who deliver and tackling underperformance as soon as it arises. To do this, we are changing the rules to ensure a closer, more effective link between pay and performance, with larger awards for the highest performers, and strengthening the minimum standards so that those who fail to manage the performance of their teams are quickly identified.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The Government are taking decisive steps to strengthen our national resilience, as set out in the resilience action plan. Building on the findings of Exercise Pegasus, the Government published a new pandemic preparedness strategy just last month. It sets out how the UK intends to rebuild readiness and strengthen underlying capabilities for future pandemics through a whole-of-Government approach.
Rachel Gilmour
Not long ago, a Russian-flagged ship anchored just two miles off the Minehead coast in my constituency, directly above critical transatlantic cables. Our adversaries are becoming emboldened and operating even closer to home.
As the proud sister of a serving brigadier and a retired lieutenant colonel, who between them have served for over half a century in our armed forces, I know the calibre of those who serve. However, reports that the Ministry of Defence has lost track of some 95,000 veterans on the recall list are alarming. How can the Government credibly claim to be strengthening national resilience when they lack the basic data required to mobilise those capable of serving in a national emergency?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point she raised and the way she raised it, and I pay tribute to the service of her family members, as I am sure all hon. Members will do. This matter is one that we take incredibly seriously. I can tell her and the House that, following sanctions already imposed on 544 vessels, the Prime Minister has now agreed that the British military will be able to board shadow fleet vessels passing through UK waters, but I will look carefully at the hon. Lady’s points and discuss them with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Happy Warwickshire day and St George’s day, Mr Speaker. Clearly resilience is multifaceted and goes beyond subsea cables, which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) referred to. We are the third most attacked nation globally when it comes to cyber-attacks, as the Minister will know. What steps is the Department taking to raise public awareness generally?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy do in this area. I was at CYBERUK yesterday, in the great city of Glasgow, and I can give him an assurance that we take these threats very seriously. The National Cyber Security Centre and our intelligence agencies continually monitor such risks and work closely with industry and with our international partners to protect our networks. As I set out yesterday, we will continue to strengthen our defences and ensure that we remain resilient.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Earlier this year, the NATO Secretary-General said:
“We are not at war, but we are not at peace either.”
Trump’s reckless war in Iran has shown how vulnerable our country is to external shocks, while Putin’s imperial ambitions pose a once-in-a-generation threat to our security and our way of life. The UK is not resilient or prepared enough for future shocks and threats. We have seen press reports this week describing the risk of shortages of certain foods and medicines, brought about by Trump’s idiotic actions in Iran. What specific steps are the Government taking to address those potential shortages, and how does the Minister plan to communicate with the public to ensure that our constituents are not left without information or support, should the availability of the medicine they need fall victim to Trump’s foolishness?
Dan Jarvis
I agree with the comments from the Secretary-General of NATO that the hon. Lady cited. From previous conversations that we have had, I think she understands the seriousness we attach to those issues. The Cabinet Office co-ordinates a whole-of-Government response and we work closely on those issues with partners, including in the Ministry of Defence. She is right about the need to communicate those issues to the public, and we are looking at how we can do that most effectively.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As I have said, this Government do not believe that our procurement rules do enough to back British businesses. That is why I have announced steps to address that, and to simplify and open up the system to small and medium-sized enterprises, start-ups and charities. We will issue new guidance shortly to ensure that the procurement regime always serves the national interest.
Leigh Ingham
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. GE Vernova, in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, is creating 400 new jobs to add to the 1,400 people it already employs. I believe that companies like this, which are already backing Britain by investing here, should be given more consideration when they are competing for Government contracts. Can the Minister assure me that when UK Government money is being spent, particularly in industries that are key to our national security such as energy, we will prioritise those companies already investing in British manufacturing, British skills and British jobs?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is spot on, and I thank her for championing her local business while making a bigger point about how we need to support British jobs more widely. We have set out what we are going to do in four sectors, including energy infrastructure, but I agree that we need to go further and look at what more we can do in particular to support our manufacturing industry, and hopefully we will keep working to do that.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, is doing great work to ensure that public procurement is on the side of working people. Outsourcing by default has not delivered, so a new public interest test would ensure that outsourcing decisions are based on value for money, social value, market and economic impact, and capability and capacity.
Lorraine Beavers
Despite Capita’s horrendous administration of the civil service pension scheme, it was still awarded the Synergy shared services contract. We still do not have a reason why—and I am not the first person in this House to ask. Will the Minister finally confirm who was responsible for the decision and whether the Cabinet Office signed it off?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment of Capita’s lamentable performance on the civil service pension scheme. We have to take individual decisions on contracts. For example, yesterday I cancelled Capita’s contract for the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme. I am robustly holding Capita to account, including by withholding milestone payments on the civil service pension scheme. With regard to the Synergy contract, that was led by the Department for Work and Pensions through the normal process, and it too will be managed robustly.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
We are taking forward negotiations with the EU to drive investment, jobs and growth for the UK pragmatically. On ideological grounds, the Conservatives and Reform would undo it all, and Green party foreign policy—let us be frank—is a dangerous fantasy.
Rachel Blake
I wish you a very happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. The Cities of London and Westminster hold many celebrations for St George’s day.
We heard significant movement earlier today regarding energy. What economic assessment has been made beyond food and drink, the youth experience scheme, Erasmus and the emissions trading system to make sure that, at the forthcoming summit, we deliver on our commitments?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to drive forward to deliver on our commitment. The electricity trading negotiations are absolutely vital, not only for energy security but to bear down on household bills.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
On 11 March the Government responded to the Humble Address by releasing a first tranche of documents in respect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment and subsequent dismissal as ambassador to the United States. I would like to reassure Members across the House that we are proceeding at pace to publish a second tranche of documents to comply with the Humble Address, and we will provide a further update to the House as soon as possible.
Mr Mohindra
Will the Minister reassure me that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be prioritised when new information comes to light, as per the terms of the Humble Address, as opposed to information first being given to Downing Street or to journalists to then publish at their own convenience, as was the case when it was discovered that Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that the Government are working closely with the Intelligence and Security Committee on processing documents relating to the Humble Address, and we thank the Committee for its work.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. The Minister is working diligently to produce all those documents. Will he ensure that they are provided before Parliament is prorogued at the end of the Session?
Darren Jones
A number of documents are still being worked through by the Intelligence and Security Committee. In line with the process that I have set out, we want that to conclude before the documents are published to the House.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
In January I announced that I was giving Government Departments more freedom, hand in hand with greater accountability, to take the initiative to move fast and fix things. Project Reset went live this month, slashing the number of central approval processes to streamline decision making across Government. We will also shortly announce the first delivery taskforces to break down departmental silos and accelerate delivery of the Prime Minister’s priorities.
Richard Quigley
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend may have heard me say what a fantastic place the Isle of Wight is to live, work and learn. Does he agree that our island is uniquely well placed to test exciting new policies and initiatives across all Departments to speed up national roll-out, as evidenced in an article this week in Computer Weekly by James Findlay, and that rather than being left behind, as we were under the previous Conservative Government, it is now time for the Isle of Wight to be a leader in building the better country that this Government want and that we all deserve?
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a champion for his constituency. I am sure that he will agree with me, and certainly with those of us on the Government Benches, that the previous Conservative Government failed the Isle of Wight, as well as the whole country, during their 14 years in office. This Administration have launched a “test, learn and grow” programme so that the Government can work more closely with local partners to test and innovate on the design of public services more locally in the places where people need them. Given my hon. Friend’s keen interest in those approaches, I will arrange for him to engage with the TLG network within my Department and will be in touch in due course.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The Cabinet Office is driving implementation of the national security strategy. At CyberUK yesterday, I called on AI companies and innovators to work with the Government to build national-scale AI cyber-defence capabilities, and announced that a further £90 million will be invested to boost cyber-resilience. I also visited His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, where the Government are investing £250 million to strengthen our national security and deter our adversaries.
Adam Thompson
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. Erewash is home to many workers whose labour is vital to national security, employed at firms such as Rolls-Royce or at our many small and medium-sized advanced manufacturers, building things like jet engine parts. Although we have broadly been kept out of Donald Trump’s war on Iran, many global threats still loom. What steps will the Government take to protect British workers and secure supply chains for the UK defence industry?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The UK’s defence industry is a cornerstone of our national security and an engine for growth. We are committed to spending £2.5 billion more with defence SMEs and recently launched the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, a key driver to improve SME access to defence opportunities. The £31 billion that we spend annually with the defence industry in the UK powers over 460,000 jobs and 24,000 apprenticeships nationwide, including many high-quality roles in the east midlands.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
May I begin by wishing the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), a happy birthday, and noting the generosity and co-ordination of the House in not submitting a single question for him to answer today? I encourage Members to submit particularly difficult questions for him in future.
I will update the House on some of the work that I am leading in response to the war in the middle east. As part of our work with the new middle east response committee, I am chairing a new contingency planning ministerial group. It will focus on preparing for and mitigating, where possible, any impact on our economy and domestic security as a result of the conflict. I am convening relevant Secretaries of State twice a week, with their permanent secretaries, to scrutinise plans and ensure that we are prepared for different outcomes across major and relevant UK supply chains. The conflict in the middle east is not our war, and while we do not know how long it will last, we are acting now to protect the British people. I look forward to keeping the House updated on this work in the coming weeks and months.
Steve Race
I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the result of the Hungarian election where, in part, anti-LGBT policies were roundly rejected at the ballot box. As LGBT rights suffer from backsliding around the world, will the Minister commit to working with our EU partners to promote LGBT human rights across the world, including by putting the topic on the agenda at the next EU-UK summit?
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Government are absolutely committed to promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBT people worldwide. Our UK-EU security and defence partnership is underpinned by shared values, and I absolutely give that commitment. We will continue to work closely with EU partners to uphold those values.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Last week, someone in the heart of Government leaked some extremely sensitive documents to The Guardian. This appears potentially to be a crime under the National Security Act 2023. Has the Cabinet Office reported it to the Metropolitan police?
Darren Jones
As I confirmed to the House, I think, a day or so ago, a leak inquiry has begun. When further facts are established, we reserve the right to do so.
Alex Burghart
Cat Little, the permanent secretary, has just told the Foreign Affairs Committee that a very, very small number of people have actually seen the document in question. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister commit to the House that when he has identified who leaked it, he will report them to the Metropolitan police?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that we take this matter deeply seriously and, as I say, we reserve the right to do so once the facts have been established through the inquiry.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend talks powerfully about the impact of long covid, and it has had that impact on many people following the pandemic. The most recent module 3 report from the covid inquiry covered this issue in detail. Of course, the Government will carefully consider the inquiry’s work on this in our full response—it absolutely should.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Darren Jones
We are working in co-operation with the Metropolitan police. As the hon. Member would expect, and as I am sure the House would agree, we do not want to do anything that would interfere with the police process.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
In the national security strategy, the Government made an historic commitment to spend 5% of our GDP on national security by 2025. That includes funding to protect critical infrastructure, ensure civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation and strengthen our defence industrial base. We are currently working through proposals for the UK to meet the 1.5% NATO commitment, and we will set out our detailed plans in due course.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Darren Jones
As I have said from the Dispatch Box, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein want to see justice. A criminal investigation by the police is under way, and it is right that the House does not interfere with that process and works with the Metropolitan police to allow them to undertake their work.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is right about the reforms that we are trying to make to public procurement, and to improve our number of electric vehicles. I will write to him with the specifics on the Government Car Service.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker.
When Jaguar Land Rover was the victim of a cyber-attack, it had a devastating impact on the supply chain in Redditch. Will the proposed cyber-resilience index, which is part of the Government’s welcome focus on improving cyber-security and national security, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny?
Dan Jarvis
We recognise the serious disruption that incidents such as the attack on JLR can cause for supply chains and local economies. We continually assess the resilience of our critical national infrastructure. The proposed cyber-resilience index will support improved accountability, and we are considering appropriate mechanisms to ensure parliamentary scrutiny as it is developed.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Chris Ward
As I have said, one aim of the Government’s procurement reforms is to ensure that we support more British companies and end the reliance on external suppliers. The two Palantir contracts that the hon. Gentleman mentions are for the NHS and defence, so it is best to take the matter up with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Defence, which are the relevant Departments.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
In Derby we have many businesses, including small and medium-sized businesses, that are investing in people through apprenticeships or by enabling people to turn their lives around after prison through work. How will reforms to public procurement better recognise the social value that businesses provide when making procurement decisions?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Social value should be integral to the system, but the current system has become too tick-boxy and does not deliver what it needs to for local communities like those in Derby. We are working with businesses, unions and charities on a new definition. I am happy to speak with her further about it, but I think it is an important part of improving the system.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
If the Government are so confident in the Prime Minister’s decision to sack Sir Olly Robbins, will the Minister today rule out settling any employment tribunal in advance of a hearing or imposing any gagging orders on Mr Robbins?
Darren Jones
The House will understand that I am not at liberty to comment on a potential ongoing employment dispute.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for confirming that he will chair a new contingency planning ministerial group to develop resilience to the threats caused as a result of the conflict, which is not, of course, ours, but is having an impact on many other countries across the world, potentially resulting in shortages and inflation. Our resilience is dependent on their resilience. In that light, will my right hon. Friend agree to consider convening a global summit to increase resilience through co-operation and collaboration?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. I can confirm that the Foreign Office is part of our contingency planning work at the centre of Government. On all issues, we look at the international data available to us, and the Foreign Office will keep that in consideration when trying to support allies and partners, as well as ensuring security and resilience for the UK.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Over the Easter weekend, a 6-acre site in the Chilterns national landscape saw a massive unauthorised development. Despite swift action from Dacorum borough council to issue a temporary stop notice and an injunction, the work continued, with the police powerless to stop it and the council without the resources. What will the Minister do through cross-departmental work to uphold the rule of law and protect our precious landscapes?
Darren Jones
I think any constituency MP would find those circumstances utterly unacceptable. If the hon. Member writes to me, I will ensure that I pass the information to colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to see what we can do.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
A happy St George’s day to you, Mr Speaker. Global turbulence has driven up the cost of living for my constituents. Can the Minister set out how closening trading ties with our closest allies through the EU reset will help bring down prices for my constituents?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That is why the EU-UK reset is so important, as it will help us in bearing down on fuel bills and energy bills, which will help my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
In February, Capita said to Eastbourne resident Keith that his civil service pension would be paid by March. By March, it said his pension would be paid in April. Now it says that it will not be paid before May. How will the Minister intervene to hold this cowboy corporate to account?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Cabinet Office has been withholding milestone payments from Capita. We have a robust recovery plan, which says that full contractual service has to be restored by the end of June. I have been absolutely clear that I will consider all options at that moment, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member could write to me with the details of his constituent’s case.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Happy St George’s day to you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister set out what progress the Government have made in cracking down on fraudsters who seek to defraud the public sector and what success they have had in clawing back money on behalf of hard-working taxpayers?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Satvir Kaur)
The Government have taken robust action through our Public Sector Fraud Authority. There is a huge amount of work being done. In fact, last year we saved the public purse more than £7.5 billion. A lot has been done, but there is lots more to do, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. A business I met recently raised concerns about grid resilience to Chinese sabotage. Given the precedent set on Huawei and 5G, what steps is the Cabinet Office taking to exclude high-risk Chinese components from our critical energy infrastructure?
Dan Jarvis
If the hon. Member would like to write to me, I would be happy to look at the details of what she has raised. She will understand that I do not want to get into the detail of it now, but I give her an assurance that we look very carefully at all these matters and take decisions in our national security interests.
Gregory Stafford
In response to my question about Jonathan Powell’s security clearance, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said:
“I do not have that information to hand.”
Mr Speaker
Clive, I do not need any help from you. You have been here long enough, like me—leave it to me to do my job, and I will let you do yours.
Gregory Stafford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said that he did not have the information to hand but did not indicate whether he was going to let me know what the answer was when he did have that information to hand. If the Chief Secretary does not provide me with a written answer to that question, what opportunities do I have in this House to get him to answer it?
Mr Speaker
I think we are trying to prolong an argument that you have already had. I do not think we need to worry, because I know you have the ability and certainly the time to pursue it in every manner possible.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 27 April will include:
Monday 27 April—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by consideration of a Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the Crime and Policing Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Tuesday 28 April—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords messages.
Wednesday 29 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords messages.
Thursday 30 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords messages.
The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
John Lamont
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) on the birth of his daughter, baby Lyla? I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing him and his family well.
Last weekend, I met the friends and family of Jamie Tweedie as they walked the St Cuthbert’s Way from Melrose to Holy Island, raising over £25,000 for the Scottish Brain Tumour Research Centre of Excellence. Jamie was a local farmer in the Borders who tragically lost his life to a brain tumour just under a year ago. I know their efforts will help advance treatments for that devastating disease.
We are all watching the development of peace talks between the US and Iran. For the good of our economy and in the interests of bringing energy bills down for households and businesses, we all hope to see a swift end to the conflict.
Turning to domestic politics, after weeks of chaos, this may be the lowest point yet for this Government—a Prime Minister putting his own interests above the national interest. He has already had four chiefs of staff, five directors of communications, three Cabinet Secretaries and four principal private secretaries. Does the Leader of the House agree that perhaps the problem lies with the Prime Minister himself? On Tuesday, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard extraordinary evidence from Olly Robbins, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. He described a dismissive attitude in Downing Street towards vetting, and “constant pressure” to appoint Peter Mandelson to the most senior diplomatic role. He also told MPs that he was asked to give the Prime Minister’s then director of communications a senior diplomatic post—without informing the Foreign Secretary, it would seem. The Foreign Office is not a redeployment pool for failed political advisers.
Can the Leader of the House tell us whether it was appropriate for No. 10 to apply such pressure over Mandelson’s vetting, or does he accept that due process was not followed? Does he believe the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House? Does the Leader of the House accept that the Prime Minister continues to make statements that are hard to reconcile with reality? Can the Leader of the House explain why Olly Robbins was sacked? Was it right and fair to sack him?
The Prime Minister has never looked weaker. The Prime Minister is so weak that he has brought forward the moment of Prorogation to avoid another bruising Prime Minister’s questions. He has already lost the confidence of the entire country. When will Labour MPs finally stand up for their constituents and join us in removing this dreadful Prime Minister?
While the Prime Minister is consumed by internal chaos, the issues that matter to our constituents are being ignored. Energy bills are soaring, particularly for those in rural communities who rely on heating oil, people are struggling to find work, and decisions on funding our national defence are being delayed, despite global threats. At the same time, Government Back Benchers and Cabinet members brief against each other, plotting over the Prime Minister’s future. As this parliamentary Session draws to a close, I doubt it will be remembered fondly by those on the Government Benches.
In two weeks’ time, voters will go to the polls in important elections across England and in parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, Labour’s campaign has descended into confusion, illustrated by the remarkable sight of the Prime Minister visiting the nuclear base at Faslane, while avoiding any contact with his own party leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. It seemed that the Prime Minister needed the protection of the nuclear deterrent from his own Scottish Labour colleagues. This Government have found it easier to locate secret Russian submarines in the north Atlantic than to find the Scottish Labour leader in the south side of Glasgow.
Across Scotland, voters are clear: they are tired of an SNP Government distracted from delivery and focused on independence. But people are not powerless. The peach-coloured regional ballot paper gives voters the opportunity to prevent another SNP majority, as they did in 2016 and 2021. The results of another SNP majority in Scotland would be similar to those of the current Labour majority in this House: more broken promises, more chaos and more division. Does the Leader of the House agree that whether at Westminster or at Holyrood, Governments deserve to be judged harshly if they do not stick to their promises and they inflict chaos on our country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the birth of Lyla, and I wish her and her parents all the very best indeed.
I wish everybody a happy St George’s day today. During this week, we have celebrated the centenary of the birth of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and it has been announced that a trust will be established in honour of the life of the late Queen. The trust will focus on restoring shared spaces in communities, reflecting the late Queen’s commitment to public service, inspired by the belief that everyone is our neighbour—a lesson that we should all seek to live by.
Last week, the Government made clear their commitment to tackling antisemitic attacks. Following the incident this week, I restate our position that attacks on British Jews are an attack on all of us. We will do whatever it takes to stop those who seek to intimidate our Jewish communities.
We are approaching the end of the Session, which, at its conclusion, will have seen the delivery of more than 50 Government Bills. We will continue to build on that in the next Session.
A statement was made to the House to provide an update on Capita and civil service pensions. I know that Members across the House will have welcomed that update. I assure hon. Members that the issues that they raise with me in this forum are heard by the Government and, where we can, the Government act.
Before I turn to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), may I wish everyone taking part in the London marathon this Sunday, including all the Members of the House who are participating, the very best of luck?
I join the hon. Gentleman in saying how saddened we are to learn about the death of Jamie Tweedie, which came far too soon. His friends and family are ensuring that we remember him and that he is not forgotten, and his untimely death leaves a legacy of which they should be proud.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the peace talks. I join him in hoping that they are successful. We want the ceasefire to continue. We want to ensure that the strait of Hormuz is open; otherwise, as he points out, it will prolong the expected economic damage, not just to our economy but to others. I want to put it on the record that what has unfolded in that part of the world demonstrates that the Prime Minister’s judgment on not joining the war in the first place was absolutely correct. He has spent his time making diplomatic efforts, working with others, to ensure that the strait of Hormuz is open at the earliest opportunity.
Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on domestic politics. He is perfectly entitled to make his case, but let me remind the House that the Prime Minister came here at the earliest opportunity on Monday and faced questions on Peter Mandelson for two and a half hours. That was followed by an emergency debate for three hours on Tuesday in which Members had an opportunity to make their case and ask their questions. Yesterday, the Prime Minister faced Prime Minister’s questions for about 45 minutes, in which he was questioned extensively on the issue. The Foreign Affairs Committee is doing its job in holding decision makers to account. There have been numerous opportunities—including at Cabinet Office questions, which has just finished—for other questions to be put. I and the Government cannot be held responsible for the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been so hopeless during these events that she cannot hold the Government to account effectively. [Interruption.]
Let me just mention the question of Prorogation, because the hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading too many newspapers. I have just read out to the House that the business next week—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Stafford, please, you are getting very carried away. Enjoy yourself on the Front Bench, but it is not the place to be thrown out from.
Sir Alan Campbell
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I have just read out the business, which includes, if necessary, Wednesday and Thursday, when we will be dealing with Lords amendments. The hon. Gentleman asked about PMQs; if the House is still sitting, PMQs will take place. I would imagine, too, that business questions will take place if we are still sitting on Thursday. Nothing in what I read out suggests anything that is not usual.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the record of this Government and went on to talk about what is happening in Scotland. Let me disagree with him about the way in which this Government will be judged. The borrowing figures show that we are borrowing less than at any time in the past four years, unemployment has come down, inflation and interest rates were falling, and waiting lists are coming down, too. I accept that we are facing the turmoil of the fallout from the situation in the middle east, but when such events happen, as a result of the action that we have taken in the last two years, this country is much better placed to see out those challenges than we were under the previous Government.
Finally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in what he said about the situation north of the border, at least as it pertains to the SNP. Voters suggest that they are tiring of the SNP Government; after two decades in government, it is time for change. The SNP Government have had the biggest settlement since devolution, and they are failing across the board on public services. I expect that voters will want to take the opportunity to make their position clear. Let me finally disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the way to do that is to vote Labour.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
In Harrow, getting a free car parking space is often critical to whether someone can access vital public services, and it is crucial for local businesses, too. My right hon. Friend will therefore understand my constituents’ frustration that Conservative-run Harrow council has axed free weekend and evening parking in North Harrow, Harrow town centre and Wealdstone. With Harrow Labour determined to reverse that, may we have a debate on the guidance that Ministers might offer councils on the importance of listening to residents’ and businesses’ concerns about access to free parking?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly share my hon. Friend’s frustration on those matters. We have heard on many occasions in these sessions how much they are of interest to our constituents. It is disappointing to say the least that charges may prevent people from accessing services. My hon. Friend put on record today his concern on behalf of his constituents. If he wants to amplify that, I would encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate. I hope that when the time comes his residents are given the opportunity to show their frustration at the ballot box.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am here subbing for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), who, as has already been mentioned, welcomed his new daughter late last Thursday. I am very pleased to tell the House that mum Gemma and baby Lyla are both doing very well indeed.
Yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee published a report that raises serious concerns about the resilience of the new hospital programme. This project has already been riddled with delays and spiralling costs, and it now faces further risk from a volatile global economy. The Office for National Statistics inflation figures, which were also released yesterday, add to the concerns, as they confirm what many feared: “Trumpflation” is having an effect on our economy. UK prices rose by 3.3% in the 12 months to March, driven largely by the biggest increase in fuel costs for over three years—a direct consequence of Trump’s reckless war in Iran and the effective closure of the strait of Hormuz.
Capital infrastructure projects, such as the new hospital programme, are acutely vulnerable to exactly that kind of supply disruption and inflationary pressure. In my area, Stepping Hill hospital already faces a £130 million repair backlog, crumbling buildings, flooded corridors and years of broken promises. Will the Government make time for a debate on the impact of global economic instability on UK investment and public infrastructure, and on their plan to ensure that patients, including those depending on hospitals such as Stepping Hill, are not left waiting even longer for the facilities they need?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me repeat my best wishes to Gemma and Lyla.
The previous Government’s ambition to deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030 was not achievable; neither was it funded properly. We have conducted a review of the programme and, alongside the record £13.6 billion of capital investment in the NHS last year, we have put the new hospital programme on a sustainable footing and a more realistic timetable. We are keeping delivery on track, responding to changes in healthcare needs, and working closely with the relevant NHS trusts to accelerate progress wherever possible, but the hon. Lady is right to remind us of the potential economic fallout from the volatile international situation.
The Chancellor updated the House earlier this week on the Government’s response to events in the middle east, because the war in Iran will come at a cost. However, the Government have had the right economic plan to keep costs down and, at the same time, to invest in public services, and we will continue to do so. I except that as the situation unfolds, the Chancellor will want to keep the House updated.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Following the Environment Act 2021, all councils in England were required to introduce food waste collections and improved kerbside recycling by April this year. Despite the long lead time, Tory-run Dudley council waited till the 11th hour, leaving it ill prepared for the changes and without the vehicles needed to complete the collections. That has left waste uncollected and cardboard strewn over the streets, and crews have been working hard around the clock to catch up. Residents have played their part and complied with the new rules. Does the Leader of the House agree that Dudley council must meet its obligations to residents, and provide accountability and answers for its failures on basics such as waste collection?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a champion for both her constituents and the wider community, and I thank her for consistently raising the issues that matter most to them. This is not the first time that the failures of Conservative-run Dudley council have been brought to my attention. I thank the residents and crews who are stepping up, but I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that Tory-run Dudley council needs to clean up its act.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to the late Brian Jones, who died overnight, aged 89, at Northwick Park hospital. Brian was either president or chairman of the Harrow East Conservative Association for 25 years, and he was also my election agent for three general elections. He was a distinguished civil servant who worked on international trade matters before he retired, and he was the district scout commissioner in Harrow. He will be sorely missed, and we obviously express our sadness to his relatives and friends.
I suspect that these will be the last business questions before Prorogation. As is usual at the end of a Session, I shall write to the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, with a list of debates that are still on our waiting list. We have debates for the Chamber until the Christmas recess; for Tuesday mornings in Westminster Hall until the November recess; and for Thursdays in Westminster Hall until the conference recess. If the Leader of the House wants to have any general debates before the Committee is reconstituted following state opening, there is a long list of them. I thank him for laying the Standing Orders, but when will they be considered by the House? I pay tribute to the members of the Backbench Business Committee, the Clerks and the other support services, who have done such a brilliant job assisting us in formulating the debates that we have had.
There have been recent attacks on Jewish communities across north London. The recent arrests of individuals that have taken place are welcome, but Jewish people will be thinking twice about whether they should go to synagogue this weekend and whether they will be safe. It is imperative that the Government not only take measures to reassure Jewish people in this country, but take prompt action. The individuals perpetrating these evil attacks are controlled by Iranians; it is often Iranian diplomats or other third parties who are directing these operations. We must put a stop to what is going on in radicalising our young people and using them as stooges for the Iranian regime. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Security Minister to take prompt action to round up the individuals instructing these evil people so that Jewish people can feel safe once again in this country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for his work and the work of his Committee. I also thank him in anticipation of receiving his letter about the topics that are still around to be debated. As he points out, although it may take some time to get the Committee running again, there may well be an opportunity for general debates, and I thank him for that.
Let me say something about Brian Jones. He was in a different party to me, but that does not matter, because people like him are important not just in their communities, but for the working of local politics. We need to appreciate that, and I join the hon. Gentleman and all Members in sending our condolences to Brian’s friends and family.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Backbench Business Committee motions, and he is right that we have tabled them. He seeks to draw me on when they will be dealt with, so let me use a parliamentary term: shortly. In this case I really mean “shortly”, so he can work out whatever that means.
I join the hon. Gentleman in his remarks about antisemitism, because the House shares the view that all religious hatred is abhorrent and has no place in our society. We are shocked by the recent attacks and, as I said in my opening remarks, we stand with the Jewish community. We thank counter-terror officers for their work, and we are working with the Community Security Trust to keep the community safe.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention previously to the question of whether legislation is robust enough. We are bringing forward new legislation in the Crime and Policing Bill, but should we need to go further, I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Security Minister.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you and I agree that all women and girls should be safe on this estate, whether they are MPs, staff or visitors. We have been working together to ensure that we become the first White Ribbon-accredited Parliament in the world. What progress is being made to ensure that that accreditation is in place for this House by the next International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, so that we can all celebrate that this is a safe place for every woman and girl who chooses to work or visit here?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has been an assiduous supporter of the White Ribbon accreditation process and has been working on it from the very beginning. I can reconfirm for her that we are committed to making the UK Parliament the first to have White Ribbon accreditation. The House of Commons Commission has established the necessary leads to start accreditation, and an action plan has been drafted and is on track to be launched in the near future.
Mr Speaker
Since I was brought into that question, I just want to add that the Leader of the House is absolutely correct. We are almost there, and almost ready to bring it forward.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I want to raise three points with the Leader of the House about the operation of the Humble Address agreed by the House on 4 February. I make clear that I do so on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee. First, I invite the Leader of the House to confirm that under the terms of the Humble Address, no one within Government has the right to withhold, deny or not disclose the existence of any document within the scope of the Humble Address.
Secondly, as the Leader of the House knows, the exemptions set out in the Humble Address that relate to the Intelligence and Security Committee are about redactions that need to be made to protect either national security or international relations. Beyond that, the Government produced a document to go along with the first disclosure of material on 11 March, which set out a number of grounds on which the Government would also seek to redact information. If you will permit me, Mr Speaker, I will quote what they are. The document mentions
“Individuals’ email addresses and phone numbers; the identities of junior civil servants; personal data of third parties where this is not in scope of the motion; and legal professional privilege.”
It also makes reference to a
“small amount of Peter Mandelson’s personal data”,
and then says that
“It may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including commercially sensitive information.”
I invite the Leader of the House to confirm that if the Government intend to do so, they need to come to this House to explain what those grounds for redaction will be, because—as I hope he will agree—they are not covered by the terms of the Humble Address as it stands. It is important that the House has the chance to validate the Government’s view that further redactions would be appropriate.
My third point is about redactions on grounds other than national security or international relations. As the Leader of the House knows, the Committee I am part of is going through documents now to confirm that the redactions the Government propose to make are appropriate on the grounds of national security or international relations, but no one is doing the same work in relation to redactions that the Government seek to make for other reasons. Should they not be, and should there not be an opportunity for someone in this House to look at the unredacted versions of those documents, to confirm that the redactions the Government are seeking to make are appropriate?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I place on record our gratitude to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its time and its consideration of the large number of documents that it is reviewing. Further documents have been gathered, and the Government are working at pace to ensure that the ISC has all the relevant documentation as soon as possible. On Tuesday 21 April, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister committed to the House that
“we will release that further material shortly, subject to the processes ongoing with the Metropolitan police”—
which I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands—
“and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress.”—[Official Report, 21 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 235.]
The Prime Minister has been very clear that he expects us to make progress as quickly as possible, but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are literally mountains of documents to wade through.
As for what the ISC was asked to do, I do not believe that that has fundamentally changed. My view, which I have expressed in one of these sessions, is that the Government would be wise to get as much information as possible out as quickly as possible, and to do as little redaction as possible. However, if I have understood him correctly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an interesting question about what the Government have subsequently said about what they might or might not do. I want to go away and think about that, because from what he has said—and I trust him absolutely on these matters—it does seem somewhat at odds. Were the Government to change those terms, I would expect them to come to this House and do so.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Happy St George’s day to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House, and what better day is there to reflect that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will soon receive Royal Assent? With it come enhanced powers to safeguard community assets, including automatic protection for sporting grounds. This important Co-operative party campaign reflects the real community of Britain, with decent people pulling together, protecting what is important to them. Does the Leader of the House agree that now we are soon to have these widened protections, we also need widened ownership and to bring forward a new community ownership fund?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on these matters, including as a Minister and shadow Minister. He brings valuable insight. I cannot give him a commitment on the fund, but I believe that we need to go further on these issues. As the Government have made clear, communities should, wherever possible, be put in the driving seat in terms of not only their resources and the decisions they have to make, but the assets at their disposal.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
St George’s day is certainly a day to celebrate patriotism. This morning, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Attorney General, when he was in private practice, voluntarily gave advice on the pursuit of British soldiers over alleged war crimes—allegations that turned out to be bogus. The article says that he realised those claims could be bogus early on in the process. That brings into question his impartiality in advising the Government on matters of human rights law as they apply to soldiers. He should therefore recuse himself from giving advice on those matters generally, but especially on the Northern Ireland legislation, which as it stands will victimise more British soldiers. Can we have a debate on Government legal advice and the shameful misuse of human rights law in pursuit of our soldiers?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said in announcing the business, there may be an opportunity before the end of this Session to return to the question of the legacy Bill. There will certainly be an opportunity as soon as we come back to return to it. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to make those remarks during those debates. Knowing the Attorney General as I do, I am sure that he approaches these questions in an absolutely correct way. Should a situation arise where he feels that he should recuse himself, I have absolute faith that he would make the right judgment.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Government’s tabling of the carry-over motion for the Hillsborough law. A lot of people who were extremely worried about what was happening will be relieved today. However, that motion must be matched with urgency. Ministers must end the delays and deliver the law in full, as promised, without carve-outs for the intelligence and security services. That will achieve the cultural change that the country desperately needs, as we have seen this week. Will my right hon. Friend remind some in government that negative media briefings against key figures in the campaign risk undermining confidence in the process and should cease? Following the Prime Minister’s commitment at PMQs last week, will my right hon. Friend ensure that I am directly informed and included in all meetings and briefings moving forward as the parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough law campaign?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend not just for his questions, but for his record on this matter. I know that he has a personal interest as someone who was at Hillsborough on that terrible day. As he says, we have tabled the carry-over motion, and I am pleased that he welcomes it. Briefings against anyone are never welcome, wherever they come from. I hope that those who might have briefed hear his words. In terms of keeping him updated, I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I had the opportunity to test out my hand-eye co-ordination recently by joining Chichester Centurions hockey club. We have a thriving hockey community in Chichester, and Chichester hockey club has more than 650 members. They are at risk, however, of losing their pitch provision because the pitches are coming to end of life and are being replaced with 3G pitches, which are far more favourable to football—hockey cannot be played on them. Will the Leader of the House please talk to the Sport Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and ask what she can do, because the picture in my area is happening nationally? Will he please ask her to meet me, so that she can tell me what she will do to protect hockey?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will draw the hon. Lady’s remarks and concerns to the attention of the appropriate Minister, and see if we can arrange the meeting she requests.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
As Members will know, this week Parliament welcomed Prestur, the wonderful Icelandic horse showcasing the value of animal-assisted and community-based support for neurodivergent people. May I personally thank you for that, Mr Speaker? I am sure you agree that we have never seen so many fat smiles on MPs’ faces as we did with Prestur. The event had a serious purpose, which was to highlight the strength of neurodiversity and the difference that inclusive, non-clinical environments make to wellbeing, emotional regulation and connection. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such support helps embed neuro-inclusion in our communities? As we shift from hospital to community care, how can we best champion such initiatives so that all people can thrive?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a champion on this matter for her constituents and, indeed, more widely. I thank her for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. I do agree with her, but more importantly, the Government more widely agree with her that such community-based support is vital, and in raising this matter in the House today, she has highlighted the case even more.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Phoenix shops are a blight on many of our high streets, including in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley. Councillor Karen Grinsell, the leader of Solihull metropolitan borough council, recently brought forward a motion to have greater statutory powers to close down these stores. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time to debate this issue so that we can close these stores for good?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I have said, there may well be such an opportunity after the King’s Speech, when the Government will have more time for general debates, and I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman’s request.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Last month, I was thrilled to see Scarborough rugby union football club crowned regional 2 north-east champions—the highest level in the club’s history. The club does brilliant work in the Scarborough community, with various teams for women and for rugby players of all levels. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Scarborough RUFC’s historic victory and its vital contribution to Scarborough?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Scarborough RUFC on its success. Not only that club, but rugby clubs across our country are so important in local sports. Very often, they are at the heart of our local communities because, moving beyond the sport they play, they get involved in all sorts of other things, and I thank rugby clubs for everything they do.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
First, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for bringing my previous concerns about the management of visa cases in the Home Office to the Department’s attention. However, at the moment I have a very acute issue with immediate support needs. A constituent of mine is in the USA, where his baby was born through surrogacy. Unfortunately, the baby has been very unwell, and he has not yet been able to complete the formalities for a British passport, although they do hold a US one. My constituent’s ESTA—electronic system for travel authorisation—is running out, and he desperately wants to get back to Scotland with his baby, who needs further medical care. In the absence of any remaining Home Office questions, will the Leader of the House advise me who could urgently offer some support to bring this case to a conclusion?
Sir Alan Campbell
If the hon. Lady lets me have the details of that case immediately after this session, I will see what we can do. While I am on my feet, let me wish her well for her run on Sunday.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Changes to Northumberland county council’s council tax support scheme have left some low-income residents in my constituency facing unaffordable increases, some of nearly £100 per month. Those impacted are the most vulnerable in our communities. Can the Leader of the House imagine what it is like, when they are already struggling to survive through the cost of living crisis, to be lumped with paying an extra £100 per month? That is pressure, Mr Speaker. Can we have a debate on the impact that local authorities can have, both positively and negatively, on the financial wellbeing of our constituents and their constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that decision by Northumberland county council. It cannot be right, even after 14 years of under-investment by successive Tory Administrations, that less well-off households in his area are being asked to pay more. This Government are taking action so we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it more. But the lesson that people need to learn, unfortunately by experience, in areas such as his is this: do not vote for a Tory or a Reform council.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Last July, my constituent Caroline decided to take out her civil service pension after 37 years working in the tax office in Shipley. Nine months later and she has still not received a single penny of the tens of thousands of pounds she is entitled to, despite many emails, messages and phone calls. Caroline is at her wits’ end, as are many of my constituents in similar scenarios. Capita initially promised to return to normalcy in February 2026, but the goalposts have been moved to June. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on Capita’s mismanagement of the civil service pension scheme?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that has been raised many times during these sessions. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, one effect of that was that a Minister did come to the House to give a statement on Capita. I am sure that they will continue to do so. If this situation continues, as we return after the King’s Speech, he is certainly making a good case for us to find time to have a debate on this issue.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
In September, Uber intends to roll out driverless taxis on UK roads, after the Government gave permission to companies to put driverless vehicles on our roads. This is causing concern among Uber drivers, who feel they are not being consulted by their employers about the impact it might have on their future employment. My right hon. Friend will recall P&O Ferries sacking its staff without notice and taking on foreign agency staff. There is very little difference with what Uber seems to be doing with its staff over the roll-out of driverless vehicles. May we have a statement from the Department for Transport? We do not want the Government featherbedding the sacking of existing staff in the way that P&O Ferries treated its staff in 2022.
Sir Alan Campbell
We certainly do not. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns and the concerns of Uber drivers. Of course, we would want to see companies consult with their employees and hopefully give them reassurance going forward, but I will take up his concerns directly with Ministers to ensure that we are doing everything we can to get ahead of this particular game.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Iranian war has caused a huge spike in fuel prices for all drivers, but this is especially true for businesses in Caerfyrddin and rural Wales. Ammanford construction business TRJ has been deeply affected, along with haulage companies such as Tony Powell Transport, which has seen costs increase by £7,000 a week. Transport costs for all Caerfyrddin businesses will inevitably result in higher prices, including for food and essentials, for all our constituents. I appreciate that the 5p cut in fuel duty will continue until October, but can the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to help businesses by using the additional taxation received through the increased fuel price by further cutting fuel duty?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the concerns about the possible economic fallout from the current situation in the middle east. As she points out, we are already taking action. We had already extended the 5p cut in fuel duty until September. We are also working at pace with our International Energy Agency partners on a co-ordinated release of oil stocks to the market, with the UK contributing 13.5 million barrels. The Chancellor and the Energy Secretary have met the petrol retail industry to make clear that drivers must get a fair deal, whether they are haulage drivers or domestic drivers. We need to make sure that competition is kept open and that the competition watchdog is vigilant on price gouging.
As the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have both said, we are keeping the situation under review. We are also keeping under review the cost of red diesel, which I know will be more important in some areas, in particular rural areas, than it might be in others. We have also taken action on heating oil, which again is probably more of a prevalent concern in areas like hers than it is in some urban areas.
To respond to what the hon. Lady said about the money that the Chancellor is meant to be getting in through taxation as a result of rising fuel prices. That is false economics; it does not exist. It may be that the receipts are coming in through one door, but they are going out through another because costs to Government rise, too. We should not try to—I know she is not trying to—kid people that somehow this is a benefit to the Chancellor. The Chancellor does not want this to happen and it is not as straightforward as the hon. Lady has said.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I recently had the chance to speak to air cadets at 1509 (Blaydon) Squadron, my local air training corps, where I received a good grilling on the job of an MP and on a wide range of issues affecting the cadets. They told me how they are learning practical and social skills, as well as being provided with training and outdoor pursuits by the RAF. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can continue to build on the work of our cadet services to benefit our young people?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to champion the good work of the cadets and the impact on young people. We are committed to the joint Department for Education and Ministry of Defence cadet expansion programme, complementing our national youth strategy. I encourage my hon. Friend to perhaps apply for an Adjournment debate to hear directly from Ministers about not only the work we are undertaking to support the cadets, but what plans there are for the future.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
For far too long, mobile phone connectivity across Bromsgrove and the villages, Worcestershire and, frankly, the rest of the country has been woeful. I find it shocking that humanity can send a rocket to loop around the moon and back, and yet we cannot get reliable mobile phone signal. This morning, I read in The Times and The Telegraph that Vodafone, Three, O2 and EE are considering rationing mobile phone connectivity in the light of surging energy costs. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on the adequacy of mobile phone connectivity—not just in rural areas, but across the whole country?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are all frustrated when there is no connectivity, particularly when travelling, but there is a wider and more important point here, which is the economic cost, particularly in rural areas but also across the country. I am not aware of what those providers are saying, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and concerns to the attention of the relevant Ministers to ensure that they are sighted of this, as I am sure they are. I will get him an update on these matters.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I wish you a splendid St George’s day, Mr Speaker.
My constituent Milly Mulcahy is a wheelchair user who is entirely reliant on a lift maintained by Lancashire county council to enter and leave her home. Since being installed six years ago, this lift has broken down constantly; every time it breaks down, Milly is trapped in her own home. It was completely broken for two months over Christmas, with the county council failing to respond to multiple requests. Engineers have confirmed that the lift will never work reliably and simply needs replacing, but the county council has refused to engage in a long-term solution. This flies in the face of common sense—thousands of pounds have been spent on engineer call-outs with nothing to show for it. Will the Leader of the House agree with me on calling on the Reform leadership at Lancashire county council to stop dodging the issue, do the job properly and give Milly the freedom she deserves?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very disturbing story, and I wish Milly well. We have heard time and again in these sessions that when Reform is in local government, it overpromises and underdelivers. I strongly encourage Lancashire county council to listen to my hon. Friend’s contribution and to do the right thing by Milly and people across his community and put this right.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Many across the House will have watched “Dirty Business” last month and been shocked not only by the behaviour of the water companies, but by the deliberate deregulation and defunding of the agencies that are there to protect our environment. When Storm Chandra devastated homes in my constituency, particularly those in Sturminster Marshall, the Environment Agency door drops did not arrive until after the flooding had entered my constituents’ homes.
One of the causes of flooding is lack of maintenance of ditches by riparian owners. Even when the agency is able to raise it with owners, it has insufficient funding to take enforcement action, relying instead on neighbourly good will. As our climate changes and we have more frequent and severe flooding, will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on the remit and capacity of the Environment Agency to keep us all safe?
Sir Alan Campbell
The previous Government should never have allowed the water sector to get into this state, with record levels of sewage spills and ageing infrastructure, and this Government are determined to put it right both through legislation and by encouraging and resourcing the Environment Agency. I will give consideration to what the hon. Member says about this matter, and she may wish to draw it directly to the attention of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I understand the concerns about the Environment Agency when such things happen, but a lot of Environment Agency staff are doing a really good and really tough job, day in and day out, and we should send them our support.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
In May 2025, the all-party parliamentary group on beauty and wellbeing, which I chair, launched an inquiry into ultraviolet safety in the UK. Over nine months, we have taken evidence from the industry, academics, clinicians and those with lived experience to understand the dangers of overexposure and what more can be done to improve protection and reduce risks. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all those who contributed and encouraging Ministers, brands and retailers to read our report very carefully when it is launched next month and to consider our very sensible recommendations?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who contributed to the inquiry, and I thank the members of the APPG for all their work on this vital issue. I join my hon. Friend in inviting all those in the sector to read the report when it is published, and I will draw her remarks directly to the attention of Ministers.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Yesterday I held a meeting with representatives from Hydrogen UK, a number of whose members have projects planned for my constituency. They expressed concern about the delay in the publication of the Government’s hydrogen strategy. The delay is costing these companies many thousands of pounds and may lead to them withdrawing investments, which would obviously be damaging for the local economy and the ambitions of the Government’s growth agenda. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement from a Minister to announce the strategy to let us get moving with these projects?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this matter on behalf of businesses in his constituency, and I understand their uncertainty. We are absolutely committed to building a thriving hydrogen sector in the UK through our strategy, as he points out, but I will draw his concerns to the attention of Ministers. If we have the strategy and the energy, we need to get on with it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We are tired of lazy stereotypes and assumptions in Slough, which is why we are tackling them head-on with our application to be the 2028 UK town of culture. I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that as a cultural, digital and economic powerhouse, with a young, diverse and talented population, Slough would be the ideal candidate. Does he also agree that, with projects already planned to improve skills, community cohesion and civic pride, the impact of winning this award would be transformational for our town?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this to the House, and he is absolutely right. Programmes like the UK town of culture have often been transformative experiences, with the impacts on people and places extending well beyond the title year. I hope to see the same transformation in the winning town.
I have to be diplomatic in wishing all the communities, including Chorley and Slough, well in their quest to be the town of culture. Even if they are not the outright winner, taking part in the process and being a runner-up is a considerable achievement, and it is often a boost to local people.
Before I sit down, Mr Speaker, I also want to mention that North Shields has a very strong case.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
After years of Conservative failures to do so, Liberal Democrat councils across Harpenden and Berkhamsted are working hard to secure a local plan for housing. However, the Government’s work on top-down planning, which gives Dacorum an increase of about 40% in housing numbers and St Albans an increase of almost 90%, and the Government’s grey belt proposals are literally giving developers a field day in Harpenden and Berkhamsted—including in Tring, where we see proposed increases of about 40% across the village. Now that the Government are seeing the impact of that policy, will the Leader of the House help us to secure a debate on grey belt—and a visit from the Minister to see those green belt areas, which are supposedly grey belt, right on the Chilterns national landscape?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are clear that we wish to see brownfield sites prioritised wherever possible, but the reality is that we have ambitious targets for housing because the failure of the previous Government to build sufficient housing has left us with a housing crisis. It is true that local voices should be heard in this process, but it is also true that we need to get on and build some more houses. I will draw the hon. Lady’s question to the attention of the Housing Minister, who is doing his very best in that regard. This issue is raised very often, so, should she wish to seek an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate, I am sure other Members would want to come along and take part.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
On Monday of this week the former MP for Clydebank and Milngavie, Tony Worthington, sadly passed away. He was the MP for my home town of Clydebank from 1987 until 2005. Over 18 years in this House, he championed many causes, not least the campaign to secure compensation for victims of asbestos-related illness and their families after the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings. He was victorious in that fight. He will be remembered fondly by my constituents, and he remains an inspiration to me. Will the Leader of the House to join me in commemorating Tony Worthington and offering our condolences to his wife Angela, his son Robert, his daughter Jennifer and his three grandchildren?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend and all those in this House in remembering the life and achievements of Tony Worthington. I knew Tony briefly, and I was certainly aware of the extraordinary campaigning he undertook and his success, not least on asbestos. It is not every MP who at the end of their career can claim success in the way that Tony Worthington could. I share the House’s sympathy and send our condolences to Tony’s family at this time. We remember his life, which was a life well lived.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I wish you and the whole House a very happy St George’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the launch of the local media action plan, will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating local newspapers in my constituency such as the Bridlington Echo, the Bridlington Free Press, the Driffield & Wolds Weekly and the Holderness & Hornsea Gazette, and local radio stations including Bridlington Gold Radio, Great Driffield Radio and This is the Coast? Can we have a debate in Government time on the funding for local radio and for local newspapers, to ensure that that £12 million effectively reaches those brilliant independent outlets, so that they can innovate and attract high-quality journalism?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are certainly keen to see local newspapers and local radio continue, because they are so important to the lives of our communities. I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister; if he wants to hear from the Minister directly about what more we can do with the fund, then he might seek an Adjournment debate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
When the Central England Co-operative announced that it was purchasing the Marquis pub in Great Sutton and the Saffron restaurant in Ellesmere Port, we were delighted that those old buildings were going to be brought back into use as convenience stores. However, five years on since those announcements, I am afraid that both buildings have been left to rot. That is not a good look for our community. We want the Co-op to get on and build the new stores that it has promised. It is vital for our community that we see that investment, to build on our £20 million of Pride in Place funding, but we are at a roadblock, and we cannot get an answer on where things need to go. Could we please have a debate on what other levers we can use to encourage this investment, which we absolutely want to see?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise these matters. They must be of deep concern to his constituents, who had their hopes built up but nothing has happened. I hope the Co-op has heard what he has said today, because the answer lies largely in its hands. He is right to point out that we are taking action to help high streets, not least through Pride in Place. Should he seek a meeting with Ministers to see if there are any other levers to pull, as he puts it, I will arrange that.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Some of the most shocking stories that I heard during the general election campaign on doorsteps throughout North Cornwall were of people pulling out their own teeth because they could not afford the high cost of private dental care. This week, all parties at Cornwall council unanimously passed a Lib Dem motion to tackle the urgent dentistry crisis we face by focusing on prevention, outreach services and workforce shortages. The Lib Dem sponsors, Councillors Rosie Moore and David Garrigan, emphasised urgent action over more talk. If Cornwall council can come together cross-party and act with such urgency, why can’t the Government? Will the Leader of the House please commit to a debate in Government time on fixing the NHS dentistry crisis in rural and coastal communities, like mine in Cornwall?
Sir Alan Campbell
The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government are seeking to address these matters at pace. We are coming together to ensure, for example, that dental hubs are rolled out where people can see them and the effect can be felt. We have already rolled out 700,000 more urgent dental appointments. We are reforming the dental contract, which is perhaps easy to say and more difficult to do. We have also announced the first sustained expansion of dental training since 2007. Having said that, I hope that in the hon. Gentleman’s local area, by coming together, there is an opportunity to improve access to dentistry. It has been left in a shocking state, but the Government are fully committed to doing something about it.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Rural fly-tipping is a persistent problem across the villages in the South Bedfordshire part of my constituency, including Billington, Eaton Bray and Kensworth. I welcome the Government’s waste crime action plan and the additional £45 million for the environment agency to tackle fly-tippers and the criminal networks behind them. May we have a debate in Government time on the particular impact of fly-tipping in rural villages?
Sir Alan Campbell
Our new waste crime action plan sets out a zero-tolerance approach in order to prevent waste crime, pursue the criminals responsible and accelerate clean-up, and I think it has been widely welcomed. Should my hon. Friend seek an Adjournment debate on the scourge of fly-tipping in rural areas, I am sure it would be well attended. If she is not successful, I will certainly see if we can find time in Government time to give her the debate that she asks for.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
My casework team routinely wait between three and six months—sometimes longer—for substantive replies from the Department for Work and Pensions on cases. I am also aware of colleagues experiencing similar delays. Will the Leader of the House advise on the most effective means by which Members can hold the Government to account for these persistent failings?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the frustration that Members sometimes have when they do not receive full replies or the substantive replies that they seek. If the hon. Lady gives me details of that particular case, I will certainly follow them up. She may also know that the Procedure Committee is undertaking an inquiry into parliamentary questions. The situation is a bit more complicated than it seems, because the number of PQs has gone through the roof and there are all sorts of questions as to why that should be the case. Also, although Members are given the opportunity to ask questions and hold Departments to account, there is a question as to whether the rules that we work to and live by are the right ones for the current situation.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
Happy St George’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker. Alan Clark and a team of volunteers from the CAMRA award-winning pub Haydock Reading Rooms recently completed the West Highland Way, raising thousands of pounds for Clatterbridge hospital and for Ryan Lawrenson, who at just 21 was recently diagnosed with osteosarcoma. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Ryan and his family the very best? Does he also agree that Alan and the team’s voluntary work and community effort show the best of Haydock and the best of England?
Sir Alan Campbell
I want to reciprocate by wishing my hon. Friend a happy St George’s day. He highlights some of the incredible efforts by Alan Clark and other volunteers from his constituency. As I have said many times before, local volunteers are the golden thread that runs through our constituencies, so I will of course join him in wishing Ryan and his family well, and in thanking the team.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Twenty-four-year-old Eastbournian Chanté Lloyd-Buckingham was tragically found dead in her supported accommodation in the town in 2024, amid grave concerns about the quality of the care that she was—or, indeed, was not—receiving. Scandalously, many private supported accommodation providers are not CQC regulated, so many of them take our money but do not take responsibility. Given that Chanté’s parents, Emma and Karl, secured 70,000 signatures on their e-petition to regulate supported accommodation but did not quite make the 100,000 for a debate, will the Leader of the House consider granting a debate on this issue to honour the memory of Chanté?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am saddened to hear of the tragic case and will certainly give the hon. Gentleman’s request some consideration. I suspect that a cross-departmental approach needs to be taken here, so if he wishes to give me further details, I will draw his concerns to the attention of Ministers; it is important that they see how these things actually play out in local constituencies and how they affect individuals.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The British Standards Institution has supported safety, industrial harmony and best practice in the workplace for 125 years this year. I have seen at first hand the extensive work that it has done in creating the new inclusive personal protective equipment standards, with special mention to Anne Hayes, Sara, Nele and Robbie. Will the Leader of the House support a debate in Government time on these vital standards and join me in wishing the BSI a very happy 125th birthday?
Sir Alan Campbell
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the BSI on 125 years of tireless work. There was a Westminster Hall debate on this very matter recently. I encourage all workplaces and employers to align their work practices with the Government’s suicide prevention strategy, and to consider drawing on BSI standards to help embed suicide prevention in working practices.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I am proud today to celebrate Warwickshire day with colleagues from across this House, and I thank the Speaker’s Office for arranging an event this morning. It was a real honour to raise the Warwickshire flag on the flagpole here in Parliament.
The Believe in Bedworth board manages the £20 million Pride in Place investment from the Government, and we are holding a St George’s day celebration this Saturday. There will be free activities for children, as well as food vendors and stalls. It will be a great day out for everyone, and I am really looking forward to it. Can I ask the Leader of the House if the Government will make time for a debate on the importance of community events like this for cohesion in our areas and to celebrate days like St George’s day and Warwickshire day?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in recognising Warwickshire day. As I have said previously, community volunteers and events like the one she describes are at the heart of making our local communities the fantastic places they are. This sounds like a great way to celebrate St George’s day. Should she seek a Westminster Hall debate on the issues she raises, then I hope she is successful. If not, then I will give consideration to her request for a debate in Government time.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
One of my constituents was diagnosed with breast cancer and subsequently received universal credit and incapacity benefit, but the DWP then stopped these payments due to some confusion over a critical illness cover policy. The facts around it were incorrect. Despite her best efforts and despite my team’s recent best efforts, we have been unable to get a hearing from a DWP caseworker for a mandatory reconsideration claim. That was over six months ago. In the meantime, she has now discovered that her cancer is terminal. Please can we have a debate in Government time on DWP delays and their impact on the critically ill?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend raises. It must be a very difficult time for his constituent and her family. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I extend my deepest sympathies and best wishes to her. If my hon. Friend would like to give me the details after Question Time, I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Minister.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
Further to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), will the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero make a statement on the delayed hydrogen strategy refresh? Projects in my constituency, including the Lhyfe Wallsend development, are ready to move forward but face growing uncertainty. Given the importance of hydrogen for jobs and energy security, and in supporting UK industry, will the Government provide clarity on when the strategy will be published and how it will support investment in the north-east and other regions?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a true champion of businesses not just in her constituency and along the river that we share, but across our region. I pay tribute to her for that work, for which she is widely respected. As I have said, we are committed to building a thriving hydrogen sector in the UK, but we have not been able to move as quickly as possible. We want to renew the hydrogen strategy and see it at work, but we must also give industry the clarity it needs. I hope that work will be completed as soon as possible. Should she wish to make her case to a Minister, I will make the case for a meeting with her and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers).
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
May I wish you a happy St George’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Reform-run Lancashire county council, which borders my Bolton West constituency, has threatened residents with care home closures, put gritting depots on the chopping block and attempted to withhold money given by this Labour Government to support local nurseries. With vital local elections on Thursday 7 May, does the Leader of the House agree that my constituents will look askance at the chaos over the border in Reform-run Lancashire, listen to their neighbours and conclude that once voters have had a taste of Reform in power, they do not go back for seconds?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the performance—or, should I say, the lack of performance —of Reform councils. We have heard time and again in business questions that when Reform is in local government, it over-promises and under-delivers. There is a real political choice in the coming local elections. He makes a strong case for learning from the example of what it is like to live under a Reform council, and for the benefits of voting Labour.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The 14 to 18-year-olds who study at university technical colleges are three or four times more likely than the national average to secure an apprenticeship. The UTC in Derby is oversubscribed—it got 450 applications for just 100 places —and demand outstrips the number of places in other UTCs too. Many of our industries are concerned about skills shortages, so might we have a debate on how to expand UTC provision, or enable UTCs to team up with other schools, so that more young people can benefit from the skills that UTCs teach and from those strong routes into apprenticeships?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. We recently announced 19 new technical excellence colleges in England, on top of the 10 confirmed for the construction sector last year. We are expanding the youth guarantee to create further opportunities for young people. However, as she points out, we need to go further and we are committed to doing so. I encourage her to apply for a Westminster Hall debate to explore how we can expand the opportunity to study at university technical colleges. That is, as she points out, so important for our young people and local communities.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Friday 8 May is a significant day: the country will celebrate the 100th birthday of our national treasure, Sir David Attenborough. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] He is an icon of broadcasting, a steadfast champion of the natural world, and an educator who has brought science and all corners of our world into the homes of millions of people. His contribution to our national life is without equal. He remains the only individual to have received BAFTA awards across black and white, colour, high definition, 3D and 4K broadcasting, and one of the very few people to have been knighted twice. On the off-chance that these are the last business questions before Sir David’s birthday, will the Leader of the House join me in wishing him a very happy birthday, and will he support a debate in Government time on the immense contribution that Sir David has made to our nation and on the merits of establishing a permanent public monument to honour it?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. As I said previously, Sir David Attenborough has been instrumental in teaching generations about the importance of the natural world. I am sure that the whole House will join me in celebrating the monumental occasion of Sir David’s 100th birthday, and let us give some thought across the House to how best we can mark that.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
In South East Cornwall we are rightly very proud of Cornwall Air Ambulance, which, along with more than 20 air ambulance charities across the UK, carries out vital lifesaving work, responding to over 130 missions daily and attending some of the most serious incidents, from road traffic collisions to cardiac arrests and major trauma. Cornwall Air Ambulance has raised concerns with me about emergency planning, particularly around fuel resilience and rising costs. Will the Leader of the House support me in securing a meeting with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that Cornwall Air Ambulance and other air ambulance charities are fully included in national emergency and prioritisation planning, so that they can continue to deliver critical care without disruption?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important work of the Cornwall Air Ambulance charity and wholeheartedly join her in commending the vital work of the volunteers who keep these essential services in the sky. I will certainly take up her concerns with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary to seek the meeting that she wants, but because it may not simply be a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, let us give some consideration to how else we can resolve this matter at a ministerial level.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
A very happy St George’s day to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Erewash Voluntary Action underpins dozens of community groups in Erewash, providing governance, safeguarding and volunteer support. Councils for voluntary service like EVA need infrastructure investment to provide support to frontline groups and volunteers. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating EVA on securing more than £400,000 in funding from the National Lottery Community Fund and consider finding time for us to debate the importance of locally rooted voluntary sector infrastructure organisations like the fantastic Erewash Voluntary Action?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the work of the brilliant community groups in his constituency, and I join him in congratulating Erewash Voluntary Action on securing its funding and continuing to support community engagement. There has been a theme this morning, and indeed in other sessions, about the importance of community volunteers, so I will certainly give some thought to his suggestion that we should find a way of discussing these matters further.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I recently walked around Ball Green with Sharon Rospendowski, a local champion who helps to keep the fabric of her community together. Residents in Ball Green and places like Norton share a common concern: they have lost vital services over the years, including Sure Start centres, youth clubs, post offices and local policing—services that kept our communities secure and connected. Despite that, it is people like Sharon who step forward to fight for their communities. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on restoring neighbourhood services and outline how this Government will ensure that places like Norton and Ball Green get the investment they deserve, so that they can rebuild?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that matter. As I have said many times, these organisations are the golden thread that runs through our communities. Our social cohesion plan sets out our commitment to bring communities together and restore pride in them, and I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate so that he can make his case in more detail.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
Happy Warwickshire day, and happy St George’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker. This week also marks an event that is incredibly important to me: Allergy Awareness Week. On Monday I was proud to launch the national allergy strategy with more than 150 clinicians, researchers, patients, families and charities. With more than 21 million people in the UK suffering from allergic diseases, does my right hon. Friend agree that time should be given in this House to debate allergy care, the strategy and how we can improve outcomes for those who suffer?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend and everyone who worked to develop the national allergy strategy. Over the coming months the Government will thoroughly review all of the strategy’s recommendations, and carefully consider the feasibility and viability of their implementation. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall debate so that those matters can be discussed in more detail.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
St George’s day is an appropriate time to ask my right hon. Friend about progress in the implementation of the veterans covenant across the public sector. Thanet has a significant number of veterans who, despite the commitment to the ambitions of the covenant by the Government, still struggle to access public services in a way that meets their needs. This is of course a cross-departmental matter, so I ask him to raise the issue with colleagues across Government to see if and when we could have a progress report.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise veterans’ issues and I thank her for doing so. As she knows, Op Valour is our UK-wide veterans’ support system, providing £50 million in funding to better connect charities and local and national services. I will ensure that she gets a response from the Minister for Veterans and People and the update on the issues that she seeks.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
For over two years, residents on the edge of Carlisle, in Rockcliffe, Harker and Cargo, have been waging an excellent campaign against the building of a gasification plant—a campaign for which they have my full support. Cumberland council rightly refused the application, but the applicant, who has much deeper pockets than local residents, is taking the issue to appeal. My community is not the only one fighting incinerator plans, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement on the Government’s current position on the building of new incinerators?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House. The Government have set up new rules so that waste incinerators will receive planning approval only if they meet strict new local environmental conditions. I know that this is a matter of concern not only to my hon. Friend’s constituents but to others, and I will draw it to the attention of Ministers.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
My constituent Kevin has to travel between Redditch, Gloucester and Cheltenham for chemotherapy and operations following a diagnosis of oesophageal cancer. He has been told that he does not qualify for hospital transport as he is not in a wheelchair or using oxygen, but in reality Kevin is in no fit state to drive himself to appointments over an hour away from his home. Can I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time to discuss how integrated care boards and the Department of Health and Social Care can work together to ensure that non-emergency patient transport services take a holistic approach to granting transport for deeply unwell patients to get them to their critical appointments?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a serious matter. The Government recognise that the cost of travel should not be a barrier to treatment, and the non-emergency patient transport scheme guidance is determined by ICBs and their partners, including local ambulance trusts. I will make sure that the relevant Minister is aware of this case and see what action may be taken.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Type 1 diabetes with disordered eating, or T1DE for short, is a lethal combination of two conditions, but pilot sites set up to trial bespoke NHS services that bring specialists from both fields together have closed down due to funding coming to an end, including two earlier this month. The all-party parliamentary group on diabetes wrote to the DHSC about that in February but has not received a reply. Will the Leader of the House chase a response and ask the public health Minister to make a statement on the matter so that we can debate support for that vulnerable group of patients?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly important matter. NHS England previously extended the initial two-year funding term and is providing data to ICBs to support decisions about treatment and care, but I will of course reach out to the relevant Minister to ensure that those responses are issued as a matter of priority.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I ask the Leader of the House to welcome the new owners of Harlow Town football club to their role after a period of uncertainty, when the club went into administration. As I know he is a fan of football teams that play in red and white, will he join me in wishing Harlow Town football club, often known as the non-league Man City, a successful season next year?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the new owners of Harlow Town. I am sure that is welcome news to supporters, because local football clubs are of such importance to our local communities, and I wish them all the best for the new season. May I also wish my hon. Friend all the best for Sunday, when he will be running the London marathon, raising funds for a local hospice?
With the House’s indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I correct the record? In answer to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), I said that we have already rolled out 700,000 emergency dental appointments. What I should have said is that we have started rolling out 700,000 emergency dental appointments. The work began this month. I want to ensure that when I misspeak, I put the record right at the earliest opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the Leader of the House for that.
UK Biobank Data
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the use of UK Biobank data.
UK Biobank is a non-profit charity, independent of Government. The Biobank brings together data, kindly donated by its volunteer participants, that is shared with accredited researchers globally to make significant scientific discoveries that improve patient health. That includes discovering genes that affect the risk of heart disease or cancer, identifying new ways of predicting dementia, identifying early warning signs for cancers, understanding immunity to covid-19, and work towards earlier detection of Parkinson’s. It is one of the most successful and important studies of its type, and it continues to benefit patients in the UK and around the world. We are all grateful to those individuals who are part of this landmark study that is so important for all of our health.
On Monday 20 April, the UK Biobank charity informed the Government that it had identified that its data had been advertised for sale by several sellers on Alibaba’s e-commerce platforms in China. Biobank told us that three listings that appeared to sell UK Biobank participation data had been identified. At least one of the three datasets appeared to contain data from all 500,000 UK Biobank volunteers. Additional listings offered support for applying for legitimate access to UK Biobank data or analytical support for researchers who already have access to the data. I want to reassure the House up front, however, that Biobank has advised that this data did not contain participants’ names, addresses, contact details or telephone numbers. The Government have spoken to the vendor today and they do not believe that there were any purchases from the three listings before they were taken down.
Once the Government were made aware of the situation, we took immediate action to protect participants’ data. First, we worked with Biobank, the Chinese Government and the vendor to ensure that the three listings that UK Biobank informed us included participant data had been removed. I want to thank the Chinese Government for the speed and seriousness with which they worked with us to help remove the listings and the ongoing work to remove any further listings. Secondly, we ensured that the Biobank charity revoked access to the three research institutions identified as the source of the information. Thirdly, we have asked that the Biobank charity pauses further access to its data until it has put in place a technical solution to prevent data from its current platform from being downloaded in this way again. I can confirm to the House that this pause is now in place. UK Biobank has also referred itself to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
We are still working with Biobank to ascertain from it the specific detail of what has happened. We have asked it to investigate how this data ended up for sale online as a priority, but I wanted to ensure that the House was aware of the incident and the action that the Government are taking.
Officials have been in regular contact with UK Biobank since the Government were made aware of the issue on Monday. I personally spoke to the chief executive and chair last night, alongside the Minister of State for Science and the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety. We have received assurances that the charity will conduct a rapid board-level review of the safeguards in place for accessing its data.
As I mentioned, in the short term, Biobank will suspend downloads from its platform. That is until a new system is brought in to control analysis downloads to approved researchers and will significantly enhance data access controls and safeguards. We have advised the chair and chief executive of Biobank to write to all participants as soon as possible to ensure that they are aware of what has happened.
In summary, and to be clear to the House and to those people affected, the charity has assured us that the data did not contain anybody’s names, addresses or contact details. It includes only data of people who have explicitly opted in to be part of the Biobank. Those are people who have given their explicit consent that this data can be used, in the knowledge that it will be shared with researchers globally.
Participants have done a great service to the people of this country, and human health globally, through their participation. For example, valuable research is being carried out at McGill University in Canada into chronic pain, which afflicts millions of people here in the UK. We expect UK Biobank to remain one of the leading health research resources.
This has been an unacceptable abuse of the UK Biobank charity’s data, and an abuse of the trust that participants rightly expect when sharing their data for research purposes. The Government take the incident extremely seriously, which is why we have acted rapidly to support the UK Biobank charity in its response and why I wanted to update the House at the earliest opportunity.
The Government will soon be issuing new guidance on control of data from research studies. I take this opportunity once again to urge all businesses and charities to ensure that that their systems and data-sharing processes are as secure as possible. We wrote to businesses last week about the cyber-security tools available to them—for free—from the Government and the steps they should take to maximise security. Ensuring the safe use of UK data is a priority for the Government. I commend this statement to the House.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for prior sight of it. This is indeed a serious breach. In another life, I was the chief operating officer of a tech company and we, too, had data breaches. We found that the best way to deal with them was to have developed a culture of openness and honesty in the organisation, not to flap or panic, to plug the leak and to limit the damage. Ideally that is all rehearsed, because it is too late to learn to swim when the ship starts sinking.
A couple of things in the Minister’s statement require clarification. The statement says what the data does not include, with the implication being that the participants could not be individually identified. What was in the data? Could it be used to identify participants, even if only mosaically?
The statement says that the research institutions identified as the source of the leak have had their access blocked. I am left thinking: is that it? Were those institutions Chinese? What sanctions are available either to the UK Biobank or to the Government on those institutions? Is their blocking permanent or temporary? How has UK Biobank reassured itself and its participants that no further copies of the data exist? What is the possibility or likelihood that the full dataset is now in the hands of the Chinese state?
I hope that the Minister will forgive me for not being an instant expert on UK Biobank. Can he tell me whether any research institutions that have access to UK Biobank data are based in Russia, Iran or North Korea? What is the Government’s risk assessment?
When I served on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill Committee, I distinctly remember the Government whipping their Back Benchers to vote down a Conservative amendment to oblige the Secretary of State to maintain a register of hostile actors posing a threat to the cyber-security of critical UK industries and sectors, including health. Will the Minister commit to reviewing that in the light of this serious data breach?
This is a grave incident. UK Biobank is an amazing project with thousands of trusting volunteers. I hope that the Government will send in the relevant agencies to help UK Biobank to secure its systems for the future, including vetting the research institutions that it trusts.
Ian Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he has approached this matter—indeed, with his expertise as a former COO of a tech company. Let me answer his questions directly.
As we understand it—this is from UK Biobank, which is not a Government organisation, but an independent charity—UK Biobank cannot be entirely sure about the data that was included, because it was taken down from the Alibaba websites. However, we do know that there is no personal data in it, in terms of identifiers. I can give an indication of some of the characteristics that are potentially in UK Biobank datasets, which include gender; age; month and year of birth; assessment centre data; attendance date; socioeconomic status; lifestyle habits; measures from biological samples such as haematology and biochemistry—this is the kind of stuff that has been detected—online questionnaires data; sleep; diet; work environment; mental health, and health outcomes data.
The shadow Minister asked whether there are identifiers for individuals. There are not, but it would be wrong for me to give 100% assurance—and UK Biobank cannot do so—that someone could not be identified from the data. However, it would have to be used in a very advanced way in order to do that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the three institutions. They have been immediately banned from the platform, and that will be permanent. The Biobank only works with accredited organisations, institutions and individual academic researchers, and the accreditation system is there to make sure that those using it are doing so for valid purposes. It has been running since 2012 and has been used for hundreds of thousands of different analyses. It works incredibly well and will continue to do so.
Let me explain how the system works and where the problem has arisen. In 2024, the system was changed from Biobank issuing datasets to accredited organisations and academic researchers to having all the information on the Biobank platform. When people access the data, they do their analysis and then download it. The system also allows people—although, contractually, accredited organisations are not supposed to do this—to download datasets. We understand from Biobank that what has probably happened is that the three institutions have downloaded the datasets themselves. As yet, we are unclear as to how those datasets ended up on the website, but UK Biobank, along with institutions and organisations attached to the Government, is working through that at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked for reassurance that Russia, Iran and North Korea are not accredited, and I understand from UK Biobank that they are not. He also mentioned hostile actors. UK Biobank is very strict about who has access, because there is an accreditation process. Secondly, although the three institutions are Chinese in this particular instance, the Chinese Government and Alibaba have been very proactive in helping us, through the British embassy in Beijing, to take down and whack-a-mole anything else that comes up, and they are currently going through that process. Yale University had its accreditation suspended for a breach of data, so this is not a country-specific issue. It just so happens that, in this particular case, the three institutions were Chinese. I think that answers the shadow Minister’s questions.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Health datasets of the size that UK Biobank has are incredibly important, because they allow us to find answers to the huge health challenges that many of us face, whether that is pain, as the Minister referred to, dementia or heart conditions. My concern is that this breach will make people think twice before donating their data. That could have a huge impact on our ability to treat conditions right across the world, but particularly here in the UK. The scientific community has always worked across borders and collaborated, whether that is with Europe, Canada, the US or even China. Given that it is only through these datasets that we can make medical breakthroughs, can the Minister reassure people who are thinking about participating that the protections that he, UK Biobank and other platforms of this kind are putting in place will absolutely protect people in the future?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I will say from the Dispatch Box that we should encourage more participation in UK Biobank. It is a global leader in research and is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council. It also receives significant funding from Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. That shows the breadth of research that it does on all the key diseases that we suffer from in this country, and it is resolving some of these problems. Chinese researchers are making significant progress on diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Biobank is a global platform, and it is very much welcomed as a research resource. We should encourage the public to make sure that they can volunteer their data, so that the health of all of us is improved as a result.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I, too, thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join the Government in thanking the volunteers who have given researchers access to deeply personal medical records. A very close family member of mine has recently taken the decision to share medical data—although not with UK Biobank—in order to advance such research. It is not an easy decision, but this is such an important cause. Without the many people who have handed over their data, many of the transformational medical breakthroughs of recent years would not have been possible. That is precisely why what has happened is so serious.
This is not the first leak from UK Biobank. In March, The Guardian reported that sensitive medical data donated in good faith had been posted online without the consent of donors, and records have now been put up for sale on a Chinese e-commerce site. This is a profound betrayal of the people who trusted this institution with some of the most intimate details of their lives. UK Biobank has sought reassurances that no names, contact details, NHS numbers or phone numbers were leaked. That is reassuring, but the dismissal of privacy concerns shows a shocking lack of understanding of how easily individuals can be identified, especially in today’s world of artificial intelligence and social media. I urge the Government to hold UK Biobank accountable, and to ensure that protocols are followed and that confidential patient data is not shared online.
Although we are pleased to see a quick and full response from the UK Government in this instance, volunteers need more. Will the Secretary of State require UK Biobank to provide a full, step-by-step breakdown of how it will reform its data privacy once and for all? We need not just guidance or reassurance, but binding commitments that this will not happen again, and that includes some of the technical elements. We cannot just rely on people’s commitment not to download something; the technical barriers should be there. Will the Government ensure that any new guidance strikes the right balance between enabling vital research and guaranteeing watertight protections for patient data? Such data is vital for research, which is so important for the future.
Finally, has UK Biobank even offered an apology to its volunteers? We cannot find one, so we are calling on UK Biobank to issue a full apology without delay. People gave their data to save lives, and they at least deserve accountability.
Ian Murray
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the way in which she has dealt with this issue. I echo her thanks to all the volunteers—not only those who give their sensitive data to UK Biobank for critical purposes, but all the volunteers who give data for all research purposes.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson used the word “leak”, but this was not a leak; it was a legitimate download by a legitimately accredited organisation. We have identified a problem with the UK data bank system, in the sense that accredited users have used the system to analyse data sources and then download their results from that analysis, but the system has not prevented them from also downloading the source data. It is that downloaded source data that is against the terms of use for accredited organisations. The three Chinese organisations have been found to have done that, which is why they have been suspended from the site. This was not a leak as such. How that data has got from those institutions on to the Alibaba website is still to be concluded, but this was not a leak of data or a cyber-attack. This was a legitimate download of legitimate data by a legitimately accredited organisation, which is why we should not use the word “leak” for the purposes of reassuring the volunteers who put their data into the system.
Let me answer the hon. Lady’s question about what has been done and what the Government have asked Biobank to do. I reiterate that the whole system has been paused, and the board has taken actions to write to all participants; in fact, there is a statement on Biobank’s website. I cannot recall whether the statement includes an apology, but we will take that back to Biobank—I am sure it is watching this statement. The Information Commissioner’s Office will also be involved, because this issue relates to data. Biobank has referred this incident to the ICO, and we will work very closely with it. I emphasise that we take this matter extremely seriously. We came to the House at the first available opportunity this morning, before the release from Biobank had gone out, to make sure that Members could reassure the volunteers and also see how seriously we take this issue.
The hon. Lady referred to an article in The Guardian. It is because journals demand source data before publication in order to reduce fraud that the source data was included in some journal articles that linked directly to the source data on UK Biobank. Again, it was not a leak; it is about the way in which researchers used data incorrectly.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I am deeply concerned by today’s statement, not least because I am a former research scientist who is all too aware of the professional ramifications of research institutions breaching data control regulations. I know that the vast majority of researchers would never dream of abusing data in this way. Will the Minister provide a reassurance that researchers will not generally be prevented from accessing and using such data appropriately in the future?
Ian Murray
UK Biobank has assured us over the past 24 hours that it is looking for a technical fix, which should happen relatively shortly, and we will hold it to that. To show that we are taking the situation as seriously as it should be taken, we have insisted as a Government that UK Biobank should pause all access to, downloads from and use of the system until the fix comes into place. I do not know the exact figures of usage, but across the globe there are somewhere in the region of more than 16,000 researchers using this resource, because it is so valuable. We should thank them for doing that and ensure that they have full access to UK Biobank in the safe way in which it should be used as soon as possible.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
This scandal is essentially a China data theft of UK Biobank’s data, which is generously donated by some half a million British citizens. Let us remember that the UK taxpayer funded approximately £200 million for setting up UK Biobank. They fund about £15 million every single year, which is used by some 22,000 researchers, including 2,000 or 3,000 in China, I understand. Will the Minister confirm that our generosity will not be abused by Chinese researchers and that UK Biobank should exclude them in the future in order to ensure that this data theft comes with sanctions?
Ian Murray
I do not think the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question fits the seriousness of this issue. We are yet to get a conclusion from UK Biobank on what the process looked like for the three institutions that have been identified as downloading some datasets to transfer them to the seller, and we will update Members when we are clear on that. UK Biobank has told us quite clearly that that is what has happened.
There are thousands of Chinese researchers working every day on data from UK Biobank and other datasets from across the world, and they have been doing that since 2012 safely and securely. The issue here is that a loophole in the system has allowed datasets to be downloaded alongside the analytical research. If the hon. Gentleman saw some of the advances being made, particularly on Alzheimer’s, he would know that we are working very closely with the research community across the world, from all countries.
As I said to the shadow Minister, the previous suspension of accreditation was for Yale in the United States for misuse of data. Participants know that this research is used globally, and it is right that it is used globally for the advancement of us all. Banning researchers from the site would not be the way in which to advance the outcomes of UK Biobank.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Fundamentally, this is valuable data, and it relies on trust. I therefore welcome UK Biobank’s actions in suspending the agreement with these researchers. Will the Minister provide a commitment and welcome the technical solution for protecting this data? More and more, we are seeing papers published by AI bots, so there needs to be a way to trace back to the evidence used. There needs to be a workaround on the technical support in order to advance medical research. Will the Minister comment on that?
Ian Murray
Significant undertakings were given by the chair and board of UK Biobank this week. They have answered all the questions and worked very closely with the Government, the British embassy in Beijing and the Chinese Government to ensure that this instance is resolved as quickly as possible. They have immediately identified the loopholes that enabled the download of the data from the institution, and they are carrying out mitigation work to ensure that that cannot happen again and to tighten up the system. That should happen within weeks, but in the meantime the UK Government insisted that all access to and downloads from it be paused, and the entire system was paused to allow that work to happen. I pay tribute to UK Biobank for the swiftness with which it has done that. To echo the words of the shadow Minister, it has dealt with the issue transparently, and we welcome that—that is what is required in these kinds of circumstances.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his statement. As my party’s health spokesperson, I know that research on health is so important initially. UK Biobank is a critical part of that in finding the methods and drugs for cures. The disclosure of data is always a worrying issue, so will the Minister confirm that the breakdown and the data breach do not reach as far as Northern Ireland? For example, Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University are deeply involved in all sections of health research. Has their research been compromised in any way? We always ask for close co-operation with our universities as an integral part of the United Kingdom, and it is essential that opportunity and protection be afforded throughout the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Ian Murray
I pay tribute to the Belfast universities and the way in which they have advanced research. As has already been mentioned, tens of thousands of individual accredited researchers use UK Biobank regularly, as do thousands of institutions across the globe. We need to ensure that the system is safe, so that volunteers participating in the system can be assured that their data is safe and secured, and that is why it has been paused.
The hon. Gentleman challenges me on whether Belfast universities have been affected by this issue. They will be affected by it in the short term, because there is currently no access to the system, but we hope that that will be resolved. I understand from UK Biobank and from officials that they have been in talks with the pharmaceutical industry and researchers in the field to see whether that would cause a problem, and as long as this situation is temporary, it should not. They will technically be affected in the short term until access is fully recovered.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
From my previous work with the AI and Digital Regulations Service, and as a scientist, I know that UK Biobank is an excellent resource, which furthers scientific research for the benefit of my health and my constituents. In particular, it is working very hard to ensure that its dataset is unbiased and representative of all peoples in our communities in our country. Will the Minister again reassure us that the data is scrupulously anonymised and that deanonymisation is exceptionally difficult and unlikely? Will he confirm that although UK Biobank is a charity and independent of Government, we will continue to support its work once it has addressed the processes that caused this breach?
Ian Murray
Yes, I can give that assurance. This Government are giving UK Biobank all the support that it requires to resolve the immediate issue and in the short term to get the system back up and running in as secure a way as possible. Let me echo that participants in UK Biobank have done a great service to the people of this country and around the world. We owe it to them to be transparent and secure, and to ensure that their data is not only safe but advancing UK and worldwide medical research for the benefit of everyone.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I will not mention Harlow Town, I promise. [Laughter.]
May I thank the Minister for his statement? I agree with others that UK Biobank is an excellent resource, and I have no doubt that its research has made a huge difference to the health of my constituents. Although this issue is not specifically a cyber-security breach, as he correctly said, will he join me in welcoming the Government’s Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill? Along with the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee. Will the Minister add to the work that this Government are doing to ensure that our data across all industries, including the charity sector and Government, is safe under this Government?
Ian Murray
In a previous question, my hon. Friend said that Harlow Town were the Man City of non-league football. May I simply suggest that he is the Man City of speaking in this Chamber in terms of the quality and regularity of his contributions? That may be challenged by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—let us look at the data.
I echo what my hon. Friend said in his question, because it is really important for us to impress on the public that data is secure and safe. This Government take that incredibly seriously, not just in the legislation being passed, which he has been a part of, but in the cyber-security tools available for free from this Government to businesses, organisations and institutions right across the country. We wrote to those organisations last week to inform them that those tools were available, and I continue to echo to all businesses, institutions and organisations that they should get involved in ensuring that they are as cyber-secure as possible. We are only as secure as the weakest, and we all have to be as secure as we possibly can be.
Synthetic Chemicals
Housing Conditions in Temporary Accommodation
Backbench Business
Allied Health Professionals
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Jen Craft, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That his House has considered the contribution of allied health professionals.
I am very grateful to be able to introduce this debate today, and I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) on her hard work in securing it.
Allied health professionals, such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists, dieticians, music therapists and so many more, are a vital part of our NHS. They will be crucial to delivering the three shifts in healthcare—in particular, treatment to prevention and hospital to community—that the Secretary of State set out as key to delivering the 10-year health plan and securing the future of the NHS for generations to come. They help people to recover from illness or injury, prevent the onset and development of conditions such as frailty, help people to adjust to new or existing realities of disability, and are vital in enabling and empowering people to take control of their health.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley brings considerable professional experience to this place as a trained physiotherapist. I believe she plans to speak to the importance of those professionals to adult healthcare—indeed, she is best placed to do so—so I will focus primarily on the vital role of allied health professionals in paediatric care.
As a parent with experience of paediatric allied health professionals, I can speak to their completely invaluable contribution to a child’s wellbeing. They not only support the child who is the patient in their care, but the entire family. It can be a real lifeline to have a trusted professional helping you to come to terms with your child’s diagnosis, or perhaps with a shift in reality. I also know, from friends and constituents who have children living with life-limiting conditions, that allied health professionals such as music therapists and drama therapists can be the lifeline that provides moments of joy, as well as extending the lifespan and the time that people get to spend with their children who have very severe and limiting conditions.
I want to put on record that paediatric allied health professionals in particular are not just a “nice to have” or an add-on to the health profession. It is quite easy to overlook the contribution and impact that people such as music therapists—I will give an excellent example—can have on a child’s life. If Members can imagine a child who is non-verbal and potentially has behavioural and communication difficulties and no real form of self-expression, an art therapist, a music therapist or a drama therapist can help to unlock something that traditional healthcare workers perhaps cannot. They can make a real difference to how that child’s care progresses and how their life chances pan out.
Paediatric allied health professionals are also able to reduce the pressure and the intensity on the acute system. Excellent work has been done with music therapists, art therapists and play therapists, who do not currently come under the auspices of allied health professionals but perhaps one day may do, to reduce sometimes even the need for general anaesthetic, MRI scans or CT scans for particular children with complex needs, as they help them to navigate their pathway through the system.
They are also crucial in helping children who perhaps have had a traumatic early start to life to engage with the healthcare system and the wider healthcare system at large. Children who are recovering from, or going through treatment for, cancer or other severe diseases and illnesses, are supported by these professionals to come to terms and to grips with what they are going through and to express themselves. Professions such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and speech and language therapists play a vital role in childhood, enabling children who have an additional need in those areas to be able to perform at the same level as their peers and to be the best version of themselves.
The Health and Social Care Committee, of which I am a member, has taken considerable evidence on the crisis in the allied healthcare professions, in particular in paediatrics and early years. We have discussed at length with various organisations such as the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, Speech and Language UK, the Disabled Children’s Partnership and Contact the impact this is having on children, on families and on the professionals themselves.
There are currently 77,500 children who have been on community waiting lists—quite often the way that people access allied health professional care—for over a year.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some fantastic points, especially those highlighting the findings of the Health and Social Care Committee. Allied health professionals are absolutely vital to what we do in the health service. As with health visitors, their numbers seem to be going down at the moment, and nothing is really being done to build them back up. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to build the numbers of allied health professionals back up?
Jen Craft
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She brings a breadth of experience to this place on these issues, both as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee and as a registered nurse. I agree that we do need to take urgent action to rebuild the numbers of allied health professionals and health visitors. The Committee has heard that there has been a halving of the number of health visitors in the past 10 years, which has had an almost catastrophic impact on their ability to deliver the vital role that they play in identifying early need in childhood, particularly in the early years, supporting families where there is an additional need for support and signposting people to other mechanisms, such as Best Start family hubs, to ensure there is that proportionate universalism that is so key to ensuring that those who need help get it in a timely way. I very much agree with my hon. Friend that urgent action needs to be taken to address this, which we will hopefully see in the upcoming NHS workforce plan.
That ties into my earlier point. There are 77,500 children and young people who have been on a community care waiting list for more than a year in England, which is a sixfold rise since the start of 2023. For comparison, only around 1% of adults wait for more than a year for community care, compared with around 25% of children. Thinking about equity in healthcare, a year for a child could be an entire lifetime, which is not the case for an adult.
We also know that there is a really rapid development window in the early years, particularly in the first 1,001 days, where we have the ability to make an impact on the life chances of a child, when all that quick-fire development is happening mentally, physically, socially and emotionally. It is absolutely crucial to get in at the onset and arrest conditions before they become more serious and make a real impact on the life chances of a child through to schooling, employment and beyond.
However, there is a crisis across the allied health professions, particularly in early years. I want to highlight a few areas where this is really bearing fruit. According to the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, four fifths of occupational therapists are unable to meet local demand. The workforce remains focused on secondary care, which limits capacity for prevention and early intervention in communities. Workforce pressure does translate into rising waiting lists; in February 2026, nearly 18,000 children and young people were waiting to see an occupational therapist. This has a huge impact on the life of a young person. Quite often occupational therapist interventions are not costly, but the inference and reference of an expert or specialist is needed to be able to direct people in how best to carry them out. The fact that 18,000 children are waiting to see an OT is really shocking. These delays will have a real impact on professionals being able to act at the very earliest opportunity to turn children’s life chances around.
Speech and language therapy is another area that is experiencing a crisis in both recruitment and retention. According to Speech and Language UK, more than 2 million children in the UK have struggled to speak or understand words and an estimated 1.3 million have a developmental language disorder. The Government must train and recruit enough speech and language therapists to ensure that the trend of a reduction in the profession is arrested. Currently, 16% of NHS speech and language therapy posts in England are vacant, and the vacancy rate for NHS speech and language therapy posts supporting people with a learning disability is even more stark, at 25%. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists reports that 96% of children’s speech and language therapy services say that recruitment is more or much more challenging than at any time in the past three years.
What that translates to is those in these crucial professions spending the vast majority of their time carrying out assessment work when things have reached a point of crisis or acute care need. They are not getting to see people and intervene at the earliest opportunity, and they are not getting to help families. That is driving the retention crisis, as professionals find themselves unable to perform the role for which they trained and about which they are, by and large, incredibly passionate. Instead, they are spending their time carrying out assessments and recommending therapeutic care that they know is very unlikely to materialise.
The real crisis in the paediatric allied healthcare professions could have a huge knock-on effect on a major part of Government policy found in the education White Paper. I know that the Minister is here to speak for the Department of Health and Social Care, but the Health and Social Care Committee has continually found that there is a real gap in the role of healthcare when it comes to education, health and care plans, and in the special educational needs and disabilities system as a whole.
The White Paper places huge demand on having “experts at hand”—a locally trained workforce who are able to provide specialist support. It names professions such as occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech and language therapy, which fall entirely within the allied health professional workforce, which it is in the gift of the Department of Health and Social Care to provide. However, we know that these occupations are at crisis point; time and again, when we talk to our local integrated care boards, they say that they do not have the people available to fulfil that “expert at hand” role. It is such an important part of the education White Paper that if it fails, I am afraid the entire White Paper is at risk of failure. The crux of it is early and timely intervention, and support for families, school staff and children, in order to make an impact at the earliest possible opportunity. Without this workforce, it cannot and will not succeed.
I ask the Minister: what plans will there be in the upcoming workforce strategy to address the decline in paediatric allied healthcare professionals? What plans are there for training, recruitment and retention, not just to support this important part of the education White Paper, but to address the real health inequality in paediatrics? It is fair to say that the impact on children is so much worse than that on adults receiving healthcare, because they can spend such a significant chunk of their life on a waiting list.
Most importantly, what action is being taken to ensure that these professionals, particularly those in the paediatric workforce, feel valued and know that their contribution really counts towards the delivery of both the current healthcare system and the Government’s wider reform agenda? How can we ensure that the life chances of children are best improved and encouraged through the recruitment, retention and valuing of allied healthcare professionals?
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I start by paying tribute to the allied health professionals in my constituency and across the country, who work so hard to help people to regain and maintain their health. Indeed, I count many among my friends. From paramedics to physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and so many others, I am always amazed at the skill and dedication of these professionals, who often work under intense pressure.
My constituent Jackie Lees-Howes is one of 174 registered physiotherapists living in my constituency. She highlighted several statistics that should give us pause for thought. Two thirds of the population will likely be living with a long-term health condition by 2035. Community waiting times continue to grow and, to make matters worse, the UK has far fewer physiotherapists per head than comparable countries. However, we know that physiotherapy is highly cost-effective, generating an overall return of around £4 for every £1 invested. It can prevent illness and help people recover more quickly, which reduces the strain on health services. Crucially, physios enable people to stay in and return to work. They help people to reduce pain, obesity and inactivity, contributing to a healthier and more productive population. Expanding the physiotherapy workforce alone could save the NHS hundreds of millions of pounds over the next five years.
However, as we have heard, many physios are struggling even to find a job due to recruitment freezes and a lack of entry-level positions, as well as problems with job security. Worryingly, the Government confirmed last year that they had made no estimate of the impact of recruitment freezes on physiotherapists and physiotherapist support workers.
Twenty-three per cent of my South West Devon constituents have at least one long-term condition. Over 18,000 are classed as disabled, slightly higher than the average across England. Relatively speaking, it is an ageing constituency, with 45% of constituents over the age of 50. That makes the role of physios and other allied health professionals in enabling people to prepare for and rehabilitate from things like cancer treatment and surgery even more vital.
I commend the Rehab Legends campaign led by Kate Tantam, an inspirational constituent of mine who works as an intensive care sister at Derriford hospital. Kate has spent years campaigning to ensure that every patient in the UK can access rehabilitation services towards the end of their stay in intensive care, which would end the current patchy provision. People might ask what Rehab Legends is. It is effectively a multidisciplinary team that helps rehabilitate men and women who have been on life support, because they often see deconditioning in the rest of their body. With rehabilitation, they stand a much better chance of moving on from intensive care.
Why is this important? At the moment, the step down from ICU to a normal ward is huge, and if people do not have the physical ability to take that step, their ultimate rehabilitation and ability to get back out into life will be significantly affected. That point has been raised time and again—it came up during the last Parliament in the work done by the all-party parliamentary group on intensive care, which my predecessor, Sir Gary Streeter, chaired—and it needs to be addressed. While that is not entirely about allied health professionals, I am sure the Minister will be aware of it, and it would be interesting to hear what might be done. Ultimately, the role of rehabilitation is good for patients and for society, because we want to enable everyone who has survived intensive care to leave intensive care and leave hospital.
We have heard plenty about occupational therapists and speech and language therapists. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and others have highlighted that the NHS long-term workforce plan is likely to cover only speech and language therapists in the NHS workforce, which overlooks shortages in education and criminal justice settings. As we have heard, there is a real need for a holistic approach to developing the workforce, in recognition of the vital role played by speech and language therapists and others in supporting, in particular, children with special educational needs. Without capacity in the NHS for speech and language therapists, we will not be able to deliver on improving outcomes for some of the most vulnerable in our community, which I am sure we would all want to see.
Finally, I want to mention the work of allied health professionals who assess people for health-related benefits. We know from Department for Work and Pensions data published in January—rather late—that over half of assessors leave in their first year. Assessors describe stressful time constraints and impossible workloads as some of their reasons for leaving.
Under the current Government, one in 10 people in England and Wales is now claiming disability benefits, and the number is only set to increase. I urge the Minister to ensure that all allied health professionals are empowered to assess their patients without undue haste. I worry that otherwise this overstretched system may be incentivising assessors to recommend that a person receives disability benefits without having the appropriate time to thoroughly investigate their needs. Of course, that is in no way a reflection of these professionals themselves, as they are simply doing the job they are there to do with limited time and resources.
Let me finish with three brief requests. First, I urge the Minister to capitalise on the record number of newly qualified physiotherapists. Will she confirm what steps the Department is taking to ensure that newly qualified physiotherapists can be guaranteed an NHS job? Secondly, I urge her to commit to retaining the chief allied health professions officer role to ensure that their clinical expertise is recognised in the Department. Thirdly, a plug for rehabilitation: I would love the Minister to ensure that the role of intensive care rehabilitation is reflected in the NHS workforce plan, and a holistic approach is central to that.
I echo the concerns raised by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, which has criticised the Government’s requirement for integrated care boards to reduce their budgets by 50% and the impact that will have on allied health professional leadership roles. Under the previous Conservative Government, NHS England set out to increase our much-needed AHP workforce, as outlined in the 2023 NHS long-term workforce plan. This included an ambition to increase training places by 25% by 2031-32.
We know how critical allied health professions are to prevention and recovery. The Government must ensure that they prioritise them in the revised NHS workforce plan, which is due to be published this spring. The allied health professions are ideally placed to help people help themselves. If we want a healthier country and a more productive society, we must back them all the way.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Happy St George’s day to everyone in the Chamber. As a physiotherapist, I am immensely grateful to have the opportunity to co-lead this debate on the contribution of allied health professionals. This is an historic moment, as it is the first ever debate in this House on AHPs.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for her leadership and partnership. She set out powerfully why AHPs must be central to SEND and paediatric reform, and I want to broaden that by arguing that AHPs are the NHS’s best-kept secret. They are the most powerful levers we have to keep our health and social care systems sustainable, patient-centred and effective. If we are serious about delivering the Government’s ambition in the 10-year health plan and the 10-year workforce plan—the shifts from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital—then allied health professionals must be put at the heart of policy, planning and delivery.
I want to do three things today. First, I want to set out who AHPs are and the scale of their contribution across our lives; secondly, I want to demonstrate with evidence the impact they have on outcomes and on public finances, and why they are worth investing in; and thirdly, I want to set out five concrete demands, recommendations or wishes to the Government, rooted in evidence from AHP bodies and aligned with the three major shifts in the Government’s agenda.
Who are allied health professionals? There are 14 allied health professions covering 15 roles, and together, AHPs form the third largest clinical workforce in the NHS, with over 300,000 on the Health and Care Professions Council register today. They include art therapists, drama therapists, music therapists, dietitians, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners, orthoptists, osteopaths, paramedics, physiotherapists, podiatrists, prosthetists and orthotists, radiographers and, finally, speech and language therapists—which I may need after this speech!
AHPs are present from the start of our lives. Neonatal therapists, including physiotherapists, OTs and speech and language therapists, support premature and sick babies to feed, move and develop, with long-term gains for their health, learning and independence. In adulthood, AHPs are central to keeping us in work and out of hospital. The Government rightly want to get more people back into work, which is exactly what OTs do. OTs run vocational rehab services that enabled 94% of people on long-term sick in one primary care network in Wakefield to return to work, leading to a 40% reduction in fit notes and preventing over 1,700 people from leaving the workforce.
If we want a healthier workforce, dietitians help diabetics to reduce the risk of complications by up to 50%, and people who see a dietitian are two and a half times more likely to achieve their blood sugar targets, which means fewer long-term complications, fewer heart attacks and fewer strokes.
For older people, physiotherapists and OTs lead fall-prevention services and frailty programmes that reduce falls at home by around a third, preventing injuries and avoidable hospital admissions, reducing fractures and maintaining patients’ dignity. I have treated patients who have fallen in their home, who have lain on the floor for hours waiting for an ambulance to arrive. One patient said she lost her dignity and her self-worth as she sat in her own urine, dehydrated, hungry and helpless on the floor, waiting for help. We can reduce such cases. Nobody wants their grandmother, relative or friend to be left on the floor, helpless, for hours.
Earlier access to community podiatry, meanwhile, could reduce amputations by 80%. My podiatry friends prevent the need for life-changing surgery every single day. I have worked on surgical wards where patients said time and time again that they wished they had had intervention earlier. Prosthetists and orthotists ensure that people who have survived major trauma can regain their independence. A seven-day prosthetic service in south-east London reduced the time for lower-limb amputees to become independent with a prosthesis from three months to just seven weeks—so they gained their independence more quickly. Radiographers underpin around 80% of hospital pathways through imaging, and community diagnostic centres staffed by radiographers reduce pressure on urgent and emergency care; I may say that I recently gained one such centre, through this Labour Government, at the Guest hospital.
We have a mental health crisis, and both children and adults are not getting care quickly enough. Art therapists and music and drama therapists provide early intervention in schools and communities, reducing referrals into overwhelmed child and adolescent mental health services and supporting the wellbeing and resilience of NHS staff themselves.
My argument is not just about the care case, however; the economic case is just as compelling. We have clear return on investment data across multiple professions. Self-referral to AHP services has shown a return of around £98 for every £1 invested, by reducing unnecessary GP appointments and enabling early management. Exercise-based self-management programmes, often led by physiotherapists, have demonstrated returns of around £8.80 per £1 invested.
Nutritional interventions led by dietitians to prevent and treat malnutrition deliver returns of about £10 for every £1 invested. Osteopathic care can generate a return of up to £2 per £1 invested in primary care. Physiotherapists across a range of conditions deliver an overall economic return on investment of £4 for every £1 invested, which, modelling suggests, potentially saves the NHS a staggering £700 million over five years and an additional £639 million overall of economic benefit to the UK.
The Government have set out three core shifts, and AHPs are already delivering on all three. First, on digital and data, paramedics are leading “hear and treat” models, using teleconsultations and shared electronic records to assess, advise and refer 999 and 111 callers without always needing to dispatch an ambulance. In London, that approach is saving around 9,200 double-crewed ambulance hours each week, allowing crews to reach the sickest patients faster.
Secondly, on the shift from hospital to neighbourhood care, advanced paramedics working in primary care and urgent community response teams carry out same-day home visits, treat people where they are and prevent unnecessary trips to A&E. A Welsh model reduced avoidable hospital visits by up to 70%. Operating department practitioners are the only profession trained at graduation to work across anaesthetics, surgery and recovery. They can tackle the elective backlog and maintain safety, especially as robotic-assisted surgery and smart operating theatres expand.
Thirdly, on the shift to prevention over sickness, orthoptists are essential to diagnosing early eye conditions and they should be rolled out to screen our children in every school so they can get the best start to life. If we do not fully integrate AHPs into those three shifts, we will simply not achieve the ambitions of the 10-year health plan or the 10-year workforce plan.
Let me turn to my five recommendations, drawing on the evidence from the HCPC, from the expert AHP professional bodies, from patients and from the APPG on AHPs, which I chair. First, we must have AHP leadership at the table at every level. That means retaining and strengthening the chief allied health professions officer role and the director of rehabilitation role in the Department of Health and Social Care. If they are not at the heart of Government, they will simply be forgotten. At system level, every integrated care board and major provider should have a senior AHP director who has parity with medical and nursing directors and is responsible for prevention, rehabilitation and neighbourhood care. That should be mirrored in primary care and neighbourhood boards, where clinical leadership roles should be defined by function and capability, not by base profession.
Secondly, we should expand and evaluate advanced and extended-scope AHP roles in the areas where there is most need and they have most value, such as first-contact physiotherapists in primary care, who reduce secondary care referrals, speed up diagnosis and recovery, and reduce opioid prescribing compared with GP-led care.
Thirdly, we must invest in AHP careers from start to retirement. That means increasing training places in line with population need for each of the 14 professions, while also protecting small and vulnerable professions such as prosthetics and orthotics with minimum training place guarantees. We should fully fund AHP apprenticeships, including for operating department practitioners and dietitians, with backfill. We should guarantee high-quality placements and structured preceptorships—something often forgotten by departments.
We should also embed continuing professional development funding that is embedded into workforce planning, recognising that CPD is a regulatory requirement and a patient safety issue, not a luxury. That includes bringing forward independent prescribing rights across AHP professions, where appropriate, to reduce delays and free up medical time, building on recent legislation for paramedics.
Fourthly, we must fix the digital plumbing to enable multidisciplinary care. AHPs need full, appropriate access to shared care records, ordering and results systems, and remote care tools. Where they have prescribing responsibilities, their digital profiles must reflect that in order for prescribing to be safe, visible and integrated with the whole system. Data must also capture what AHPs do and the outcomes they achieve in function, independence, return to work, quality of life and participation; it is not just contacts and processes.
Fifthly, we should make AHP outcomes visible and use them to drive improvements across the system. At national level, the NHS and DHSC should publish regular data on AHP workforce numbers, vacancies and outcomes across each of the 14 professions, using HCPC and other data to inform the workforce plan and the neighbourhood health framework. At local level, integrated care systems should be required to report on access to AHP services and on key indicators such as falls, amputations, delayed discharge, return to work rates and SEND outcomes, linking those to AHP provision. Where investment in, for example, community podiatry or OT rehabilitation leads to reductions in admissions or benefits, those should be visible and reinvested.
Five demands—five things that would show real progress, backed by experts, backed by patients. I hope the Minister will meet me to discuss them further. If we give AHPs the leadership roles, tools and recognition they deserve, if we embed them in the 10-year workforce plan, in neighbourhood health plans, in SEND reforms and in the women’s health strategy, they will repay us over and over again in reduced hospital admissions, shorter stays, fewer amputations, more people in work, and children and adults able to communicate, learn and live independently. Allied health professionals are ready to deliver, if we choose to let them.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) on securing this important debate and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for introducing it.
During the Easter recess, I was invited to meet the Dorset Younger Onset Parkinson’s group in Wimborne. Two of the people I met, Simon and Julia, had been diagnosed with the condition in their 30s. The impact on their decisions about family life, their ability to work and save for the future and the effect on their families, who have had to take on caring responsibilities much earlier than most, was clear to see. They told me about the success of their open water swimming group and, in particular, about the impact of the recently introduced walking football team. The Dorset Parky Striders were named team of the year in the impairment section by the Walking Football Association in its grassroots awards last year, and achieved fantastic results at the Sport Parkinson’s walking football tournament earlier this month. Both programmes boost physical health and mental wellbeing and provide peer support.
Simon and Julia shared their concerns about the complete loss of Parkinson’s nurses in the county of Dorset. I have since engaged with University Hospitals Dorset NHS foundation trust to call for the service to be restored without delay, and we have discussed the severe shortage of neurologists across the country, made more acute by our ageing population.
Yet it is not just doctors and nurses who can make a positive difference for people living with Parkinson’s. Neuro physiotherapy focuses not on muscles or joints, but on improving movement, balance, co-ordination and overall quality of life for people living with neurological conditions. At its core, it aims to restore as much independence as possible, using targeted techniques to help people regain their function, relearn movement and adapt to physical challenges. It can be life-changing for individuals recovering from trauma or surgery, as well as for those living with long-term neurological conditions. If people with Parkinson’s can improve their balance and gait, they reduce their risk of falls—incidents that can have a profound impact on their independence, confidence and long-term health. This branch of physiotherapy also benefits people who have experienced strokes, live with multiple sclerosis or have acquired brain injuries. The mental health and wellbeing benefits are significant, as is the reduction in pain that can be achieved through that approach.
I highlight the crucial role of occupational therapy, particularly in educational settings. Around one third of children starting school are not considered to be school-ready, often lacking the communication or functional skills needed to mix confidently with other children. Schools already under pressure are then required to provide significant extra support. Many children who spend more time using tablets than colouring books lack the fine motor skills needed to write, while others struggle with everyday activities such as eating a school meal with a knife and fork. Paediatric occupational therapy offers practical, play-based support and can prevent children from losing confidence or developing a fear or aversion of school by addressing those needs early. Children with special educational needs and disabilities can also be overwhelmed in traditional classroom environments. With growing evidence about the impact of excessive screen time on attention and regulation, small changes to the physical environment can help not only those children but all pupils to improve their focus and learning.
My constituent Anna, who is an occupational therapist, shared the importance of using the profession’s principles in classrooms. On a visit to Colehill first school last year, I was impressed by how the school had removed bright colours from classrooms, replacing them with muted shades and consistent layouts as the children move through the school to create calmer learning spaces. At my son’s specialist setting—Summerwood in Bournemouth—ceilings include sound-absorbing panels and walls are gently curved to support children with neurodiversity to regulate and to reduce distraction. Those adjustments help everyone, not just those with additional needs.
If such approaches work in classrooms, it is likely that they can be effective in workplaces and public spaces too. Reducing harsh fluorescent lighting, lowering background noise and creating opportunities for movement throughout the day are techniques that can be applied widely and successfully. However, inclusion of occupational therapy in programmes such as Experts at Hand is essential to make that happen. The Royal College of Occupational Therapists has welcomed the ambition set out in the SEND White Paper, but has raised serious concerns about whether the sector is sufficiently resourced to develop them. Its most recent workforce survey found that two thirds of respondents did not believe that the profession could currently provide the level of support that children and young people need, highlighting the need to fund more frontline teams.
Taken together, the examples make one thing clear: allied health professionals, as already referenced by the hon. Member for Thurrock, are not a nice-to-have; they are essential in helping people to live independently and participate fully in education and work, in avoiding crisis later on and in ensuring that everyone fulfils their potential. I therefore urge the Government to match their recognition of the importance of allied health professionals with meaningful action in workforce planning and resourcing. If we are serious about prevention, inclusion and long-term value for money across health and education, investing in that workforce and ensuring that funding reaches the frontline must be part of that commitment.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for her opening speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this long-overdue debate.
As we have heard, allied health professionals make up the third largest clinical workforce in the NHS, yet sadly, time and again, we only hear about the health service in terms of doctors and nurses. Just last week, the Government announced a welcome package of measures to widen access to healthcare careers for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. It promised 2,000 new nursing apprenticeships and support for 2,000 young people from deprived communities to apply to medical school.
Those commitments really matter, but for AHPs, there was nothing—not a single initiative, not a single pathway, not even a mention. That omission is not an oversight; it is a pattern. For decades, successive Governments have failed to recognise the value of and to invest in this vital part of the NHS workforce. That is especially relevant given the increase in workforce required to deliver on the Department for Education’s SEND reforms. We need more speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists, so why do we not make it easier for more people to access those careers?
Before entering Parliament at the last election, I spent more than 20 years in the NHS as an operating department practitioner, and I am proud to be the first ODP here in Parliament. In fact, my time working in the NHS is in large part what politicised me and drove me to want to make the changes that are desperately needed to highlight and improve the profession. ODPs are unique within the healthcare workforce. At the point of graduation, they are the only professionals fully qualified to work across every area of perioperative practice: anaesthetics, surgery and post-anaesthetic care. My speech will focus on that profession.
As of March 2026, there were 17,906 ODPs registered with the HCPC. They are highly skilled and highly committed, with strong retention rates across the NHS. Many go on to hold senior clinical leadership roles, not just in the operating department, and they play a crucial role in patient safety, service efficiency and the successful running of our theatres. My profession plays a critical role in keeping the NHS functioning and in safeguarding patient safety every single day.
Given the recent reviews into maternity care, I want to highlight the importance of ODPs for maternal and neonatal safety. Nearly half of births are now done by caesarean section and ODPs are involved in every single one, playing a key role in the perinatal period. I therefore commend the College of Operating Department Practitioners for its recent contribution to NHS Resolution’s maternity (perinatal) incentive scheme safety actions. Given the importance of operating department practitioners to the NHS, they should be properly recognised, valued and supported; instead, too often they are forgotten, and that neglect has real consequences.
An area of serious concern is the eligibility of operating department practitioners to supply and administer medicines within their scope of practice using patient group directions, known as PGDs. That is holding the profession back and creates a perverse situation in clinical settings, where an ODP must seek the supervision of a nurse or doctor to administer certain medications. For example, post surgery, it is common for patients to experience post-operative nausea and vomiting. There is a suite of antiemetics that can be given without a prescription under a PGD, but an ODP caring for the nauseous patient cannot give relief without input from a nurse or doctor, thus delaying treatment and putting unnecessary pressure on colleagues. Another example is ODPs working in endoscopy units, where sedatives are routinely administered under a PGD. The ability to administer vaccines is also impacted: during the pandemic, ODPs were unable to support the vaccination effort due to the use of PGDs, yet bizarrely, a healthcare assistant could carry out that role. ODPs are being prevented from making a valuable contribution to public health and system resilience.
The Department recently carried out a consultation on expanding the supply and administration of medicines to ODPs, as well as to physiotherapists, paramedics and diagnostic radiographers, and we must move at pace to level the playing field to benefit both healthcare professionals and their patients. I ask the Minister to commit to adding ODPs to schedule 16 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and to outline when that change is likely to be implemented.
Another example is the introduction of the graduate guarantee scheme for newly qualified nurses. While well-intentioned, its narrow focus has had the unintended consequence of some newly qualified ODPs finding themselves displaced and unable to secure posts with NHS operating departments. That is not just unfair to those professionals; it is short-sighted and risks wasting vital skills at a time when our health service can least afford it.
A review of band 5 nursing roles is under way, yet no equivalent review is taking place for operating department practitioners or other AHPs. This selective approach risks unpicking the harmonised pay structures established under “Agenda for Change” in 2004. The Royal College of Nursing has long pushed for a separate pay spine for nursing, but that would be absolutely the wrong move, breaking the concept of “one NHS team” and creating two-tier employment, particularly in operating departments.
We must uphold the fundamental principle of equal pay for equal work. Anything less would be a serious step backwards for fairness, morale and workforce cohesion in the NHS. Will the Minister therefore commit to ensuring that any review of band 5 roles includes AHPs so that parity and equity are properly protected?
I know that in a recent letter to the College of Operating Department Practitioners, the Minister stated that
“any review of the national profiles for ODPs would need to be supported by the NHS Staff Council, with the Job Evaluation Group—an established group of the Council—responsible for undertaking that review.”
That absolutely explains the process, but it cannot excuse the delay. It is vital that this work is taken forward promptly and with a clear timetable.
At the same time, ODPs and AHPs more broadly are still waiting for the publication of the NHS workforce plan. That plan, unlike those that came before it, must finally include meaningful, measurable commitments to the third-largest clinical workforce in the NHS, rather than relegating it to the margins once again. ODPs and AHPs more widely are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for recognition, fairness and a clear strategy that reflects the reality of how the NHS actually operates. As the third-largest clinical workforce, they are central to patient safety, service delivery and the long-term sustainability of the health service.
I would like to put on the record my concerns about abolishing the role of the chief AHP in NHS England. While the current chief nursing officer is a strong and passionate advocate of AHPs, I believe that we need the representation and oversight that a chief AHP can provide.
Finally, I would like to highlight the removal of NHS bursaries for allied health professionals. I was lucky enough to train with a bursary, receiving around £500 a month during my two years of training. While the recent introduction of apprenticeships has negated some of the costs of going to university, these places are limited and dependent on NHS trust training budgets. Getting into an excess of £30,000 of debt for a starting salary barely above the minimum wage does not incentivise prospective students to get into these professions.
After decades of being overlooked, warm words are no longer enough. What we need now is action: fair pay structures that are protected, sensible regulation that makes full use of professional skills, clear career pathways and a workforce plan that treats AHPs as integral to the future of the NHS. The message from ODPs and AHPs is clear: they want to contribute, lead and be part of the solution to the pressures facing our health service. It is time for the Government to act and give this vital workforce the recognition and support they have long deserved.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the hon. Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for bringing this important debate to the House. I echo the sentiments of other Members who have underlined the important work that allied health professionals undertake and recognised the role that these clinicians play in saving lives, providing care and keeping our NHS running. At a time when some patients experience corridor care, the service of allied health professionals is even more pivotal as their work helps to keep people out of A&E. These clinicians lend their expertise to help treat and care for people or to diagnose illnesses before they require urgent attention.
These practitioners have also volunteered to take even more strain off of emergency services, writing to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care last month to request additional responsibilities. In the letter, the allied health professionals asked for the Department of Health and Social Care to consider extending additional independent prescribing powers to their sectors. Currently, they are provided with negligible independent prescribing responsibilities despite many of these clinicians having undertaken the exact same training as other medical professionals. For example, podiatrists can prescribe medicine for their patients, but dietitians have only supplementary prescribing rights and have to be overseen by a doctor.
This issue was raised with me by one of my constituents who is a dietitian and who supported the allied health professionals’ request for additional prescribing responsibilities. She states that this change would not only reduce GP waiting list times, but recognise the studies that allied health professionals have undertaken and the expertise they possess. My constituent highlights the bureaucracy and farce of an allied health professional who runs their own clinic having to go and find a consultant to sign off their prescribing, even though they will have had all their prescribing permissions checked and signed off by the chief pharmacist in the hospital. That creates duplication of work at a time when we desperately need to make the NHS more efficient.
The Government’s Pharmacy First initiative has had success in encouraging patients away from GPs and towards pharmacists, who can prescribe medicine for common ailments. My constituent merely asks that the Government build on their own good work in this area and extend prescription powers to all allied health professionals equally. I would be grateful if the Minister considered my constituent’s request and responded to the letter sent to the Department for Health and Social Care last month.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on allied health professionals. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) on initially securing this important debate before her well-deserved promotion to Parliamentary Private Secretary, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for leading it.
It is right that we talk about doctors and nurses when we talk about the NHS and the difference that it makes to people’s lives and the lives it saves, but we often overlook the incredible contribution that is made by the group of 14 professions known as allied health professionals. Today I want to share my personal experience of the importance of these key workers. Without them, I would literally not be stood here today in this Chamber, speaking and serving as the Member of Parliament for North Durham.
Allied health professionals worked alongside doctors and nurses, as well as a host of other clinicians and non-clinicians, to save my life when I had a life-threatening illness in 2009 and then, to my mind, gave me my life back as they worked across disciplines to rehabilitate me following severe illness and disability. In 2009, I was hit by a sudden onset neurological illness called POEMS syndrome. It is a rare type of neurological disorder caused by a tumour that can affect multiple systems in the body. I spent five months in hospital being treated for and recovering from this illness, followed by an extensive process of recovery and rehabilitation in the months and years following it.
The symptoms of my condition were similar to multiple sclerosis, meaning that they affected my nervous system, which impaired my mobility, causing me to spend a year using a wheelchair and now to use a walking stick and orthotics, which Members cannot see but—[Interruption] —can just about hear.
Looking through the list of the 14 allied health professions, I was staggered by just how many of them I had been helped by. I will confine myself today to talking about the six or seven professions in this group from which I have personally experienced help and care.
At the beginning of my illness, when I was diagnosed, it was radiographers who contributed to diagnosing the tumour causing my condition, using a range of techniques from skeletal surveys to MRI scans to, eventually, a PET-CT scan. Once the tumour and its role were identified, they mapped its location to prepare me for radiotherapy and administered 30 days of 30 Grays of radiotherapy in the basement of University College London hospital. As I recovered, they measured the shrinkage and eventual elimination of my tumour using further PET-CT scans.
More recently, I have been back to see radiographers. I can actually remember the day of my last MRI scan, because when I went in, Liz Truss was Prime Minister, but when I came back out, the people looking after me said that the Prime Minister had resigned—she was not there for that long, but it felt like a long time inside the MRI machine. The radiographers were using the MRI not because they think there is a risk of recurrence of my illness, but to measure the long-term regrowth of my nervous system.
Following on from that, physiotherapists taught me to walk again. In fact, before that, they got me standing using a standing frame, because I could not stand independently. I had an intensive two-month period of in-patient physiotherapy on the rehabilitation ward of the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square. That was followed by almost a year of out-patient physiotherapy at home and in Saint Leonard’s hospital in Hackney. Support from my physiotherapist took me from being unable even to stand to taking the first faltering steps using a back slab, foot-ups and a walking frame, and then to using two crutches, one crutch and now a walking stick and ankle orthotics. As part of our recovery, the physiotherapists ask every neurological patient on the ward to set themselves a higher-level balance task to walk towards. They told me that I was the first patient they had met who set a higher-level balance goal of leading a canvassing team while carrying a clipboard and pen.
The dietitians in hospital were tasked with helping me rebuild my wasted muscles. They rather kindly asked me what food I like. Fortunately, when I answered “red meat and cheese”, they agreed that, at that stage, those were the ideal sources of protein to rebuild the muscles that had wasted away over five months spent predominantly in a hospital bed. My dietitians also ensured that friends or family occasionally took me from the hospital, in my wheelchair, to Carluccio’s restaurant in the nearby Brunswick centre, because the Italian-style liver and bacon served there very usefully contained the vitamins necessary for nerve regrowth.
As I prepared for, and then adjusted to, life outside a hospital ward, there came the support of occupational therapists, who taught me how to use a kitchen from a wheelchair—and later a perching stool. They taught me how to safely pour boiling water from a kettle when my arms were weakened. They taught me how to write again using a biro, when my ability to grip a pen had gone. Unfortunately, they did not get very far in teaching me how to cook again, as I had never got to grips with cooking even before my illness and disability. They taught me how to transfer safely from a wheelchair to a piece of furniture, and then back to the wheelchair again. They asked me what I needed to do in my life, and then worked as hard as they could to get me back to doing it.
One of the most fundamental tasks that the occupational therapists succeeded in—[Interruption.] Sorry, this is a little emotional. They succeeded in enabling me to get down on to the floor so that I could play with my three-year-old son, and then to get back up again, when my legs were too weak to lift me up and down. When I left hospital, they equipped my wheelchair-accessible flat—which my amazing wife had organised at five days’ notice, after moving from a non-wheelchair-accessible home—with the equipment that I needed to use it safely, such as a seat across the bathtub to shower myself safely.
My occupational therapists oversaw my return to work, explaining to my then employers what adaptations were needed to make to my workplace. They advocated on my behalf for a graded return to work because of the severe fatigue that my illness and disability had caused. They signposted me to the support available to my employers for transport to, from and within work, and for physical adaptations from the Access to Work scheme. They also assessed my workplace to ensure that I could physically get around it from a wheelchair.
Alongside that work, podiatrists helped me with a horrible side effect of having impaired sensory nerves in my feet: I was very susceptible to ingrown toenails. At first, I could not feel them because of nerve damage, but when they cut through, the pain was excruciating. I thank the podiatrists for dealing with that, and alleviating those nasty side effects, in the first few months after I left hospital.
I still receive ongoing support from the orthotists, who, once I was able to walk, fitted me with the ankle/foot orthoses—often known as splints—that I wear on each foot. They stop me from tripping over my feet—even now my weak ankle nerves cause foot drop. I continue to rely on the orthotists’ services when having my orthoses repaired, refurbished or replaced as necessary. That reminds me: I have an outstanding appointment to schedule with University Hospital of North Durham to have my orthoses refurbished in the coming months.
I am fairly sure that operating department practitioners were involved in my treatment, when I had an operation to enable analysis of the tumour once it had been located, but as I was under general anaesthetic and completely unconscious at the time, I cannot speak for who was in the room with the surgeon.
By now, it will be clear to Members across the House that I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to a wide array of people across the allied health professional workforce. It is that gratitude that drove me to speak in this debate in order to call for greater prioritisation of AHPs in NHS workforce planning and for parity of esteem with medics and nurses. I join colleagues in asking the Minister to recognise the critical contribution that allied health professionals make to allow people like me to live happy and healthy lives.
To back that recognition, the Government could retain in the Department for Health and Social Care the roles of chief allied health professions officer and director of rehabilitation, confirm which Minister holds responsibility for AHPs—although, given the very welcome presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care on the Front Bench, I think I might be able to guess—and restore quarterly ministerial meetings with the Allied Health Professions Federation.
Some of the specific professions involved in my treatment face their own unique challenges, which I want to ask the Government to address. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, with which I have worked closely in recent months, is campaigning to embed physiotherapy leadership in neighbourhoods. I back its calls for the upcoming NHS 10-year workforce plan to expand the capacity of core community rehabilitation services. Given the record number of physiotherapy graduates, and the high level of public trust in physiotherapists, who empower people to manage symptoms and improve general health, now is the time to take advantage of the healthy supply of physiotherapists to ensure that people can live as well as possible for as long as possible.
It is clear to me that physiotherapists can play a role in the Government’s ambitious healthcare shift away from hospitals and closer communities. However, in recent years recruitment freezes in physiotherapy have risked wasting the potential of newly qualified physios, so will the Minister meet me and representatives from the CSP to discuss widening access to physio careers through apprenticeship programmes, guaranteed NHS jobs for all newly qualified physio graduates—as has been rolled out for nurses—and other challenges facing this vital workforce? [Interruption.] I will come to a conclusion as quickly as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The British Association of Prosthetics and Orthotics is asking for the creation of a formal “small and vulnerable profession” designation within NHS workforce and education policy in order to trigger proportionate safeguards and guarantees for those workers. The Royal College of Occupational Therapists is calling on the Government to establish national commissioning guidance to make occupational therapy a central component of the neighbourhood health systems that the Government are delivering. Will the Minister address those particular industry concerns and outline the Government’s broader support for the whole family of AHPs?
Without those professionals, I would not have got my life back. I want to use this platform to thank them, and to say that their fantastic professions need the pay, incentives and career structure to encourage the next generation of allied health professionals to support future generations in the way that so many of them have supported me.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I do not think that anyone could have better described the importance of AHPs than my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing the debate and for her tireless work as a physiotherapist; to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for leading the debate; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for all her work as an operating department practitioner—a profession that is often overlooked.
Allied health professionals are such an important part of our healthcare workforce, yet they are undervalued and poorly represented in NHS hierarchies. I am incredibly proud of the Government’s achievements within the NHS, including the £29 billion of additional funding—the largest injection of cash into our health service since Labour was last in government—a 320,000 fall in waiting list numbers, 5 million more NHS appointments, and the recruitment of 2,500 new GPs.
In my constituency, we have started to see the benefits of that investment for local people. George Eliot hospital has eliminated corridor care despite a difficult winter. It has also seen a 5% improvement in waiting lists. GP surgeries in Polesworth, Bedworth, Coleshill and Keresley are all getting upgrades, so that more patients can see physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other professionals much closer to home. There is much more to do, of course, but we should be proud of the progress we have made in less than two years.
These improvements would not have happened without the support of allied health professionals. Their workforce represents over 276,000 practitioners, aided by skilled support workers. The Government are right to be ambitious in their target to deliver more care in the community and invest in neighbourhood health centres across the country. To do that, we will rely on allied health professionals to support patients. We must embed dietitians, occupational therapists, osteopaths and physiotherapists into neighbourhood health if we are to succeed in treating more people closer to home.
I commend the work done on frailty by the Hazelwood group practice in Coleshill as part of the Apollo primary care network. I also pay tribute to the work of paramedics, radiographers and physios. My constituency is semi-rural and without a hospital, so the quick work of paramedics is crucial in providing urgent initial care and supporting my constituents on their journey to hospital.
Radiographers are vital in supporting patients through early diagnosis, as I found out myself a couple of weeks ago. Some 80% of hospital pathways require their skills for imaging to support a diagnosis. As part of this Government’s plans to bring care into the community, we must ensure that more radiographers are in community diagnostic centres like the one recently opened at the George Eliot hospital in Nuneaton or available through mobile services, to reduce pressure on hospitals. That way, patients can be treated faster and closer to home. On their behalf, I would like to ask the Minister to keep the chief allied health professions officer post in the Department of Health and Social Care and work with local ICBs to establish AHP director roles that have parity with medical directors and directors of nursing.
In 2018 my father had a stroke. The staff at George Eliot hospital were wonderful and took really good care of him. I cannot thank them enough for the support they gave him, but there reached a point when I was wondering, why is my elderly father still stuck in hospital? Why can he not leave, so that we can help him get better from the comfort of his own home and my elderly mum does not have to travel 10 miles each day to see him? What is the plan for him and other stroke patients after they leave hospital?
My dad, like many people recovering from a stroke, could not get the same support from speech and language therapy services at home or in his neighbourhood. Those are vital services that help patients learn to swallow and slowly regain their ability to speak and be understood. So my dad had to stay in hospital. He is definitely a fighter, and he regained his speech and his ability to sing in a choir. Patients like him deserve to be able to see speech and language therapists in their local neighbourhood, so that they can recover at home once they are medically fit to leave hospital.
This is not about freeing up spaces in hospital; it is about giving patients choice and the best care we can, so that they can recover comfortably at home, surrounded by friends and family. I will continue to work with all allied health professionals and their representative bodies to ensure that they are a core part of this Government’s 10-year health plan.
Finally, as a tennis player, I would like to thank the thousands of independent physiotherapists, support workers and students working in local gyms, on the high street, in professional sports facilities and at matches at weekends. Their support is vital to ensure that people can continue to play sport as they get older and that an injury does not stop them getting back on the court. We promised to deliver healthcare in the community, and with the support of allied health professionals, I am confident we will be able to do so successfully.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for leading the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), who has done so much incredible work as a physiotherapist previously and a staunch advocate of allied health professionals since her first day in this House. I pay tribute to the AHP community across my constituency.
In my past life, I had the pleasure of working at the Coventry and Warwickshire partnership NHS trust, and that experience shapes how I have approached this debate. Many Members have rightly recognised the roles of physiotherapists, paramedics, occupational therapists, and speech and language therapists, which are well recognised and rightly valued. But under the AHP umbrella are an incredible group of people I would like to pay tribute to: music, art and drama therapists. Those roles are not “nice to haves”; they are a vital part of our mental health workforce.
I saw during my time at CWPT how powerful the benefits of creative therapy are. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock described so eloquently in her excellent speech focused on paediatrics, for lots of people who have experienced trauma, who live with conditions that can make verbal communication difficult or who do not yet speak fluent English, such as refugees, common forms of talking therapy that work for so many people do not necessarily work for them. For those experiencing mutism, for example, creative therapies can be the only way they can access treatment. Through art, music and drama, lots of patients are able to process their experiences, communicate their emotions and rebuild a sense of self in ways that traditional models do not always reach.
At CWPT, there was a real investment in these services. Importantly, many therapists were directly employed, rather than brought in on short-term contracts. That not only offers stability to the workforce, but for patients it allows services to embed, relationships to develop and outcomes undoubtedly to improve. I had the privilege of seeing and hearing those patients’ stories for myself, and in so many cases the work of those therapists was quite literally life-changing.
Despite that, these professionals are often in short supply. Part of that issue, in my view, is visibility. These roles often are not spoken about in schools, careers advice and even, at times, in our broader conversations about the NHS workforce. There are now established degree and training pathways for these roles. They are skilled professions that require significant training and expertise and are recognised through professional bodies regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council, yet many young people with a creative inclination and flare are all too often unaware of them as a possible career path. That is a missed opportunity, both for those individuals, who often have a passion for caring and for sharing their creativity, and for our NHS and social care.
The Government are rightly focused on getting more people into work—in particular young people, who are facing a tough job market—and we should be thinking expansively about the routes that are available to them, including in creative and arts-based professions. For those who are drawn to the arts, music and drama, these roles can be a way to build a deeply rewarding, stable career in the NHS—a career that combines creativity with care and contributes directly to patient wellbeing. Importantly, for those who might have spent years navigating the uncertainty of freelance creative industries, these professions can provide a real sense of stability, progression and purpose, without them having to leave any of their skills behind. That is particularly true at times of life when stability is so valuable, such as when starting a family.
The Government have been clear that the workforce plan that will stem from the very welcome 10-year plan will focus on how we can make good on its priorities, including shifting care closer to patients, bringing fragmented services together and a greater focus on mental health. Sitting at the centre of the Venn diagram of all those things is creative therapies. Let us start with the therapists of tomorrow by improving awareness of those roles through schools, colleges and careers services. Let us look at widening training pathways, to ensure that these careers are open to a wide range of people, including career switchers.
Currently, there is a level 7—master’s level—degree apprenticeship for the three main forms of creative therapy, but as of this year, funding for level 7 apprenticeships has been largely restricted to under-21s, so the number of people accessing those higher-level courses will now be very small. Given that in mental health, many staff move up into roles from within the workforce, it would be fantastic if an apprenticeship pathway through to creative therapist roles could be developed, similar to what we see in nursing.
Above all, we should recognise that the impact of those already in these roles is not peripheral; it is central to so many patients’ care and recovery. Investing in this area would not only support individual recovery, which would ease pressure elsewhere in the system and enable the earlier intervention that so many Members have referred to, but lead to improved engagement and, ultimately, better outcomes. Art therapists, music therapists and drama therapists might not be the first roles we think of in mental health, but they can often be the ones that help our most vulnerable and isolated constituents to start to open up and communicate their experiences—often for the first time—and guide the way to wellbeing.
We talk a lot in this place about workforce shortages, and rightly so. There are thousands of young people out there, including in Cannock Chase, who love music, art and drama but perhaps worry about whether there is a career for them in creative industries. They might have absolutely no idea about the enormous contribution they would make in our healthcare workforce. This is partly about recognition, but it is also about being more imaginative in how we think about both healthcare and careers advice. It is a chance to give more people a way to use their creative passion to transform lives.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for opening the debate, and to the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her work on the APPG and as a physiotherapist.
Medical staff in my constituency and across the country are the backbone of our national health service. While doctors and nurses are often front of mind when the public think about the NHS workforce, as we have heard this afternoon an army of highly skilled professionals keep our health services running every single day. They save lives, provide comfort in moments of fear and, as set out so brilliantly by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), aid rehabilitation, enabling people to get back to their normal lives.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am conscious that this debate is on a devolved matter, but I thought it worth mentioning that the Allied Health Professions Federation held a hustings for the Scottish Parliament elections earlier today. Topics included having input from health professionals during primary care and the crisis in vacancies. On rehab, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that allied health professionals get the access they need to, for example, care home patients, so that we can get those people out of hospital and into the right setting to receive the care that they need?
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend is right. We know that with the right support, often from allied health professionals, people do not need to present at A&E and they can get out of hospital and into suitable accommodation with the right level of support much more quickly, which is better for them as individuals and also supports the NHS in carrying out its functions more efficiently.
Many of our allied health professionals—the third largest professional group in the NHS—do amazing work, as we have heard. They are central to prevention, diagnosis, treatment and public health. As pressures on our health and care services have grown, their role has become indispensable. From the paramedic first on the scene in an emergency, to the radiographer enabling rapid diagnosis and the physiotherapist helping someone regain their independence, those professionals are there at every stage of the patient journey. They are often the difference between life and death, between recovery and long-term disability, between dependence and independence, yet their contribution is overlooked.
After years of mismanagement, our NHS has been left on its knees. Nowhere is that more visible than in our emergency departments. We have seen avoidable deaths in A&E waiting rooms, we have seen patients waiting hours for ambulances, and we have seen the shocking normalisation of corridor care—patients left on trolleys without privacy, dignity or proper attention. There are now even reports of people receiving end-of-life care in hospital corridors. This is a health system under intolerable strain. Public confidence is being shaken. It is no surprise that two thirds of people are worried about long A&E waits.
The data is stark. Last year saw the worst level of 12-hour trolley waits ever recorded. On average, hospital trusts are now seeing thousands of patients waiting more than 24 hours in A&E every year. That is unacceptable. The Liberal Democrats have been leading the call to end corridor care within a year. We believe the crisis can be tackled, but only with serious, practical action. That includes creating a bank of safety net social care places and expanding step-down care for patients who are medically fit to leave hospital but still need support.
At the heart of the solution are allied health professionals. By delivering rehabilitation packages through physio- therapists, occupational therapists and others, we can help people leave hospital sooner, recover more quickly, and regain their independence at home. That is better for patients and it is essential for freeing up hospital capacity and ending the gridlock in A&E.
Will the Government commit to ending corridor care and 12-hour waits this year, and will they back that commitment with real investment in community care, social care and the allied health workforce? If we are to rely on those professionals—as we must, and as we already do—we need to support them properly. Right now, working conditions across the NHS are driving morale into the ground. Staff face inflexible rotas, burnout and, shockingly, workplace violence. That is not sustainable for them or for the patients they serve.
The Liberal Democrats have a number of proposals that we would be grateful if the Minister considered. We would establish a truly independent pay review body. We would expand access to affordable childcare so NHS staff can balance their family with their careers. We are also calling for action on everyday costs such as reducing car parking charges at hospitals. Those are practical steps that would make a real difference.
There are also growing staffing pressures among the allied health professionals. The Library reports that there has been a 57% increase in allied health professional full-time equivalents over the last decade, with the number of employees rising from 75,000 to 118,000. However, in conversations with the Royal College of Podiatry, it described high vacancy levels for NHS podiatry positions, a declining pipeline of applications to study podiatry programmes in England and rising demand for podiatrists’ services, all the while with the draw of working in the private sector. In physiotherapy, eight in 10 physiotherapists report that they do not have enough staff to meet demand, yet many services are facing recruitment freezes. Those contradictions speak volumes.
The long-delayed national workforce plan must finally deliver for allied health professionals. It must address regional shortages and embed these roles fully into workforce planning from the outset, not as an afterthought. If the Government are serious about shifting care into the community and focusing on prevention, investment in AHPs is essential. Too often, we see a gap between rhetoric and reality. While Ministers talk about prevention, funding decisions continue to prioritise short-term fixes elsewhere.
Our NHS is one of this country’s greatest achievements, but it cannot function without the people who sustain it. Allied health professionals are highly trained, autonomous practitioners. There are nearly 118,000 of them working across the NHS in England. They are central to modern, multidisciplinary care and to the future of a sustainable NHS. If we want a health service that prevents illness, reduces inequalities, and supports people to live healthier, longer lives, we must recognise and invest in their contribution. We must continue to fight for an NHS that works for patients, and we will continue to stand up for the staff, especially those too often overlooked, who are doing everything they can to get our NHS back on its feet, because they deserve nothing less.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
May I wish you a very happy St George’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker?
It is a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition and to recognise the invaluable contribution of allied health professionals, especially those living and working in my Farnham and Bordon constituency. Having spent much of my career in the healthcare sector, including time working for the College of Occupational Therapists—before it was granted its royal title, which shows how old I am—I have seen at first hand the critical role those professionals play across health and social care, often without the recognition they deserve.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on leading today’s debate, and the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) , a physiotherapist herself, for her work in securing it. The House is right to give time to those who do so much, often without fanfare. I want also to mention the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), whose experience of care by allied health professionals was both extraordinarily moving and amusing. I have taken to heart his recommendation of a diet of red meat and cheese.
If this debate is to mean anything, we must address the central issue, which is workforce. Without a clear and credible workforce plan, warm words about allied health professionals will not translate into better care for patients. The Government’s still-awaited NHS workforce plan, due this spring, will be crucial. It is meant to set out how the ambitions of the 10-year health plan will be delivered. Without it, there remains real uncertainty about how workforce shortages and rising demands will be addressed, as the hon. Member for Thurrock highlighted so powerfully when she summed up the situation as “a crisis”. That matters, because allied health professionals are already helping to unlock capacity across the system. We see that clearly in the expansion of independent prescribing, which we as Conservatives support. By enabling allied health professionals to take on those responsibilities, pressure is reduced on GPs and specialists, and patients receive faster, more efficient care. It is a practical reform that improves outcomes, but one that depends on proper planning and support in order to scale it.
The challenge does not stop in the NHS; it extends directly into education and special educational needs and disabilities provision. As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for SEND, I see the growing reliance on an expanded workforce of therapists and specialists to support children with additional needs. From experience of working alongside occupational therapists early in my career, I know just how critical that support can be in helping children to access education and achieve their potential.
However, the pipeline simply does not match the ambition. Training an educational psychologist can take up to eight years and other key roles, such as speech and language therapists or occupational therapists, take many years to develop. Without a clear and actionable workforce plan, local authorities are left trying to bridge that gap themselves, often without the certainty or the funding required to do so effectively. I saw that at first hand in Hampshire, as I am sure you have, Madam Deputy Speaker. Proposed changes to therapy provision raised real concerns among professionals in my constituency, but through consultation, the council listened, protected staff and expanded the specialist roles. That is the difference that practical, locally informed decision making can make, protecting services while improving provision.
Unfortunately, by contrast, there is a growing concern that the Government’s approach risks creating uncertainty, rather than clarity. That is particularly striking when we consider the progress that had begun under the previous Conservative Government, rightly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) in her superb speech. Through the AHP strategy and the long-term workforce plan, clear steps were set out to expand the workforce, increase training places and grow apprenticeship routes into these vital professions. It was not perfect, but it was a plan.
What we see now, however, are drifts: no published workforce plan, no clear assessment of the impact of recruitment challenges, and decisions that risk weakening the very structures needed to support AHPs. The requirement for integrated care boards to reduce their budgets has already raised serious concerns. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy has warned about the impact on leadership roles, and we are already seeing a reduction in senior AHP positions across the system. That is not strengthening the workforce but undermining it.
Jen Craft
I welcome the hon. Member’s comments on supporting the SEND White Paper through an allied health professional workforce plan. However, there is something of an amnesiac recollection from Conservative Members when it comes to looking at a decline in numbers of healthcare professionals, and allied health professionals are not unique in that. Would he like to say what happened to the figures for allied health professionals over the 14 years when the Conservative Government were in office?
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Lady, with whom I serve on the Health and Social Care Committee, always raises important points. What the last Government were trying to do—certainly by the end—with their workforce plan, which was the first of its kind, was to ensure that the workforce began to expand again. That is what all of us across the House are hoping that this Government will build on.
The Government have confirmed that they have no plans to extend the job guarantee to allied health professionals, and have made no assessments of the impact of recruitment delays on patient care. For a Government who often speak about the importance of the NHS, it is difficult to understand why the very professionals who play such a central role in recovery, rehabilitation and patient flow are being overlooked, as the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) passionately highlighted. If we are serious about reducing waiting lists, improving outcomes and supporting patients across both health and education, allied health professionals are not optional but essential—and essential services require serious planning.
In conclusion, I will ask the Minister three simple questions. First, when will the NHS workforce plan be published and how will it specifically address the shortages in allied health professionals? Secondly, will the Government reconsider their decision not to include AHPs in the job guarantee, given the clear need to support and retain this workforce? Thirdly, what steps will be taken to ensure that NHS organisations and local services can recruit and retain the AHPs they need, particularly in under-resourced areas?
Without clear answers to those questions the risk is clear: we will continue to ask more of allied health professionals while giving them less support to deliver. From what I have seen throughout my career, including in my work with occupational therapists, that is not a position that any of us should accept for the workforce or the patients who depend on them
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for introducing the debate and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for bringing it forward and setting out her role as a physiotherapist.
I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the practical contribution of AHPs to delivering this Government’s priorities for health and care. I agree with many hon. Members who have spoken that the 10-year health plan, “Fit for the Future”, and the forthcoming 10-year workforce plan, due in the spring—we are now in the spring, so hopefully very soon—provide a real opportunity to optimise the AHP contribution for the years ahead, including by supporting AHPs to work at the top of their skills. As a Department, we are clear that the three shifts that patients and the public need—more care in the community, a stronger focus on prevention and better use of digital and data—must be delivered in day-to-day services. AHPs will be central to making that happen.
As we have heard, AHPs make up the third largest workforce in the NHS. They include physiotherapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, speech and language therapists, paramedics, dietitians, podiatrists, and arts therapists, among others. They work across hospital, community, primary care, mental health and education settings, bringing regulated, evidence-based practice that supports faster access, better outcomes and better value for the taxpayer.
The contribution of AHPs is not confined to any single service line. AHPs assess, diagnose, treat and rehabilitate. They support self-management and they work in multidisciplinary teams spanning health, social care and education. That combination—clinical autonomy alongside team-based working—is exactly what we need to redesign services around neighbourhoods and around people’s day-to-day lives.
First, on the shift to community, AHPs work across neighbourhoods, primary care and community services, including in people’s homes. They prevent avoidable admissions and they help people leave hospital sooner and recover well. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists support rehabilitation and independent living. Paramedics are increasingly part of urgent community response and neighbourhood teams, helping people get the right care, first time, closer to home.
Secondly, on the shift to prevention, prevention is fundamental to AHP practice, as we have heard. AHPs support earlier intervention for long-term conditions. They play a key role in falls prevention, respiratory disease and musculoskeletal health, and in improving population wellbeing. That work helps people stay well and independent, and it reduces pressure on urgent and emergency care and on hospital waiting lists. That contribution aligns directly with the Government’s work and health agenda.
By providing early intervention and rehabilitation, AHPs help people with long-term conditions, disability or injury to remain in, return to and thrive in work. We heard no better example of the role that they play than in the very moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). I thank him for sharing his experience and I hope he is still enjoying playing with his son. It is good to have him in the Chamber being able to articulate that experience, which is not easy to do. Whether supporting recovery after illness, managing pain and fatigue, or enabling reasonable adjustments and independence, AHPs reduce avoidable time away from employment and help more people to remain economically active, benefiting individuals, employers and the wider economy.
Thirdly, on the shift to digital, AHPs are helping to lead the adoption of digital tools to improve access and continuity. That ranges from imaging and diagnostic technologies led by radiographers, to virtual rehabilitation, remote monitoring and data-enabled triage. Alongside shared care records, these approaches can support safer, more efficient and more personalised care. Remote consultations should be used where appropriate.
Across each of those shifts, AHPs also make an important contribution to mental health and wider wellbeing. Occupational therapists support recovery and independence, speech and language therapists help to address communication needs that can affect engagement, and arts therapies, which we heard about, including art, music and drama therapy, offer clinically led support. As was well articulated by many, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), those skills in neighbourhood teams can help to provide earlier, more joined-up care, including for children and young people.
I place particular emphasis on children and young people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock did so ably, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. AHPs play a vital role in early identification, assessment and intervention, supporting communication, mobility, sensory needs, mental wellbeing and participation in education and community life. Speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, physios and others work alongside families and schools so that children can develop, learn and thrive, meeting their needs before they escalate.
For children with SEND, timely access to AHP support is fundamental. Delays affect speech and language development, social interaction and educational attainment, and they can place additional pressure on families and carers. That is why work is already in train with the Department for Education, NHS England, integrated care boards and partners in local government to strengthen community speech and language therapy and other AHP provision. Our aim is earlier support closer to home and better, joined-up services.
I recognise that many hon. Members will understandably focus on the current access and waiting times, particularly for speech and language therapy. We as constituency MPs all recognise that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, that is critical to achieving the Government’s ambition.
More broadly, in neighbourhoods, AHPs support people of all ages to avoid deterioration and to recover well through rapid assessment, rehabilitation and support management. That point was well made by the hon. Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). Working alongside GPs, community nursing, social care, mental health services and the voluntary sector, they help prevent complications, reduce frailty and improve long-term condition management, easing pressure on acute services, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) rightly said. I thank her for her support for George Eliot hospital as it improves its services for her constituents.
Delivering those shifts depends on having the right AHP workforce in the right place. That includes those smaller AHP professions such as podiatry, orthoptics, and prosthetics and orthotics whose specialist skills are essential to prevention, independence and quality of life. Through our work with system leaders and professional bodies, we will continue to support education and training routes to improve retention and enable new ways of working across systems so that people can access specialist expertise when they need it.
As part of enabling AHPs to work at the top of their skills—that is what we want—we are also taking forward work to increase their ability to prescribe medicines where it is safe and appropriate to do so. That point was well made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney); others noted that duplication issue. I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles)—I thank her for her expertise in operating department practitioners—that that does include ODPs.
We must also address variation in access, including in rural and underserved areas. Neighbourhood delivery models, stronger integration with local authorities and the voluntary sector, and sensible use of digital services can all help broaden reach while maintaining safe, personalised care for those who need face-to-face support.
AHPs bring the clinical skills and professional leadership to redesign pathways, strengthen neighbourhood teams and intervene earlier so that people receive effective care in the right place at the right time. My focus as the lead Minister for the workforce plan in the Department of Health and Social Care is to support systems to deliver those priorities. As part of that, I work closely with the chief allied health professions officer—it was news both to her and to me that there is concern about her ongoing role—and will continue to do so. I thank her for her help so far—indeed, including in preparing for this debate.
The 10-year plan set the direction to rebuild the NHS, but it absolutely depends on all our staff to deliver it. The long-term workforce plan produced by the previous Government essentially looked at supply, but it did not look at future service models, it did not look at the role of technology, it did not ensure sustainability for the future and it did not base itself on future workforce models. That is some of the reason why we have problems with, for example, bottlenecks and frustration—particularly for young people coming out of their training—in not being able to get into the right roles in the right places. That is part of the problem that we need to address with the workforce plan, which we will bringing forward in the spring, so that we ensure patients and the public have the services they deserve, and particularly so that young people and children get the best start in life. I look forward to bringing forward those plans.
I have been asked again for several meetings—it is always nice to be popular for meetings—and I look forward to working with people as we bring forward that plan. We are working closely with all representatives of the sector—I know that there is a lot of interest in this work—and I very much look forward to working with hon. Members in the House as we go forward with delivering the plan.
Jen Craft
I really appreciate the Minister giving way—I know that she was concluding her speech. She obviously cannot reveal the contents of the workforce plan before it is published, but particularly on paediatric care, can I ask specifically for reassurance that there is something in mind for the plan when it comes to servicing the SEND Experts at Hand provision? That will be key to delivering the White Paper aims and key to young people’s life chances. We hope to be able to see that soon.
Karin Smyth
I was literally on my last words, so let me go back. My hon. Friend tempts me to reveal more about the workforce plan. As I said, we are not waiting for the plan to work with our colleagues across the Department for Education, NHS England, locally in ICBs and so on to ensure that we deliver on that ambition. We will of course set out the overarching plan and where we want to have people in the future. I look forward to working with her and others on how that will work. We certainly want to engage with colleagues across the piece.
As my hon. Friend knows, the SEND White Paper—we all know this through our constituency work—is central to that and to the Government’s wider ambitions. We are due to publish the plan in the spring; I look forward to doing so very soon. I look forward to working with hon. Members on that, and I thank them for the debate and their contributions this afternoon.
Jen Craft
I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) said, this is the first time a debate about the contribution of allied health professionals has happened in this place. It is really important to acknowledge the contribution they make to our health services and to healthcare in general. Particular thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for sharing his personal story about the contribution of so many different allied health professionals in bringing him back to health—basically bringing him back to life—which summed up perfectly the crucial role these many different professions play and the impact they can have.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) both for her contribution and for her work as an allied health professional. As someone who has had two C-sections, I know that the entire operating theatre staff were crucial to making that a much better experience than anyone could have anticipated.
I thank the Minister very much for her comments, and particularly for being gracious in accepting my intervention at the last minute. I make a final plea for her to ensure that this vital part of our NHS, which is crucial to delivering those two strands—from sickness to prevention and from hospital to community—is not overlooked in the forthcoming workforce plan, and that its contribution is both valued and given due prominence.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That his House has considered the contribution of allied health professionals.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government placed a written ministerial statement on today’s Order Paper to update the House on the much-troubled Ajax armoured fighting vehicle programme. However, the media have reported within the last two hours that, according to urgent briefing from the Ministry of Defence, the statement will now be delayed until later next week due to the need to seek further interdepartmental approval across Whitehall. Given that the strategic defence review was published months late, the defence investment plan, including vital new equipment programmes, is still unpublished nine months on, and now the MOD is putting out WMSs on the Order Paper and then refusing to publish them, the Department is clearly in a state of chaos. Can you advise me on how we can force the MOD to clarify this utterly confusing situation later today, or on Monday at the very latest?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. This House is entitled to expect that when a written statement is to be delivered to the House, it will be done promptly on the day the Government have given notice that it will be made. Those on the Government Front Bench will have heard her point of order, and may wish to verify what is happening about the written statement. The hon. Member may wish to take advice from the Table Office on the steps that she can take to obtain clarity on the substance of the matter.
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for a debate on a topic that, as I can see from the number of Members present, regularly fills the inboxes of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. This debate is primarily about two closely connected issues: first, whether the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is fit for purpose in how it delivers its current responsibilities, and secondly, whether it is equipped to play the role it should in improving road safety. Let me be clear from the outset that this is not about blaming the staff of the DVLA, who work under immense pressure and whom my constituents praise when they are able to get through. It is about whether the systems that the staff are required to use are modern, fair and safe, and whether they serve the public properly.
There is no doubt that the DVLA is a large and busy organisation. Last year alone, it issued 12.5 million driving licences and 17.9 million vehicle registration certificates, and handled more than 14 million contact centre inquiries. It is an agency that most people will interact with frequently throughout their lives. On the surface, the DVLA’s latest customer satisfaction survey looks positive, with reported satisfaction of 92%, but that figure masks a serious problem. Satisfaction drops by 20 percentage points when it comes to medical driving licences, and by 34 percentage points when people are asked about the time taken to reach decisions.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions the business of medical decisions. In most cases, MPs and our caseworkers do not have the medical knowledge to be able to determine somebody’s fitness to drive. Although it is lovely for us to be able to restore people’s licences by intervening in their cases, does she agree that this really should not be our job?
Vikki Slade
I will come to some of those specific issues shortly. Our teams are incredible and work really hard, both here in Westminster and down in our constituencies, but that should not be necessary. People should not only get the help they need when their MP steps in.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
A lot of my constituents say that there is effectively a two-tier system: if someone is able to use the digital system, it is extremely fast; if someone has a medical condition, they have to use the paper form, which creates all sorts of administrative problems that we end up chasing up. My caseworkers say that the DVLA is one of the worst departments at responding to MPs’ offices. Does my hon. Friend think that the system has to change?
Vikki Slade
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his comments. I am afraid the DVLA is certainly in the top three worst departments, and I will come on to some specific cases shortly.
When constituents come to my office, they are frustrated but also really anxious. They have followed DVLA guidance by declaring their medical conditions, or they have reapplied for a licence after a temporary suspension, and then they wait, often for months, with no meaningful updates. The DVLA’s strategic priority is to drive up digital engagement, yet in practice the medical licensing system remains stubbornly analogue. The department does not routinely use email, it does not proactively chase missing documents, it does not provide status updates, and it still relies on posting medical questionnaires to GPs and consultants. Unless someone chases their MP, who then chases the DVLA and pushes the constituent to chase their clinician, cases simply stall. Applicants are left idling, with no sense of when or if the system will move them forward. This is not a functioning public service.
Let me give Members one example, which sadly is not unusual. Ellie submitted a medical questionnaire in March 2025 relating to possible epilepsy. Her symptoms stopped following B12 injections, and her consultant confirmed in writing that she was fit to drive. Six months later, she received a call from the DVLA, and she confirmed that there had been no further episodes. A month after that, her licence was revoked without her even being notified. She discovered that only in January 2026, when she happened to check her driving licence online.
When Ellie contacted the DVLA, she was told that her medical questionnaire was missing—one that had never been sent to her. After resubmitting the forms in February this year, she was informed that the original paperwork from last year could not be located. A full year after first engaging with the DVLA, her case is now classed as high priority after daily contact from her—sometimes 12 times in a day. No one should have to fight that hard to prove that they are safe to drive.
The underlying issue is simple: the DVLA is stuck in manual, while the rest of us are on automatic. Medical applications are processed strictly in date order, correspondence with clinicians happens by post, and returned documents then sit in another queue. This is a system designed around administrative convenience, not the human impact.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My hon. Friend is illustrating the challenges really well. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because I think, given the nods I have seen, that Government Members agree. I have a constituent—a councillor, in fact—who wants to be a driving instructor, and he has experienced the same delays. Does my hon. Friend agree that we want to hear an update from the Minister on the work to put those systems online so that they run parallel with everything else?
Vikki Slade
I have a taxi driver in my constituency who is stuck in a similar situation. This is not just about people who want to drive; it is about people who have to drive.
As our population is ageing, the scale of this challenge is growing. Last year alone, medical licence reviews increased by 16% to more than 850,000. The need to digitise this part of the system is not optional; it is urgent.
Some constituents are told not to worry, because they may be able to drive under section 88 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
indicated assent.
Vikki Slade
I can see that the Minister agrees. However, section 88 applies only in limited circumstances. It does not cover cases in which a licence has been revoked, and it creates real uncertainty. It forces people to navigate legal and insurance risks without a sat-nav to assist them. I have a resident who was travelling to Portugal and was not able to invoke section 88 abroad. I have another resident who was told that her no-claims discount on her insurance would be cancelled if it took much longer to get her licence back—she had worked on that no-claims bonus for 17 years.
This problem does not only affect older drivers or those renewing licences; young people are caught out too. My constituents Max and Maisie declared childhood medical conditions when applying for their provisional licences and waited for six months, with no progress beyond being told that information was required. In both cases, provisional licences were issued shortly after my office intervened, showing that the system can respond quickly when pressure is applied, but young people should not have to rely on interventions by MPs simply to take driving lessons and participate in everyday life.
These are not just anecdotes from constituency offices. The Public Accounts Committee found in 2023 that since 2020, 3 million people applying for licences by post or declaring medical conditions experienced significant delays. Over the same period, almost all of the 17 million people applying online without medical conditions had their licences processed within three working days. Great service should be available to everyone, not just the healthiest.
Various charities reinforce that picture. Epilepsy UK reports increasing calls from drivers who have complied with all the guidance and whose clinicians have returned all the information, and who yet remain unable to drive for months after being medically eligible. Diabetes UK has shared DVLA data showing that less than 5% of medically restricted licence reviews result in refusal or revocation, suggesting that the vast majority of people caught up in delays pose no greater risk to road safety.
That brings me to the second part of this debate. If the DVLA is to move beyond processing delays and play a meaningful role in improving road safety, we need to talk about eyesight. The UK’s eyesight testing regime is out of step with other nations and is largely unchanged since 1937. It relies heavily on self-declaration and a basic numberplate test, with no mandatory eyesight checks after passing the driving test. The Government’s road safety strategy suggests introducing mandatory eye tests at licence renewal for drivers over 70. I want to be absolutely clear that this is not about targeting older drivers; vision loss does not follow a special birthday, and focusing solely on age risks undermining public confidence and missing the real issue. If safety is the goal, an age-based approach alone misses the mark.
I have spoken to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam)—he could not be in the Chamber this afternoon—who is an optometrist. He told me that he frequently sees patients whose eyesight is far below safe driving standards. He described how some of his patients could not see the board, let alone the letters on it, yet he is unable to inform the DVLA or even those patients’ GP of their inability to see properly. I also met the Association of Optometrists, which welcomed the principle of mandatory testing but warned that limiting it to over-70s is short-sighted. [Laughter.] Thank you.
Vision can deteriorate at any age, so testing should be linked to licence renewal, which currently takes place every 10 years for most drivers. There is a wider opportunity here—eye tests can detect serious conditions such as glaucoma, cataracts, cancer and lupus. Allowing optometrists to share their results digitally with ophthalmology services could reduce pressure on the NHS and allow people to be diagnosed earlier, thereby lessening the impact on their sight, while also improving road safety.
Residents in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole agree. Alan told me that it is not just about reading a number plate at a distance; he raised the issue of reflex testing, and also said that
“It’s essential to read on the move—signposts, hazards and vehicle instrumentation”.
He raised particular concerns about night-time driving, which is not assessed as part of the driving test. Alison welcomed mandatory testing, because she had found that family members who were no longer fit to drive were difficult to persuade to give up their licence. She concluded that without a formal test and a medically trained person making the decision, unsafe drivers would continue to add unnecessary risk to the roads. A 2025 prevention of future deaths report described the current system for enforcing vision standards as “ineffective and unsafe”. While concerns about the impact that extending testing would have on the DVLA’s workload are real, safety has to come first.
I welcome the road safety strategy, which goes some way towards recognising the role of driver licensing in improving safety. However, it fails to address the issue of cognition, or to acknowledge that many people continue to drive because they have no alternative. Given that bus services in rural areas are patchy at best, and without joined-up working between the NHS and the DVLA, alongside full digitisation of the licensing process, serious concerns remain about whether the system is fair and whether the improvements to road safety that we all want to see will be fully realised.
As such, I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, can he update the House on when the long-promised digital medical licensing system will go live, and whether it will include automatic chasing of medical information and real-time status updates for applicants? Secondly, will the Minister confirm whether the system of medical licences and the list of notifiable conditions are under review, given how few cases result in revocation? Thirdly, on the issue of eyesight, how many of the 62 deaths linked to poor vision in the decade to 2023 were actually caused by drivers over 70? Given that 4,000 bus and lorry drivers had their licences revoked for eyesight issues in the past three years, none of whom is likely to have been over 70, why does the strategy focus almost exclusively on older drivers rather than on vision standards?
Finally, I have previously asked in this place whether we can expect a road safety Bill in the next King’s Speech, to turn strategy into reality, but I did not receive an answer. I urge my constituents to respond to the open consultation before 11 May, and I ask the Minister to set out the next steps, including how he is working with NHS colleagues and when this House can expect legislation to genuinely reduce the risks on our roads.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members might be interested to know that we will come to the Front-Bench spokespeople at half-past 4. About 10 Members are standing, so you can work out that a time limit will not be needed, unless they talk for an excessive 10 minutes each.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this important debate. Roads are the arteries of our nation, keeping us and our economy moving, and the rules governing our roads rely on being able to identify vehicles and their drivers, which is the responsibility of the DVLA. It really matters. It matters to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for road tax to pay for upkeep; it matters to those of us who want to walk, drive and cycle safely; and it matters to the police, who can use number plates to work out who is using our roads. When the rules of the road are not enforced—when people flout them with no punishment—it degrades trust.
I will highlight two elements of the DVLA systems that are failing: first, the regulation of number plate sales, and secondly, the rise of ghost vehicle owners due to there being no registered keeper. I will start with number plates, the little piece of plastic on the front of a vehicle, which most people hopefully never have to think too much about. Number plates are the quiet bedrock of how we enforce the rules of our roads. Number plates should tell us who owns a car, and they should be readable by cameras so that the police can use automatic number plate recognition software, which is essential for their work.
In many other countries, number plates are treated as what they are—passports for our roads—and are highly regulated. In France, for example, vehicles are allocated a plate for life, with no changes permitted, and in many other countries only one or a few companies can sell plates. The UK system looks absurd in comparison. To become a number plate supplier here, someone simply pays a £40 one-off fee to the DVLA. There are no background checks and no criminal checks. This has led to a situation where the UK has more than 34,000 suppliers registered as selling number plates with the DVLA. For context, that is four times the number of petrol stations in Britain.
If the DVLA had the ability to check that all those companies were doing the right thing—that they were asking for ownership documents and ID documents when they sold the number plate to someone, and only selling plates that were fully readable and not ghost plates—the situation would be fine, but the DVLA does not do that, and it will never be able to check so large a system.
I have no doubt that most people buying a number plate are doing so for innocent reasons, but it is crystal clear that many people are buying dodgy number plates to make themselves invisible to speed cameras, to avoid paying road charges and to commit serious crimes, and unscrupulous sellers are allowing that to happen. To give an example, in 2025 a young man was murdered in cold blood in Slough, and the police eventually worked out that the killer’s car was using a cloned plate. When the police found the car, it had no plates on, but it had a stash of different registration plates in the back. They found the person who sold the cloned plates, and he was fined £5,500 and removed from the DVLA register for five years, after which time he is perfectly allowed to start selling number plates all over again. There is a live rape case, which I will not go into any detail on, where a driver used a ghost number plate on his vehicle when he committed the alleged offence.
I have heard so many cases of drug dealers using ghost plates to go undetected by ANPR and fraudsters copying other people’s number plates. These dodgy companies sell cloned number plates without a second thought, and law-abiding drivers are left to pick up the pieces as they fight to prove that they are innocent of a crime or appeal against huge financial penalties.
Dodgy number plate sellers are a public scandal waiting to happen. They are the next chapter in the candy shops or dodgy vape shops story. Those businesses are really fronts for money laundering and criminality. Rochdale trading standards has been superb at exposing this. Its work has uncovered links between DVLA-accredited suppliers and individuals with histories of murder, firearms, drugs, robbery and violent assault—you couldn’t make it up. In one of its inspections, it found 20 number plates that had been sold with none of the legally required ID checks or proof of vehicle checks. Almost half of those plates were later linked by the police to serious and organised crime. Rochdale trading standards officers described finding DVLA-registered suppliers operating out of back bedrooms and garden sheds. One supplier was at 33 Smith Street. The next supplier was at 35 Smith Street. I hope I am painting a picture of the serious systemic failings in how the DVLA operates number plate sales in Britain.
With some estimates saying that up to one in 15 of all vehicles on UK roads has some kind of non-compliant plate, we can see the scale of the problem. Some of these suppliers are using ghost materials so routinely that even law-abiding members of the public may be inadvertently buying ghost plates. I urge anyone listening to this debate that if they need to buy a number plate, they should please ensure that the seller asks for their car ownership document and ID. If they do not, that person is buying from an illegal seller who is breaking the law.
Last year, the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety carried out an inquiry into registration plates and made 10 recommendations, all of which I believe the Government should implement. They include banning the use of 3D and 4D plates, introducing background checks on suppliers and restricting the number of licensed sellers. I would like to praise the Government for committing to action on this in the road safety strategy, and in particular I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who has been absolutely great. However, can the Minister update us on when he hopes some of these system changes will be made to tighten up the number plate system? In particular, will he ask the DVLA what is going on with banning 3D and 4D plates, which are the vast majority of ghost plates, and will he update us on when the next Department for Transport roadside survey will take place, because the last one was in 2023?
I will now move on to the second topic that I am concerned about: vehicle registered keeper information. Even if a driver has a fully compliant number plate, it is still possible for them to cheat the rules and become a ghost on the roads in another way. All cars should have a registered keeper listed with the DLVA but, unfortunately, lax rules mean that many cars do not have, and their owners are therefore completely untraceable. Think about it: with hit and runs, excessive speeding and running red lights, even when a vehicle gets caught on camera doing any of those things, if the DVLA has no information about who owns the vehicle, there is no way to hold those people to account.
According to the DVLA, 7% of vehicles have no registered keeper, and it argues that the majority of them are in the motor trade, but I just do not think that is true, and I have a personal anecdote to explain why. Last summer, I was out with the roads policing team in West Brom, and the ANPR monitor in the police car kept dinging every 30 seconds. I asked the officer, “What is setting off the ANPR?” and the officer said, “Those are cars with no registered keeper.”
Today, The Guardian has covered a shocking freedom of information request made by the British Parking Association to the DVLA. When a car has no registered keeper or it has an outdated or incorrect keeper address, the DVLA sometimes registers the vehicle to its own address. The DVLA has admitted in answer to this FOI request that, at the latest count, 18,260 vehicles are currently registered to its own office in Swansea.
The rise of these ghost owners undermines our ability to enforce the rules of our roads, and it is not just a safety risk. I spoke to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau about the rise in the number of collisions when one party cannot be traced because the vehicle has no registered keeper, the number plate is fake or a ghost plate, or the driver raced away. We all pay a premium on our insurance to cover the costs when uninsured or untraceable drivers are involved in a collision, and that adds up to £50 on the insurance premiums of all of us every year.
There is also a big cost, or rather a big loss, to the public sector through this issue. I feel the pain as much as anyone does when I get slapped with a parking ticket when I think I have done the right thing, or I get a fine for driving down the wrong road. However, some people are flouting the rules constantly, and they are getting away with it by having a car with no registered keeper, or registering with a NIP—notice of impending prosecution—farm so their fine gets sent to a totally anonymous post office box and the fine does not get passed on.
Since I started doing this work, I have realised how much of an issue unpaid fines are. In Hackney, for example, a single individual owes the council £250,000. I recently asked my council, Sandwell, how much it was owed, and I was shocked to discover that almost one third of penalty charge notices had gone unpaid since last April, equating to £1.2 million. Can hon. Members imagine what that money could have been spent on?
I will finish because I know other Members want to speak. A great many good people work in the DVLA, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned, and I know that because I have spoken to lots of them. What is failing here is the system, including how we sell the very plates that identify all our vehicles, and how we regulate and monitor who actually owns the cars on our roads. I know the DVLA has a lot on, but this is a very serious problem, and there is huge opportunity to grasp here, to fix the system for the future.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, which has reminded me of a conversation I recently had in my constituency. Drivers in the area of Hooe and Plymstock are showing really antisocial behaviour, and one of the police officers I was with mentioned this fact. We were not even talking about how cars are registered to the DVLA, but does she not find extraordinary the number that are registered to Mickey Mouse?
Sarah Coombes
That is absolutely true. Vehicles are registered to Mickey Mouse, or to big organisations’ addresses. There are simply no checks whatsoever on whom people register vehicles to, which means they are doing really dangerous and really antisocial things, and getting away with it.
The Labour Party manifesto committed us to taking back our streets, and reforming the DVLA will help us tackle the racers, fraudsters, drug dealers and dodgy number plate sellers who are making our constituents’ lives a misery. This situation has gone on for too long. Now that the Government are committed to action on this, I hope we can finally catch the ghost plates and the ghost owners on our roads, and make all our roads safer for us all.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this important debate.
I want to keep my contribution brief and focus on the story of just one of my Guildford constituents—although I have had correspondence with many more—which I think really captures why the DVLA is in urgent need of reform. When someone reports a medical condition to the DVLA, they are doing it for the right reasons: they are complying with the law and putting the safety of their fellow road users ahead of their own convenience. But too often, the system does not respond in kind.
My constituent is living with stage 4 lung cancer. Despite being asymptomatic, they responsibly surrendered their licence in August 2024. They did so without hesitation, because they understood their responsibilities and wanted to be a good citizen. Their consultant has since confirmed that they are medically fit to drive. On that basis, they applied to have their licence reinstated in July last year. When I spoke to them last week, nine months later, they were still waiting for a decision—nine months! During that time, they have submitted multiple complaints: one in January; one later that month; and, finally, one in March through the DVLA’s own direct complaints system, which promises a response within 10 days. Not one of those complaints has received a reply. That is not simply a backlog; it is a system that has lost sight of the fact that its administrative processes have real human consequences. While managing a life-limiting illness, my constituent has also had to manage months of uncertainty about when or even whether a decision will be made and the daily restrictions that come from living without a driving licence.
As we have heard, that is not an isolated case. Across the country, constituents are waiting months for medical decisions, often with minimal communication. There is a clear pattern: straightforward cases move quickly, and complex cases—the ones that need the most care and judgment, which are often the most urgent because of the circumstances of the individual—wait the longest. My constituent had no symptoms that would disqualify them from driving, but they have been left in limbo for nine months without explanation.
The DVLA’s target is to resolve most medical cases in 50 days, but even if the target was met consistently—we know it is not—we should really be asking whether 50 days is an acceptable length of time for someone’s independence to be put on hold. The impact is real: people cannot get to work, they miss medical appointments, they lose their independence, and they become isolated from support networks that they rely on. Thankfully, my constituent can use public transport, but in so many Members’ constituencies, particularly the rural ones, a driving licence is not a luxury but a lifeline.
The strain on the system is only going to increase. The proposed introduction of eye testing for drivers over 70 may be sensible for road safety, but it will only increase the volume of medical assessments that we already know the DVLA is not coping with processing. How will it cope when it is already failing so many?
Reform is not optional, and it is urgent for my constituent and for all our constituents who are contacting us on a daily basis. I am afraid that digitisation alone will not fix this. What we need alongside digitisation is far more basic: clear decision-making timelines, reliable communication with applicants, and better co-ordination between the DVLA and the NHS and other agencies so that medical evidence can be promptly assessed. I hope the Minister will be able to set out a clear timeline for reform so that I can reassure my constituents, and in particular the constituent I have mentioned today. If we ask people to follow the rules and they put other people before themselves in surrendering their licence, the state has a duty to respond promptly and proportionately.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
In the west midlands, the average waiting time for a driving test is 22 weeks—nearly six months, up from 12 weeks in October 2022. That often means that young people are unable to take a driving test before taking their A-levels or leaving home for university.
When I was growing up in Atherstone, getting my driving licence was a milestone for my independence. It meant I could see friends, share the driving with my parents when they picked me up at the end of term from university, and take up jobs that simply were not reachable by bus. And when I reached 21, driving the Leeds University night-time women’s minibus provided me with a good income and some great fun, and I was providing an excellent service. In fact, without learning to drive as a teenager and building up my confidence in driving, I would not have been able to drive a group of students from Leeds down to London, and also across to Manchester, to protest against section 28.
That is why I find it so frustrating that so many young people in North Warwickshire and Bedworth are now stuck on endless waiting lists for their driving tests. In a rural area with poor bus connections and unreliable timetables, a driving licence is not a luxury—it is crucial. It gives young people the independence and confidence to pursue education, training and work in neighbouring towns and cities.
I also want to talk about the freight and logistics industry. It is one of the largest employers in my constituency, offering excellent apprenticeships and training opportunities for school leavers ready to start their careers, but buses simply do not run frequently or at the right times for shifts at those hubs. My constituents who are waiting for driving tests are effectively locked out of those opportunities.
An elderly constituent called me because her driving licence was stuck with the DVLA, preventing her from being able to get around. My team and I contacted the DVLA and spoke to a member of the team, who reissued her driving licence fairly promptly. She told me how grateful she was and how much it would help her, but it should not take MPs getting involved to deal with these issues. For people like my constituent, a driving licence is a lifeline, allowing her to get to appointments, shops, and nearby villages and towns to see friends and stop being isolated. The DVLA must process requests in a timely manner to ensure that people are not left isolated in rural communities.
In 2021, the UK experienced a huge shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers, which was compounded by the delays in tests for HGV licences. Luckily, that situation has improved, with current practical test wait times broadly acceptable at around three weeks; the real problem now is with the availability of theory tests for HGV drivers. As HGV candidates must sit multiple theory tests—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It might be helpful if I highlight that driving tests are governed not by the DVLA, but by the DVSA—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. The subject of this afternoon’s debate is very specifically the DVLA. Perhaps Members might take that as a point of information and constrain their remarks to the DVLA.
Rachel Taylor
My apologies. I think when most of our constituents think of the DVLA and the DVSA, they think of them as one and the same, but thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for correcting me on that point.
I think it is still fair to say that young people need access to their driving licence, and that the many people with health conditions who might have to hand in their licence are reliant on it coming back quickly. My own mum has to take my dad around for hospital appointments; she cannot get to her nearest shop or go out to see her friends. There are real impacts here for people who have suffered minor strokes, for example, and have not had their driving licence returned. It is a situation that the Government need to look at, and I would be grateful for anything that the Minister can tell us to inform the situation. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing the debate.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing such an important debate.
I was recently contacted by a young person in my constituency who has been trying and failing to get a provisional licence for three years after a series of medical issues. Despite being cleared as safe to drive and, according to the DVLA’s standards, ready for their licence, their application has not progressed, and the DVLA has been impossible to contact. As a knock-on effect of the DVLA’s poor management, my constituent is struggling to get work and travel to interviews, and must rely on family and friends to get anywhere.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. The Public Accounts Committee found that more than 3 million people across the country have experienced long delays in the application process, leading to lost income and lost opportunities. The DVLA seemingly operates a two-tier system where the simple cases breeze through and difficult cases, such as those of people with medical conditions, are ignored and left to gather dust.
Just yesterday, another constituent wrote to me to say that the situation with the DVLA caused her so much stress that she had decided to give up, having lost all hope. Even though she had made a formal complaint, to which it was meant to respond within 10 working days, the DVLA took nearly 50 days to respond.
I urge the Government to treat reforming the DVLA seriously. Changes need to be made, alongside reform of the DVSA, so that the two agencies can best manage the issues and the current backlog of cases. The delay in responding to applications for medical licences and complaints is symptomatic of a larger problem of inefficiencies across the whole system, from non-compliance to vehicle excise duty, leading to the loss of vital revenue for the Government. The ability to drive gives a person their independence, especially in rural areas, and these administrative errors affect real people’s lives. I again urge the Government to take reform seriously.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this important Backbench Business debate. I am grateful to her and her fellow Liberal Democrat Members, the hon. Members for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), for raising issues that I will shortly touch on.
Time and again, my office has to deal with people who are having all manner of problems with the DVLA. Like colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I want to highlight the issue of people—often elderly people—who have had to surrender their licence due to medical concerns and have experienced trouble as a result. Even once they are medically cleared to drive again, it can often take many months for the DVLA to return their licence.
I will give three examples of real people living in my Erewash constituency who have had their lives unnecessarily disrupted because of administrative delay and failure, pure and simple. There was a couple in Breaston, one of whom had their licence taken away after a routine medical check-up. They were medically cleared pretty quickly, but it still took the DVLA two months to restore their licence. They had been in the process of selling their car at the time, and the sale was completely disrupted. Similarly, my team recently helped a man in Ilkeston who waited four months after being cleared to drive to have his licence returned. At the most extreme end of the scale, my team recently helped a woman who had had her licence taken away due to moderate sleep apnoea. She, too, was quickly okayed to drive again after further medical assessment, only for the DVLA to take seven months to finally return her licence.
These are not old cases, and I only picked the three worst from the 18 months that I have been a Member of Parliament. All these cases have been handled by my team in recent months, and they were resolved only because of a Member of Parliament’s intervention. We have heard from colleagues across the House how it is deeply inappropriate that Members of Parliament should have to step in to resolve these cases. It is simply not good enough.
In Erewash, four in every five households depend on a car to get around. I am always advocating for more and better public transport, on which I regularly engage with the Minister. We have some good services and connections, but going without a car for months on end is not just an inconvenience for my constituents; it is an enormously disruptive problem that prevents people from getting around every day.
Especially in anticipation of new rules to make our roads safer, someone really needs to look at how the DVLA handles health-related cases and interacts with elderly drivers. Clearer timelines would be beneficial, as would improved communication between the DVLA and the people who are forced to rely on its services. I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister could comment on his and the Department’s work on that front. What most needs to be recognised is that, for people who have lost their licence and not had it back for months, through no fault of their own, not being able to drive means that their life is put on hold. That is not right, and I seriously hope that the DVLA can get it sorted.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing this debate.
Dozens of my constituents have come to me with stories of DVLA failure, each carrying a variation of the same theme: a system that has let them down, often involving delays in licence renewals or restorations related to medical conditions. Let me take the case of one self-employed constituent who, due to delays with restoring their licence, has lost more than £60,000-worth of work. For months, their livelihood, security and mental health were left hanging by a thread. Only after pressure from my office was the matter resolved. It was a medical case and the DVLA failed to justify the delay. Another constituent, who must renew every three years owing to a medical condition, had their licence rejected because the DVLA incorrectly claimed that they had changed their name. That single administrative error cost them six months of their licence.
A third constituent appealed against the decision on their medical fitness. In response, the DVLA sent them the full medical records of another person, then spent three months arguing with the GP practice over the medical fee. The DVLA was prepared to pay only a fraction of what the GP wanted. My constituent offered to pay the difference to end the argument, but that was refused, and they had to make an inconvenient journey to a distant, DVLA-approved GP. When the licence eventually came, it was granted for one year only. The case has been ongoing for over three years—it was originally with my predecessor. Those are just some of the cases affecting my constituents. The common denominator is not the medical condition itself; it is the fact that every one of them involves a medical issue, and every one of them has been delayed for reasons that the DVLA has never made clear.
The DVLA does not operate in isolation. It depends on GPs, consultants and the wider NHS to provide the evidence it needs to make decisions. When those channels fail, the DVLA fails with them, and my constituents are the ones who pay the price. Through a freedom of information request, a constituent discovered that the backlog for medical renewals alone stands in excess of 260,000 cases. As has been mentioned, the 2023 Public Accounts Committee report found that nearly 3 million people who had notified the DVLA of medical conditions had experienced long delays, with some losing employment and income as a direct consequence.
Of the Committee’s 11 recommendations, the then Government accepted 10. The one they declined was a strategic review of how cases involving medical conditions were handled, bringing together the DVLA, the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS. My casework suggests that the rejection of that recommendation was short-sighted. One of my constituents waited five months simply for a consultant to be asked to review their records, never mind all the steps that had to happen after that. The DVLA knows the problem. The Department of Health knows the problem. My constituents certainly know the problem. The only question left is whether this Government do.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing this debate.
This is one of those occasions where I do not have a written speech from my staff. Most MPs, I suspect, use some sort of casework system; I am up to almost 20,000 cases at the moment, but when a constituent visited me at my most recent surgery, I think his case number was between 2,000 and 3,000. I was shocked to see that someone who had come to me so early was still on our database, and this debate reminds me of his extraordinary situation.
My constituent Kevin Flemming, who has allowed me to talk about his case, had an incredible moment in his life where he was told he had a benign tumour in his brain. He described to me the shock of that moment, as a young man with children. He went through the whole process of diagnosis and treatment; thankfully, the tumour was benign and he managed to get himself back to full health. To be quite frank, however, the DVLA has acted in a way that I find completely unacceptable for an institution that is meant to serve the people of this country. The rules on parliamentary language mean that I cannot repeat here the words that I used at my surgery on Saturday, but it should not be the case that someone who has gone through the six-month wait after a procedure and who has had it medically proven that their sight has not changed or deteriorated throughout that two-year process should still be waiting for an answer about when they are getting their licence back.
My constituent has worked for HMRC. He has worked with the public. He has helped businesses. He is a public servant. It takes him an extra three hours to get to and from work because of the situation that he has been forced into. I credit HMRC, which I would not usually in this place, because it has given my constituent the ability to work from home more often. However, he wants to be in the office; he wants to lead his team to provide a quality service for the people he works with. Shamefully, he has now had to choose semi-retirement, because he still has not had his licence back. Not only did he have to go through the process of thinking about whether he might die, but he now feels isolated and like his self-worth has been diminished just because he wants to do the basic thing, which is to go out and provide for his family.
I was shocked when I became an MP to find that 85% of my casework is about chasing public institutions to do the job that they are meant to do. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) mentioned the DVSA—we could have a whole debate on that, but I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we are not allowed to do so right now. It is unacceptable that, just because we send an email from a parliamentary email address, suddenly the seas part and things are resolved. Some of my constituents will not come to me to support them, because they do not know that I can help them. Quite frankly, it should not be that way.
I again thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for bringing the debate forward. I can imagine that Kevin in my constituency is not the only person who has had to make a huge financial decision to get on with his life, which will undoubtedly impact how he can support his children in future. I am sure that the Minister will respond to all the points put forward by everybody today. This is not just about an administrative process and trying to get some waiting times down; it is about something that is having a material impact every day on the people we represent. How that is allowed to happen is beyond the realms of my thinking.
Rachel Taylor
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. There is a real danger, given that delays are having such an impact on our constituents, that they and others will be led to not being honest about medical conditions, so that they can keep their driving licences. The knock-on effect of that on safety on our streets is unimaginable.
Chris Bloore
I completely concur with my hon. Friend’s point. We are asking people to play by the rules, yet the rules do not work for them.
I conclude by paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) on ghost plates. It is a moment of pride to be named as a supporter of her Bill. She has done an extraordinary job in trying to fight an issue that goes across county lines in a rural constituency such as mine, which has a huge impact on safety and criminal activity. If the question is whether the DVLA is fit for purpose, I think my constituents would probably say no.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I welcome today’s debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing it.
I too wish to focus on the experience of those navigating the medical licence renewal process, but I begin by acknowledging that the DVLA is aware of its shortcomings in that area. When the chief executive Tim Moss appeared before the Public Accounts Committee in October last year, he was forthcoming and acknowledged that too many people wait too long for decisions on medical licence cases. He outlined a two-stage transformation programme: the migration to a new casework platform, completed in September, followed by a new medical services platform intended to digitise many of those transactions. He also confirmed that the new systems allow the DVLA to prioritise those who currently hold no licence. That is progress worth acknowledging, though Mr Moss also said that standards were
“nowhere near where we want to be”.
One of my constituents is a retired GP with 30 years in practice. He is familiar with DVLA regulations and processes. He suffered a cardiac arrest last summer, informed the DVLA immediately and has not driven since. He calculated that he would be legally permitted to drive again on 7 February and submitted his application, along with a detailed covering letter setting out all the relevant medical facts, eight weeks before that date, exactly as instructed. Ten days before his expected return to driving, neither his GP nor his specialist had received any inquiry from the DVLA medical department, so he called the dedicated medical helpline and was told, “Your application is being processed.” He is a retired doctor—he knew that could not be true. An application cannot be processed without the DVLA contacting his GP or specialist to verify the medical facts. His form had been sitting untouched for weeks on end. The helpline, rather than providing accurate information, was providing cover for a backlog.
What makes this case notable is that my constituent spent 30 years navigating medical bureaucracy on behalf of patients, and even he could not get a straight answer or any meaningful progress from the DVLA. He put it plainly to me in his letter, saying that the helpline uses a “smokescreen” to disguise the backlog of what appears to be a chronically under-resourced department. I think that that is a fair characterisation and that Mr Moss would not entirely disagree.
I return to the question of transformation. The new casework platform, the forthcoming medical services digital platform and the commitment to prioritise those without a licence are welcome, but a system migration does not fix the underlying problem if the staffing and processes within that system remain inadequate.
I have three specific asks of the Minister on medical licences. The first is about transparency. The DVLA helpline must be able to tell applicants the truth about where their case stands. “Your application is being processed” is not an acceptable response when no processing is taking place. Applicants deserve accurate information. If it will take months, they should be told, so that they can plan accordingly. The second relates to parallel inquiries. The DVLA initiates inquiries to GPs and specialists sometimes late and, far too often, one at a time. A properly designed system would identify all necessary medical inquiries at the point of application and dispatch them all at the same time. That single change could reduce waiting times significantly without additional resource.
My third question relates to a formal fast-track process for cases where the medical picture is clear. Mr Moss acknowledged when he was in front of the Committee that some cases are straightforward and resolved in days while others are genuinely complex. The system should reflect that distinction formally. Where specialists have already provided clear sign-off, those cases should not be sitting in the same queue as the most complex clinical decisions.
In his evidence, Mr Moss told the Public Accounts Committee that the DVLA understands the impact these delays have on people’s lives. The impact on my constituent is that he is sitting at home unable to drive, being told that his application is being processed when it is not. I urge the Minister to ensure that the transformation programme at the DVLA delivers not just new technology but genuinely improved standards of service.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
As we have heard, the DVLA covers important aspects of work overseeing driving licences and people’s ability to drive safely. I pay tribute, as others have done, to the DVLA staff working to support my constituents. However, I also want to highlight some of the issues raised by a large number of my constituents over quite a period of time, which I know are similar to concerns raised by other hon. Members.
One of the most common issues relates to—surprise, surprise—medical applications, which we have heard time and again this afternoon. The crux of the issue seems to be that the system is paper-based and by post. Unfortunately, that adds further delays, not helped by issues with postal deliveries. There also seems to be a lack of co-ordination between the DVLA and clinicians.
Constituents have highlighted other concerns. No matter the outcome after their applications have been processed, there are significant delays in returning documents and, in some cases, licences, as well as delays in issuing medical letters. Six to seven months seems to be the average for cases that do not appear overly complex, but in the worst cases that I have dealt with, returns have taken in excess of seven months. It is clearly deeply unsatisfactory for things to take that long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) said, many more people try to navigate these issues on their own, so MPs do not see the full extent of the problem.
I was pleased that the Government increased the number of additional staff being recruited to support the DVLA’s medical team. That is a fairly new development, but we all look forward to seeing that investment in the workforce, which will, I hope, help to reduce waiting times for decisions. That will, in turn, reduce the frustration felt by my constituents and many others across the country.
The DVLA’s medical licensing system is, as we know, a vital service for our constituents. For too long, my constituents have had to put up with long and unexpected delays. I acknowledge that the Government have unfortunately inherited this and a number of other long-standing issues from the previous Government, and that they recognise that there is much work to do, but will my hon. Friend the Minister set out what more can be done? The length of time that my constituents and others are waiting, and the frustration and inconvenience that it causes them, is just too much for them to put up with. Many of the constituents who have contacted me are armed forces veterans, public servants and people who are doing the right thing, but unfortunately the system is letting them down. I hope that the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for securing a debate on this important topic, and the Backbench Business Committee for choosing it.
We have heard from many hon. Members the important reasons the DVLA needs to improve. I do not have time to mention all the excellent contributions, but I highlight that of the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who certainly need not have apologised for not using notes. In fact, the passion and authenticity of his speech show the rest of us that having fewer notes can often lead to much better contributions—alas, I have not managed to do that this afternoon.
We have heard lots of reasons why a well-functioning DVLA really matters, including safety culture, which is so important for everybody on our roads. Only if the DVLA works, and if people have faith in it, will we be able to encourage everybody to do the right thing in relation to medical conditions that any of us could develop and which could affect our ability to drive safely. Faith in public institutions, and in the accountability of institutions with which we have an obligation to comply, is important. It is all the more important in the light of the 70 years of societal change—encouraged by Government policy—that have made the car an essential and almost inevitable form of transport for most in our country.
The Government have rightly set out an ambitious road safety strategy that will impose additional duties and expectations on the DLVA, so we will need a better DVLA if that strategy is to succeed. Like other Members, I have had many constituents get in touch with me about issues that affect their ability to access jobs and contribute to the economy, and the personal independence their cars give them. I have constituents who have had very long, unexplained waits for licence renewal. That is often the real frustration: the accountability and the communication from the DVLA just are not there in many cases. Another constituent had a circular and extremely confusing communication merry-go-round between himself, the DVLA and medical personnel. He turned to me and my excellent casework team for help with how to emerge from that incredibly frustrating communication merry-go-round, because he did not know how to get out of it, despite his best efforts to engage with the process.
We are in the midst of a vehicle technological revolution. Driverless taxis are being piloted in London, and electric vehicles are now commonplace. As these changes are felt on our roads, we need to have confidence in the regulator responsible for managing them. We need a dynamic organisation ready to adapt to the challenges that these changes will bring. Unfortunately, the DVLA has not given us confidence that it will be up to the task, and that is not just based on constituents’ experience; the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and a November 2024 Cabinet Office review have all found it wanting.
The well-documented delays in medical driving licences show a system struggling to cope with demand. The 2023 Public Accounts Committee report found that over 3 million people had experienced long delays, with some losing employment and income as a result. Improvements have been made, with the average time to process medical licence cases being 44 days in 2024-25, down from 54 days the year before, but that is clearly still far too long. The DVLA is only facing more and more demands for its services, with an ageing population and the Government’s plan to introduce mandatory eye tests for over-70s. Without structural reform, this problem is not likely to improve any time soon.
Equally, the DVLA’s capacity to administer an increasingly complex and rapidly changing vehicle excise duty regime is a concern. The current VED system is already complex and opaque, given that cars, heavy goods vehicles and motorbikes are all calculated according to different metrics. Shortly after the transition in April 2025, when electric vehicles began paying VED, the DVLA acknowledged issues with V5C vehicle logbooks displaying incorrect tax information. That understandably raised concerns about the robustness of the agency’s data and systems.
At the 2025 Budget, the Government announced electric vehicle excise duty—eVED—a new tax payable alongside the existing VED from April 2028; there are far too many acronyms here, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that electric vehicle registrations accounted for a record 19.6% market share in 2024, this will put further administrative pressure on a DVLA that is already making mistakes and struggling to cope with demand.
Finally, as driverless cars become more commonplace in the UK, the DVLA will play a central role in licensing, registration and data management for autonomous vehicles—a function for which the agency’s current legislative mandate and systems were not designed. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) highlighted some of the existing problems with the administration of licence plates.
All these changes will place greater pressure on the agency, and confidence is low that it will be able to handle it, so the Government need to go faster in their reform of the DVLA. The 2024 report was a welcome start in identifying the structural problems. The Government now need to get on with the unglamorous but essential job of genuine and meaningful system reform, to ensure we have a regulator that is up to the job it faces. Although it is outside the scope of the debate, reform of the DVLA must go hand in hand with further reform of the DVSA to address the persistent backlog in practical driving tests. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate and on making a very important contribution, which has been supplemented by speech after speech right across the Chamber identifying a common theme around medical cases, as well as other issues. I will come on to those shortly.
The DVLA’s role in upholding the licensing system is essential for maintaining driver safety—that is a truism—and ensuring that the correct people are behind the wheel. We should not underestimate the scale of the task; it is a huge one. Last year, the agency collected £8.4 billion of vehicle excise duty for the Exchequer. It maintained 53 million driver records, as well as 47 million vehicle records, and it processed getting on for 100 million customer transactions. That is no mean feat. If we want to keep our country moving, it is vital that the DVLA processes its work efficiently, reaching the correct answers and doing so quickly.
The huge disruption caused by the covid pandemic saw the operation creak and exposed its weaknesses, with systems unable to cope with, among other things, staff distancing. Thanks to important work under the last Government, backlogs were brought down and longer-term efficiency improvements began to be implemented. Changes were made to streamline existing processes. For example, the law was altered to enable healthcare professionals other than doctors to respond to DVLA medical questionnaires. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), when he was a Minister in the Department—he is now the shadow Secretary of State for Transport—launched an independent examination of the DVLA in 2023 to establish what the Government could do to provide genuinely customer-focused services. We had hoped that that reform process would continue with the new Administration after the election in 2024, and some of it has, but as we have heard in the debate today, the data suggests that in many instances that reforming zeal has not continued.
The DVLA’s business plan tells us that the average waiting time for licensing decisions on medical cases will be within 50 days—a long time in its own right. However, the Government now admit that in October 2025 the waiting time was over 78 days. By November, the delay had increased further to over 80 days. That has real consequences. We have heard that from Member after Member, and I shall pick out one. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), in a powerful speech, referred to a constituent who has stage 4 cancer and has been waiting nine months and counting for a decision. That is totally unacceptable. Across 2025-26 the overall average was over 56 days, missing the Government’s already slack target of 50 days. That is not acceptable, because it leaves drivers hanging, uncertain of what their fate will be. I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister could explain whether the position has improved since November last year—the last date for which figures are publicly available. Have the Government met, or are they closer to meeting, the target?
The DVLA has said that it is completing the migration of its digital driver licensing services from its old digital platform on to a new strategic cloud platform. While that is welcome progress, it does not appear to align with the scale of the reform programme set out by the Treasury in its 2025 departmental efficiency plans. The Department for Transport plan listed:
“AI initiatives to increase automation and self-service at its contact centre”,
“expanding the use of Robotic Process Automation software”,
“automating Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) refunds”,
and
“wider organisational and workforce restructure.”
It claimed that, taken together, those changes would secure net efficiencies of £39 million by 2028-29.
However, the actual business plan from the Department for 2025-26, published in March, makes no mention of AI initiatives to bring forward automation and self-service, or to automate refunds for customers. What happened to the plans? Has the Minister changed his mind? Has he told the Treasury? Will he tell us? Without that focus in the business plan, how can we ever expect to see improvements in efficiency and service for the customer?
Those are not the only reforms that the DVLA is struggling with. There are challenges around fee deficits. The Government have promised efficiency savings, but it is not clear how they plan to deliver them. The shadow Transport Secretary asked about the £2.50 fee charged for the release of vehicle keeper details. Unfortunately and ironically, the Department’s written answers were later acknowledged to be partially incorrect, as they included inaccurate information about the requirement for legislation. Will the Minister take this opportunity—I am sure he will—to explain whether he plans to change those fees and, crucially, whether he is confident that he can make those changes effectively, given that he was unable to provide accurate information on the process in the first place? When there are questions about efficiency savings, it appears that there is a gap between the rhetoric and the actual delivery.
Cloned number plates are another problem of increasing concern that must be tackled, as was highlighted effectively by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). The DVLA has to be supported in its work with the police to crack down on the issue. In her important speech, she referenced the example of a manufacturer who had been caught and received a £5,000 fine and a non-permanent ban—a five-year ban, from memory—from the registration list at the DVLA. That is madness and she is absolutely right to highlight the issue.
We have to tackle the supply and use of cloned plates. Current legislation does not properly reflect the seriousness of the crime. The Conservative party is proposing new legislation so that manufacturers and online retailers of cloned plates would face a fine of up to £1,000 and/or up to five years’ imprisonment. On top of that, any driver caught using a plate that does not match their vehicle’s registered data would incur a driving ban of up to two years, up to a year in prison and a £5,000 fine. These are not accidental infringements of driving laws; it is express criminal activity, often to facilitate other crimes, and it should be treated as such.
Ultimately, we need to have laws in place that clamp down on criminality. It is an oddity that it is much harder to scrap a car than it is to buy one. To scrap a car, people need ID, a vehicle licence and a UK bank account, whereas to buy one they can just turn up and pay in cash. That is a gateway for thousands of uninsured vehicles to be used for criminal purposes. The different approaches make no sense. Why do we not tighten up the rules, so that if a person wants to buy a car, at the very least they have to record their driving licence? Will the Government consider working with the DVLA to support our proposal to tighten up that method of removing uninsured vehicles from the road?
The DVLA is ripe for further reform. Its services our ideal for use of AI to improve productivity, reduce costs and improve responsiveness. Instead of being paralysed by the Mandelson affair, the Government need to focus on driving through reforms to serve the driving public and clamp down on vehicle-related crime. I am concerned that the current data appears to be going in the wrong direction, but there is still time for the Government to turn this around. We have a plan for improvements and I look forward to hearing that the Government have one too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on the reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. I appreciate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee facilitating it.
The DVLA touches almost every household in the United Kingdom. It is one of the most advanced and large-scale digital organisations in Government, handling billions of interactions each year. Over 84% of transactions are now completed online and the system works well for most drivers. A standard non-medical driving licence application is typically processed in just two to three days, which demonstrates what a modern public service can achieve at scale. However, I want to focus on where the service has not worked well enough—in drivers’ medical services—and explain what it is being done to put that right.
Drivers’ medical services have been a source of significant concern for Members across the House and, more importantly, for our constituents. For many people, the ability to drive is essential. It supports independence, employment, caring responsibilities and access to healthcare. When a licence is delayed because of a medical investigation, the impact is immediate and personal. People can face lost income, isolation, missed appointments and prolonged uncertainty.
The Government are clear that the service levels in the drivers’ medical services have fallen below expectations for far too many drivers who are waiting for a licensing decision, often, as has been pointed out numerous times during the debate, after doing everything they have been asked to do. I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and make excuses or point at the previous Administration for the mess that we inherited, but I am going to say that I am sorry. I am sorry to all those who have been impacted by the delays. We are going to put things right—we are putting things right. Peoples’ frustration is justified, and it deserves both explanation and action.
It is important to understand the scale and complexity of the challenge. Demand for medical licensing decisions has risen sharply and consistently. In 2024 to 2025 alone, the DVLA made more than 830,000 medical licensing decisions, the vast majority of which did not involve MPs, and nor should they have to. Demand continues to rise, driven in part by an ageing population who quite rightfully wish to remain mobile and independent for longer.
As has been pointed out, not all medical cases are the same. Many straightforward cases such as those notified online for well controlled diabetes can be resolved quickly—sometimes within days—but an increasing proportion are complex and require detailed clinical evidence from NHS professionals or specialist reports and examinations, all of which, I will add, should be paid for by the DVLA. Those decisions cannot be rushed. The DVLA’s overriding duty is to protect road safety, and every decision must be based on sound medical advice.
That evidence is informed by six independent medical advisory panels covering key conditions that affect safe driving, including cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric and visual disorders. The expert panels ensure that decisions reflect modern clinical practice and support the introduction of new treatments. A good example is the recent change allowing drivers with diabetes to use continuous glucose monitoring, removing a significant burden for drivers while improving efficiency.
Despite the dedication of DVLA staff, at times demand has exceeded capacity. That pressure was compounded by the need to replace a legacy IT system. Introducing a modern casework system was essential, but it required investment, experienced staff input and training. In the short term, that has contributed to longer decision times, which rose to 71 working days, alongside increased complaints, call volumes and, of course, correspondence from hon. Members. What matters now is progress, and progress is being made.
Since September 2025, all new and renewed medical cases have been processed through a single modern digital casework system. Legacy cases have also been migrated, meaning that all driver medical teams are now working in one digital environment.
On 31 March, the DVLA launched its new digital medical services platform, which allows far more drivers to notify conditions, apply for new licences and renew licences online. It reduces errors, improves accuracy and enables staff to focus on the most complex cases. Initial case actions can now be taken within 24 hours. Staff are supported by decision-tree logic, and customers can be contacted by email, reducing uncertainty and ensuring that communication is flowing. On the email point, some sections of the law stipulate that communication must still be done in writing. The system will continue to be developed. Further automation of letters and medical questionnaires is planned, and more customers will be brought on to the platform over time, driving further efficiency.
Alongside digital reform, the DVLA has also increased staffing capacity. An additional 43 medical caseworkers are already in training, with a further 22 joining shortly. The steps that we are taking are already delivering results. So far in April, the average time to make a licensing decision in medical cases is 56.6 working days, which is a significant reduction from 71.4 days in February.
The DVLA will continue to prioritise cases where drivers need their licence for work or other urgent purposes. Hon. Members may also be aware that in many cases drivers are legally able to continue to drive while applications are being processed—when it is safe for them to do so—under section 88 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as has been mentioned. While the delays in the return of those licences, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), should not be happening, drivers should be covered by that section 88 ability. However, I am happy to pick up specific cases for my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the Chamber.
Some delays remain unavoidable, particularly when information from healthcare professionals is outstanding. The DVLA issues automated reminders, but safe licensing decisions depend on adequate medical input. That is why the DVLA is also working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology through the CustomerFirst programme, which is exploring further reforms to the drivers’ medical processes, including secure digital links with the NHS.
Those changes sit within a wider transformation of the DVLA. The new driver and vehicles account allows motorists to manage their details digitally and to self-serve more easily. By 2030, the DVLA intends to operate as an even more digital insight-led organisation that is faster, fairer and more consistent, while retaining safeguards for vulnerable drivers. No one underestimates the impact that the delays have had, but it is right to acknowledge that real action is under way and that real progress is now being delivered.
Every life lost on our roads is a tragedy. Younger drivers are disproportionately involved in serious road collisions. Drivers aged 17 to 24 make up just 6% of licence holders, yet they are involved in nearly a quarter of all fatal and serious collisions. Those figures are stark and demand action. That is why the Government’s road safety strategy includes a consultation on minimum learning periods before a learner driver can take their practical test, which would allow learners greater exposure to various conditions, such as driving in poor weather, at night or in heavier traffic, helping them to develop essential skills and judgment while preserving the freedoms that come with passing a test. We are also consulting on lowering the drink-drive limit for newly qualified drivers, alongside continued investment in the THINK! campaign, which targets those most at risk—particularly young men—by focusing on speeding and drink-driving.
Road safety is not only about young drivers, though; everyone deserves to feel safe on our roads, including older drivers and families. Around 24% of the drivers killed in 2024 were aged 70 or over. Although many older people drive safely well into later life, it is right to address risks linked to eyesight and cognitive change. That is why we are consulting on mandatory eye testing for drivers aged 70 and over, and developing options for cognitive testing, recognising that fitness to drive is about capability, not age. I encourage Members to ensure that their constituents engage with the consultation that is under way.
I will pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) made about optometrists. They are able to inform the DVLA of a medical condition, including eyesight issues, if a patient cannot or will not do so. It is important to point that out.
I turn to the growing concern around ghost plates and other non-compliant number plates, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) mentioned and which undermine road safety and enforcement. Let me be clear: it is already illegal to sell or display ghost or non-compliant number plates. Only DVLA-approved registered number plate suppliers may supply plates, and they must meet strict standards and keep records. Drivers who use illegal plates can face fines of up to £1,000.
Jerome Mayhew
This is not a party political point, because I am sure that blame could be focused on my party as well. Given that we have 34,000 registered suppliers, does the Minister recognise that it is an impossible task for the DVLA to keep any kind of meaningful record as to whether they are in fact compliant?
Simon Lightwood
I will address that point in a moment.
Enforcement at the roadside is a matter for the police. Supported by the DVLA, enforcement officers are working closely with trading standards to tackle illegal supply, so the Government are not standing still. We are working with policing partners to strengthen enforcement, including by funding the roads policing innovation programme. We are reviewing the registered number plate supplier scheme, considering a new British standard for plates and exploring how technology can identify illegal plates more effectively. We also understand the importance of accurate records. Although the vast majority of vehicle records held by the DVLA have up-to-date and traceable registered keepers, we are always looking at ways to improve their accuracy.
Drivers deserve timely and safe decisions, staff deserve modern systems that support their professional judgment, and the public deserve to have confidence that safety and fairness remain at the heart of our licensing system. Acknowledging where services have fallen short matters, but so does recognising the progress that has been made. I commend these efforts to the House.
Vikki Slade
I thank the many Members who have spoken in today’s debate, and the shadow Minister and Minister for their comments. I am glad that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is here, because I can thank him again for allowing this debate—I think that is about the fifth time that has been mentioned.
I hope that everyone whose case has been mentioned today gets their licence back very soon and that MPs can reduce the size of their inboxes and get on with doing the job we were sent here to do and not just be additional caseworkers. However, I must pay tribute to all the caseworkers in all our offices, who are doing the bulk of this work and helping our constituents. In particular, I thank my fantastic team, led by Emily.
The DVLA relies on trust and accountability, and it is there for safety. I thank the Minister for his apology. It is rare that we get a straightforward “sorry” from a Government Minister, so that is very welcome. Given what he said, I am hopeful that we can all look forward to a much more efficient system as we come to renew our licences.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I rise to speak about an issue that goes to the very heart of the responsibilities we have as parliamentarians: namely, the duty to protect the most vulnerable people in our society from exploitation, neglect and harm.
In 2016, I had the honour of being drawn in the private Members’ Bills ballot. I sat on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for some 14 years prior to the last general election, and at the time we were conducting an inquiry into homelessness in England. I was shocked by the treatment that single homeless people received from local authorities and the public sector in general, so I had the privilege of sponsoring the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017—it took 18 months to be enacted—to transform how we prevent and respond to homelessness in this country. It was built on the very simple but powerful principle that early intervention, dignity and support can change lives. To date, my Act has prevented 1.6 million people from becoming homeless.
In 2022, the Committee undertook an inquiry, at the behest of several Birmingham MPs, into what can only be described as the wild west situation in supported housing in Birmingham. When we went there, we were shocked: we saw whole streets where rogue landlords had bought up three-bedroom houses, extended them to the side, to the rear and upwards, and converted them into eight single-room properties, with a small shared kitchen and bathroom.
More shocking than that was the fact that these landlords were not providing any support whatsoever to the vulnerable people living in their properties. These houses could have housed someone who had been a drug addict next door to a drug pusher, and a lady fleeing domestic violence next door to someone convicted of domestic violence. There was no regulation at all. To be fair to it, Birmingham city council had introduced a voluntary scheme, but unfortunately the rogue landlords were the ones who would not register. Before I go on, it is very important that I pay tribute to the wonderful charities up and down the country that provide not only a home, but support for vulnerable people.
Having been drawn in the private Members’ Bills ballot in 2022, I took the step of introducing what is now the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. This House and the other place took vital steps when they supported the Act. I worked with charities such as Crisis, and the Act was born out of necessity, with mounting evidence in too many cases that supported housing was failing the very people it was meant to help and that rogue landlords were getting away without proper regulation.
I think it is fair to say that I have been patient, given that the Act was passed in 2023 and, in 2026, it still has not been brought into operation. I know that the Government have consulted on it, and I welcome the fact that they continue to commit to implementing it, as they set out in their recent response to the consultation, but the time for consultation and delay must now be over. We have to get on with this, because every single day, vulnerable people are being exploited by rogue landlords. The need for action is urgent and immediate, because while we continue to talk about the issue, rogue landlords continue to operate. While we delay, vulnerable people continue to suffer and public money continues to flow into the hands of those who exploit those in need, rather than support them.
Supported housing should be one of the great strengths of our social system. It provides accommodation alongside care, support and supervision for people who are literally rebuilding their lives. Let us not forget that these people may have experienced homelessness, may have fled domestic abuse, or may be living with complex needs. The good charities assess those people’s needs just after providing a roof over their heads and supply a network of support; the rogue landlords pop along once a week and say, “Everyone all right? Yes? See you next week.” That is the extent of the support that these people receive.
As Crisis has set out, when it is delivered well, supported housing can provide high-quality transitional homes that help people to move on from homelessness and rebuild their independence. Emmaus UK’s recent “Rebuilding Lives” report reinforces this, showing how good supported housing not only offers shelter, but provides purpose and opportunities for training and work, which are key ingredients in helping people to regain stability and confidence.
When it works well, supported housing is transformative. It provides a pathway to independence and access to employment, it helps people to rebuild relationships and move on to settled homes, and it saves the public purse billions by reducing demand on health, criminal justice and emergency services. However, when it fails and rogue landlords take control, we have seen individuals punished for daring to get a job, because if they do so, they lose their housing benefit and the landlord cannot charge the earth in rent. Those rogue landlords refuse to provide even basic support and, as I have said, they sometimes house people literally next door to the very people they are fleeing.
Over recent years, we have seen the rise of rogue operators in the exempt accommodation sector. Crisis has documented how those providers exploit gaps in regulation, particularly in non-commissioned accommodation, where oversight is at its weakest. They have entered the market not to deliver support, but to maximise profit. That is because exempt accommodation allows providers to charge higher rents through housing benefit, recognising that supporting vulnerable people comes with additional costs. The fundamental flaw, as Crisis has highlighted, is that there has been no consistent, enforceable mechanism to ensure that the support justifying those higher rents is delivered, and there is no single regulator responsible for overseeing that support. The result is that in some cases, we are rewarding exploitation.
We have heard deeply troubling accounts from residents. Crisis has reported people being forced to share basic facilities with literally dozens of others, living in properties that are plagued by damp, mould and vermin, and experiencing intimidation and abuse—I have spoken to tenants who were abused and forced to move from one property to another. Some have even been forced back into homelessness to escape these conditions. Others have been charged additional fees for support that does not exist—charges that eat into their already limited incomes and push them further into poverty. Heaven help those vulnerable people if they dare to get a job, because the reduction in housing support means that, in most cases, the rogue landlord kicks them out. These findings are echoed in wider evidence from the sector, including the collapse of providers such as Prospect Housing, where residents were charged for inadequate or absent support.
To be absolutely clear, this is not an isolated problem. While I remember visiting cities such as Birmingham where the issues with supported housing have been most prominent, Crisis and other organisations have identified similar patterns across London, the midlands, the south-east and beyond. Rogue providers are expanding, exploiting inconsistencies in oversight between local authorities and adapting their business models to stay one step ahead of enforcement.
Local authorities are responsible for assessing eligibility for housing benefit and verifying that support is being provided, but as Crisis has highlighted, they face significant barriers of limited resources, inconsistent powers and legal constraints. There is also evidence that some councils struggle to proactively verify whether meaningful support is being delivered at all. Other regulators exist, but none has comprehensive responsibility for the support element of exempt accommodation. Guidance such as the national statement of expectations sets out a vision, but it is not legally enforceable. Voluntary standards exist in some areas, but compliance is optional. In short, the system has allowed far too many providers to slip through the cracks.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, and I want to reiterate his point. I have an extraordinary situation in Worcestershire, where many of my housing officers are not in the borough or even in the region that they serve. I find it extraordinary that I get regular interventions from the police telling me where supported housing has cropped up in my own patch, and yet my housing teams do not even know that it exists in the local authority area. Is it any surprise that the people there are often living in squalor—to the extent that some of my most vulnerable residents have chosen to live in tents in parks, rather than be in that supported accommodation?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Clearly, if people are living in tents or are homeless on the streets, they are not getting the support they need to rebuild their lives, which is the key.
I introduced the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 to provide the framework we need to bring order, accountability and integrity to the sector. The Act enables the introduction of national supported housing standards—clear benchmarks for what good provision looks like, covering both accommodation and support. It establishes a licensing regime, empowering local authorities to approve, monitor and, where necessary, shut down providers that fail to meet the standards. The Act requires councils to develop local strategies, ensuring that supported housing provision is aligned with genuine local need, rather than driven by profit. That issue has been highlighted by Crisis and Emmaus UK research. Crucially, the Act allows for the linking of enhanced housing benefit to compliance, ensuring that public money supports only those providers that meet the required standards. The reality is that the system is costing the taxpayer a fortune, and it is going to rogue landlords.
The Government’s recent response to the consultation provides much-needed further detail on how the measures will be implemented, and I welcome the commitment to a national licensing system, the introduction of national supported housing standards and the application of a fit and proper person test for those managing schemes. I hope that we can ensure that some of the weasel ways that some rogue landlords use to get around things can be corrected. These are supposed to be not-for-profit organisations, but often a person will buy a property and rent it to a registered charity, which then pays rent to the landlord. Although the charity is not making a profit, the owner of the property is making a fortune. I hope we can correct that particular area.
I also welcome the decision, strongly supported by Crisis, to make eligibility for enhanced housing benefit contingent on a scheme holding a licence. That gives the system real teeth, removing the financial incentive that has driven rogue providers into the market, but I must express my concern about the timeline. The Government have indicated that implementation will begin in April 2027, four years after my Act received Royal Assent. I welcome the commitment, but we have pointed out that there must be no further delay, given the scale of harm that has already been caused since the Act was passed. During that time, the harms we sought to address have escalated. We must continue to ensure that these people do not continue their profit making. Every month of delay allows rogue landlords to operate unchecked. Every delay means more vulnerable people placed in unsafe conditions. Every delay represents a failure to deliver on the promise we made on a cross-party basis in this House. We must ask ourselves: how many more people will suffer before these powers are brought into force?
We must also recognise that regulation alone is not enough. The problem in this sector has been exacerbated by years of under-investment in support services. Crisis has made it clear that the growth of poor-quality, non-commissioned provision is closely linked to the decline in funding for support and the absence of a dedicated national funding stream. Housing benefit can cover higher rents, but it cannot fund support services. That creates a perverse incentive, in that providers must house people with support needs to qualify for higher payments, but there is no dedicated funding to meet those needs. Some providers go to great lengths to bridge this gap, relying on charitable funding or volunteers. That has been highlighted by Emmaus, and its model demonstrates the value of meaningful activity, work and community. Others, however, pass the costs on to the residents, charging additional fees that push people further into poverty. If we are serious about making this system work, we must address that imbalance.
The Treasury’s ongoing review of homelessness spending presents an opportunity to align funding with the new regulatory framework. As Crisis has argued, this must include a reset and an increase in funding for support services, including approaches such as Housing First and floating support. I urge the Government—they have not only a majority on their side, but support across the House on this issue—to really get on and do it.
We must ensure that local authorities have the resources they need to implement licensing and enforcement, the new burdens placed on councils must be fully funded if the system is to succeed, and we must ensure that, as we tackle rogue provision, we do not inadvertently increase homelessness. The Government’s commitment to produce guidance on rehousing residents affected by scheme closures is welcome, but I would caution that guidance alone is not enough. Local authorities must be supported financially and strategically to prevent homelessness and to take a proactive, co-ordinated approach.
We must also listen to those with lived experience. Evidence from residents, including the testimonies gathered by Emmaus, consistently shows that good supported housing is about more than accommodation. It is about meaningful support, opportunities for training, work and a sense of community and belonging. It is about rebuilding lives. We must ensure that these voices are at the heart of the new system shaping national standards, informing local strategies and holding providers to account. Ultimately, that is what this Act is about: it is about people—people who have already faced significant hardship and who deserve better from us.
The Act represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset the system, drive out rogue landlords, raise standards and ensure that supported housing truly supports those in need. We should just look at the success of my first Act—the Homelessness Reduction Act—which, I say again, has prevented 1.6 million people from being made homeless. That is why we must implement the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, and we must do so with urgency.
In closing, I ask the Government simply to bring forward the regulations and the guidance, ensure that the April 2027 timetable is met without further delay, provide the resources needed for effective implementation, and ensure that no further delays stand in the way of protecting vulnerable people. Let us honour the intent of this House, let us deliver on the promise we made in 2023, and let us never again allow vulnerable people to be treated as commodities in a broken system. The time for action is now. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for his contribution, and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing forward this debate. His speech reflected his extensive experience in this area, and he relayed to the House some of the success his legislation has already had.
I want to start by saying, in response to the hon. Gentleman’s points at the end about what he is asking the Government to do and his summary of the next steps, that I wholeheartedly agree with him. I hope that anybody listening to this debate who has an interest in this area will understand the very clear cross-party support for this action. We waste far too much time in this place in disagreement, but with such issues, on which there is significant cross-party agreement, I hope everyone understands that we are going to crack on with it, because it is important for all the reasons he has mentioned.
I pay tribute to Crisis and Emmaus for their work, which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned, and for the attention they have brought to this issue. I hope he will see that spirit of prevention running through our homelessness strategy, which we published in December. The best homelessness policies are the ones that stop the trauma before it begins.
The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 is an important piece of legislation. It was introduced because supported housing can play a vital role, often providing stability and support for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. Where delivered well, it offers safe accommodation to help people live with dignity. However, the House has heard worrying examples of where the system has not worked at all as it should: poor-quality accommodation, weak oversight and vulnerable residents badly let down. That is why the 2023 Act matters. It provides the basis for strong oversight, clear standards and better protection.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the organisations he mentioned. I, too, hear stories in my constituency of people who have been evicted from their supported housing when they have gone on to get work. They should be good news stories, but instead those people find it extremely difficult to get accommodation with other landlords. They cannot get a reference from the previous landlord, because they were kicked out for not paying over-inflated rents. It really is high time that this Government, with our values, does something about that appalling situation.
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The trigger points she mentions, which can inadvertently exacerbate homelessness, are exactly the point of the duty to collaborate that we have brought forward in the homelessness strategy. We will be working on the exact point she mentions.
It is important to get the detail right. There is, rightly, broad support for improving standards in supported housing. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the consultation response that the Government published this month. We need to ensure that the framework we put in place is workable, proportionate and fair. Regulation will target poor practice, without creating unnecessary burdens for the many responsible providers who are delivering good-quality support every day. Across the country, there are providers doing excellent work. Housing associations, charities, local organisations and others are operating high-quality supported housing for those who need it most. That is why we will drive out the very poor practice, while supporting and protecting good providers.
The Government are committed not just to the aims of the Act, but to implementing it in a way that works on the ground. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Treasury’s value for money review. That is a very important element of this work. We are wasting taxpayers’ money for very poor outcomes. None of us can tolerate that, so Ministers are working together on that value for money review.
We have established the supported housing advisory panel to bring together expertise from across the sector and inform how the Act is implemented. Just this morning I met the chair, Sir David Pearson. I am confident that under his leadership the panel will provide insight and challenge as a critical friend, as we reform supported housing. I have also asked him to meet parliamentarians to brief them directly.
We have also published guidance to support local authorities in developing their supported housing strategies, which will help them identify and respond to need in their area. Alongside that, we have provided funding to local authorities to support the development of those strategies. That work is now under way in many areas.
This is not the end of that support. Further funding will follow to help authorities move to the next stage, including the set-up of licensing schemes. These are important steps. I have heard very clearly what the hon. Gentleman said on the length of time between the legislation being enacted and its provisions being felt on the ground. I have a lot of sympathy with his point. I am trying to help, and I know that if I do not, and if there is a delay, I will be asked many times about it at this Dispatch Box, so it is in all our interests to get on with it.
The effectiveness of this Act will depend on the regulations, the support standards and the way the powers are used. That means continuing to work carefully through the detail, listening to residents, providers and local authorities, and ensuring that the final framework delivers the improvements that residents badly need. As I have said, we are also making sure that, in raising standards, we preserve the good that already exists and, in fact, shine a light on it.
We do not want to undermine the providers that are already doing the right thing with supported housing; we want to strengthen the system so that people can continue to work with confidence, while poor providers and those who are bringing about these terrible circumstances are no longer able to exploit the system. I think that is the right approach. It is the way to protect residents, improve quality and maintain a supported housing sector that meets the needs of the people who need it most. As part of that approach, we will soon consult on the actual draft regulations.
We are committed to the purpose of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act and recognise its importance and how impactful it will be when its provisions are finally in full force. I thank hon. Members again for their contributions.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for the response she has given thus far. I am not going to get into the politics of this, but local government reorganisation is going on, so could she say a little about what will happen to ensure that local government sets up in the right sort of way with the licensing scheme?
Alison McGovern
There is a response to that in the consultation response that we published recently. I am very conscious of all the potential effects of local government reorganisation. I think the creation of unitary councils is the right thing to do, because the splitting of functions can make tackling homelessness and bringing the Act into force harder than it needs to be. However, I am conscious that this will be a period of transition and that the areas undergoing reorganisation need particular attention in relation to this matter, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that—we have it on our agenda.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the work he has done to keep attention focused on this issue. It has been very good to work with him so far on it, and I look forward to working with him even more in the near future. We need to make progress on this, and I am determined that we will do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, please. Tea and coffee are not allowed during proceedings, but there is plenty of water—blue is flat and silver fizzy.
I remind Members that amendments are voted on at the point at which they are found in the Bill, so any Division on amendment 37 to clause 26 will come later.
Clause 7
Appeals from magistrates’ courts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 63, in schedule 2, page 38, line 33, leave out from “only if” to the end of line 35 and insert
“the Crown Court considers that—
(a) the appeal has a realistic prospect of success, or
(b) there is another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.”
This amendment would broaden the test for granting permission to appeal from magistrates’ courts, so that appeals may proceed where they have a realistic prospect of success or where there is another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
Amendment 64, in schedule 2, page 38, line 33, after “appeal” insert “against sentence”.
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 66.
Amendment 65, in schedule 2, page 39, line 1, after “(3)” insert “and (5)”.
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 66.
Amendment 66, in schedule 2, page 39, line 10, at end insert—
“(5) There is a right to renew an application for permission to appeal orally.
(6) Grounds for appeal may raise issues of procedure and fact arising in the trial as well as law.”
This amendment ensures a right to appeal orally, and provides that grounds for appeal include procedure and fact, as well as points of law.
Amendment 54, in schedule 2, page 39, line 16, leave out from “if” to end of line 18 and insert
“the defendant has made one.”
This amendment would require the Crown Court to allow an appeal if the defendant makes one.
Amendment 55, in schedule 2, page 42, line 15, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert
“jury in the Crown Court”.
This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates court.
Amendment 56, in schedule 2, page 47, line 13, leave out “magistrates’ court” and insert
“jury in the Crown Court”.
This amendment would allow the Crown Court to order a retrial by jury in the event that it allows an appeal against a conviction or sentence in the magistrates court.
Amendment 57, in schedule 2, page 49, line 36, leave out from “Court” to end of line 39 and insert
“must allow an appeal under section 108 if the defendant makes one.”
This amendment would remove the provision limiting appeals to specific grounds and instead ensure the Crown Court allows appeals if one is made.
Schedule 2.
Amendment 37, in clause 26, page 35, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) The Lord Chancellor may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 7 into force until he has undertaken an assessment of the rate of upheld appeals on convictions and sentences handed down in the magistrates’ court in the previous two years.”
This amendment would prevent the restriction of right of appeal against magistrates court decisions unless the rate of successful appeals from the magistrates courts has been below 10% in the previous two years.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) and for Bexhill and Battle, and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for tabling the amendments in this group.
I will come to the amendments, but first I will take the opportunity to set out the rationale for the clause and schedule 2. The existing position for criminal appeals from the magistrates court is this: when an appellant wishes to appeal a conviction or sentence in the magistrates courts, they proceed to a full rehearing of their case in the Crown court. They do not have to state why they wish to challenge their conviction or sentence, nor produce any grounds for appeal. They simply lodge an appeal and obtain a full rehearing in the Crown court.
In many cases, there is no justifiable reason for that, yet the impact on victims and witnesses, who are often required to go through the ordeal of a second trial, in the Crown court, can be significant. Indeed, we heard from victims in the Committee’s evidence sessions that going through a trial was so traumatic that they would have probably dropped out if the case had been appealed to the Crown court.
Part of the evidence that persuaded Sir Brian Leveson to make recommendations 21 and 22 in his report, in respect of appeals, was that
“many minor sexual assaults that were dealt with in the magistrates courts or the youth courts, which could include rape, almost automatically went to appeal to the Crown court, on the basis that the victim would not turn up the second time and be prepared to go through the whole process again.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 9, Q11.]
This situation is unique in our criminal justice system. Magistrates courts are the only criminal court in which there is an automatic right to appeal without filter. In every other criminal court, including the Crown court, the appellant must obtain permission to appeal, they must provide their grounds, and the court has the opportunity to review appeal applications to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant reconsideration.
The purpose of the clause and the provisions in schedule 2 is to bring magistrates courts appeals in line with other criminal appeals processes, and thereby reduce the number of unnecessary hearings that progress to the Crown court. That has the dual benefit of reducing the burden of appeals on victims and witnesses, and ensuring a sensible use of court resources, reserving Crown court time for the most serious cases.
Let me be clear on the data. Of all the cases in the magistrates court, which we know can be hundreds of thousands, only 1% get appealed to the Crown court. This to me is indicative of a system that generally commands confidence. I understand the concerns about access to justice, but to be clear, the right to appeal in magistrates courts remains. Defendants will still be able to appeal a conviction or sentence in magistrates courts, but with a straightforward permission stage, as already exists elsewhere, so that appeals with arguable grounds continue to receive a full appeal hearing. Appellants will retain the ability to seek a judicial review of a refusal of permission in the High Court, and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission remain possible where there have been alleged miscarriages of justice.
The clause also mandates the recording of trial and sentencing proceedings to support the evidential record for appeals. This is a significant step in making our courts more transparent and open to scrutiny, and it provides an opportunity to go further than in the current criminal procedure rules. The clause is proportionate and targeted. It will filter out unmeritorious, weak applications, helping to increase efficiency across the criminal courts and reduce the burden of appeals, which we know is born by witnesses and victims, while maintaining fairness and access to justice.
Amendment 63 was tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn; I seek your guidance, Dr Huq, on whether it has actually been moved.
Sarah Sackman
Thank you, Dr Huq. Amendment 63 seeks to broaden the test for allowing an appeal from magistrates courts under the new reforms. The amendment expands the existing test so that permission will be granted where there is some other compelling reason. That is a test used in civil proceedings in the Court of Appeal civil division. There is not equivalent test for appeals in the Court of Appeal criminal division, which is what our new process for appeals in the magistrates courts is based on.
One reason why a court might hear an appeal due to some other compelling reason is to seek an authoritative binding judgment on a particular issue. A Crown court cannot provide a binding decision as to the law on magistrates courts generally, whereas the High Court can. If the appellant wished to appeal for this reason—in other words, in order to seek a binding judgment on a point of law—they could achieve that by using the existing process of appeals by way of case stated to the High Court. In short, we do not think it would be appropriate for there to be appeals to the Crown court in this context.
Instead, we have replicated the existing grounds for appeal in the Court of Appeal criminal division: whether it is reasonably arguable that an appeal will be allowed. An appeal of conviction will be allowed if it is unsafe, which can be the consequence of the incorrect application of the law, procedural irregularities, or the introduction of fresh evidence. An appeal against sentence will be allowed in the same circumstances as in the Court of Appeal: where a sentence is manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in law or principle. These are well-established tests.
We are committed to ensuring that we create a fair appeals system that provides adequate safeguards for summary justice. In the event that appellants feel an incorrect decision has been made in respect of their application for permission, they have the opportunity to seek a judicial review of that decision to the High Court. I remind the Committee that, as I said earlier, the introduction of recording equipment into magistrates courts to accompany the change in the appeals process will increase the ability to scrutinise the decisions of magistrates courts. I hope I have reassured the Committee of our commitment to a fair and accessible criminal appeals process, and I urge that amendment 63 not be pressed to a Division.
Amendments 64 to 66, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, relate to the right to renew an appeal for permission to appear at an oral hearing if the appeal has been refused on the papers. I will deal with these matters sequentially.
The right to renew an application for permission at an oral hearing when it has been refused on the papers does exist in appeals from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal. We decided not to replicate the provision for appeals from the magistrates courts. There will be occasions when an oral hearing may be regarded as necessary in order for a Crown court judge to determine whether to grant permission to appeal. For that reason, we have included a provision in proposed new section 108A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, so that judges can hold an oral hearing if they feel it is necessary or for the purpose of making a determination more expeditiously.
However, the key is whether an oral hearing is necessary in the context. We are keen to avoid an influx of applications to renew permission to appeal at an oral hearing where that is unnecessary. That is particularly important when we consider the high volume of cases that our magistrates courts already consider, and the higher volume of cases that we anticipate they will be considering after the other reforms in the Bill come into play. The volume of appeals from magistrates courts to the Crown court will therefore be higher, proportionally, than the volume of appeals from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal. If we include provision for appellants to renew an application for permission that has already been refused, we risk creating a higher volume of unnecessary oral hearings than in the Court of Appeal, thereby placing a significant and unnecessary strain on Crown court time.
I understand that the amendment is driven by the desire to ensure that adequate safeguards are built into the process, and I hope my hon. Friend will be reassured that, as I have said, refusal of permission can still be challenged by applying to the High Court for judicial review.
The second part of the amendment provides that the grounds of appeal may be based on issues of procedure and fact arising in the trial, as well as on points of law. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the grounds for appeal as currently drafted in the Bill capture the points raised in the amendment. An appeal of conviction will be allowed if it is unsafe, which can be the consequence of an incorrect application of law, procedural irregularities or fresh evidence.
Appeals of sentence could also be successful on the basis that the magistrates court has made a mistake as to the facts of the case or made a procedural error, as long as, by virtue of that mistake, the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in law or principle. The amendment would not change that position.
For the reasons I have set out, I urge Members not to support amendments 64 to 66. In essence, they are already covered by the Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for tabling amendments 54 and 57, which would provide that whenever an appeal against conviction or sentence is made from the magistrates court to the Crown court, the appeal must be allowed, irrespective of whether there is any merit in the appeal. I suspect that was not the intention behind the amendments. If I read them in the spirit that I imagine they were tabled, I think they were designed to remove the permission test, rather than indicating to the Court that it should allow all such appeals.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who is not in his place, for the advice received in relation to amendment 54, which was drafted with the assistance of the Clerks. The Minister is right that our intention was to unpick the barriers at the permission stage that the Bill introduces. I think her point applies just to the first amendment; the other amendments fit because they are about what happens after a successful appeal and how it might be re-instigated. On that basis, I will not press amendment 54 to a vote. We will table a suitable amendment at a later stage.
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I was pretty sure that that was what he must have meant and that it was not his intention to suggest that we should, essentially, allow and uphold all appeals as an automatic right. I understand, though, his intention to debate the merits of the permission test in the Bill.
I should make one point about the consequence anticipated in the amendments, in terms of appeals being directed automatically to a jury trial. To be clear, that is not how appeals currently operate, whereby a judge sitting with magistrates rehears the case on appeal in the Crown court. The effect of the amendments together could mean that we would see large numbers of appeals of conviction being allowed and sent to the Crown court for a retrial by jury, absent any permission test or filter. That could mean, for example, that low-level summary-only offences, such as being drunk and disorderly, are added to the Crown court caseload and, by extension, the backlog, which would only increase the waiting times for the more serious offences, which we want to get on with more expeditiously.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s correction, but we take issue with not just the effect of the amendment but the fact that it would mean that appeals would go to a jury trial, because that would extend the right to, or access to, a jury trial, which we do not want to encourage in this context. I anticipate that the intention was to expand the grounds for permission, so that instead of applying a test, any application for permission would be allowed. This would essentially remove the permission filter and return us to the status quo, where there is an automatic right to a rehearing on appeal, absent any filter for the merit of an appeal.
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Clause 7 and schedule 2 represent a fundamental and troubling departure from the way that our justice system corrects error. As the Minister said, we have tabled a number of amendments, which essentially form two groups. The first group seeks to reconstitute the existing right of appeal, and amendment 37 aims to stop the Government’s proposal until we have a more substantial and better understanding of how to drive the appeal success rate down, which is our primary aim.
As the Minister outlined, at present a defendant convicted in the magistrates court has an automatic right of appeal to the Crown court, where the case will be heard as a full rehearing before a judge and two lay magistrates. The Bill proposes to replace that long-standing framework with a permission-based model, whereby the defendant must first prove that their appeal is reasonably arguable before a single judge, often based only on written papers and transcripts. I rise to oppose that restriction on access to justice. I will argue that, where an appeal is successful, justice is best served by providing the option of a retrial before a jury.
I will reflect on the Minister’s remarks about how our amendments would operate. I always listen very carefully to what she says and, as I will explain, I think there is some merit in some of her points, so we can reflect on those. The Minister has pointed out the difference between the magistrates court and the Crown court, and processes elsewhere, but my contention is that that is not an accident or happenstance; that is by design, because the magistrates court is very different in many other ways from those other elements of the courts. That is why there is a difference there—for very good reason.
Because efficiency must be balanced with accuracy and fairness, the current automatic right of appeal is not simply a source of unnecessary delay; it is a vital check on a part of our system that others have described as being, to some extent, “rough justice”—a forum in which decisions are swift but carry a higher risk of mistake. The evidence—because let us look at the evidence; this is not just what people might say about it—is that the current system is performing a very necessary function. Around 40% to 42% of appeals against convictions from the magistrates court are successful, and roughly 44% to 47% of appeals against sentences are also successful. That is an extremely high rate of successful appeals. These are not marginal or trivial figures; they indicate, I am afraid, that the lower courts are making meaningful errors in nearly half of the cases in which they are challenged.
The Law Commission actually considered this issue in detail. It rejected the proposals that a permission stage should be introduced and highlighted a number of key points in relation to that. On the importance of correcting error, as I have mentioned, it emphasised the critical role that those appeals are playing. It also highlighted the low volume of appeals. The Minister talked about 4% of receipts in relation to one element; I think 1% of the total number of magistrates court cases are being appealed, so that demonstrates that this measure will make a transformative difference to the backlog.
We can talk about receipts, but the other thing to keep in mind is how long the actual appeals take. Although receipts are one way of looking at it—on a numbers basis—that is also distortive, of course, because appeals are much shorter hearings than the ordinary business of the Crown court.
The Law Commission pointed out that it found no meaningful evidence that this process was being abused, even without that permission stage in place. As we have talked about previously in the Bill, legal representatives cannot support an appeal that is completely without merit. As I have said, due to a combination of the low volume of appeals and the shorter hearing times, our contention is that there would be minimal efficiency gains to weigh against this erosion of an existing right.
Actually, the introduction of a permission stage is something that we welcome, but the work that will have to be done to support it, with the introduction of recordings and making available transcripts, will probably—or could—cost significantly more than will be saved. By introducing a permission stage, the Government are creating a multi-stage system that is complicated and potentially more inefficient than the current situation.
We know that many of those facing imprisonable offences in magistrates courts are currently unrepresented. The Bill simultaneously increases sentencing powers in clause 6 while narrowing the ability to challenge those decisions in this clause. The Bar Council has described this as a
“comprehensive rolling back of safeguards”.
An unrepresented defendant, potentially facing up to two years in prison, will now be expected to navigate the practicalities of reviewing transcripts and preparing permission grounds for appeal without professional help.
The legal aid gap means that many defendants who would have qualified for a solicitor and legal aid in the Crown court will be ineligible in the magistrates court due to the different low-income thresholds—£22,325 versus £37,500. Requiring those individuals to purchase costly transcripts just to ask for permission to appeal is a significant barrier that risks entrenching injustice. If the error rate in the magistrates court remains high, restricting access to the remedy is a recipe for uncorrected miscarriages of justice.
I will move on to our amendments about the case for retrial by jury. If we accept that the current appeal system exposes weaknesses in the original summary trial, we must also look at what happens after a successful appeal. As the Bill stands, if the Crown court quashes a conviction and determines that a retrial is necessary, the case must generally be returned to the magistrates court.
We believe that that is a rigid approach that ignores the complexity, which does not exist at present, of what might have been revealed by the appeal. Because we are introducing a new system of allocation and decisions around allocation, that is a new area of the law that could be contained within appeals. A successful appeal may demonstrate that the case was too complex, or the evidence too sensitive, for a summary disposal in the new division. Returning cases to the same level of court that originally fell into error will do little to restore public confidence.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I will speak to amendments 64 to 66, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.
We have had a discussion about this provision. The amendments seek to give a right to renew an application for permission to appeal orally, and to allow grounds for appeal to raise issues of procedure and fact arising in the trial, as well as issues of law. Clause 7 currently suggests that a person can only appeal in writing on matters of law, which means that a person is going to have to construct a proper legal argument. The problem with that is that the majority of people in the magistrates court are unrepresented.
It is wrong to say that this is comparable with Crown court cases going to the Court of Appeal, or the higher courts having to deal with the issue of leave to appeal—for example, as in judicial review. Magistrates courts tend to have some very “minor” offences leading to some quite serious repercussions. When I say “minor”, I am talking only in terms of sentencing, because we must remember that offences that we call minor can have a significant impact on a defendant’s life—for example, even drink driving, which does normally not carry a custodial sentence, certainly carries a disqualification.
That is also often a mandatory disqualification so that no discretion is given to the magistrates as to whether they should disqualify somebody. If someone is the sole breadwinner, or has care of a disabled person, and they feel that this conviction was wrong, they will not have the right to appeal—because very rarely will somebody charged with those matters will be getting legal aid.
However, in the Crown court, most people will have legal aid or be using legal advice at some point, because the trial will normally be conducted by solicitors or lawyers. Therefore, they are already being paid and if there is an appeal against either conviction or sentence, they already know what they are talking about and what they need to quote—the legal jurisprudence that they need to refer to, to prove their case—along with the issues with examining the witnesses or the evidence that has been given. They are then able to say, for example, that a particular witnesses’ evidence was not credible or that a witness said contradictory things or different things in their statement to the police compared with during the trial. They can do that because they have conducted the trial and they can forensically examine what happened—not only what legal direction the judge gave, but the factual evidence that came out during the trial. In the magistrates court, most people are not represented, so they cannot argue all those things.
To take away the automatic right to appeal is, therefore, a change to the fundamental basic rights of an individual. Let us remember that the state has all the might and all the resources, and that professionals will be prosecuting—whether they are lay prosecutors, Crown prosecutors or independent lawyers. On the one side, there will be the state represented by legal professionals; on the other, there will be the lone individual coming up by themselves to be subject to trial. If they are then not satisfied with the conviction or the sentence, they must then think how to legally write an appeal. That is putting a lot of pressure on them.
As Members of Parliament, many of us will have met many constituents who are quite reluctant to even write to us. I often say to constituents, “Please can you drop us an email?” and they say, “Well, I don’t know how to use a computer, and I don’t have the internet at home.” We then make a face-to-face appointment so that they can explain themselves. That is not unusual because a lot of people are not able to write very well and would not be in a position to construct a coherent legal argument as to why they should have their appeal in the Crown court.
Sometimes, when we are talking about possible efficiencies and saving money, we forget about individuals. People who come before the criminal justice system tend to be from poorer backgrounds and are often less well educated. Some of them may well be unemployed. A lot of them have other issues going on in their lives. Therefore, the fact that they can appeal to the Crown court automatically in the current system is an immense safeguard for them.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. Member is making an important point that we have not really discussed on the Committee. It is estimated that half the prison population have a reading age of less than 11; that is to say, they are counted as functionally illiterate. We have seen a decline in prison education. How does she expect all these prison inmates to be able to negotiate or navigate an appeals process?
Yasmin Qureshi
That is exactly the point I am trying to make. I think we sometimes forget, sitting in our rarefied environment, that a lot of the people out there—our citizens—are not well educated or able to write a proper paragraph or construct an argument. Sometimes they can just about get two or three simple sentences together. As they often do not have legal representation, allowing them to automatically appeal against a sentence or conviction is a really important safeguard for them. The Crown court and Court of Appeal criminal division is not the right comparison, because in most Crown court cases people have full legal representation who will be able to advise on this.
The other thing we found is that apparently 40% of appeals are successful. Think about that: four out of 10 appeals are successful. If people do not have a right to appeal, they have to find a way to make a legal argument on matters of law, which they know very little about. Asking them to do that is basically letting four out of 10 people be convicted or receive a sentence that could have an impact on their lives.
On sentences, when a conviction happens, even if it is in the magistrates court, it fundamentally affects people’s lives. It could mean that they are not able to get a job again or are dismissed from the job they have. If someone’s job involves driving and they are disqualified because of drink driving, that will be an extra burden on them, but it is not just that. Even if someone gets a suspended sentence or community service order for what we call smaller offences, a lot of people are not able to do that. Taking away their right to appeal is, with respect, very harsh.
Legal aid has already been reduced considerably over the years. I have to put the blame for that on the Conservatives, because they massively cut legal aid while in government. They also massively restricted the rights of judicial review. In that respect, I have to hold the Conservatives a bit responsible for what they did in 14 years in power. I am very grateful that the Labour Government have put money into legal aid—that is great—but I ask them to please give that to the magistrates court as well.
I have travelled in different parts of the world where the justice system is perhaps a bit haphazard or where there is not much trust in the state’s justice system, for whatever reason. It does not necessarily have to do with the wealth of a country; there are very wealthy countries where the state is much more authoritarian and the institutions are almost stacked against the individual. The one thing that people really love about the UK, apart from our beautiful country and everything else, is our judicial system. I am not just saying that; it is the most respected system in the world, especially our criminal justice system, because people feel that they have protection at the point that their liberties are being taken away.
Think about a conviction for shoplifting: people say, “Oh, shoplifting,” but even if someone takes a bottle of milk out of a shop, they may get a conviction and there will be hundreds of jobs that they can never apply for. For a lot of people who rely on shop work or other manual jobs where they may come across money, it means that they are never going to get a job. If they get a conviction in the magistrates court for theft, that is devastating for them. The Theft Act refers to the “intention of permanently depriving”. That is quite important, because people make mistakes, but intention has to be proved, because the Theft Act requires it. It is not just taking the thing; it is the intention to permanently deprive. How do we define “permanently deprive”? A layperson would not know how to construct that argument, but a lawyer would.
Jess Brown-Fuller
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
Clause 7 and schedule 2 will restrict the right to appeal the decision of a magistrates court to the Crown court, and will change the process that those appeals go through. Currently, a defendant has an automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court against either conviction or sentence; in either case, the appeal is a hearing before a judge and two magistrates. The Bill will instead introduce a requirement for an application for permission to appeal based on written grounds. A Crown court judge will decide whether to grant permission, and the appeal hearing would be heard by a single judge. Instead of a rehearing, the appeal would be only on the issues on which permission is granted. If the appeal is against conviction, the judge must allow the appeal if the conviction is unsafe. If so, the judge may order a retrial in the magistrates court.
It is not unreasonable to have a conversation about the appeals process, especially as there is a small amount of evidence of the system being abused by a very small minority of defendants who believe that the appeal will be successful on the grounds that the victim or witnesses will refuse to go through the experience again. I absolutely recognise that, and we need to put essential safeguards into the criminal justice system to provide greater protection for those victims. We will be getting to the crux of that issue over the next days in Committee.
However, clause 7 and schedule 2 are blunt instruments that will harm access to justice. We cannot ignore the fact that although a very small number of cases from the magistrates—less than 1%—go to appeal, more than 40% of those are successful at appeal. Given that the magistrates court will be hearing more complex cases that carry higher sentences, the measures will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice. Touching the appeals process at this point is unnecessary when it is currently sparingly used. The Criminal Bar Association has argued:
“Access to justice will be harmed. Who is going to find the lawyers who have time to review transcripts of evidence and prepare grounds of appeal? Who is going to pay them for that work? What about the defendants who were ineligible for Legal Aid, because of the lower cut off for eligibility?”
We discussed the eligibility cut-off in the previous clause.
JUSTICE has raised similar concerns, stating that replacing the automatic right of appeal with a multi-stage permission system
“is complicated and highly likely to be inefficient”,
and will fail defendants who cannot navigate these processes, as laid out articulately and clearly by the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden.
The current process means that appeals are heard by a judge and two magistrates. The opportunity for magistrates to sit with a Crown court judge to hear appeals is an important one, as it helps with the training of magistrates and drives up standards. Under the Bill, there are no circumstances in which lay justices would sit with professional judges. We are debating a number of amendments, some of which seek to restore the conditions we have right now—retaining the automatic right to appeal—and some that go further, although I think the shadow Minister suggested that he would not press them all to a vote.
I would appreciate the Minister’s explaining whether she thinks the processes being put in place by clause 7 and schedule 2 are compatible with the principles of access to justice that she has laid out previously in Committee. I remain gravely concerned that the measures will have a huge impact on the most vulnerable in society.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I am happy to have you back in the Chair today, Dr Huq. I wish to oppose the clause and the schedule. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden for pointing out so clearly that the restrictions on appeals will push down hardest on the least advantaged people and will compound injustices in wider society, as well as the injustices put in place by other clauses.
I will not reiterate in detail the evidence we heard, or the speeches I made previously, about the risks of more errors due to the speedier but rougher and readier justice of the magistrates courts being applied to more cases, or the risks arising from higher sentences. However, clause 7 adds yet more risk to the potential harm from reducing the right to select a jury trial in clause 1 and the restrictions put in place by other clauses. This is counterproductive for the overall courts workload, too.
As others have pointed out, the clause will introduce a multi-step process. We heard in oral evidence from Emma Torr of Appeal that the
“multi-step process…will only increase the workload of both the magistrates and Crown courts. To give a very brief outline of how it works at the moment, the defendant or the solicitor can fill out a very simple form, which results in a quick rehearing at the Crown court. It takes a couple of hours at most and even less for sentence appeals.”
She also pointed out that the Law Commission had carefully considered the matter last year in a consultation paper that ran to 700 pages. She said:
“Its independent analysis was that the removal of the automatic right to appeal will increase the workload of the magistrates court and the Crown court.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 83, Q174.]
In our oral evidence sessions, we heard clear views about the lack of legal aid in magistrates courts for people without representation to meet fairly the test set for appeals. Fiona Rutherford of JUSTICE told us:
“Without a lawyer being present, and of course without there even being the right to appeal directly, you are leaving a whole load of defendants, who may well be wrongly convicted or may get the wrong sentence for the crime they have committed, floundering…I simply don’t know who will inform these people about how they will put grounds of appeal together, what grounds of appeal even are, how you formulate those, what key points you need to make in them to persuade a Crown court judge sitting alone in a room with just some evidence papers and how to put your best case forward.” ––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 86, Q184.]
These are serious matters of injustice. I do not know how the least advantaged defendants will be able to do anything to use the application to the High Court for judicial review, which seems to be the only remedy that the Minister has put forward to us today. I do not know how many miscarriages of justice are acceptable to the Minister, but I believe that these measures must not form part of the Bill, because of the impact that they will have on the right to justice for too many people.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I do not support clause 7 or schedule 2. I welcome the debate on various amendments and the comments from the Minister.
Clause 7 and schedule 2 would replace the current automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court with a much narrower permission-based system. At present, a defendant convicted in the magistrates court can appeal to the Crown court against conviction or sentence, and that appeal is heard by way of a full rehearing, usually before a Crown court judge sitting with between two and four magistrates. About 40% of conviction appeals and 47% of sentence appeals succeed.
We are now being asked to introduce a system that would instead require permission for such appeals, would usually proceed on written grounds, would be heard by a single judge and would limit the grounds on which permission is granted. The Government say that that would save about 500 Crown court sitting days. I feel that I may be running out of ways to phrase this sentence, but yet again we are seeing a significant roll-back of an important safeguard, justified on the basis of a small hypothetical gain.
We should ask ourselves whether an important protection is being weakened for anything like a proportionate return. On clause 7, I do not believe that it is. I strongly emphasise that appeals are not historical oddities or a procedural quirk; they are one of the principal safeguards against the risks inherent in summary justice. The Bar Council is very clear:
“The proposed change would remove a vital safeguard against wrongful summary conviction and excessive (or unlawful) sentences imposed by magistrates. The consequence risks adding to the burden on the criminal courts rather than reducing it.”
It goes further and says that the current right
“does not appear to be exercised frivolously or vexatiously.”
The Law Society made similar points in its written evidence: it said that the automatic appeal route is a “vital safeguard” and that in 2024 it was used in 2,487 cases, overturning magistrates’ decisions in 41% of convictions and 44% of sentences. It describes about 1,000 miscarriages of justice as being corrected through that route. That is the central fact that the Government cannot really get around. If four in 10 conviction appeals and nearly half of sentence appeals succeed, that cannot be read as evidence that the appeals process is being abused. In fact, it is the opposite: the process is demonstrably being exercised appropriately.
I am deeply concerned that if we roll back the right to appeal, we will be locking the door on an unknown number of cases in which a conviction might have been found to be erroneous, but will now not be identified as such. That is an unknown number of miscarriages of justice not put right, and an unknown number of lives ruined. I am not willing to pay that price for the gain of 500 sitting days, and I cannot bring myself to believe that Government Members are differently inclined.
We do not particularly need to speculate about what the safeguards protect against, because we can point to recent examples. In the notorious Hamit Coskun case, a defendant convicted in the magistrates court of a section 5 public order offence had his conviction quashed on appeal to the Crown court. The appeal court found that the prosecution had failed to prove essential elements of the offence and stated plainly:
“For these reasons we allow this appeal and quash…conviction”.
That is the automatic appeal route doing exactly what it is supposed to do and correcting a conviction that should never have been imposed.
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to all the Members who have spoken for the points they have raised. Without repeating myself, they have focused on a number of areas. The first is the concern around access to justice under the new process. We had a good debate on the question of the availability of legal aid in an earlier sitting. As I have said, the Government are committed to fair and accessible routes to legal aid. There are mechanisms such as passporting for those on universal credit. An example given was that the vast majority of prisoners do not have an income. The real picture is that the vast majority of them, unless they have personal wealth, do access legal aid and therefore would be represented and supported by those who are able to give legal advice in what are, of course, high-stakes situations.
As I mentioned in the earlier debate, a hardship mechanism is available where the matter necessitates greater complexity and expenses. I recognise that, where there are litigants in person, there is more to do, and part of the implementation and delivery of these reforms will involve looking at what support can be given to those who find themselves in that position. At the moment, litigants in person in the Crown court on appeal to the Court of Appeal are given targeted information and forms that allow them to formulate grounds of appeal and that make it user-friendly and intelligible to a lay person. That sort of thing will have to be put in place if a permission stage is extended to the magistrates court.
The points that have been made are valid, but I also want to present a realistic picture of the fact that the majority will continue to access legal aid. As I said earlier, the Department has committed to review the position once we know what the final shape of the Bill looks like to ensure that we are not creating a problem in respect of access to justice. However, in the event that there are litigants in person, we also know that we need to strengthen support for them more broadly across the system, not just in the context of these reforms. That will be a vital feature of the implementation.
The second issue raised was about the trade-offs between the efficiency savings versus the introduction of a permission filter to match the sort of permission filter that already exists in the Crown court. While I recognise that the current volume of appeals, in the context of the volume of work that the magistrates undertake, is small, that will grow as the volume of work that the magistrates undertake grows.
The sorts of appeals where success is achieved are precisely the ones that will not be prevented by this appeal test, because it is a low bar; all that has to be shown is reasonable arguability, and a court can identify that straightforwardly. It is not as if, all of a sudden, a huge risk to access to justice is created. However, what is permitted is the filtering out of wholly unmeritorious appeals, the volume of which may grow as the overall volume of cases within the magistrates court expands.
Dr Mullan
I direct the Minister to the report from the Law Commission, which said that there was no significant evidence of people abusing the system or lots of unmeritorious appeals. The point is that someone has looked at this in detail, on an independent, non-party political basis, and they do not support the suggestion that there are lots of appeals going through that should not be in there.
Sarah Sackman
I will say two things to that. Obviously, that report—as is typical from the Law Commission—is non-partisan, but it predates the reforms we are proposing in the Bill, which will inevitably increase the volume of cases we are talking about. It goes back to the point that, where we have finite resources, if the permission stage filters out only a relatively small number of cases—in fact, that is how I anticipate it will work—then that is all to the good, because even those take up a disproportionate amount of Crown court resources that we can ill afford to have directed to wholly unmeritorious appeals. That is what we are getting rid of.
The other thing is that this test is focused on specific grounds, much in the same way as exists in Crown court appeals. The treatment of that appeal can be directed towards the issue that has been the cause of the appeal, rather than having the whole thing looked at again, which is currently the case.
Dr Mullan
It is about the combination of those concerns, along with the fact that there are unrepresented people. The Minister is right to say that people who have representation, if their appeals are valid, will be able to carry on, because they will continue to meet the test. The reason the Opposition support the broader approach is because there are people who do not know the detail of the law or how to make a successful application. That is why there should be a freer approach. The concern is about those two things combining.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate pointed out, not only are things being made more consequential—longer sentences and a lower likelihood of a jury trial—but at the same time it is becoming more difficult in the other direction. That feels counterintuitive and not in line with what the Government are saying about making the system fairer. On that point, the Government are moving in directly opposing directions.
Sarah Sackman
I have heard that argument, but I do not accept it. I do not think the provision makes it less fair. But I accept that there is work to be done, which does not necessarily need to be reflected in the Bill, to support litigants in person, and to examine the approach and the structure to legal aid, to narrow the gap for those who do not have access to it. That way we can reduce the number of people who have to navigate the system without legal representation.
I will not repeat the arguments that I made earlier. For those reasons, I commend the clause and schedule 2 to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I beg to move amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 52, line 5, leave out “on payment of a fee” and insert—
“to victims of criminal offence without a fee within 14 days of a request”.
This amendment would make magistrates’ court transcripts free for victims and requires that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.
I first acknowledge that the Government have made steps to improve access to court transcripts after robust negotiations in both Houses and on various Bills, most recently the Sentencing Act 2026, the Victims and Court Bill and now this Bill.
I also put on record the exemplary effort made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who has been campaigning to ensure that court transcripts are made available for free for victims of crime, after her constituent was quoted thousands of pounds to access the transcript of her own court case. Nobody should be priced out of seeing their own story.
Why are transcripts important? For many victims, they choose not to attend the entirety of a hearing or trial. Even if they do, there is so much to take in. Being able to process the events of the court case provides a valuable opportunity to better understand why decisions were made and hopefully enables them to move on with their lives.
The Committee had the privilege of listening to the testimony of Charlotte Meijer, alongside other victims, Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott and Morwenna Loughman. I would like to remind Members of a few of the things that Charlotte said. She said:
“For me, having transparency really changes things. We talk about justice and the system being closed, so if we have more recording and transcripts, it will really help people. There is something that is not in the Bill that I would love to see; I have fought for the last three years for sentencing remarks to be made free, which we did earlier this year, but I believe that is not going to extend to magistrates courts. If they are now being recorded, my belief is that they should also be free in that way.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 25, Q49.]
Charlotte spoke about her experience. She did not feel that she could listen to the trial after she had given her evidence, because it was a very small bench and the defendant’s family and friends were sat there. She did not feel like she could go and sit and listen, so she left, but she had indicated that she would like to be there for the sentencing or the hearing. However, she just got a call from her independent sexual violence adviser telling her that he had been found not guilty. She was not given the opportunity to hear that. Charlotte continued:
“For my healing, and for me to be able to move on, I just needed to understand what was said in court, so I went to ask for the transcripts, of which of course in the magistrates courts there are none.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 26, Q51.]
It is important for victims of crime and victims who see their perpetrators found not guilty to have the opportunity to process that by seeing what happened, whether they were in the room or outside it. The transcript can also be a tool for those who choose to apply to the unduly lenient sentences scheme, which I am pleased that the Government have agreed to improve significantly, after working alongside Baroness Brinton in the other place.
I recognise the concerns raised by the Government, particularly about the cost of producing transcripts and the processing time for redaction, which is all currently contracted out. I am pleased that they have agreed to a proactive trial of AI in courtrooms to improve transcripts, and to a move to record all magistrate hearings. I know that that approach has cross-party support; I have been in the Chamber with many Labour MPs and MPs of other parties who have made exactly the same arguments that I am making now, that providing free court transcripts is a key step towards transparency.
The Minister knows that we have worked collaboratively on reducing the scope in other Bills and have called on the Government to provide judicial summings-up and the route to verdict, including for those whose defendants are acquitted, because there is still a process that they need to go through. I am keen to work with the Government on this. I hope that as the Bill progresses through the House, we can continue the good work that has started on court transcripts.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of amendment 17, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester. I acknowledge the progress that we have made on the issue; it has not been as fast or as good as personally I would like, but it has absolutely been progress. The hon. Member has laid out some of the important points.
The idea that we will record these proceedings and that the transcripts will exist, but that the victim cannot have them, is obviously not sustainable. If they do not exist at all and nobody has them, that is one thing, but when they are available and some people might be accessing them—defendants, for example—it is really not reasonable that victims cannot, for all the reasons that we have discussed in relation to the Crown court. The existence of recordings will make that less of an excuse. Again, the interaction of different elements of the Bill, with longer sentences, restricted appeals and more serious cases being heard, builds an even stronger case for victims to have access to the transcripts.
The hon. Member for Chichester mentioned the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As we talked about in the context of Crown court appeals and the current use of the scheme, it is pretty hard to appeal an unduly lenient sentence if we do not even have access to the route to sentencing that the judge laid out to explain why they gave the sentence that they did. In my understanding, we have a later amendment that asks for an expansion in the use of the scheme in order for it to be meaningful. We talk about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but people cannot access it in the magistrates court, even though we are about to put more serious cases into that court. At the minute, people are able to access the scheme when a case is heard in the Crown court. For those reasons, we enthusiastically support the hon. Member’s amendment.
Siân Berry
I will speak briefly in support of the amendment, to which I have put my name. Later, I hope to speak about the real difference between viewing evidence—seeing it given in real life, or going into the room where evidence is given—and being able to review it more dispassionately later in writing. Given that we are now producing transcripts, the amendment would be an important measure to provide them free to victims who may want to see what has been said in court, without having to attend court and see it in a more triggering, more visceral way, and without facing a financial penalty. It is important that the amendment is agreed to, along with everything else, to allow for a more compassionate way to treat victims.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester for tabling the amendment. As she acknowledged, there has been fruitful cross-party working on the issue. I am really pleased to see the progress that we have made, both as a matter of open justice, because timely justice must be fair and transparent, and, candidly, because technology is our friend here and is enabling progress. It must be robust and tested, because the ability of AI to enable redactions where needed has to be properly studied, which is why we have initiated an AI study. But I am pleased with the progress that we have been able to make and that, as a Parliament, we will continue to make.
Dr Mullan
I have always struggled somewhat with the question of redaction. If reporting restrictions are in place, what can be shared and so on will be controlled, but anybody can sit in a court and listen to the whole thing, unredacted. I am not quite sure that I understand the absolute focus on transcripts being redacted. If someone could have sat in that court and written down what was said, word for word, why are we worried about its being redacted? The judge is the person who can say, “You can’t report that, beyond what you’ve heard,” but, separately, why are we so much more concerned about transcripts than we would be about open court, where everyone can hear the whole thing?
Sarah Sackman
It is context specific, which is exactly why we have a study: to test the level of accuracy. Accuracy is really important; we do not want a lot of judicial time to be taken up reviewing the accuracy of transcripts before they can be put out. That would not be a good use of judge time, which should be spent running trials and getting them concluded. In some contexts, most obviously in family law, redaction is really important.
Jess Brown-Fuller
On the shadow Minister’s point, does the Minister agree that, especially for victims of serious crime, there can often be things in court transcripts that might, without giving addresses, clearly describe the location where something happened? Although the shadow Minister is right to say that anybody can attend a trial, that could be used subsequently to retraumatise somebody, because they would be aware of exactly where something happened. It could also identify someone’s address, for example if it refers to the corner shop at the end of their road: even if the address may be redacted, the detail is not always. Does the Minister agree that redaction plays a really important part in protecting vulnerable witnesses and victims?
Sarah Sackman
Yes, I do. This is why we have to get this right. As I say, we are firmly committed to improving transparency across the system and making a success of it, but those changes have to be balanced against the operational realities and the financial realities in which our court system operates.
Proposed new section 108S of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, to be inserted by schedule 2 to the Bill, will already provide the power for the rules of court to provide free transcripts to any person the Secretary of State directs. The amendment is therefore not required, as the intended effect will already be achieved under the current drafting.
We have taken significant steps to strengthen transparency, including expanding transcript provision, so that all victims who want them will be able to request free transcripts of Crown court sentencing remarks directly relevant to their case from as early as spring 2027. That is a meaningful step forward for victims. In cases of public interest, Crown court sentencing remarks are already published online, and broadcasters are able to film sentencing remarks in the Crown court with the agreement of the judge.
We are focused on driving improvement for the longer term, exploring how technology, including AI, can reduce the cost of transcript production in future and make it more widely available. That is why we are undertaking a study into the use of AI transcription in court hearings. All this work will provide this Parliament and future Parliaments with an evidence base for future decisions about how transcript provision could be expanded in a way that is operationally sustainable and delivers real-world benefits for victims, including in the magistrates court, over time, as recording capability expands.
Rebecca Paul
One thing I have increasingly noticed, particularly in high-profile cases, is that people live-tweet, setting out exactly what is going on. That is another thing to bear in mind. I very much welcome the progress that the Minister has set out, but in the world of social media it is important that people, and particularly victims, can get an accurate transcript as easily as possible, especially if something inaccurate has been tweeted out.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady raises a valid point. All sorts of work needs to be undertaken about the use of social media in courtrooms, whether by juries or other participants, and where that is and is not appropriate, particularly in the context of reporting restrictions that are put in place for a good reason. But on this point, we think that the amendment is not needed. We can continue to make progress informed by an evidence base. For those reasons, although we are in real consensus on the principle of this, I urge the hon. Member for Chichester to withdraw her amendment.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I appreciate the Minister’s constructive collaboration on this issue, but as it is my job to hold the Government’s feet to the fire, I will press amendment 17 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 8, page 19, line 13, after “charge” insert—
“including any behaviour or communication preceding the charge that is connected to the event itself”.
Yasmin Qureshi
I will not press the amendment, which is self-explanatory, to a vote, but I ask the Committee and the Minister to think about it.
Dr Mullan
We now come to a series of considerably less contentious clauses, including clause 8, relating to the admissibility of evidence in our criminal courts. This area of the Bill deals with the sensitive and often contentious issue of sexual history evidence. Of course, we want victims of rape, sexual violence and domestic abuse to experience a justice system that treats them with dignity and protects them from irrelevant, prejudicial attacks. Complainants can be subject to questioning that is invasive and distressing, that may not be relevant or may hold little or no genuine relevance to the legal issues at hand.
Clause 8 seeks to tighten and clarify the rules governing when a complainant’s previous sexual behaviour can be introduced as evidence. The underlying principle is that a complainant should not have their credibility undermined through assumptions, stereotypes or what are often described as rape myths regarding their past.
To achieve this, the clause will replace the current model with a more rigorous admissibility framework. Under the new rules, such evidence may be admitted only if it meets one of two criteria: it must have substantial probative value in relation to a matter of substantial importance to the case as a whole, or it must constitute important explanatory evidence. This shift is intended to ensure that only genuinely relevant material is put before the court.
Furthermore, the clause explicitly requires the court to consider whether the suggested value of the evidence relies on inferences that cannot be properly drawn, to avoid the situation in which evidence is admitted with the defence knowing what inferences be drawn even if it would not be proper to do so. That is another important safeguard designed to prevent the trial process from being distorted by prejudice.
Although the Opposition support the aim of ensuring better protection for complainants, our role in Committee is to ensure that the law is not only well intentioned, but clear, workable and consistent with the right to a fair trial. I am sure the Minister agrees that there cannot be a blanket ban on the admission of this sort of evidence where it meets those tests.
I have a number of questions in relation to the need to ensure that the measure does not create any unintended procedural hurdles. To forewarn the Minister, this will be a consistent question across these clauses, but what assessment has been made to ensure that the substantial probative value threshold is sufficiently precise—not sufficiently high or low, but sufficiently precise—to meet both sides of the coin, and that it is workable in practice? How do the Government intend to monitor the application of the new framework to ensure that it delivers the intended protection for complainants? Is the Minister confident that the drafting strikes the correct balance between protecting victims from inappropriate and invasive questioning and upholding the fundamental right of a defendant to a fair trial?
The need for reform in this area has been well argued, and protecting victims from irrelevant and prejudicial questioning is a goal we all share. However, as I have said, the Committee’s task is to ensure that this clause is the right approach. That is something we should continue to explore throughout the later stages of the Bill.
Rebecca Paul
It is truly a pleasure to get to a part of the Bill on which I suspect we will agree more than we will not. I think we will all find that rather refreshing after the last few sittings.
Clause 8 seeks to introduce a new framework governing the admissibility of evidence about the previous sexual behaviour of the complainant. I very much welcome the fact that we are now having this debate and looking to address some of the issues we currently see in the justice system with respect to sexual assault crimes. Rape and sexual violence are horrendous crimes that have a lifelong impact on victims. In oral evidence, we heard this directly from some of the brave witnesses who testified, and I thank them for giving their time so generously and for speaking so honestly and courageously. What was made very clear is that they are keen to see change in how the justice system deals with these types of offences. They want to see justice done swiftly and considerately.
It takes a huge amount of bravery for an individual to report these types of crimes and to pursue their attacker through the courts, so we must do all we can to ensure that the process is quick, supportive, effective and efficient for them, while preserving the principles of natural justice. Although I may disagree with some victims on the limitation of jury trials being a way to achieve this, I share the same ambition: to speed up the process so that justice is no longer delayed and denied.
It is important to remember that most of these crimes are committed by someone the victims knows, making the process even more of an intrusive ordeal. It is deeply personal. That is why it is important to treat victims with respect and care, not to diminish their experiences or feelings, and not to make them feel like they are the ones on trial. It is incredibly important not only for justice, but for deterrence purposes, that the state sends a clear message that those guilty of such crimes will face the consequences. This is much needed at a time when violence against women and girls is rife in our communities. If the state can get this right, we should see more victims coming forward and being more willing to undergo the stress of a trial in the confidence that justice will prevail.
In June 2021, the Conservative Government published the findings of an end-to-end review of the criminal justice system response to rape, which they referred to as the rape review. What it found made for difficult reading. In the prior five years, there had been a significant decline in the number of charges and prosecutions for rape cases and, consequently, fewer convictions. One in two victims were withdrawing from rape investigations, demonstrating a big problem. The Home Secretary at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said:
“We are not prepared to accept that rape is just ‘too difficult’ a crime to prosecute. We can, and must, do better.”
The review set out that there are an estimated 128,000 victims of rape a year, that less than 20% of victims of rape report to the police, and that only 1.6% of rapes that are reported result in someone being charged. That means that considerably fewer than one in every 100 rapes actually leads to justice for the victim. That shows the scale of the issue. One of the actions set out was that
“only evidence about the victim that is pertinent to the case should be used at court and a victim’s credibility should not be undermined by pre-conceptions or rape myths.”
In the final recommendations issued by the Law Commission in 2025, it was made clear that the use of evidence relating to the previous sexual behaviour of the complainant—for example, previous consensual sex between the defendant and complainant, or between a defendant and a third party—is highly distressing, humiliating and even traumatising, and is often irrelevant and can prejudice a case.
The admission of sexual behaviour evidence has, rightly, long been restricted through so-called “rape shield” legislation, which applies specifically to a trial where a person is charged with a sexual offence. No question can be asked about the sexual behaviour of the complainant without the leave of the court, and various gateways are considered in determining that. However, the Law Commission has criticised those gateways for being too restrictive, too broad and too complicated.
Clause 8 seeks to address some of the issues raised by the Law Commission, and has incorporated the stage 1 recommendation accordingly. It amends the conditions that must be met before a defendant can adduce sexual behaviour evidence or ask questions intended to elicit evidence of sexual behaviour in criminal proceedings. It ensures that such evidence may be admitted only if it
“has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—
(i) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and
(ii) is of substantial importance in...the case as a whole”.
However, clause 8 does not include stage 2 of the two-stage framework suggested by the Law Commission, which prohibits the use of sexual behaviour evidence unless its admission would not significantly prejudice the proper administration of justice. The Law Commission has raised that specific deviation in its written evidence. I ask the Minister to give her reasoning for not adopting the second stage, so that we are all clear.
It is reassuring to see the Bar Council welcoming the changes brought by clause 8, which it says
“provide appropriate safeguards for victims and for fairness of trials.”
The Law Society also supports the proposals, along with many other rape crisis and women’s organisations. Having said that, I note that a joint letter from Rape Crisis England & Wales, the Centre for Women’s Justice, Rights of Women, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Imkaan, while welcoming much of clause 8, raises some specific concerns. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister on those points and whether she intends to make any changes.
Dr Mullan
I mentioned this point in my speech, but I will repeat that these clauses interact with the other elements of the Bill that will remove juries. Under the older jury trial system, the judge decides on things that the jury will never hear, so if something is made inadmissible, there is no question at all of it colouring the judgment. Of course, if we remove the jury in potentially more serious cases, we can have all this legislation and all these things that become technically inadmissible, but as we have talked about, we are then relying on the intellectual operation of the judge’s mind. Whether or not people think it is right for them to draw a direct conclusion, it is a matter of fact that judges are a group of people who are more distant and removed from the people we are concerned about. For example, if we are talking about women and girls, judges are more likely to be men. Those are the issues that will become more contentious as a result of the other changes in the Bill.
Rebecca Paul
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. There is a lot that is positive about the clause, but, as he rightly says, we have to think about it in the context of all the other changes. Unfortunately, we could find that the other changes unwind the good that is done by this clause. That said, it is still a positive clause, and I am pleased to see it in the Bill and to debate it today.
Lastly, I want to flag that in its evidence, Victim Not Suspect notes a need to address verification and/or the reliability of digital evidence, which it believes is relevant to the admissibility test and has not been addressed in the Bill. It would be useful to hear the Minister’s view on that matter too. Victim Not Suspect says:
“Without forensic verification, including IP address data, account ownership confirmation from platforms such as Meta, and metadata examination, there is no reliable basis for assessing authorship.”
That is a point of detail, but it could become important in certain cases, so it is worth bearing in mind. There may be scope to improve and tighten that up in the Bill during its further progress, which is why I have flagged it to the Minister.
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for tabling amendment 67.
The speech that the hon. Member for Reigate just made was not only helpful and constructive, as is so often the case, but really compelling. At a societal level, we have been on a journey with regard to how we approach rape and serious sexual violence. There is a recognition that for far too long not only has the court been in danger of becoming a site for re-traumatisation, but frankly the response of our entire criminal justice system has been inadequate to meet what is now widely recognised to be an epidemic of violence against women and girls in our society. Unless we send a message at the very pinnacle of the criminal justice system that that is unacceptable and we cannot tolerate it, and get serious about conviction rates, the amount of charging decisions and the number of cases that come to court, we will not deter people from this kind of behaviour. Her speech setting that out, and some of the work that was done before this Parliament to get here, was very valuable.
Let me begin by setting out the rationale for clause 8, and then turn to amendment 67. Far too many victims of rape are dropping out of the justice system because they feel that they are the ones on trial. That needs to stop. Following the Law Commission’s careful consultation, the Bill will stop rape myths and misconceptions entering our court rooms. Clauses 8 to 11 will raise the threshold so that a victim’s past sexual history or previous allegations can be used only when necessary and relevant. The reforms will also prevent the defence from insinuating that victims are lying or motivated only by money just because they claimed compensation or reported a previous offence. We will also allow patterns of domestic abuse, of any type and against any victim, to be shown to the court in cases where they indicate a propensity for further offending.
All those measures sit alongside the Government’s wider efforts to improve the victim experience of the justice system. This Government have already implemented special protections for victims’ counselling records. We have commissioned a new project led by Professor Katrin Hohl to bring Operation Soteria into the courtroom. We are rolling out trauma-informed training for not just judges but all court staff, and we have dedicated £6 million, to be invested over the next two years, to deliver independent legal advice for rape victims. Taken together, these measures are transformative.
Clause 8 reforms the framework that governs when sexual behaviour evidence about a complainant may be introduced in criminal proceedings. Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 sets out important protections intended to prevent irrelevant or prejudicial material about a complainant’s previous sexual behaviour from being placed before the court. The Law Commission’s consultation found that the current provisions are complex and difficult to navigate, and that they are not being applied consistently across cases. That speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about monitoring the new framework, but some of this has been driven by the monitoring of the existing framework, and ensuring, by codifying the test, greater consistency of practice.
As a result of that complexity and inconsistency, there are some instances where sexual behaviour evidence about a victim’s previous sexual behaviour is admitted to a court and heard by a jury, despite it having no real bearing on the case. Simplifying the law will help judges to apply a clearer and more coherent test. Clause 8 replaces the existing statutory gateways with a clearer admissibility test. It will continue to be the case that sexual behaviour evidence should not be admitted into the court unless approval is granted by the judge. Judges must consider whether the evidence has substantial probative value. The clause also requires judges to consider a series of statutory factors, including whether the evidence relies on improper inferences, rape myths or misconceptions.
These reforms clarify the law, rather than altering the threshold per se. They reflect principles that are already applied by courts but set them out in a more structured way, which will improve consistency and transparency. We will also extend the new threshold to all offence types, not only sexual offences. This is because issues relating to a victim’s past sexual behaviour may occasionally arise in other trials, and complainants in those cases should benefit from the same safeguards and be treated equally.
The purpose of the clause is not to prevent a defendant from having a fair trial or to exclude evidence that is genuinely relevant; it is to ensure that decisions about admissibility are based on proper evidential reasoning and not on prejudicial assumptions. For that reason, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Amendment 67, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, seeks to exclude from the proposed admissibility threshold any sexual behaviour evidence that took place prior to the charge, but that is connected to the offence. That goes against the purpose of the clause, which as I have said is to ensure that sexual behaviour from a victim’s past is admitted only when it has clear relevance to a significant issue in the case or is important explanatory evidence. That is to prevent evidence that relies solely on perpetuating rape myths and misconceptions from being used against a victim.
The amendment, which as we have heard has support from across the combating violence against women and girls sector, would significantly broaden the amount of sexual behaviour evidence that the defence could bring to court without any consideration from the judge, including evidence that neither has substantial probative value nor is important explanatory evidence.
Sexual behaviour evidence connected to the event itself could, for example, include any previous sexual behaviour between the same two parties, even though we know that the majority of sexual violence occurs within a relationship. That would allow a huge amount of sexual behaviour evidence to be brought into court entirely unscrutinised and unfiltered by the judge. Insinuating that because a victim has previously engaged in sexual behaviour of the same kind or with the same defendant they are somehow more likely to have consented to the events on trial is a well-known misconception.
Whether or not that was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington in tabling the amendment, the effect would be to perpetuate this narrative, and we cannot accept it. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden to withdraw the amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 9, page 20, line 12, leave out “substantial probative value” and insert “relevance”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 9, page 20, line 32, at end insert—
“(8) Where a compensation claim has been made, or an attempt to make a claim has been made, disclosure of the details of that claim is relevant notwithstanding that an application for leave has not been made.”
Clause stand part.
Yasmin Qureshi
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The amendments are fairly self-explanatory: they just ask to insert a few words. I will leave it at that.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have you guiding us through the second part of the proceedings today, Ms Jardine.
Clause 9 is part of a rolling set of clauses about the admissibility of evidence. Our task is to ensure that, while we protect complainants from being retraumatised by intrusive lines of questioning, we also maintain a legal framework that is clear, workable and consistent with the fundamental right to a fair trial.
Clause 9 specifically addresses the use of evidence regarding compensation claims made by complainants in sexual offence cases. Under current practices, complainants are sometimes discredited or have their credibility attacked simply because they have sought compensation for the harm they say they have suffered. It is entirely fair and reasonable, and a valid part of our law, for someone to pursue a criminal case and also seek financial compensation. But sometimes there is an underlying misconception that the act of seeking compensation, on its own and without any more evidence, means that the original criminal complaint may have been fabricated.
To address that, clause 9 introduces the following measures: a leave requirement, which means that evidence about a compensation claim cannot be introduced without the court’s explicit permission, and an admissibility threshold, under which a court may admit such evidence only if it has “substantial probative value” in relation to a matter of “substantial importance” to the case as a whole. The goal is to ensure that irrelevant or purely prejudicial material is excluded, while still allowing genuinely probative evidence to be heard when the interests of justice require it. The law must guard against unfair insinuations, but the admissibility test must be applied with precision and discipline. While the objective of protecting complainants from unfair discredit is welcome, there are practical and legal implications that require clarification.
As I have said to the Minister, some of my questions will be consistent throughout the clauses. Can she elaborate on how she expects the courts to interpret the terms “substantial probative value” and “substantial importance”, and outline how the Government will seek to ensure that the restriction does not prevent a defendant from exploring the full circumstances of the case?
Is the Minister confident that the current drafting provides judges and practitioners with a clear enough structure to apply the principles consistently across different courts without creating a postcode lottery? In terms of monitoring and evaluation, what work will the Government do to ensure that these new measures have the desired impact?
Clause 9 is straightforward: its premise is that a victim should not be put on trial for seeking the compensation they are entitled to under the law. Excluding irrelevant and prejudicial material can help ensure that the trial remains focused on the actual evidence of the offence. However, we must be diligent in our scrutiny to ensure that the drafting delivers those protections without compromising the procedural rigour that a fair justice system demands.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
As with the previous debate, I will set out the rationale for clause 9 and then turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris).
Clause 9 will create a high admissibility threshold for evidence about a complainant’s compensation claims in sexual offence prosecutions. That could include evidence that a victim has made a compensation claim in relation to the offence being tried, the amount of money awarded as compensation, details of the claim or the fact that compensation was refused. The Law Commission report made clear that compensation claim evidence is disproportionately requested in sexual offence cases, and that, in some instances, it is used by the defence to insinuate that a victim has fabricated an allegation for financial gain. That kind of reasoning lacks a legitimate basis and risks unfairly undermining victims.
This measure will ensure that such evidence cannot be admitted when its sole purpose is to introduce or perpetuate misconceptions about why survivors come forward. Instead, a judge will be able to admit compensation claim evidence only when it has substantial probative value to a genuinely important issue in the case. These reforms therefore strengthen protections for claimants while maintaining the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
I will respond to the questions from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. He fairly raises the issue of how we can assess that these tests are being applied fairly and consistently. That will obviously take time as they bed in, but, in many ways, the precise rationale behind these changes is to codify, clarify and simplify tests that already exist for the treatment of evidence in these cases and to assist our judges to use them fairly. There is no doubt that future Ministers and others with responsibility for this issue will want to know that it is working as intended. No doubt studies can be undertaken in the future. I commend clause 9 to the Committee.
I turn to amendment 68. The Law Commission’s review made clear that compensation claim evidence is disproportionately requested in sexual offences cases, as I have said. That is precisely why we have introduced the high admissibility threshold in the Bill. The amendment asks for a threshold of merely “relevance”, which is lower than the statutory threshold we propose. If we were to accept it, it would not give complainants any additional protections above the current status quo, despite the Law Commission identifying a clear issue with how this evidence is currently being requested and used. For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 69 focuses on the disclosure of evidence to the defence before an application is made to admit that evidence to the courtroom. However, the clause does not change the test that the prosecution must currently apply when considering whether to disclose details of a complainant’s compensation claim to the defence. Instead, it focuses on the stage after the prosecution and defence have reviewed the evidence, and asks the judge to consider whether the evidence indeed has substantial probative value and can therefore be relied on in court.
As the clause stands, the case will remain that the prosecutor must disclose to the defence any material that might be considered capable of undermining or assisting the case of the accused—that is only fair—and that includes the compensation claim evidence. The defence, in cases involving sexual offences, can then consider how they wish to bring that forward. For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden not to press the amendment to a vote.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Evidence about previous false complaints relating to sexual offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Sackman
Clause 10 sets out that evidence or questioning about a victim’s previous allegation of a sexual offence may be admitted only when there is a proper evidential basis for doing so. It also clarifies that certain facts do not, by themselves, mean that a previous allegation was untrue. Those include: if the victim did not report the offence to the police; where an allegation did not result in a charge or conviction; and where a victim withdraws from proceedings.
The Law Commission’s report, alongside the sector campaign “Bad Experiences, not Bad Character”, identified inconsistencies in how courts currently approach previous allegations in sexual offence trials. There have been instances where previous unproven allegations have been raised to suggest, without evidence, that a victim is unreliable by insinuating that such allegations were false. That risks reinforcing myths and misconceptions, making the trial process a traumatic one for the complainant.
This measure will maintain a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Judges will still be able to admit evidence about a complainant’s previous allegations when there is a proper evidential basis for doing so. The clause simply creates a clearer and more consistent statutory test to ensure that such decisions are based on sound evidence rather than speculation. Victims should feel confident that a previous allegation will not be unfairly used against them in the courtroom. Clause 10 strengthens the integrity of the trial process while supporting complainants and survivors to come forward and engage in the justice system.
Dr Mullan
As the Minister said, we are considering the next iteration of the question of admissibility, which addresses the evidentiary rules regarding previous false complaints in sexual offence cases. This is a sensitive area of criminal law where the pursuit of truth must be carefully balanced against the need to protect complainants from unfounded attacks on their character. The primary objective is to ensure that trials remain focused on the actual facts of the case at hand rather than being diverted by speculative allegations that a claimant has made false allegations in the past. The Law Society and Bar Council have indicated their support for this measure; they recognise that it brings clarity to the statutory framework governing bad character and credibility.
The central feature of clause 10 is the introduction of a requirement for a “proper evidential basis” before any suggestion can be made that a complainant has previously fabricated an allegation of sexual offending. Currently, there is an ever-present danger that the defendant may attempt to undermine a complainant’s honesty by pointing to past allegations that simply did not result in a conviction. That is related to the challenges that we discussed in the debate on clause 8 regarding the difficulty of complainants when it comes to seeing a case through to the end—either because of the delays in the courts, which we are all concerned about; challenges with the police; or fears or concerns they might have about how their case was treated in the courts. There could be a whole series of reasons why a complainant does not pursue an allegation through to its fullest conclusion, none of which have anything to do with the allegation being false.
Under the clause, the following factors are explicitly excluded from being used as sole proof of a false complaint: the fact that a previous allegation was denied; the fact that a previous case did not lead to a charge or result in an acquittal; any delay by the complainant in reporting the previous matter; and a complainant’s decision not to pursue or support prosecution in the past. By codifying those exclusions, the Bill aims to eliminate the use of unsupported assertions and ensure that the court does not rely on assumptions or stereotypes that are frequently used to imply that a complainant is untruthful. This is a helpful step in reforming the trial processes by ensuring that a defendant’s conduct and not the complainant’s history remains the focus of the jury.
While the principle of clause 10 is sound, its success depends on how the courts interpret and apply the proper evidential basis test. We must ensure that this framework is robust enough to shield victims from speculative and prejudicial questioning while still being fair to the defendant.
I have some questions for the Minister. Can she provide the Government’s thinking on what a proper evidential basis will look like? Do the Government envisage it requiring independent, objective proof of falsity, such as a previous conviction for perverting the course of justice, or will a lower standard suffice? Is the Minister confident that the current wording provides a road map clear enough to prevent judges from applying different standards? I want to address the gap in the data and understand how the measure will be implemented.
In relation to previous complaints, very sadly there are victims of violence against women and girls who have been affected hundreds of times. Will the Minister explain what would happen if some of these “for exclusion” criteria had occurred at an extraordinary rate? If a complainant’s decision not to pursue or support a prosecution relating to a crime that happened hundreds of times, that could in itself be relevant. It would not necessarily be so—they may have chosen hundreds of times not to support a prosecution. However, unlike other elements of the Bill, the clause is highly specific in what it is excluding, so I want to check whether there is any flexibility for the judge so that, in extremis, they can still admit the evidence, or whether there is a hard no, regardless of circumstances.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Rape Crisis has pointed out that current practice ignores the fact that women are often subjected to multiple instances of sexual violence in their lives. Survivors have told Rape Crisis that they feel disbelieved, blamed and retraumatised when they simply try to seek justice. SafeLives and End Violence Against Women are both in favour of the reforms in clause 10. It is worth pointing out that black and minoritised women are disproportionately harmed in the criminal justice system by misuse of bad character evidence.
Office for National Statistics data shows that one in two adult survivors of rape have been raped more than once. The National Police Chiefs’ Council strategic risk assessment 2023 identified that 25% of victim survivors were repeat victims of violence against women and girls. The drafting of clause 10 reflects calls from a coalition of women’s rights groups for section 100 to be amended in this way. It was drafted and supported by the Centre for Women’s Justice, and the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support it.
Sarah Sackman
I welcome the support from Members across the Committee for clause 10. A proper evidential basis is defined in the Bill as ensuring that there is material before the court that shows both that the complainant made the previous allegation and that the previous allegation was false. I do not want to elaborate on the test, and thereby in any way tie the hands of the judge hearing the evidence in the case. The tests and the clear structure set out in the Bill will enable and empower the judge to test whether there is an evidential basis for the claim and whether it has probative value and relevance to the issues at hand. The judge will then be able to take a view on whether it can be included and put to a witness.
There will always be cases where the evidence is relevant to the proceedings, both for the prosecution and for the defence. There is certainly no hard rule excluding it altogether.
Dr Mullan
Contrary to our other interactions, I think it reasonable for the Minister just to write to me. I read the Bill to mean that these types of things cannot be included at all, so could she at some point to clarify whether that is the case or whether there is some flexibility at the edges?
Sarah Sackman
I am very happy to do that. I will make that correspondence available to all members of the Committee and the wider public because it is important that, when judges and others are looking to apply the test, they understand the Government’s rationale and understanding of the provisions.
For reasons that others have articulated, this is an important clause, which recognises something that women’s groups and others have been campaigning on for an awfully long time. It can help to change the culture in our criminal justice system for victims of sexual violence.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I would appreciate some clarity from the Minister on the deviation from the recommendations of the Law Commission—again, just so that we are clear. To refresh her memory, the Law Commission, in its written evidence, states that
“Clause 10 does not implement our recommendations in two key respects.
(1) It does not implement our recommendations regarding distinguishing the different categories of evidence and the thresholds that should apply where there is a previous allegation of sexual offending. Nor does it address the confusion about whether FAE should be subjected to the BCE or SBE frameworks”—
that probably means more to the Minister than to me. It goes on:
“As set out above, in our view, if the evidence of an allegation does fall within the definition of ‘sexual behaviour’, the SBE framework should apply. If not, then the bad character framework will apply, or the relevance threshold will apply if the evidence of an allegation is not said to be false or is not alleged to be misconduct.
(2) It does not address the concern that within the BCE framework there is currently no express provision for consideration of the particular risks associated with the sexual nature of previous allegations, as we recommended.”
Sarah Sackman
I will set this out in writing so that, again, the hon. Member and the public have it, but I can say, in essence, that although we agreed with the spirit of the entirety of the Law Commission’s recommendation, our view was that stage 1 of the test, which is effectively reflected in the Bill, already sets a high bar. We thought that that was sufficient in the context and that stage 2— I was asked about this previously—would not add materially to the way in which the test operates. However, I will take the opportunity to give a response to the question that the hon. Member has just asked so that she can interrogate that over time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Evidence of propensity to commit offences involving domestic abuse
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Sackman
Clause 11 will ensure that if a defendant has a previous conviction for domestic abuse—of any type and against any victim—it can be taken into account as evidence of bad character in a further domestic abuse case. That will help courts to recognise relevant patterns of behaviour that might otherwise fall outside narrow offence category boundaries. We know that domestic abuse can take many forms and that patterns of domestic abuse do not always map neatly on to a single type of offending. Recognising those patterns can help juries to understand the context of the offence.
The clause therefore allows previous domestic abuse-related convictions to be admitted as propensity evidence when the statutory test is met. That will include cases in which the previous conviction involved coercive or controlling behaviour, and the current allegation involves a different form of domestic abuse, such as sexual assault against an intimate partner. Our aim is to ensure that courts can consider relevant patterns of abusive behaviour when they provide important context on the issues in the case while maintaining the full range of safeguards that protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Clause 11 completes the package of evidential reforms set out in clauses 8 to 11. Taken together, the measures provide greater clarity, consistency and coherence to the rules governing sensitive evidence. They help to improve the experience of victims—particularly victims of sexual offences—in the criminal justice system while ensuring that trials remain fair and balanced. I urge that clause 11 stand part of the Bill.
Dr Mullan
We now go to the other end of the spectrum and look at this from a different direction by addressing how courts handle evidence of a defendant’s propensity to commit domestic abuse. The provision acknowledges that domestic violence is rarely a series of isolated, vacuum-sealed events; rather, it is often characterised by established patterns of coercion, control and escalation over time, repeated across relationships, although potentially in different ways. When thinking about the precedent in our system, it brings to mind Clare’s law, which we brought in for the very purpose of allowing members of the public to know someone’s domestic abuse history, because we recognised just how common it was for abusers to move from victim to victim.
The primary function of clause 11 is to clarify the rules regarding admissibility in respect of past domestic abuse offending. It establishes that a defendant’s previous conduct can be used to demonstrate an inclination to commit similar crimes, even in instances when the earlier and later offending take different forms. That ensures that the law recognises the underlying reality of abusive relationships, where the specific method of harm may change while the dynamic of power and intimidation remains constant. As we have discussed previously, the prevalence of such behaviour is so great that we have to do whatever we can to support victims.
The Bar Council has noted that while much of such material might already be admissible under existing bad character provisions, clause 11 provides statutory clarity for judges. Of course, the court’s duty is to ensure that a jury does not convict a defendant for a specific charge simply because they have behaved poorly in the past. The evidence has to remain relevant and fair, and to be assessed within the unique context of the case. Nothing about introducing that information stops that from happening, as the jury or judge can weigh it up as they see fit in that regard.
How do the Government intend to ensure that propensity is defined narrowly enough to prevent juries from using a defendant’s past as a shortcut to a verdict? Given the Bar Council’s view that that might already be covered, what did the Minister see as the key gaps between how the law operates at present? What are the direct benefits of clause 11 beyond how things currently operate?
I am personally more hard-line when it comes to bad character admissions and previous convictions. I think the whole system should be much more flexible. We have a tough, rigorous way of finding out if someone is guilty, and we know that previous offending is a massive indicator, across many offence fields, of a propensity to offend again. It is part of natural justice. We all understand that if someone has been found to have done the wrong thing on other occasions, it is quite natural and reasonable for people to give that considerable weight when determining that person’s credibility and reliability, and if they can be trusted.
A lot of court cases come down to the likelihood of something happening—how probable it was that someone did something. The fact that someone has done something similar before is clearly going to weigh heavily on any reasonable opinion former’s mind when deciding whether that person has done the same thing again. We support the clause, which has great merit.
Sarah Sackman
I will be brief. What we have tried to do with the definition of propensity—we think this is the benefit—is to provide clarity and a structured process for judges. Of course, it is important to remember that a trial is not a likelihood test. As we all know, it is a test of the criminal standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, whether it is a judge-made decision or a jury directed by a judge. It is really important, even in the context where bad character evidence is admitted—the issue of propensity is there—that juries are reminded that they have to be absolutely sure that the offence did happen.
A decision cannot be based on the fact that a person did something before and therefore probably did it again. The jury has to be absolutely sure. None of that changes. That standard of criminal proof does not change as a result of clause 11. We hope that, in line with the Law Commission’s recommendations, the measure provides a clear, structured and, above all, consistent series of tests so that, irrespective of where a trial happens in the country, the same approach is taken and there is a shared understanding among judges, juries and practitioners as to what the test is.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Use of screens etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Sackman
We now come to a series of clauses that deal with what happens during the course of trials and the use of special measures—the architecture, so to speak, of what takes place to ensure fairness for all participants. Clause 12 makes an important clarification to the operation of screens in our criminal courts. At present, section 23 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 allows for screens to prevent a witness from seeing the defendant. However, it does not make it explicit that the defendant should be unable to see the witness. In practice, that is almost always how screens are used. When I visited Harrow court, which I am pleased to say recently reopened after three years, I saw that in operation. However, the Law Commission has highlighted that the absence of clear statutory wording has, at times, led to confusion among complainants and practitioners as to who is entitled to what.
Dr Mullan
Clause 12 addresses an important aspect of protection: the use of screens in the courtroom. We must start from the position that special measures are not a luxury or optional administrative add-on; they are often essential to ensuring that the justice system remains capable of hearing evidence properly. We want to enable people to give evidence in the proper way, and victims and vulnerable witnesses must be able to give their best evidence—we always want people to be able to give their best evidence in court—without avoidable distress, intimidation or re-traumatisation.
For many, the prospect of being in the same physical space as the person who harmed them is a primary barrier to their participating in the justice system at all. Clause 12 will strengthen and clarify current provisions by creating a clearer statutory footing for the use of screens. Specifically, when a witness is providing testimony via live link or through a pre-recorded cross-examination, the clause will require the court to consider whether a screen should be provided. Crucially, the clause clarifies that that protection should operate in both directions: not just preventing the witness from seeing the accused, but shielding the witness from the accused’s gaze as well. That increased clarity is intended to support consistency in practice across the country.
For many victims, particularly those of sexual violence or domestic abuse, the physical presence of the accused is a source of profound distress that can affect their memory and the clarity of their evidence. The current application of these measures can be inconsistent, leading to what practitioners describe as a postcode lottery. By establishing a presumption in favour of screens unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice, the law recognises the practical reality. However, we must ensure that that presumption is not merely a tick-box exercise, but achieved effectively through things such as either-way screens.
We must recognise, as we have at several points in Committee, the challenge presented by the fabric of some of our courtroom buildings and their facilities. Evidence provided to the Committee—this is also highlighted by Sir Brian Leveson—suggests that malfunctioning equipment and poor infrastructure continue to create problems, specifically in relation to using special measures. A stronger use of screens can be mandated but, if the physical layout of the court and its facilities are insufficient, that will hamper the clause’s benefit.
What survey or review have the Government undertaken, or do they plan to undertake, to ensure that there are no physical barriers to the use of screens in this way? I suspect that, on a physical basis, it is easier to have screens just in one direction rather than two, and it probably involves different equipment and facilities. It would be good to get the Minister’s view on any barriers that might practically limit the intention of this measure.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Clause 12 stipulates that when a direction allows evidence by live link or pre-recorded cross examination, screens must also be provided unless that would be contrary to the interests of justice, such as due to preventing the adequate testing of evidence. It also clarifies under a special measure direction that a screen may be used to prevent either the witness from seeing the accused or the accused from seeing the witness. The Liberal Democrats welcome the clause.
Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses are entitled to a number of additional measures to protect them from defendants. When the Law Commission conducted a review of these measures in relation to sexual offences cases, it came up with a number of recommendations, although the Government have chosen not to take forward some of them, such as introducing automatic entitlement for sexual offence complainants or providing complainants with independent legal advice on their entitlement to special measures.
It would be helpful to understand from the Minister why the Government chose not to introduce those recommendations, which would have turned special measures into almost standard measures. The blanket introduction of these measures would save administrative time and cost. I recognise that this is anecdotal, but the judges I have spoken to have said that if they get a request for special measures, they never refuse it.
Surely by reversing the onus and introducing the special measures as standard, we would still provide an opportunity for victims to opt out of those measures if they have a particular desire to see, or to look into the eyes of, their defendant, but if they did not wish to do so, they would be, at the very minimum, provided with protections. If this was the standard approach, it would also give more women—this affects mostly women—the confidence to come forward knowing that their court experience is going to protect them.
On a recent visit to Chichester Crown court—I thank the Minister for committing to reopening that court fully—His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service talked about creating videos for those who are coming to give evidence, with the opportunity to have a virtual walk-through of the court. If vulnerable witnesses and victims were able to watch a walk-through to see exactly what measures could be put in place as standard to protect them, I imagine that would provide much more reassurance than saying, “This is what you are seeing, but there are also additional special measures that you can apply for.”
Introducing these measures as standard would also take away the stigma of being associated as a vulnerable witness. We talk a lot about victims. Some victims do not want to be described as victims; they want to be described as survivors. We talk about vulnerability. If we had these measures as standard, we would be acknowledging that vulnerability is expected, but that there is no stigma around it and that the courts have mitigated it, without being asked to do so.
The measures are backed by various victims groups, such as Women Against Rape, and by the Victims’ Commissioner. It would be helpful if the Minister could highlight whether the Government plan to go further and make these special measures standard.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester for the points she raised. In many respects, they are well made, and they consider people’s choice architecture—for want of a better phrase—their understanding of what they might be entitled to request, and whether we should default to providing all the special measures or maintaining, as we say we should, a tailored case-by-case assessment of the needs of the witness or the complainant. It is a tricky one.
We want to make sure that, where there is a proper basis for it, special measures can be provided to those who need them and where the judge agrees that they are needed. The hon. Member is right that in the vast majority of cases, the request for special measures or to give evidence by video link is approved— it is almost always approved—but there might be cases when, for reasons of trial fairness, that is not the case. The tailored approach is one that we regard as proportionate.
This also relates to the points made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about court layout and some of the physical constraints that exist within some of our Crown courts. We do not want a postcode lottery. We want consistency, which is what so much of the Bill is designed to achieve. However, we also have to acknowledge that in some of our Crown court centres, the physical constraints are real. That does not necessarily relate to screens, but it might relate to the entrance and exit. For example, there are limitations on the ideal situation of a complainant being able to avoid having to pass a defendant, which might be undesirable for all sorts of reasons. There are some courtrooms in which that simply is not possible without huge capital investment to change the physical structure.
Hon. Members have raised legitimate points and I understand the thinking behind them. We think that in the circumstances, and given that victims have a wide range of needs, a tailored approach, based on a detailed needs assessment, is the most effective approach, but we will continue to consider the situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Witness to be accompanied while giving evidence
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 13, page 27, line 37, at end insert—
“(7) Disclosure of the details of any connection between the independent supporter and the complainant is required prior to seeking the court’s agreement of the independent supporter.”
This proposed addition is simple. The clause centres on witnesses being accompanied while giving evidence. Essentially, it states that if somebody wants another person to accompany them, they should be able to do so if the court is satisfied that they meet the various criteria. The amendment proposes a seventh criterion requiring that the independent supporter must not be a connected person—that is, a friend, a member of the family or a relative. That is for an important reason: we know that in offences involving domestic abuse or sexual offences, the victims and witnesses can be traumatised, distressed and vulnerable, in which case they can be suggestible when it comes to comments, ideas or suggestions about something that they might not even have seen. That is why the person accompanying the witness should be independent.
I shall illustrate that argument by explaining what happens to children’s evidence when taken as evidence in chief. Often, a specialist lawyer, police officer or even psychologist is present when children give evidence. Sometimes, photographs, diagrams or pictures are shown to the children so as to elicit the best evidence out of them. Whenever such a trial takes place, the notes that a psychologist or other trained person has taken, and the pictures they may have shown to the child to get the best evidence, are adduced in court. There is always a suggestion that the person carrying out the interview may deliberately or inadvertently have put an idea in the head of the child, who may end up saying something that did not actually happen or emphasise that something was stronger than it was.
This small amendment says that this approach should apply to adults as well. It says that the connected person must not be family, a friend or a relative. Often, the first person a victim will talk to will be a friend or family member. I do not think that that would be very good. At the end of the day, we want to make sure that convictions are safe and that the best evidence comes through.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in connection to clause 13 and amendment 70, which are about how witnesses are supported while navigating the potentially stressful environment of the courtroom. Giving evidence in criminal proceedings is inevitably going to be stressful for many people. For victims of crime, including but not limited to victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse—any crime, really—the presence of an individual to support them in the process can mean the difference between successfully completing their testimony and being overwhelmed by the process.
Sarah Sackman
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for tabling the amendment and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for moving it today. While I recognise the concern that the amendment is seeking to address—specifically, the transparency about the relationship between complainants and independent supporters—the Government do not consider it necessary to include an express requirement in the legislation to disclose that relationship at the point of application.
Witness supporters are already an important and well-established feature of court proceedings. The court environment can be daunting for many vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. The presence of a trained professional supporter, such as an independent domestic violence adviser or an independent sexual violence adviser—an IDVA or ISVA—can play an important role in helping them feel more at ease while giving evidence.
Clause 13 places that established practice on a clear statutory footing by recognising the use of a professional supporter as a distinct special measure, alongside a presumption that it may be used by a vulnerable, intimidated witness where the supporter is a professional. In practice, details of the proposed independent supporter, including their relationship to the witness, are disclosed to the court before permission is granted to them to accompany the witness. A professional supporter must have no connection to the case in question, and cannot themselves be a witness. That approach will continue unchanged when the use of a supporter is formalised as a special measure.
As clause 13 makes clear, the court must also be satisfied that a supporter’s presence is not contrary to the interests of justice—an assessment that includes consideration of any potential adverse effects that the supporter may have on the fairness of the proceedings. Against that backdrop, we do not think that the amendment would add any substantive value or additional protection, given that all that information already forms part of a court’s decision-making process as to whether to permit the witness supporter. The term “independent supporter” is defined in the Bill, and the courts retain full discretion as to who can act in that capacity based on the factors that I have alluded to and while maintaining trial fairness. For those reasons, we do not think that the amendment is additive. I urge the hon. Member to seek to withdraw the amendment.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Sackman
Clause 13 introduces an important new special measure, which will make a real and tangible difference to vulnerable or intimidated witnesses who come before our courts. It enables them to be accompanied by a supporter when giving evidence to reassure them and help them to give their best evidence. Crucially, it creates a rebuttable presumption that a trained professional such as an IDVA or ISVA will be allowed to accompany the witness. These specialists play a vital role in helping witnesses navigate an often stressful and emotionally demanding experience. A presumption helps ensure that this is consistently accessible across our criminal courts.
While section 24 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 already permits witnesses giving evidence via a live link to be supported in this way, and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 create a presumption in favour of support from IDVAs or ISVAs, the Law Commission has highlighted that practice on the ground remains inconsistent.
Despite existing provisions, some witnesses who would benefit from the presence of a supporter are still unable to access that assistance. Such inconsistency both undermines witnesses’ confidence and risks adversely affecting the quality of the evidence that they can provide. By improving access to supporters, clause 13 improves the experience of vulnerable complainants and witnesses, while helping to maximise the quality of the evidence that they can give. I commend clause 13 to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I ask the Minister to think about everything I said about the previous amendment. The Minister mentioned that there is a definition in the Bill. However, “definition” is open to interpretation. The Bill just says:
“an individual who performs a role which involves the provision of support to witnesses in criminal proceedings or victims of criminal conduct, where the support relates to those proceedings or that conduct.”
It seems to me that that could be anyone who says that they perform a role in supporting a witness. It is extremely open. The Minister rightly pointed to two specific roles that are well recognised and understood. However, the Bill does not say that—it does not say “IDVAs or ISVAs”; it just says an “independent supporter”. Questions about the previous amendment also apply here: what in the definition means that it could not be someone’s family member? There is not any kind of specification.
My understanding was that there might be further definition in secondary legislation. Could the Minister clarify whether there will be an attempt at further definition, either in secondary legislation or in criminal practice rules? I do not think that the definition is suitably robust at present. The Minister is not using it—because when the Minister is talking, she refers to the two very well-established and recognised roles that we all understand. However, that is not what is happening in the clause.
We are minded not to oppose the clause, but it appears to suggest that anyone can be an independent supporter. It does not even say that the court must test that; it suggests that if someone says they are an independent supporter, they are in. That cannot be what the Government intended. To avoid an unnecessary vote, perhaps the Minister could offer further clarification, unless I have misunderstood and there will be secondary legislation that provides further definition.
Sarah Sackman
I seek to assist the Committee, as I do not want us to get this wrong. The purpose of the definition is to exclude non-professional supporters or those who do not habitually perform a role in supporting witnesses. That is the intent. The fact that the court must also be satisfied that the support is not contrary to the interests of justice is an important protection in relation to who can and cannot perform the function. I do not think that necessarily excludes the fact that one could, in theory, have a relative perform it. I am, again, happy to provide that clarification so that there is no issue with the Committee not having the full information.
Dr Mullan
I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on that. I think there would be good reason to say that the supporter should not really be a family member. That is not how the system has been operating at present; it has been operating with professionals. I take the Minister’s point about the preceding clause, but the Government should perhaps be clearer about what they expect. I would not be neutral about whether a family member should sit with someone in that situation.
Sarah Sackman
I understand the point. In the circumstances, I would prefer to take officials’ advice and check that the legislation is doing what it intends to—providing a consistent practice of professional witness support, while maintaining trial fairness. I do not want to misdirect myself or the Committee.
Jess Brown-Fuller
My understanding of the legislation is that an independent supporter would be a recognised professional, but that does not exclude someone who may have a relationship outside their recognised profession with the person they are independently supporting. I wonder if clarification could be introduced—similar to what I think amendment 70 tried to achieve—to ensure that any relationship outside the professional role would have to be declared in front of the court. That would make it clear that, ideally, the only relationship between a witness and the independent supporter should be a professional one, and that any other one would have to be declared.
Sarah Sackman
I think all of that is right, but I would prefer to take the matter back to the Department and check that we have a common understanding. I do not want to do this on the hoof if I do not have the full information before me. I think that is the intention—the presumption is that it applies only to professional supporters. I suppose it is ultimately up to the court if a family member sits with the person, if that is deemed necessary in the interests of justice.
Sarah Sackman
I am more than happy to accede to that. This has been useful, and I am very happy to provide that clarity.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Exclusion of persons from court
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Sackman
This clause represents an important and balanced step forward in strengthening the support available to intimidated complainants in our justice system. It will make it easier for courts to exclude individuals who may be causing distress or intimidation from the public gallery, while fully preserving the principle of open justice.
Section 25 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 already permits the exclusion of the public from the courtroom while a complainant gives evidence, yet the Law Commission has observed that the power is rarely used in practice. Concerns about its perceived impact on open justice, particularly the requirement that only a single member of the press can remain, means that courts are often reluctant to apply it. At the same time, we know that individuals present in the gallery, including supporters of the defendant, can on occasion create an atmosphere that is distressing for intimidated witnesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), who has huge amounts of experience in this area, told me of an egregious example affecting a constituent of hers who was giving evidence while friends of the defendant were creating an intimidatory atmosphere in the gallery, yet nothing was done about it.
The clause offers a practical and proportionate solution to that sort of situation. It will broaden the categories of individuals who may remain in the courtroom when the public gallery is cleared, allowing accredited members of the press, approved academic researchers and one supporter for the complainant to stay. It directly addresses concerns about transparency and open justice by allowing those reporting or researching the case in the public interest to remain. That is not a novel approach: comparable provisions already operate in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where courts can restrict public attendance while members of the press and a limited number of individuals remain in their place. Their experience demonstrates that it is entirely possible to restrict public access during particularly sensitive evidence without compromising the integrity or openness of the proceedings.
The clause will encourage courts to take a more flexible approach, excluding only those likely to intimidate the witness, where it is not necessary to clear the public gallery entirely. This will increase the likelihood that the measure can be used where appropriate, while maintaining open justice. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
As the Minister points out, this clause interacts with the issue of transparency in the justice system. I recognise that the Minister thinks it attempts to strike a balance by clarifying the categories of people who may not be excluded, such as representatives of news organisations, witness supporters and approved researchers. The aim is to ensure that, while a witness may be shielded, the trial remains professional and legitimate.
However, we do not want the measure to have the unintended effect of narrowing public scrutiny, including by ordinary members of the public, who the Minister will accept are not necessarily there to intimidate or have any impact on the witness—they might not be even connected to the case. It should be assumed that people in this country can just turn up to a courthouse and watch a case, as they currently can, and as I have in the past.
Sad to say, but we have seen recently that practical transparency can be very difficult to achieve. We had the whole debacle with the Courtsdesk archive, which hugely assisted transparency in our legal system. The Opposition certainly do not feel that the Government’s initial response to that demonstrated that they were as committed to transparency in the justice system as they should be. It was only the effort of Opposition Members and media campaigners that secured a U-turn. We must ensure that these powers are used only when the interests of witnesses genuinely outweigh the public’s right to witness proceedings—although I note that the clause does not create an automatic entitlement for persons to be excluded.
We have discussed the availability of transcripts, and it would not be unreasonable to link the two issues. If people are excluded, I do not see why that could not become a trigger for making available those elements of the evidence that the public are for that reason unable to hear at first hand. I do not think the Minister is suggesting that the people in the gallery cannot hear the evidence; it is just about the impact on the witness of them being there. If that is happening and we accept that that is a break from the norm, it would be reasonable to say that transcripts of the elements that were not open to public scrutiny should be more widely available.
If the powers are enacted, it is important that the Government monitor their use going forward. They should have a clear position that they would be open to reforming or even removing the powers if they think they are not operating as intended.
We will not oppose these measures, but the Lords will want to look at them and ensure that we are excluding as little as possible. I accept the Minister’s point that, at the minute, nobody is getting excluded because of worries about how the provision operates, but that does not mean that we should just accept a new way of doing things when it could be better refined. If the Minister could clarify the point about transcript availability, it would demonstrate some good faith by ensuring that people can see for sure that we are not attempting to stop people from hearing what is going on in a courtroom.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I seek clarification from the Minister about the reference in clause 14 to
“representatives of news gathering or reporting organisations”.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Reigate raised the practice of live tweeting from court proceedings. I would appreciate it if the Minister set out her understanding of who would come under “a representative of a news gathering or reporting organisation”. With the rise of social media, and with more people getting their news online on things like X, we can have lots of news organisations with self-professed journalists or online commentators who are acting in the interests of providing online journalism, but who do not hold any form of accreditation or any official role as a journalist. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain who legitimate members of the press will be under this measure. Will they have to be recognised journalists? Will they have to have a press pass? Or can they say, “I’m here, in the interest of journalism, to live tweet the events because I am a self-employed journalist”?
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful for those questions and comments, because, through clause 14, we are seeking to strike a balance. At the moment, in the instance that I gave an example of, the balance is all one way. Of course we want open justice, but that is not the same, as can be the case, as having essentially a mob of people in the gallery whose mere presence is almost certainly intended to intimidate witnesses. Empowering the court to exercise discretion, while retaining the presence of at least one person connected to the defendant and protecting those representatives of newsgathering or reporting organisations, strikes the right balance.
On the question about everyone being a citizen journalist now, subsection (4)(b) refers to
“representatives of news gathering or reporting organisations”.
It refers to those who carry accreditation because they are a member of an organisation, not those who are self-appointed. I am happy to come back to the hon. Member for Chichester with clarification about that. When we talk about reporting restrictions and how they operate, they generally operate in connection with qualified journalists who are subject to the codes of conduct that go with that job. Indeed, that is something that arose with some of the issues in relation to Courtsdesk, because those who make use of that facility and that information, as opposed to the material that the public are entitled to see, are investigative journalists. I am happy to come back to the hon. Member with clarification, and if we think the legislation needs tightening up for the reasons she has outlined, then that can be looked at in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Editing of video recorded cross-examination and re-examination
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 28—Use of video recorded evidence in chief—
“(1) Section 27 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After subsection (1), insert—
‘(1A) Evidence in chief admitted in accordance with subsection (1) may include transcription of any video recording, provided that such a transcript is not admitted in place of the recording.’
(3) After subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) Where a witness is called in accordance with section (5)(a), the court must make arrangements so that the witness is not, in the course of proceedings, obliged to watch the video recording of the evidence in chief.’
(4) Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as in accordance with subsections (5).
(5) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) Where the direction provides for any cross-examination or re-examination of the witness, or reexamination, any questions that the accused or legal representatives representing to the accused intend to put during cross-examination or re-examination must be provided to the witness—
(a) within six months of the date on which evidence video recorded evidence in chief is submitted to the court under section 27, or
(b) 14 days before a cross-examination is due to take place under this section, whichever is the sooner.’”
This new clause amends the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to prevent vulnerable witnesses from repeatedly watching their video testimony during court proceedings, and to require those witnesses to be provided with cross-examination questions in good time ahead of any cross-examination.
Sarah Sackman
Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 28. But before I come to that, I will set out the rationale for clause 15.
The clause clarifies the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 by confirming that courts have a statutory power to direct the editing of pre-recorded cross-examination recordings under section 28 of the 1999 Act when material is inadmissible or where including it would not be in the interests of justice. That clarification matters because section 28 recordings capture the natural flow of their recollection under the pressure of cross-examination. Inevitably, that can sometimes include long periods of silence where the witness needs a break or material turns out to be inadmissible or prejudicial to the fairness of the trial.
Without an explicit power enabling the court to direct appropriate edits, there is a risk that either the edits are not made—potentially compromising the integrity of the trial and wasting court time—or that the edits made become a point of contention, requiring additional hearings or appeals to resolve. Additionally, in the event of a retrial, the pre-recorded evidence may require editing to ensure that it covers only the charges for which a retrial has been ordered.
Although the current criminal procedure rules already allow for editing of section 28 recordings, the Law Commission has highlighted that the absence of a specific statutory provision has created uncertainty and, once again, inconsistency in practice. The clause addresses that by placing the power on a firm statutory footing, ensuring that practitioners have a clear and consistent understanding of the power of the courts in this respect.
It is important to emphasise that the clause does not introduce a new process, nor does it expand judicial powers; it formalises the careful, limited editing that already occurs to ensure trial fairness and integrity. Witnesses can be assured that the substance of their evidence will remain intact. Only material that is legally inadmissible or wholly irrelevant to the issues in the case will be removed. I commend the clause to the Committee.
I will now turn to new clause 28, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Before I come to the substance of the new clause, I want to begin by recognising the immense courage it takes for the vulnerable and intimidated witnesses we are talking about to come forward in the first place and give evidence. For many, recounting their experience is traumatic enough. Being asked to relive it by watching back their video-recorded police interview—known as their achieving best evidence interview—can be a great deal more challenging. It can bring distressing experiences flooding back. However, we must be careful not to reach for legislative change where it is not necessary or helpful. Prosecutors may suggest that a witness watches their ABE interview to refresh their memory before cross-examination, but there is no legal obligation to do so. For some, watching the recording is manageable; for others, it is not, and the law already accommodates that reality.
Where a witness does not wish to watch the recording, a written transcript can be provided for them to read instead. For some, that is a more accessible way of engaging with the material. Prosecutors make decisions about how and when memory refreshing should take place on a case-by-case basis, taking into account practical considerations, such as the length of the transcript and the witness’s ability to read and process it. However, I recognise that the achieving best evidence guidance for interviewers does not explicitly reference that practice. That omission will be addressed. The Ministry of Justice owns that guidance and will ensure that clarification is included in the next revision. Any future clarification to the ABE guidance will also be reflected in the relevant Crown Prosecution Service guidance and communicated to all prosecutors.
Let me now turn to the proposal to introduce a time limit for the defence to submit questions to the witness. I must be clear: cross-examination questions cannot, under any circumstances, be shared with witnesses before they give evidence. However well intentioned the proposal may be, it risks undermining the very integrity of the process it seeks to improve. Exposing a witness to questions in advance may influence, whether consciously or unconsciously, how they respond. Beyond that, it risks undermining the defendant’s right to a fair trial. If there is any suggestion that a witness’s evidence has been prepared or influenced in advance, the credibility of the whole process is jeopardised.
There are also practical implications to consider. Requiring counsel to finalise all cross-examination questions within six months of the ABE being submitted to court, or 14 days before cross-examination—whichever is soonest—would be unworkable in many cases. Defence questions evolve as new material is disclosed. Such a process would undermine the fairness of proceedings and the effectiveness of case preparations. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member not to press new clause 28 to a Division.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is great to see you back in the Chair to help us to make our way through the Bill, Ms Jardine. New clause 28 is a probing amendment, and I shall not press it to a Division when the time comes. To give the context for why I have tabled the new clause, I will lay out the experience faced by a young child—I cannot give many details of the case, as the Committee will appreciate.
This young child was below school age when they became the victim of and witness to abuse. They gave clear evidence on video at the time that it had happened, and while the case was investigated and awaiting trial in court, they continued with their childhood. Their mother helped them to move on from the abuse, and she says that the memory of what happened not being constantly brought back was a key part of their recovery. However, during the court case some years later, they were made to rewatch the video. By hearing their younger self talk about the abuse, they were, essentially, properly traumatised for the first time, as they for the first time properly understood, with a real, more mature understanding, what had happened to them in detail.
That case made me realise that the process of being cross-examined and watching back original, video-based evidence in chief, even just while the prosecution team refreshes their memory of their evidence, can do victims real harm. Although I can see why it may be necessary to cross-examine a witness on what happened, based either on their memory or facts stated in the evidence, I feel strongly that putting them through the additional trauma of rewatching it themselves is not necessary and should certainly not be routine, and that that should be in the law or guidance.
My new clause would amend sections 27 and 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which are intended to relate to special measures and directions. It would ask that witnesses not be obliged to watch video recordings of their earlier evidence, and would allow transcripts, as a potentially less traumatic alternative, to be submitted for cross-examination. It would also ask for notice of questions for cross-examination to be provided in good time. Although I understand that there is no legal obligation for the videos to be rewatched, I know that it is happening even when concerns have been expressed. I want to make sure that it is clearer in the law or relevant guidance that no witness or victim is obliged, against their will, to relive the crimes committed against them.
As I said, the new clause is probing. I am grateful that the Minister has looked into the issue, and has today committed to updating the guidance. I have corresponded with her departmental colleagues who are leading a review of the victims code, passing to them more details than I can mention here on that particular case and some ideas for how relevant guidance around special measures could be amended, as that could take the place of changes in primary legislation. I hope that my bringing this point to the Committee is constructive, and I thank the Minister for her attention.
Dr Mullan
As we have heard, clause 15 clarifies the use of pre-recorded evidence for cross-examination and re-examination, which is often referred to as section 28 evidence. Our courts frequently rely on recorded testimony to spare witnesses the trauma of a live trial, so the rules governing the editing and presentation of that evidence must be clear and robust.
Clause 15 provides clarification on the circumstances under which a video recording may be edited before it is admitted as evidence in a trial. Editing may be required if certain procedural requirements were not met during the recording being taken, or if specific portions of the material are deemed inadmissible or contrary to the interests of justice. The clause requires the court to perform a delicate balancing act, weighing any potential prejudice towards the accused against the desirability of presenting the whole, or substantially the whole, recorded examination.
A clearer statutory footing for editing is welcome, but it must be applied with consistency and transparency. If recorded evidence is to protect witnesses properly, the rules for its use must be as rigorous as those for live evidence. We must acknowledge, as we discussed earlier in respect of screens, the highly variable state of court technology. In my time on the Justice Committee, I visited courts and heard that they sometimes did not have the screens necessary to show evidence. There is a huge difference between a poky little TV of low granularity and a proper screen for showing video evidence to the jury.
Sir Brian Leveson’s review and others have highlighted that malfunctioning or substandard equipment can derail trials or create grounds for appeal when it comes to the use of pre-recorded evidence. Without reliable hardware and skilled technical staff—I also heard about the challenge when something goes wrong and there is no one available to fix it—the legal clarification in clause 15 will remain theoretical rather than practical.
My final point is about the guidelines, which the Minister talked about. We must ensure that they are sufficiently detailed, rigorous and standardised, so that, notwithstanding the further clarifications in the clause, they are suitably consistent in their application.
What are the Government’s current plans to address the technological challenge on the court estate in relation to section 28 recordings? What steps will be taken to ensure that all parties have time to review and potentially challenge edited versions of recordings before they are played to a jury? The ability to challenge is vital to ensuring consistency and fairness.
Sarah Sackman
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point about the reliability of the kit in courtrooms, that is critical not just for evidence via video. We have an ambition for greater use of video right across our criminal justice system, not just for vulnerable witnesses but in other ways that have been touched on. We have talked a lot about prisoner transportation being a challenge for the system; one way to address that is by having less demand for it, unless it is needed in the interests of justice and fairness.
The increased use of video could be of real benefit but, of course, it has to be reliable. That is why the Government’s capital investment in increasing the budget for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—I saw some of that equipment in action in Harrow court—will make such a difference.
When we are talking about vulnerable witnesses, who are given the option of section 28, the quality of their evidence can be impacted if it is inconsistent or glitchy, or if the way it appears in a courtroom is somehow distorted because it is too big or too small, or whatever. All those things will be important, which is why the significant investment agreed with the judiciary through the concordat process over the next three years will make such a difference, and why all the court transformation and reform measures are being accompanied by significant inward investment, as announced by the Deputy Prime Minister.
I should say that HMCTS, the performance of which I routinely review with the Deputy Prime Minister, conducts regular audits of facilities and brings that to our attention so that we can see where the roll-out is happening, which courts are lacking facilities and which need to be prioritised for investment.
Sarah Sackman
I am very happy to provide that information, to the extent that we hold it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Application of special measures to victim personal statements etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Sackman
The clause makes it clear in legislation that special measures are available when a victim chooses to read their victim impact statement aloud at sentencing. This is a moment of real significance for many victims—the point at which they are able to explain, in their own words, the impact of the offending on their lives. Although special measures can already be used for this purpose, that entitlement is not explicitly set out in legislation.
As the Law Commission has explored, the lack of a clear statutory basis can create uncertainty about what victims may rely on, adding avoidable stress at a time when they are already managing the emotional weight of addressing the court. Clause 16 removes that uncertainty. It ensures that victims can rely on the same special measures at sentencing as they can when giving evidence, whether using screens, a live link or some other appropriate measure.
By placing the provisions on a clear statutory footing, clause 16 gives victims greater reassurance that their voice can be heard at sentencing and that they will have access to the support needed to participate effectively. It will enhance their overall experience of the justice system, and strengthen the quality of information available to the court when determining a sentence. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I have spent a lot of time working on the issue of victim personal statements, often referred to as victim impact statements, in work on other Bills. We are talking today about someone’s ability to give an effective statement, but the Opposition have also been concerned about restrictions on what people can actually say, and have tabled amendments to other Bills on that issue.
I have worked with a number of victims. The people who come to mind are the parents of Violet-Grace, a four-year-old girl who was hit and killed by a stolen car going 80 mph on a 30 mph road while she was crossing with her grandmother. The criminals involved fled the scene—they came back to step over her body as they grabbed the drugs they had left in the car—and then fled the country. Her grandmother suffered massive injuries and will never be physically the same. Violet-Grace’s parents, two amazing individuals who are part of the Justice for Victims campaign group, talked about their experience of what they wanted to say in their victim statement being interfered with.
I have also had the pleasure of meeting and working with Sarah Everard’s parents, who tell the same story of having wanted to say certain things. Of course, the Opposition do not think it should be a free-for-all, and people should say whatever they want in an impact statement, but surely the onus should be on allowing victims to have their say.
There is a need to reform what these statements are for. In statute, it is there purely as a way for victims to talk about the impact of the crime on them. That is helpful, but in other jurisdictions it is an opportunity for the victim to say what they want about what has happened—importantly, this is at the point of conviction, when someone has been found guilty. We will therefore continue to push for broader reforms to impact statements.
On screens, this one of those things we read and thinks, “Why wasn’t this thought of at the time?” It seems self-evident that everything is put in place for witnesses during a trial—before someone has even been convicted, when the state has not yet decided through the courts whether someone is guilty—but this is after the trial. Surely the protections for people taking part at that stage should have been included in the original envisaging of the use of screens. We wholly support the relevant measure. We have discussed physical infrastructure already, but I am sure there is something the Government can do on that.
I do not think the Minister is responsible for the content of statements—I think that lies with the Minister for Victims—but we would appreciate her lending support to her ministerial colleague in relation to further expanding what people can say in their statements. The clause seeks to ensure that they have their moment in court from a physical point of view, but that will be undermined somewhat if what they are allowed to say is not as expansive as we can possibly make it.
Sarah Sackman
I think we all agree that the victim impact statement, and that moment when victims read or speak aloud about the ways in which they have been impacted, is critical. Their ability to speak at all may depend on the consistent provision of the special measures in clause 16. All that can be done without compromising the fairness of what is to follow, which is the sentencing exercise in which a judge must engage in respect of the defendant. Clause 16 seeks to enable that, because there may be victims who simply cannot bring themselves to do it absent those special measures. That is why it is a really important clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Welfare of the child: repeal of presumption of parental involvement
Jess Brown-Fuller
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 17, page 30, line 10, at end insert—
“(3) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the commencement of this section, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the resources required to give full effect to the repeal of subsection 2A in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989.—
‘(1) The report under subsection (3) must include—
(a) an assessment of the level of legal aid provision necessary to ensure that parties in child arrangements proceedings are able to obtain timely and effective—
(i) advice, and
(ii) representation
particularly where allegations of domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns are raised;
(b) an evaluation of the capacity of the family courts, including—
(i) the number of judges,
(ii) court staff, and
(iii) available hearing time,
to undertake robust risk assessment and fact-finding processes in line with Practice Direction 12J;
(c) plans to address any shortfalls in judicial training, including—
(i) training relating to coercive control,
(ii) domestic abuse dynamics, and
(iii) child safeguarding.
(d) proposals for investment in the family court estate and technology to ensure—
(i) the repeal operates effectively, and
(ii) decisions are consistently grounded in the welfare and safety of the child.’”
This amendment requires the Government to set out how the family courts and legal aid system will be resourced to give full effect to the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 16—Protective relocation and presumption of reasonableness—
“(1) This section applies to family proceedings in which—
(a) a parent (‘the relocating parent’) has relocated, or proposes to relocate, with a child; and
(b) it is alleged that such relocation has adversely affected, or is intended to affect, the child’s relationship with another party.
(2) Where the relocating parent demonstrates that the decision to relocate was made in consequence of domestic abuse, and this is supported by documented advice from a relevant authority or support service, there is a presumption that the relocation was reasonable and in the best interests of the child.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), ‘documented advice’ includes advice, guidance, or referral from—
(a) a police force;
(b) a local authority exercising social services functions;
(c) a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC); or
(d) an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA) or equivalent specialist support service.
(4) The presumption in subsection (2) can be rebutted if the other party demonstrates, on the balance of probabilities, that the relocation is not reasonable or not in the best interests of the child.
(5) In determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the court must have regard to—
(a) the nature and impact of the domestic abuse;
(b) the circumstances in which the advice or referral was given; and
(c) the welfare of the child as the court’s paramount consideration.
(6) The court may disapply the presumption in subsection (2) where it is satisfied that—
(a) the evidential basis for the documented advice is insufficient; or
(b) it is otherwise necessary to do so in order to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.
(7) In this section—
(a) ‘domestic abuse’ has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;
(b) ‘child’ means a person under the age of 18;
(c) ‘family proceedings’ has the same meaning as in section 75(3) of the Courts Act 2003.”
This new clause introduces a rebuttable presumption that a parent’s relocation with a child, undertaken in reliance on documented advice from authorities or support services in the context of domestic abuse, is reasonable and in the child’s best interests, unless the contrary is shown.
New clause 20—Determination of domestic abuse allegations and related presumptions—
“This section applies in family proceedings in which—
(a) party A alleges that party B has perpetrated domestic abuse, and
(b) the court is invited to consider whether a party A has engaged in conduct intended, or having the effect of, undermining a child’s relationship with another party.
(1) Where this section applies, the court must determine, as a preliminary issue, any allegation of domestic abuse before considering any allegation falling within subsection (1)(b).
(2) The court must treat the determination of allegations of domestic abuse as a matter of priority and, so much as reasonably practicable, must not proceed to determine any issue relating to the child’s relationship with either party until such allegations have been determined.
(3) Where the court finds, on the balance of probabilities, that party B has perpetrated domestic abuse against another party or the child—
(a) there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any reluctance or refusal by the child to spend time with party B constitutes a reasonable and justified response to the domestic abuse; and
(b) the court must not consider any allegation that party A has engaged in conduct falling within subsection (1)(b) unless satisfied that the presumption in paragraph (a) has been rebutted.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), the presumption may be rebutted only where party B demonstrates, on the balance of probabilities, that the child’s reluctance or refusal cannot be reasonably attributed to the domestic abuse.
(5) Subsections (2) to (5) apply only where the allegation of domestic abuse meets such minimum evidential threshold as may be prescribed by rules of court.
(6) Notwithstanding the above, the court may disapply the presumption in subsection (4)(a), or the requirement in subsection (2), where it is satisfied that to do so is necessary to secure the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration.
(7) In this section—
(a) ‘domestic abuse’ has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;
(b) references to a child are to a person under the age of 18;
(c) references to ‘family proceedings’ have the same meaning as in section 75(3) of the Courts Act 2003.”
This new clause requires courts to determine domestic abuse allegations before considering claims of parental alienation. If abuse is proven, a child’s reluctance to see the abusive parent is presumed a justified response. This presumption must be rebutted before the court can entertain allegations of alienating behaviour against the protective parent.
New clause 31—Determination of domestic abuse allegations and related presumptions—
“(1) There is a rebuttable presumption that any reluctance or refusal by a child to spend time with a party against whom the child, or a party representing the child, has made allegations of domestic abuse constitutes a reasonable and justified response to the domestic abuse.
(2) The presumption in subsection (1) may be rebutted only where the accused party demonstrates, on the balance of probabilities, that the child’s reluctance or refusal cannot be reasonably attributed to the domestic abuse.”
This new clause provides that, in family court, where a child refuses or is reluctant to spend time with one party as a result of an allegation against that party of domestic abuse against the child, the court must presume the reluctance or refusal is reasonable.
I remind hon. Members that any Divisions on new clauses will come later.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Amendment 14 would require the Government to set out how the family courts and legal aid system will be resourced to give full effect to the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement. It would necessitate a report being laid by the Government on the impact of repealing the presumption of parental responsibility. We are in favour of clause 17, but the amendment focuses on the impact of the provisions on legal aid and the capacity of family courts, judicial training and investment in the family court estate. Repealing the presumption of parental responsibility will lead to a need for more legal advice, as well as changes in hearings and court practices. It is important that the Government report on those changes to the House. We hope that they accept the need for a report.
Clause 17 will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. The presumption was originally introduced to ensure that both parents could maintain a relationship with their children after separation. However, there have been long-standing campaigns to repeal the presumption, with evidence emerging—I say emerging, but it is long-standing evidence—that children could be left at risk of harm. The change will mean that the courts will no longer start from the assumption that parental involvement is always in the child’s best interests.
A key campaigner for this change, working with Women’s Aid, is Claire Throssell, who the Committee had the opportunity to hear from during the evidence session. Claire’s children, Jack and Paul, were killed by their father, who locked them in the attic and set fire to the house. If there was any moment that we all will remember for a very long time, it was Claire holding the images of her children before the incident and afterwards. I commend her for her bravery and for the way that she was able to speak so clearly not just for herself, but for all the families who have experienced devastating bereavement in that way—fighting for the children who will come after.
A family court judge, guided by the presumption, decided to allow Claire’s ex-husband unsupervised access to their children, despite evidence that he had threatened to harm both her and them. Since Women’s Aid first reported on the issue in 2004, 67 children have been killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse through contact arrangements, with 19 further child deaths documented in the decade to September 2024 alone.
The Lib Dems are in favour of the shift in law away from the presumption of parental involvement. Although the Bill seeks to repeal the presumption, there is a pro-contact culture in the family courts, as described by Farah Nazeer of Women’s Aid, who we also heard from in the evidence session. Will the Minister lay out what will be done to support the cultural reform of the family courts to ensure that this is a pivotal moment for victims of domestic abuse, who for so long have had their concerns around their children’s safety dismissed?
Claire spoke to that point in the evidence session. When I asked her what she believed the next steps should be, she said:
“What I would like to see moving forward is an understanding of what it looks like without presumption of contact; what good practice looks like; understanding trauma; understanding what coercive control is; understanding emotional abuse. We all understand physical abuse—it is there; we see it. What we do not understand is the emotional abuse and the scars that we carry. We must always look from the position of actually seeing a child, hearing a child, believing a child, protecting a child, and we must go from this basis.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 58, Q110.]
New clause 16, which I also tabled, is a probing amendment that I will not press to a vote, but I wish to discuss it further. It would introduce a rebuttal presumption that a parent’s relocation with a child in the context of domestic abuse, undertaken in reliance on and with documented advice from authorities or support services, is reasonable and in the child’s best interests, unless the contrary is known.
New clause 16 would allow a parent to relocate with a child if they have evidence or advice from a domestic abuse support service or authority. It would require the court to assume that the move is reasonable and place the burden on the other parent to prove that the move is not in the child’s best interest.
The new clause is aimed at making it easier for victims of domestic abuse to leave their situations safely, and to prevent them from being forced to remain near their abusive ex-partners. Currently, the legal framework does not adequately distinguish between a parent who removes a child to protect them and a parent who removes a child to punish the other party. Our new clause would not remove safeguards in respect of alienation, but would instead shift the dial towards believing and protecting victims of domestic abuse.
The new clause is supported by Fair Hearing, which shared multiple examples of its work with courts that failed to give proper weight to the relevance of domestic abuse in relocation decisions. In one such case, a mother who had experienced severe physical, sexual and psychological abuse had been forced by her partner, during the relationship, to move with their children to an isolated rural area. After leaving him, she sought permission to return to her home town, where she had family support and greater safety. The court none the less required her to remain in an isolated cottage near her abuser, failing to give proper weight to the impact of the abuse, or to her need for safety and support. Cases of that kind illustrate the consequences of a framework that, in its operation, too often treats a survivor seeking to relocate for safety no differently from any other parent seeking to move for lifestyle or preference reasons.
I make the point to the Minister that this could happen to any of us. So often, abuse does not start on day one, when the partner suggests that we move somewhere lovely and will be really happy there. I am a very long way removed from the version of myself who made the decision to follow a boy three hours away from my family in my early 20s. He turned out not to be the great guy I thought he was when I made that decision. I escaped from that situation, but had I stayed and ended up having children, the idea that I would have been trapped in a city that was not mine, away from my family, who were my support network, is too scary to bear. I remind the Minister that it could happen to literally any one of us.
Wider campaigns from Women’s Aid, SafeLives and Refuge have focused on ensuring that survivors can relocate to escape abuse. As subsection 2 of the new clause outlines:
“Where the relocating parent demonstrates that the decision to relocate was made in consequence of domestic abuse, and this is supported by documented advice from a relevant authority or support service, there is a presumption that the relocation was reasonable and in the best interests of the child.”
Under the new clause, the documented advice would include evidence from a police force, social services, a multi-agency risk assessment conference or an independent domestic violence adviser. We look to work closely with the Government on this issue, and I hope they recognise the need to go further, but I will not push new clause 16 to a vote.
I will speak briefly to new clause 20, also tabled in my name, which would introduce a statutory presumption that where domestic abuse is alleged, the court must make findings on the allegations before considering any claim that a parent has sought to undermine the child’s relationship with the other party. If one parent alleges domestic abuse and the other alleges alienating behaviour—that is, influencing the child against them—the court must decide the domestic abuse allegations first. The court cannot move on to contact issues until that is decided. If the court finds domestic abuse, a child’s reluctance to see that parent is presumed to be justified. That presumption can be overturned only with evidence. If abuse is proven, courts cannot consider claims of alienation until the alleged abusive parent proves the child’s resistance is not due to abuse.
Campaigners have long argued that the family courts have been used by abusers to retraumatise victims and have over-prioritised contact between parents and children. It is estimated that around 60% to 90% of child arrangement cases in the family court feature allegations of domestic abuse. In 2020, the report entitled “Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases” highlighted serious issues with how the family court system addresses domestic abuse in child arrangement cases. It said that those issues were underpinned by a pro-contact culture, silo working, an adversarial system and resource constraints.
A 2023 report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner stated:
“Victims and survivors and their advisors reported concerns that raising domestic abuse as an issue often risked the retaliatory use of so-called ‘parental’ alienation narratives by parties against whom domestic abuse had been alleged as a counter-claim, leading to worse outcomes for adult and child victims and survivors.”
Five years on from the harm report, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that despite overwhelming evidence of domestic abuse in most cases, a pro-contact culture and a failure to recognise abuse still contribute to decisions that may put children in harm’s way.
This can be considered a probing amendment; I will not press new clause 20 to a vote. We will be looking to work closely with the Government to make progress in this area. The new clause would tilt the dial slightly towards victims of domestic abuse by ensuring that courts properly examined cases before considering issues of alienation. It would prioritise the safety of victims of domestic abuse, whether partners or children, by requiring these allegations to be addressed first.
It is also sometimes argued that children resist contact with certain parents because of manipulation. Our proposal would ensure that courts did not assume that manipulation first, but it would also have safeguards. It would not allow domestic abuse organisations to submit evidence; instead, it would be the authorities, social services and an independent domestic violence adviser who would do that. A minimum evidential threshold would also have to be met.
Dr Mullan
I want to begin by acknowledging the gravity of what we heard in evidence in Committee. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, pointed to, the evidence from Claire in relation to her children will stay with all of us. It was so moving and so upsetting for anyone thinking about how they would feel in that scenario. There was also the testimony of other parents who have lost children, and survivors of domestic abuse, who felt let down by a system that prioritised contact over their safety. That testimony matters. The Committee has a duty to take it incredibly seriously and give it the maximum possible weight.
We also have a duty to legislate carefully, however, and when it comes to legislating I do not think there are many areas of human frailty and human complexity that are more complicated than this. As anyone with any experience of the family court—and of life generally and the interactions between families who split up—will agree, all these things are incredibly complicated. When we seek to be prescriptive about how exactly a court should or should not seek to do things, that is fraught with risk and potential unintended consequences, just as today we are discussing the unintended consequences of a measure that may have been brought in for good reasons.
We must think very carefully, therefore, when it comes to the repeal of section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, and particularly about whether we think that will achieve what it promises. I make no apologies for saying that I want to consider this in some detail and that we will want to follow the discussions on it in some detail as the Bill progresses. Although we are not seeking to oppose the repeal at this stage, it is certainly not something—as opposed to some other measures—that is without the need for further scrutiny.
I want to say plainly that the courts, social services and CAFCASS have made serious mistakes in the past—importantly, both before that provision was inserted in 2014 and since—and those serious mistakes have cost children their lives. However, the question before us today is whether repealing the presumption will fix the mistakes or whether it might distract from the need for much deeper reforms and more complex and difficult work than can be achieved by a simple measure in a Bill.
Let me deal with the most important point: the presumption introduced in 2014 does not give any parent an automatic right to contact. It is important that we recognise that. It does not override the paramount principle in the law. I think we probably all remember the evidence given by one of the barristers in Committee, who was clear that while they thought the presumption could be repealed, the law as it stands does not allow the desire for a parent to have contact to override the welfare of a child. It also does not override the welfare checklist, or require courts to make an order that places children at risk.
The presumption establishes a starting point that, where it is safe to do so, children should generally benefit from the involvement of both parents. That starting point can be rebutted, but it expressly does not apply where a parent’s involvement would put the child at risk. In its written evidence, Both Parents Matter describe it as a “statutory benchmark”, not a straitjacket.
Siân Berry
I support this clause quite strongly. We heard powerfully from Claire Throssell in oral evidence how important its impact could be.
Most Members will have experiences like mine through casework of cases where this clause could help. I have heard from parents and family members so distressed at how their cases have been determined, despite clear evidence, where this presumption was obviously given far too much weight in decisions. These words in legislation, which were added and have had an influence on decisions, need to go.
I want to read parts of correspondence I received after the announcement in October 2025 that this measure was going to be changed. My constituent described it as an enormous relief. They were very impatient to know exactly when this was going to come forward. I am very pleased that we are discussing this now before the end of the Session.
My constituent said:
“I have personal experience of the impact the current legal framework can have. I am unable to provide specific information as a very close family member is still going through Family Court hearings to protect a child in a case of domestic abuse. However, as recently as January this year”—
this was in 2025—
“the aforementioned person was advised by two independent firms of solicitors to avoid the Family Court at all costs, due to the ‘presumption of involvement’, allied with the inconsistent and regionally patchy training and understanding by Family Court judges in domestic abuse (in spite of changes to the Domestic Abuse Act in 2021), referring to potential outcomes in Child Arrangements as ‘a lottery’.”
I really do support this clause. I also support the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester, which will help to tackle training gaps and which also reflect experiences that I can recall from casework. They are based on high-quality work and requests from organisations that work directly with victims and survivors, who have asked for these changes. I hope that the Minister will look at making changes that further strengthen the Bill in this way.
Rebecca Paul
I begin by echoing the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. I completely understand why the Government have brought this clause forward. I welcome the debate. Similar to the hon. Member for Chichester, who spoke so eloquently, I was deeply moved by the evidence we heard from Claire Throssell. I cannot even imagine how she has coped. To do what she has done and to try to take something positive from that is an incredible thing.
The evidence this Committee has heard from those witnesses and other survivors of domestic abuse is that they feel that the family courts have not properly identified risk and believe that a pro-contact culture has, at times, overridden safety. That is extremely concerning, and it is absolutely right that we take it extremely seriously.
Child safety must come first. Where the present framework has contributed to poor outcomes, it is right that the Government act, but it is also incumbent on us today to make sure that the clause that is being repealed is indeed the cause of the harm to those children. I also make the point that, where Parliament removes an existing statutory principle, it has a duty to be clear about what will replace it.
My concern today is less with the Government’s objective than with whether repeal on its own is sufficiently precise, evidence based and thought through to achieve the Ministers’ intended objective. The Government’s own impact assessment, which has already been set out, says that
“repeal alone is unlikely to materially change outcomes”,
even though it is expected to
“change the process judges follow”.
That is an important starting point for this debate. It is really important that we do not make changes to law because everyone wants us to make those changes and thinks that will improve things when, in reality, we have the evidence and facts to know that it may not deliver those outcomes.
It is incumbent on all of us to make sure that we actually deliver the outcomes that we all desire; we all have the same ambition. I know this comes from a good place and we are all approaching this debate in the best way we can to protect children. My purpose this afternoon is to be constructive—I am not saying I have all the answers on this, and I hope my comments will be taken in that spirit. If the Government proceed with repeal, do they also need to do more to provide a principles replacement framework, clearer guidance and stronger supporting reforms?
It is important to start with the facts around the presumption. The current presumption does not give any parent an automatic right to contact, override the welfare checklist or override the paramountcy principle in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, and it certainly does not require courts to make orders that place children at risk. The Family Services Foundation is clear in its written evidence that current law already places the child’s welfare first, stating:
“Section 1(6)…expressly ensures the presumption applies”
only where parental involvement
“does not put the child at risk of suffering harm”.
It says that practice direction 12J and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already provide an important framework for identifying and responding to abuse in family proceedings.
Equally, I recognise the contrary concern expressed by survivors who say that, in abuse cases, the presumption can place pressure on courts to prioritise parental contact even where there are serious safety concerns and can make it harder for victims to be properly heard and protected. The real question is therefore not whether safety matters more than contact—it plainly does—but whether removing the current presumption will improve how risk is identified and acted upon, or whether it risks creating new uncertainty while leaving the deeper operational problems untouched and discouraging parental involvement in cases where it would actually be beneficial.
There are already substantial protections in the current legal framework, although they clearly fail in the worst way on occasion. The Family Services Foundation points out that the Children Act 1989, practice direction 12J and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already equip the courts to restrict or refuse contact where “harm is shown”. It also reminds us that the UK is bound by the UN convention on the rights of the child, including article 9, which recognises that children should maintain regular contact with both parents unless that is
“contrary to the child’s best interests”.
Both Parents Matter makes a similar point, saying:
“The Presumption was introduced in 2014”
to reflect the UNCRC and provide a statutory benchmark that the safe involvement of both parents generally furthers child welfare. I emphasise the word “safe”—no one has ever said that parents should be involved if it is not safe. I make those points not to argue that nothing should change. If the Government are minded to proceed, we need a clear understanding of how the replacement framework will continue to distinguish between safe parental involvement, which can be beneficial, and unsafe parental involvement, which must be stopped. At present, I am not sure the Bill by itself gives enough reassurance on that point, and I am worried that safe parental contact will be discouraged.
That leads to one of the most important points of all. The Government’s own documents suggest that repeal alone may not be the solution that they are hoping it will be. As mentioned earlier, the impact assessment says,
“repeal alone is unlikely to materially change outcomes”,
although it is expected to change the process that judges follow. That is a significant admission. It suggests that if the Government want safer and better outcomes in family proceedings, repeal can be only part of the picture, and perhaps not the decisive part.
We should keep in mind that many of the awful failures that have rightly horrified people seem to be failures of risk assessment, information sharing, institutional practice, professional judgment and resourcing. The Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys puts it well:
“If abusive contact is being ordered or preserved inappropriately, then the concern lies with the quality of risk assessment, the speed and fairness of investigation, and the consistency with which courts and agencies apply the law.”
That is a useful and constructive way of putting the point. It does not deny the seriousness of the problem, but it does ask whether the solution is the right one. My concern is not that the Government want to strengthen protection; it is that repeal may be presented as more self-sufficient than, on the basis of the evidence, it really is.
I also think the Committee should be careful and candid about the strength of the evidence base behind repeal. Both Parents Matter says that the Government’s own review
“provided limited and inconclusive evidence of the impact of the Presumption. It could not determine how often the Presumption was applied in judgments, nor could it assess how harm…related to the application of the Presumption.”
It also criticises the underlying methodology:
“Quantitative analysis was based on only 245 court judgments, with over half from a single magistrates’ bench. Qualitative analysis involved only 29 parents.”
It added that the literature review
“examined only 55 studies, excluded all research published after April 2024,”
and omitted
“major studies showing positive outcomes”
from safe shared parenting and ongoing parental involvement.
Other evidence goes further, arguing that the Government review appears to have misunderstood or overstated the conclusions to be drawn from Professor Anja Steinbach’s work. I recall a striking line from Professor Steinbach, who said:
“There is plenty of research showing that contact with both parents is beneficial”,
and
“except for violence…contact with both parents is the baseline.”
I do not think that material should make the Committee cautious about treating the review as a fully settled or exhausted evidential platform for repeal.
Again, my point is not that that means that repeal must not happen; it is that we should not over-claim what the existing evidence can prove or support. I also think it is important to avoid turning this into a false choice between protecting children from abuse and supporting children to maintain safe relationships with both parents. The Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys says that the public debate often frames the issue in that way. However, it says:
“A good family justice system must do both. It must protect children and adult victims from abusive parents. It must also protect children from the avoidable loss of safe, loving, and important parental relationships.”
I think that is right.
The Family Services Foundation similarly said:
“reform should focus on enhancing the protections available, rather than creating conditions that may inadvertently prevent children from maintaining safe, meaningful relationships with their parents.”
That is why I urge the Minister not to present clause 17 as though all principled concern about repeal is somehow concern for parental rights over child safety. It is perfectly possible to support the Government’s child safety objective while asking whether the law should continue to recognise some clear and carefully framed way, where there is no established risk of harm, of enabling children to benefit from stable and safe relationships with both parents.
Several of the written submissions that we received raise concerns about unintended consequences if repeal proceeds without a clear replacement framework. Both Parents Matter warns:
“Removing this important statutory benchmark, and relying instead on practice and non statutory frameworks”
may increase uncertainty, inconsistency and conflict. The Family Services Foundation says something similar, warning that repeal may confuse frontline professionals, affect negotiations outside court, reduce the incentive for out-of-court resolution and, ultimately, increase strain on a family court system that is already under pressure. It notes that only a minority of separated families ever come before the courts, but many more families and professionals orient their expectations around the legal framework.
That is a serious point. Even if the court’s paramount consideration remains unchanged, removing a statutory starting point may still alter behaviour before a case ever reaches a final hearing. It may affect how solicitors advise, how CAFCASS frames disputes, how mediation is approached and how parents negotiate. With that point in mind, I hope that the Minister might be in a position to share some more detail on how she expects the changes to operate, and why she is confident that they will improve outcomes rather than simply shift conflict elsewhere.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I am finding it difficult to listen to the hon. Member’s speech. I do not believe that we can talk about balance when 68 children have lost their lives because of the presumption. I feel that we have to take forward this clause; it is so important. I want to understand the hon. Member’s terminology and whether she can reflect on the fact that 68 children have already lost their lives because of this presumption.
Rebecca Paul
I am sure people saw me during evidence. I get really upset about the loss of any child’s life. We have to remember that we all want to keep children safe—[Interruption.]
Rebecca Paul
No, I’m okay.
I would gently say to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire that I hope she has heard—and even seen—enough from me to know that I am here to protect children. Of course I am horrified by any loss of a child, but my point is that I am trying to step back, be objective and say, “What is the reason that those children lost their lives?”. I am not convinced that it was the parental presumption—I am not saying that I am right on that; I am just open-minded to it.
I have seen a particular case quite closely—I should declare that I am a serving county councillor in Surrey—and that is the case of Sara Sharif. I have gone through the safeguarding reviews in a huge amount of detail; it affected all of us councillors in Surrey greatly. It was an absolutely awful case. So many things went wrong throughout her life. From the family courts to social services, her GP and the school, there was just a barrage of failure that led to that poor little girl being murdered, and that absolutely could have been prevented.
People might argue, “Well, if we had removed the parental presumption, that would have saved her.” Having gone through all that, I can tell the hon. Member that, in that case, it would not have done anything. It was safeguarding failures. People just made mistakes. They got things wrong. They were too worried about offending people to take the right actions.
What I am saying today is just that it is really important, when we look at these things, that we diagnose what went wrong. We have to do that quite objectively. That is difficult when we are hearing from lots of different people who have gone through awful things, but our job is to try to not be emotional—I say that having got emotional myself—and to look at it logically. At the end of the day, we all just want to deliver the outcome that protects children. That is what all of us on this Committee want to do. But it is important that we can talk about that without the hon. Member suggesting that I somehow do not care about children, because what I am trying to do is to have that objectivity, because it matters to me so much that we do protect those children that I want us to have that proper debate and to say, “Is this really the right way or are there other things we can be doing? Do we need to do multiple things? Maybe this isn’t enough.” I am not saying that we should not do it; I am saying that we just need to make sure that we have thought this through.
I will be really keen to hear from the Minister; I know this really matters to her as well, and she will have done that thinking, so I look forward to hearing her thoughts on the challenges I have brought up today. But, as I say, I keep an open mind, and we all share the same objectives.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Am I right in thinking that the hon. Member agrees with me that, when we are trying to legislate for what the most complex part of our justice system—families—that is an incredibly hard job? We all know from personal experience that the one thing that binds us all is that we have a family; we might disagree on whether they are good ones or bad ones, and whether we get on with them or not, but we all came from somewhere, and they are complicated things.
Across the House, we all share the desire to ensure that we recognise the complexity of family relationships and protect those most vulnerable in our society by making sure that people do not have the right to still have contact with their children when they have done things that mean that they absolutely should not. However, we also recognise that systems are abused, and we see that in all directions; people will always find ways of getting around systems, or of using the criminal justice system to retraumatise or to hold on to some form of control. Does the hon. Member therefore agree with me that, while what we are trying to do here is really complex, we are all doing it for the right reasons?
Rebecca Paul
I completely agree with the hon. Member. I appreciate the fact that she has tabled these amendments and that she recognises that it is not easy to strike this balance, particularly when we are trying to address abuse and alienation cases and it is sometimes hard to know what situation we are dealing with.
We are trying to come up with a system that protects as many people as we possibly can, but I think we also have to acknowledge that it will never be perfect. If anyone thinks that we can change one bit of law and then all of a sudden nothing horrible will ever happen again, I am afraid to say that these awful things will always happen, and things will always go wrong. It is about trying our best to have a framework that gets the balance right.
I will stop there—I have probably made my point. This has been a really good debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about some of the points I have raised.
Sarah Sackman
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I will set out the rationale for clause 17 and then address the central argument presented by Opposition Members about the repeal of the presumption —the Government do not overclaim for it; is not a silver bullet for the problems and challenges of child protection in this country and will not solve all the challenges in our family court—and why we nevertheless think that it is the right thing to do. I will then address the amendment and new clauses.
The Government’s intention through clause 17 is to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. The child’s welfare must always be the court’s paramount concern when making decisions about a child’s life, and that principle is enshrined in the 1989 Act. The Children and Families Act 2014 amended the 1989 Act to introduce a presumption that, in certain private law proceedings, the child’s welfare will be furthered by each parent’s involvement, unless evidence shows otherwise.
We know that, in most families, both parents play a vital role in a child’s life. However, although the legislation clearly states that the presumption is rebuttable and does not apply where a parent poses a risk of harm to the child, it has none the less faced serious and sustained criticism. To echo what others have said about the testimony and campaigning work of Claire Throssell, ably supported by her MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), Women’s Aid and a whole host of survivors of domestic abuse and those who represent them, the presumption contributes to a pro-contact culture in the family courts that too often prioritises parental involvement over child welfare.
We published our review of the presumption in full last October, and its conclusion was that unsupervised and face-to-face contact was the most common outcome in child arrangements cases, even where there were allegations or findings of domestic abuse. To give some context, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has presented evidence of her own that proven allegations of domestic abuse arise in 80% of those cases. This is prevalent. Those cases come to the court in the way they do because, by definition, family relationships have broken down and there is conflict—that is the nature of these cases, and domestic abuse is already an issue in so many of them. The review demonstrates that, although the presumption is not the sole driver, it can be a contributory factor to a culture in family courts that prioritises parental involvement, even in cases of abuse, which means that, too often, decisions are putting children in harm’s way.
I want to be really clear about that, because we are not overclaiming that the repeal of the presumption will change everything overnight, and we are certainly not saying that it will keep everybody safe. There has been a lot of criticism of the family court, but one thing I do know is that those tasked with making these decisions are trying, through their professionalism, empathy and training, to keep children safe. I do not doubt their good faith. I struggle to imagine the burden of having to make those decisions. We are talking about the devastation of loved ones who have lost children—but imagine being the judge who made that decision, and living with that. I do not think for one second that they would have intended that consequence, and I suspect that, where a child is harmed or even killed as a result of a child arrangement, they regret those decisions every single day.
Through clause 17, we are seeking to ensure that judges approach the application of the law and the welfare checklist, which we regard as really important, with an open mind. The danger with the presumption is that they start with just that: a weighted approach to the consideration of the child’s best interests. We do not think that repealing the presumption is a silver bullet, but it will send a signal to the system—to the leadership of the family court and to everybody who sits within it— that the way to approach this is purely with an open mind, focused on the child.
Dr Mullan
The Minister was absolutely right to point to the enormous burden on those judges. I should have made a similar observation, and I am happy to do so now. Although I have been critical of some of their decisions, I cannot imagine the weight that sits with some of those people all the time, so I want to put on the record my thanks to those judges—on the whole, they do a very good job.
However, we still come back to the issue of accountability. We can preload the system to ensure that judges are more likely to make suitable decisions but, if there are no accountability mechanisms at the other end, we will not necessarily get the results that we want. What thought has the Minister given as to how we better ensure accountability for decision making? In my practice as a doctor, for example, there are so many mechanisms in place to ensure that the decisions I make are not just technically justifiable, but good. The point my constituent made when she visited me was that there are no such mechanisms for judges. If they make a strict error in law, that can be tackled through the Court of Appeal, but outside of that, how can the judiciary better hold itself to account for poor-quality, even if legally defendable, decision making? I am not talking about the Government interfering with the judiciary.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Obviously, we have appeal systems and, in some family proceedings, the nature of them can be iterative; as family circumstances and the facts change, it might be that there are provisions in directions to come back and relitigate some of those child arrangements. In other cases, they are final. Accountability is really important to us as a ministerial team, and the Secretary of State does not shy away from it. While of course respecting separation of powers, the judicial complaints process must be important as well, not just in family courts, but right across the piece. Where judges fall short of the standards we require of them, they should be held accountable.
I want to make a point about transparency and the publication of family court judgments. That is happening more and more, and it is important because it holds it up and says, “That is what a good judgment looks like”. It also exposes where there is decision making that is either faulty, poorly reasoned or simply not justified, so that that cannot happen.
The other thing happening is not just the publication of those judgments, with all the support that transcription allows, but also opening up—again, where appropriate—to journalists and the public to come and see how those hearings operate.
Dr Mullan
The Minister has pointed to complaints, and that is an important element, but there is something in between complaints and legal appeal. Again, from my own experience, working extensively on trying to make quality improvements in healthcare, these are incredibly complex things that we expect experts to do. Someone might not have done the wrong thing but, when we look at their practice as a whole, it does not compare favourably with that of other clinicians. That is what we recognise as the manner in which we drive improvement.
Some of the high-profile statisticians who I have worked with in that regard and who speak publicly on these matters have looked at court decisions say that they can find similar patterns of what we might call outliers—for example, regarding how likely people are to grant parental custody. Any one of those decisions might not be a decision that would be legally wrong or warrant a complaint—but we might see that they are 10 times more likely than all the other judges to award custody. Again, that is not to say that they are wrong to do so; but, just as clinicians are forced to do, we should at the very least be forcing them to reflect on that internally within the judiciary, and say, “Why is it that you are awarding custody to both parents in so many more circumstances than all your peers?”. It is not about complaints or legally wrong actions, but someone’s practice as a whole.
As the Minister has said, there is a very important separation: it should not be the Minister responsible saying to that person, “I don’t like your rate of referral”, but there should be something else within the judiciary—something that is not complaints and is not legal challenge, but that just says, “You all have to be a bit more accountable for the decisions you take”. To give another example in sentencing, if we could consistently see that a judge’s sentencing was consistently very far away from their peers’, that is not something that we should just accept as a society. This is not a Government issue, but a society issue.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. I have no doubt that, not just in the context of this clause—where we are talking about family law—but more generally in other conversations that we have had around the criminal justice system, the Judicial Office and judicial leadership will be following these proceedings quite closely and will be hearing these exchanges. That is why—in a different context—the discussion that we had regarding the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington is so important, with that specific mischief in mind. Judicial performance is something that the judicial leadership ought to want to scrutinise and evaluate, and—where it falls short of the high standards that our judiciary so often deliver— remedy.
This measure, not in and of itself, but through clause 17 and alongside our wider reforms, such as the national roll-out of child-focused courts—the new name for what some hon. Members might know as Pathfinder—over the next three years will signal a step change in putting children’s safety and welfare back where it belongs, at the heart of every family court decision.
I do not want to digress, and this is not in the script but, for those unfamiliar with the Pathfinder programme—I am now told that I have to call them child-focused courts, and that is quite right, because that name describes exactly what they are—having been to observe those courts and spoken to judges, practitioners, social workers and families who have been through them, they are a really good model. They require the production up front of all the expert reports and all the assessments of the children, and there is much less conflict in the way that they operate. Judges like them; practitioners like them; families like them. They also go a whole lot faster. Of course, we must get to the bottom of things and make sure children are protected—but, if they are in an unsafe situation, we want them out of that unsafe situation sooner rather than later. We think that Pathfinder, coupled with the effects of clause 17, will be really important and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester, would require the Lord Chancellor to lay a report before Parliament within six months setting out the level of legal aid provision, judicial capacity, specialist training and investment in the family court estate and in the technology needed to support the repeal of the presumption. Although all those things are essential, fundamental blocks of a well-functioning family court—the availability of legal aid, the judicial training, the specialism and the quality of the estate are all going to be important to producing better decisions and supporting families through an inherently difficult process—the Government do not consider the amendment necessary because the repeal of the presumption does not, in and of itself, alter what is going on within the courtroom. It alters the weighting that a judge gives in his or her decision making, but our endeavours to ensure that family courts are adequately resourced to make sure that children and victims are protected have to happen regardless. We do not need the amendment to achieve that.
As I said, we are already taking forward significant reforms to ensure that the family court system supports survivors of domestic abuse and delivers the right outcomes for survivors and their children. We have existing processes in place to monitor family court resourcing. All that work is led by my colleague Baroness Levitt.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I recognise that the amendment is limited in scope because the Bill is limited in scope, especially when it comes to the family court. Perhaps rather cheekily, I was trying to get a report on the general health of the family court system because so many organisations tell Members across the House that they are really concerned about a lot of the systems sitting in the family court, not just the parental responsibility piece. I remain hopeful that we will see family court legislation introduced, as the Minister will be aware that I have requested in multiple oral questions in the Chamber.
I am aware that the report required by the amendment would be specifically about the repeal, but we need a health check of our family court system because a lot of people are sounding the alarm about the concerns they have with that system.
Sarah Sackman
The family justice strategy, which will be forthcoming in July, will address a lot of what the hon. Member asks for. It will set out where the Government think reform is needed, and it will bring together what we are already doing with our child-focused courts programme, which is accompanied by a £17 million investment. We believe in that model, which we think has huge merit. It will be available to people regardless of where in the country they live.
More generally, we are introducing the funding that the Lord Chancellor has allocated to sitting days for family hearings, the targeted recruitment of more judges, more fee-paid judges, the greater use of virtual hearings—which can be a supportive measure for people giving evidence, not just an efficiency measure—and training.
The hon. Member for Chichester will know that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has also undertaken detailed work in this area through her “Everyday business” report, which talks to some of the resourcing constraints faced by the family court. That work forms part of the commissioner’s report on a family court reporting mechanism, which is designed to provide ongoing evidence-based scrutiny of the family court’s response to domestic abuse in particular, and to highlight where systemic improvements are needed, so we have other accountability measures shining that light. If the hon. Member for Chichester awaits the strategy—she will no doubt want to take a look and critique parts of it—I think a lot of it will address some of the concerns she raises.
As I said, before proposing the repeal of the presumption, we carefully assessed the impact it would have. We do not overstate it, but it is important because the change affects the judicial process, not the underlying reasons why families come to court. Because we do not expect it to increase case volumes, case length or demand for legal aid, we think that the current arrangements can meet it, but there are so many other improvements that we want to drive.
Jess Brown-Fuller
This has been a robust and important debate, and there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument. As I said earlier, we are legislating in a complex area. I think the shared opinion is that the intention is correct. Some of the questions that have been asked are legitimate, but I know the Minister is keen to work collaboratively. I will not press my two new clauses to a vote—they are probing amendments to open up the conversation—but amendment 14, which would require a report as a health check for the family courts, is important, so I will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 72 to 96.
Schedule 3.
Sarah Sackman
I will begin by addressing clause 18 and schedule 3 together before moving to Government amendments 72 to 96.
Clause 18 makes significant reforms to the leadership of tribunals, a change strongly supported by the senior judiciary. This is a key step in the One Judiciary programme, which was set up to achieve the long-standing shared ambition of the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice to have a single, unified judiciary across the courts and tribunals of England and Wales.
As the Lady Chief Justice recently noted, the reforms recognise the unity of judicial work across jurisdictions and will support more flexible deployment of judges, common standards and a more inclusive culture. Lord Justice Dingemans, the Senior President of Tribunals, endorsed this legislation in his annual report.
Clause 18 reforms the role of the Senior President of Tribunals and brings tribunals and their judiciary in England and Wales within the Lady Chief Justice’s leadership responsibilities. It gives effect to schedule 3, which reallocates the SPT’s existing England and Wales functions to the Lady Chief Justice. The SPT will continue to exercise statutory responsibility for some tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the territorial extent of tribunals will remain as now.
The reformed office will retain the title of Senior President of Tribunals and will be equivalent to a head of division role. The provisions also bring the SPT role into line with heads of division by mandating a transparent appointment process, removing the option of a fixed-term appointment and providing for the SPT to be an ex officio member of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
The Bill also creates a new statutory post of deputy head of tribunals justice, similar to the statutory deputy head roles that exist in respect of criminal justice and family justice. The LCJ will become the statutory owner of the SPT’s current functions relating to tribunals operating under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 in England and Wales. There are powers for the Lady Chief Justice to delegate those functions and, in practice, it is expected that most of them will be delegated to the SPT.
The provisions amend the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act to set out how the territorial split will operate for different statutory functions. Generally, they will reallocate functions by territory, so that the SPT will retain the functions in relation to judiciary or staff working primarily in Scotland and Northern Ireland, or to cases to be heard there, while the Lady Chief Justice will assume the functions in the same way for England and Wales.
However, there are some nuances to this approach to safeguard operational flexibility and to support consistency across pan-UK tribunals. For some functions—for example, appointing chamber presidents for cross-UK chambers or approving practice directions—the Bill enables shared decision making. The schedule makes similar changes in respect of the employment tribunals, where required.
The reforms will provide a modernised, unified leadership structure for our tribunals, which will encourage morale, recruitment and career development for the tribunals judiciary, and will support better use of flexible deployment and consistent practice. I should say that since I have been the Minister for Courts, I have had the privilege and pleasure of working with two remarkable Senior Presidents of Tribunals, Lord Justice Lindblom and Lord Justice Dingemans.
I have responsibility for tribunals, which form a huge part of where many of our citizens interact with our legal system, whether that is the employment tribunal, the special educational needs and disability tribunal, the social security tribunal or the property tribunal—I hope I have not forgotten one. I therefore welcome the introduction of this modernised structure to enable the best possible leadership, and to support our tribunal judges working within it. I commend clause 18 and schedule 3 to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I had considered thinking of a question for every single amendment, but I elected against that. I speak in support of clause 18 and schedule 3. While the provisions may not generate the same level of public debate and scrutiny as the Bill’s earlier clauses regarding the restriction of jury trials, they carry significant institutional and constitutional weight within our judicial hierarchy.
The clause and schedule will bring the leadership of tribunals in England and Wales more firmly within the unified judicial structure, placing them under the overarching leadership of the Lady Chief Justice. In practical terms, this involves a title change for the Lady Chief Justice, who will become the president of the courts and tribunals of England and Wales. They also involve the transfer of specific leadership responsibilities that are currently vested in the Senior President of Tribunals.
The Government’s primary justification for the reform is administrative coherence and systemic flexibility. By reconfiguring the office of the Senior President of Tribunals, as the head of tribunals justice, the Bill attempts to create a more integrated and seamless judicial pyramid. In theory, such integration should allow for better co-ordination across different jurisdictions, ensuring that the tribunal judiciary is viewed not as a secondary or isolated branch of the law, but as an equal partner in the modern administration of justice.
The Opposition offer support for this move towards unity, acknowledging that a more cohesive leadership structure can streamline high-level decision making and improve the deployment of resources. However, that support must be tempered with a request for scrutiny. Unification should not be used as a tool for uniformity. Tribunals are substantially and culturally distinct from the traditional courts; they were designed specifically to be more accessible, specialist and often less formal in their proceedings. Their value to the public lies not only in their final adjudication of a dispute. Whether it is social security, immigration or employment, I am sure that we as MPs have all been contacted by constituents who have gone through, or expect to go through, a tribunal process.
Leadership arrangements are never merely technical; they shape the culture, training priorities and institutional identity of the body they lead. The Government have stated that practical leadership will continue to be exercised through a system of delegation back to the reconfigured office of the Senior President of Tribunals. While we recognise that this appears workable on paper, we must be satisfied that it will not allow creeping deprioritisation, a lack of focus, or a watering down of tribunals’ particular culture when they become part of this unified leadership. Will the Minister therefore assure us that thought has been given to ensuring an absence of uniformity, because we have specifically designed the courts not to be uniform, but different in their own way?
Sarah Sackman
That reflects the clause as drafted and the intention behind it, from speaking to our judicial leadership. In my experience, I have certainly found our judicial and tribunal leadership to be progressive, reforming and more open to cultural change, scrutiny and improvement than perhaps might previously have been the case. I welcome that, because it is as it should be. The hon. Member is right, of course: tribunals are different. They are meant to be informal and feel different from going to the High Court, which is all terribly alienating to the ordinary person who is untrained. A tribunal is supposed to involve a relatively cost-neutral and more relaxed process so that the individual can participate in it. Our proposals do not cut against that, but bring the judiciary across England and Wales into the notion of unity, with a lot of the benefits of being under a single leadership—sharing best practice and deploying judges across different jurisdictions—being enhanced, so that everyone can benefit without bleeding out the differences that rightly exist in our different courts and tribunals.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Leadership of tribunals
Amendments made: 72, in schedule 3, page 68, line 4, after “may” insert
“, subject to the following provisions of this section,”.
This amendment is intended to clarify that the Lord Chief Justice’s general power under section 7A(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (inserted by the Bill) to delegate functions relating to tribunals is qualified by subsequent subsections of that section.
Amendment 73, in schedule 3, page 68, leave out line 5.
This amendment would remove redundancy in the drafting of new section 7A(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (inserted by the Bill).
Amendment 74, in schedule 3, page 68, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) A function of the Lord Chief Justice may not be delegated under subsection (1) to a person who—
(a) is a judge, or other member, of the Upper Tribunal or First-tier Tribunal only by virtue of the person being a relevant Scottish office-holder or a relevant Northern Ireland office-holder, and
(b) is not a Chamber President, or a Deputy Chamber President, of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal or of a chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.”
This amendment, together with amendment 75, would prevent the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales delegating functions relating to tribunals to a person who is a judge of the Upper Tribunal or First-Tier Tribunal only because the person holds a particular judicial office in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Amendment 75, in schedule 3, page 69, line 6, at end insert—
“(8A) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—
(a) a person is a ‘relevant Scottish office-holder’ if the person is—
(i) a judge of the Court of Session,
(ii) a sheriff in Scotland,
(iii) the President of Employment Tribunals (Scotland),
(iv) the Vice President of Employment Tribunals (Scotland), or
(v) a member of a panel of members of employment tribunals (whether or not a panel of Employment Judges) established for Scotland;
(b) a person is a ‘relevant Northern Ireland office-holder’ if the person is—
(i) a Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland,
(ii) a puisne judge of the High Court in Northern Ireland,
(iii) a county court judge in Northern Ireland,
(iv) a district judge in Northern Ireland,
(v) the Chief Social Security Commissioner, or any other Social Security Commissioner, appointed under section 50(1) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, or
(vi) a Social Security Commissioner appointed under section 50(2) of that Act (deputy Commissioners).”
See the explanatory statement to amendment 74.
Amendment 76, in schedule 3, page 69, line 21, after “may” insert
“, subject to the following provisions of this section,”.
This amendment would make a change to the drafting of new section 7B of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (further delegation of functions of the Lord Chief Justice) corresponding to the change made by amendment 72 to the drafting of new section 7A of that Act.
Amendment 77, in schedule 3, page 69, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) A function of the Lord Chief Justice may not be further delegated under subsection (1) to a person who—
(a) is a judge, or other member, of the Upper Tribunal or First-tier Tribunal only by virtue of the person being a relevant Scottish office-holder or a relevant Northern Ireland office-holder, and
(b) is not a Chamber President, or a Deputy Chamber President, of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal or of a chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.”
This amendment would impose a limitation on the power to further delegate a function of the Lord Chief Justice under new section 7B of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 corresponding to the limitation imposed in relation to new section 7A of that Act by amendment 74.
Amendment 78, in schedule 3, page 69, line 28, leave out from “to” to end of line and insert
“a person appointed as—
(a) Deputy Head of Tribunals Justice, or
(b) Chamber President of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal.”
This amendment would enable functions of the Lord Chief Justice under paragraph 1(1) or 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 that are delegated to a senior judge to be further delegated to the Deputy Head of Tribunals Justice.
Amendment 79, in schedule 3, page 70, line 2, at end insert—
“‘relevant Scottish office-holder’ and ‘relevant Northern Ireland office-holder’ have the same meaning as in subsection (1A) of section 7A (see subsection (8A) of that section);”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 77.
Amendment 80, in schedule 3, page 70, line 7, leave out “(1)(b),” and insert
“(1)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a), after ‘may’ insert ‘, subject to the following provisions of this section,’;
(b) in paragraph (b),”.
This amendment would make a change to the drafting of section 8 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Senior President of Tribunals: power to delegate) corresponding to the change made by amendment 72 to the drafting of new section 7A of that Act.
Amendment 81, in schedule 3, page 70, line 8, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (1A)—
(a) for ‘paragraph 1(1) or 2(1) of Schedule 2’ substitute ‘any of the provisions listed in subsection (1B)’;
(b) for ‘a Chamber President of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal’ substitute ‘a person appointed as—
(a) Deputy Head of Tribunals Justice, or
(b) Chamber President of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal’.
(2B) After subsection (1A) insert—
‘(1B) The provisions are—
section 7(7);
section 7(8B) and (9);
paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2;
paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2;
paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3;
paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 3;
paragraph 2 of Schedule 4;
paragraph 5(1) and (3) of Schedule 4;
paragraph 5(5) to (8) of Schedule 4;
paragraph 5A(3A) of Schedule 4.’”
This amendment would insert provision amending section 8 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to enable the Senior President of Tribunals to delegate to the Deputy Head of Tribunals Justice or an Upper Tribunal Chamber President certain functions to which subsection (1) of that section does not currently apply.
Amendment 82, in schedule 3, page 70, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
“(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
‘(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to functions of the Senior President of Tribunals under any of the following—
section 29B;
section 29D;
section 46;
paragraph 3 of Schedule 5;
paragraph 2 of Schedule A1 to the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.’”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 81.
Amendment 83, in schedule 3, page 70, line 21, at end insert—
“18A After section 8 insert—
‘8A Delegation: supplementary
(1) Where a function is exercisable, in a particular case, by the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, acting jointly—
(a) so far as the function is exercisable by the Lord Chief Justice, it is to be treated for the purposes of section 7A as a relevant tribunal function and may be delegated under that section, and further delegated under section 7B, accordingly (including to the Senior President of Tribunals);
(b) so far as the function is exercisable by the Senior President of Tribunals—
(i) it is to be treated for the purposes of section 8 as a function the Senior President of Tribunals has in that capacity and may be delegated under section 8 accordingly, but
(ii) it may not be delegated under that section to the Lord Chief Justice.
(2) Where a person (“the delegator”) has a power to delegate a function under section 7A, 7B or 8—
(a) any requirement that the delegator may exercise the function only with the concurrence of another person (“P”) does not prevent the delegator from delegating the function to P, and
(b) if the delegator delegates the function to P, any such requirement is to be disregarded so far as the function is exercised by P.
(3) In this section “the Lord Chief Justice” means the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.’”
This amendment would insert provision intended to clarify the effect of delegation powers under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, inserted or amended by the Bill, in cases where the function being delegated is exercisable jointly with, or with the concurrence of, the person to whom it is delegated.
Amendment 84, in schedule 3, page 75, line 6, leave out “senior judge” and insert
“person who holds high judicial office”.
This amendment would enable functions of the Senior President of Tribunals to be exercised during any vacancy or incapacity by a holder of high judicial office in Scotland or Northern Ireland (as well as in England and Wales).
Amendment 85, in schedule 3, page 75, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
“‘high judicial office’ has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (see section 60(2)(a)of that Act);”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
Amendment 86, in schedule 3, page 88, line 9, at end insert—
“32A In Schedule 8 (tribunals and inquiries: consequential and other amendments), in paragraph 41, omit sub-paragraphs (3) and (6) (which insert into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provision repealed by this Act).”
This amendment would repeal provisions of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which insert into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provision repealed by the Bill.
Amendment 87, in schedule 3, page 92, line 38, at end insert—
“Agriculture Act 1947
43A In Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947 (constitution etc. of tribunals etc.), in paragraph 15A (which provides for a member of the First-tier Tribunal to act as a member of the Agricultural Land Tribunal)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’;
(b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1ZA) In sub-paragraph (1), “the appropriate office-holder” means—
(a) in relation to a member of the First-tier Tribunal who exercises functions wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals;
(b) in any other case, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.’
Lands Tribunal Act 1949
43B In section 1 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 (which makes provision including provision about selecting a surveyor for the purposes of section 58 or 106 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845)—
(a) in subsection (6), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’;
(b) after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6ZA) In subsection (6) “the appropriate office-holder” means—
(a) in relation to the determination of compensation to be paid in respect of land in England or Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales;
(b) in any other case, the Senior President of Tribunals.
(6ZB) Section 7A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Lord Chief Justice: power to delegate) applies to any function of the Lord Chief Justice under subsection (6) as it applies to a relevant tribunal function within the meaning of that section.
For provision enabling the delegation of any function of the Senior President of Tribunals, see section 8 of that Act.’
Rent Act 1977
43C In Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 (rent assessment committees), in paragraph 5A (which provides for a member of the First-tier Tribunal to act as a member of a committee in Wales)—
(a) the existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1);
(b) in that sub-paragraph, for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’;
(c) after that sub-paragraph insert—
‘(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “the appropriate office-holder” means—
(a) in relation to a member of the First-tier Tribunal who exercises functions wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals;
(b) in any other case, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.’”
This amendment would insert provision amending provisions of the Agriculture Act 1947, the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 and the Rent Act 1977 so as to confer on the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales certain functions currently conferred on the Senior President of Tribunals.
Amendment 88, in schedule 3, page 93, line 12, leave out paragraph 46 and insert—
“46 In section 9 (assistance for transaction of judicial business)—
(a) in subsection (1), in the Table (judges deployable to certain courts), in column 1 of entry 4A (the Senior President of Tribunals), after ‘Senior President of Tribunals’ insert ‘, if not an ex-officio judge of the Court of Appeal’;
(b) omit subsection (1ZA).”
This amendment would enable a holder of the office of Senior President of Tribunals who is an ex-officio judge of the Court of Appeal to act on request as a judge of the Crown Court (like all other judges of the Court of Appeal).
Amendment 89, in schedule 3, page 93, line 29, at end insert—
“Mental Health Act 1983
48A In Schedule 2 to the Mental Health Act 1983 (Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales), in paragraph 5 (which provides for certain members of the First-tier Tribunal to act as members of the tribunal)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’;
(b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1ZA) In sub-paragraph (1), “the appropriate office-holder” means—
(a) in relation to a member of the First-tier Tribunal who exercises functions wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals;
(b) in any other case, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.’
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
48B In section 33 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (acquisition order where landlord cannot be found)—
(a) in subsection (2)(a), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales’;
(b) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(4) Section 7A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Lord Chief Justice: power to delegate) applies to the function of the Lord Chief Justice under subsection (2)(a) as it applies to a relevant tribunal function within the meaning of that section.’
Local Government Finance Act 1988
48C In Part 1 of Schedule 11 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (the Valuation Tribunal for England), in paragraph A18A (power for member of First-tier Tribunal to act as member of the Tribunal)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (9), after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) “the appropriate office-holder” means—
(i) in relation to an FTT member who exercises functions wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals, and
(ii) in any other case, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and’.
Social Security Act 1998
48D (1) Section 15A of the Social Security Act 1998 (functions of Senior President of Tribunals) is amended as follows.
(2) For the heading substitute ‘Confidentiality in the First-tier Tribunal’.
(3) In subsection (1), for ‘The Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘The appropriate office-holder’.
(4) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1), “the appropriate office-holder” means—
(a) in relation to the First-tier Tribunal in England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales;
(b) in relation to the First-tier Tribunal in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals.’”
This amendment would insert provision amending provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Social Security Act 1998 so as to confer on the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales certain functions currently conferred on the Senior President of Tribunals.
Amendment 90, in schedule 3, page 94, line 1, at end insert—
“49A The Crime and Courts Act 2013 is amended as follows.”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 92.
Amendment 91, in schedule 3, page 94, line 2, leave out “the Crime and Courts Act 2013, in”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 90.
Amendment 92, in schedule 3, page 94, line 3, at end insert—
“50A In Schedule 13 (judicial appointments), omit the following provisions (which insert into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provision repealed by this Act)—
(a) paragraph 30(3);
(b) paragraph 43;
(c) paragraph 44(2);
(d) paragraph 45(2) and (4);
(e) paragraph 46(2) and (6);
(f) paragraph 47(4) to (6), (8), (9), (11) and (12).
50B In Schedule 14 (deployment of the judiciary), in paragraph 12, omit sub-paragraph (2) (which inserts into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provision repealed by this Act).”
This amendment would repeal provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which insert into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provision repealed by the Bill.
Amendment 93, in schedule 3, page 94, line 3, at end insert—
“Wales Act 2017
50A (1) Section 63 of the Wales Act 2017 (cross-deployment of tribunal members and judges) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for the words from ‘if’ to the end substitute ‘—
(a) in England and Wales, if the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales asks the member to do so and the President of Welsh Tribunals agrees to the request being made;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, if the Senior President of Tribunals asks the member to do so and the President of Welsh Tribunals agrees to the request being made.’
(3) In subsection (2), in the words after paragraph (b), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’.
(4) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) In subsection (2), “the appropriate office-holder” means—
(a) where the tribunal member exercises functions wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals;
(b) in any other case, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.’”
This amendment would insert provision amending provisions of the Wales Act 2017 so as to confer on the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales certain functions currently conferred on the Senior President of Tribunals.
Amendment 94, in schedule 3, page 94, line 3, at end insert—
“Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018
50A In the Schedule to the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 (authorised court and tribunal staff: legal advice and judicial functions), omit paragraph 40 (which inserts into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provision repealed by this Act).”
This amendment would repeal provision of the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 which inserts into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provision repealed by the Bill.
Amendment 95, in schedule 3, page 95, line 4, at end insert—
“Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022
54 The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 is amended as follows.
55 (1) Section 32 (judicial agreement to certain regulations) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a)—
(a) omit the ‘or’ at the end of sub-paragraph (i);
(b) at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) insert
‘, or
(iii) relevant tribunal proceedings in England and Wales;’.
(3) In subsection (1)(b)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (i), after ‘First-tier Tribunal’ insert ‘in Scotland or Northern Ireland’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), after ‘Upper Tribunal’ insert ‘in Scotland or Northern Ireland’;
(c) in sub-paragraph (iii), after ‘employment tribunals’ insert ‘in Scotland’;
(d) in sub-paragraph (iv), after ‘Employment Appeal Tribunal’ insert ‘in Scotland’.
(4) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(3) In this section, “relevant tribunal proceedings” means proceedings in—
(a) the First-tier Tribunal,
(b) the Upper Tribunal,
(c) employment tribunals, or
(d) the Employment Appeal Tribunal.’
56 (1) Schedule 3 (practice directions for online proceedings) is amended as follows.
(2) In Part 2 (proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal), in paragraph 7 (giving practice directions)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for ‘The Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘The Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, acting jointly,’;
(b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) The Lord Chief Justice may give practice directions under paragraph 5 in relation to proceedings in a Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal whose business involves only the application of the law of England and Wales.
(1B) The Senior President of Tribunals may give practice directions under paragraph 5 in relation to proceedings in a Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal whose business involves only the application of the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland.’;
(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘The Senior President may not give practice directions’ substitute ‘Practice directions may not be given under sub-paragraph (1), (1A) or (1B)’;
(d) in sub-paragraph (4)—
(i) omit the ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (a);
(ii) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) the Lord Chief Justice, if the business of the Chamber to which the directions relate involves the application of the law of England and Wales, and’;
(iii) in paragraph (b), after ‘Tribunals’ insert ‘, if the business of the Chamber to which the directions relate involves the application of the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland’;
(e) in sub-paragraph (6)—
(i) for ‘the approval of the Senior President of Tribunals if’ substitute ‘any approval’;
(ii) for ‘sub-paragraph (4)(b)’ insert ‘sub-paragraph (4)(aa) or (b)’.
(3) In Part 3 (proceedings in employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal), in paragraph 11 (giving practice directions)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—
(i) for ‘The Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘The Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, acting jointly,’;
(ii) for ‘any proceedings’ substitute ‘proceedings in the Employment Appeal Tribunal’;
(b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) The Lord Chief Justice may give practice directions under paragraph 9 in relation to proceedings in employment tribunals in England and Wales.
(1B) The Senior President of Tribunals may give practice directions under paragraph 9 in relation to proceedings in employment tribunals in Scotland.’;
(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘The Senior President may not give practice directions’ substitute ‘Practice directions may not be given under sub-paragraph (1), (1A) or (1B)’;
(d) in sub-paragraph (5), for the words from ‘of—’ to’ the end substitute ‘of the Lord Chancellor’;
(e) after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
‘(5A) The President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal may not give practice directions without the approval of—
(a) the Lord Chief Justice, and
(b) the Senior President of Tribunals.
(5B) The President of Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) may not give practice directions without the approval of the Lord Chief Justice.
(5C) The President of Employment Tribunals (Scotland) may not give practice directions without the approval of the Senior President of Tribunals.’;
(f) in sub-paragraph (6), for ‘sub-paragraph (5)(a)’ substitute ‘sub-paragraph (5)’;
(g) in sub-paragraph (7)—
(i) for ‘sub-paragraph (5)(a)’ substitute ‘sub-paragraph (5)’;
(ii) for ‘the approval of the Senior President of Tribunals if’ substitute ‘any approval’;
(iii) for ‘sub-paragraph (5)(b)’ substitute ‘sub-paragraph (5A), (5B) or (5C)’.”
This amendment would insert provision amending provisions of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 so as to confer on the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales certain functions currently conferred on the Senior President of Tribunals.
Amendment 96, in schedule 3, page 95, line 4, at end insert—
“57 In Schedule 5 (employment tribunal procedure rules: further provision)—
(a) in paragraph 3, omit sub-paragraphs (3) and (6) (which insert into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provision repealed by this Act);
(b) omit paragraph 28 (which inserts into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provision repealed by this Act).”—(Sarah Sackman.)
This amendment would repeal provisions of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 which insert into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provision repealed by the Bill.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19
Lay justices’ allowances
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Sackman
The clause will make it easier to make changes to the types of expenses that can be reimbursed so that we can more nimbly react to what the magistracy requires. It is right that our valued magistrates are reimbursed for reasonable expenses and should not feel out of pocket for serving their community.
Section 15 of the Courts Act 2003 sets out three specific categories of reimbursable expenses: travel, subsistence and financial loss. However, those statutory categories are, in effect, over-prescriptive. The provisions in the Bill follow the recommendation of the independent review of the criminal courts to move the categories of magistrates’ expenses which may be reimbursed from primary to secondary legislation, which will provide the flexibility to update them more quickly and to respond to changes in the evolving needs of magistrates’ expenses.
I turn now to the detail. Proposed new section 15(1) of the 2003 Act replaces the existing statutory categories of magistrates’ expenses with a delegated power enabling the Lord Chancellor to specify, in regulations, the categories of expenses or financial loss for which a magistrate can be reimbursed in connection with the performance of their duties. The power also enables regulations to provide for reimbursement of expenditure incurred or financial loss suffered as a result of those duties.
Subsection (2) outlines what matters may be addressed in the regulations and sets out what is and is not to be treated as the performance of a magistrate’s official duties, the circumstances under which expenditure of financial loss can be considered to arise from the carrying out of those duties, and administrative arrangements for making and determining claims.
I realise that the clause sounds a little dry, but it is really important. We have talked about the important role that our magistrates play in our criminal justice system. Whatever one’s view of the Government’s reforms, they are being given more responsibilities and work to do, and we will need to attract more people.
I think that the hon. Member for Chichester raised the important issue of magistrate retention. For every magistrate we recruit and train up and who must gain experience, we are seeing people leave the magistracy, partly because we are not supporting the important role they provide society and supporting them to remain magistrates for longer. That is about expenses and recognising people’s service, which is why we are looking to provide rewards and outward recognition through a long service medal. Those are all important.
Although the clause is technical, when I spoke to the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive and the Magistrates’ Association, they were delighted by it. They know that their members need to feel valued. Part of that is not making them feel undervalued by leaving them out of pocket. Even if the system were not reformed, this would be a good measure. If there is to be reform and we are to attract the magistrates we need, it is a really good thing.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Minister is quite right to point out that the clause is somewhat technical, but it speaks to the importance of we as a society and we as a Parliament—as legislators—making sure that, although we do not seek to professionalise the magistracy entirely, we give them the support that professionals would expect. If we want to attract people into the magistracy, this is exactly what we need to do. They certainly deserve an update to the system of expenses and more.
Sarah Sackman
I could not agree more. That is precisely why we are doing this, and it is why I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in enthusiastic support of the clause. If we were starting from scratch, would we deal with this issue in primary legislation? I expect not. I do not know the history of why the approach of the time was followed, but it seems that the matter should be addressed flexibly via regulations. Members will have heard us argue vociferously against the use of both positive and negative regulations in different contexts, but it seems appropriate in these circumstances. The proposal reflects the changing nature of how people work, interact and fulfil their role as magistrates. We want to support and accommodate that in a way that is not over-rigid.
Of course, there will be opportunities for scrutiny of the legislation to come. Even though we have talked about the significant limitations of the negative procedure, scrutiny is still an option in theory if something were proposed that that we really were not happy about. Considering the stakes of this issue, that is a proportionate approach.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I wanted to speak on this clause because, as the Minister said, while it is technical and feels dry, it is incredibly important. I appeared in front of many magistrates over my 21 years as a Crown prosecutor. They do an incredibly important job and provide a huge public service. During the course of this legislative process, it has been concerning to hear suggestions that magistrates are, in some respects, an inferior bench or forum for our criminal justice system. That is far from my experience over 21 years.
I put on record my thanks to all the magistrates who serve day in, day out, across this country. The clause recognises them and shows that we can be dynamic in rewarding them. The Minister mentioned the medal, which I welcome. I can think of many magistrates who deserve a medal for their work. It is important that we pass the clause today.
Sarah Sackman
That is true. We should be doing what is set out in this good clause and I have nothing more to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Special provision when Crown Court sits in City of London
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Sackman
Clause 20 concerns the statutory title “Central Criminal Court”, which has been on the statute book since 1834 and refers, in practice, to the Old Bailey. Under existing legislation, the title applies to the Crown court sitting within the City of London. Historically, the only Crown court located within the City has been the Old Bailey, so the provision has operated without difficulty. From next year, however, I am absolutely delighted to say that the City of London Corporation’s new courts complex at Salisbury Square will open. It is fantastic; I have been to seen it—I had to do that politician’s thing of wearing high-vis and a hard hat.
The complex is an amazing facility for London’s justice system, with modern courtrooms. It is a brilliant resource, providing much needed additional Crown court capacity following more than £600 million of investment. Without legislative clarification, however, both the Old Bailey and the new courts at Salisbury Square would automatically be designated as the Central Criminal Court. That would cause operational confusion for court users and practitioners. Clause 20 therefore clarifies that the statutory title will continue to apply only to the Old Bailey.
The clause also maintains the long-standing statutory entitlement of the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London to sit as judges when the Crown court sits within the City. In practice, and as a matter of convention, they do not assert that entitlement in order to sit in hearings in criminal cases. The clause does not alter how that entitlement is exercised in practice; it ensures that the historic statutory entitlement continues to apply consistently when the Crown court sits in more than one location within the City.
The City’s historic relationship with the Central Criminal Court does not affect judicial independence or integrity, and all judicial business will continue to be conducted by independent, legally qualified judges. I commend clause 20 to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of clause 20, which is a technical and geographic provision necessitated by the significant infrastructure developments currently under way in the City of London. As new law courts are developed, specifically at the Salisbury Square site—we mentioned the specialist fraud court earlier in the Committee, and I do not know if that is included in the site—the law must be updated to clarify how historical designations, sitting rights and traditional roles are to be maintained in a changing physical landscape. The clause is a matter of ensuring that our legal terminology catches up with the physical reality of the court estate.
The primary objective of the clause is clarity and the avoidance of ambiguity. It ensures that the prestigious and globally recognised designation of the Central Criminal Court remains attached exclusively to the historic Old Bailey site. “Old Bailey” is a phrase that many people will be familiar with, and it acts as a tourist draw for our visitor economy. It is important to ensure that the title is not diluted or confused as additional Crown court capacity is brought online at other locations within the City boundaries.
Simultaneously, the clause ensures that the historical sitting rights of the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London are maintained and extended to any Crown court site within the City. That is a respectful preservation of the unique judicial heritage of the City of London Corporation, ensuring that ceremonial traditions and historical roles are not inadvertently extinguished by modern building projects.
The Opposition support clause 20 as a necessary administrative measure. It is a fundamental principle of good lawmaking that technical clauses should be explained clearly to the Committee so that their practical effect is well understood. I thank the Minister for doing that today.
Sarah Sackman
There is only one Old Bailey, and as a result of clause 20, there will only ever be one Old Bailey. I invite all members of the Committee to join together on a group tour of the new facility in Salisbury Square when it opens, hopefully in a year’s time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Morgan.)
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
Young Adult Carers: Education and Training
(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
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to education and training for young adult carers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Before I start, I want to declare that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Throughout my contribution, I will refer to the APPG’s recent report on removing the barriers to higher education, employment and training for young adult carers, and I thank the Carers Trust, the APPG’s secretariat, for publishing it. I also thank the vice-chair, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), who sadly cannot be here because she is on Bench duty.
I particularly want to thank the young carers who contributed to the report—in particular, our co-chairs, Farzana, Bakoory and Danny, and also Ashleigh, Jahnavi, Sammi, Becca, Elaroop, Emma, Isla, Joanne, Lewis, Luna, Ruby, Sammie-Jo, Tariq and Zaynab, for their really important contributions. Anecdotally, if you ever find yourself on a panel of speakers with a young carer or young adult carer, I would advise going first, Mrs Harris. If you find yourself, as I did at my party’s conference this year, speaking directly after a young adult carer—in this case, Farzana—you will find that anything that you have to say absolutely lacks impact, because the young adult carer will have said something far more powerful and, in my case, far more intelligent.
As chair of the APPG, a former teacher and a young carer lead for Action for Family Carers—a charity based not only in my constituency of Harlow but across Essex—I am keen to talk about educational opportunities for young carers and young adult carers. As you will be aware, Mrs Harris—I mention this quite often—I was a secondary school teacher. Having had conversations with young carers and young adult carers, I felt it was important to focus the APPG report on the transition from school to further and higher education, training and employment. As the Minister knows, that fits nicely with the Government’s aims. I know that this falls under a different Department, but I am sure he will work with the Work and Pensions Secretary on the Alan Milburn report, which will recognise the importance of tackling people not in education, employment or training. He will recognise that a higher proportion of young carers and young adult carers are NEET, for reasons I will highlight in my speech.
What we found from the young adult carers who came to the APPG and spoke about their experiences of going into higher education is that they face a number of barriers, some of which I will come to. I was really struck by the fact that when they applied for university, they did not feel there were models—not exactly role models, but models of young carers and young adult carers going on to university—they could learn and get aspiration from. It was really interesting to hear that. Of course, young adult carers going on to university face other issues, which I hope to touch on in my speech.
The APPG’s previous inquiry into young carers, which took place in 2023, before I entered this place, heard that more than 40,000 young adult carers are caring for their loved ones for more than 50 hours per week. In our recent inquiry, we heard from 198 young carers and young adult carers, and only a quarter said they had the same access to opportunities in education—particularly higher and further education. Some 73% said they felt they were falling behind their peers in education, and 79% said caring had a huge impact on their mental health and is a key factor impacting their career plans. I will quote one particular young adult carer, who said:
“At one point, it felt like I would never be able to live my own life or make decisions that didn’t directly benefit”
the health of the person they cared for.
While I have this opportunity, I want to thank all the organisations that took part in the inquiry, such as MYTIME Young Carers in Bournemouth, Action for Family Carers in Essex, the Carers Trust, of course, and other partners. We received representations from carers in Gloucester and Sheffield, as well as in Northern Ireland, and I look forward to hearing a contribution about Northern Ireland later.
MYTIME Young Carers recognises that there is often pressure to stay at home and not access further education, training or employment. For young adult carers, distance is often a key motivating factor when choosing which university to go to, with two fifths choosing to stay at home when studying. The nature of higher and further education in this country means that that decision can have a key impact on what that young person chooses to study and on their other life chances, given that they do not have a full range of choices when it comes to university. MYTIME Young Carers also recognises the challenges young adult carers have in meeting deadlines, which is also cited in the report, as Members might expect.
I will move on to some of the report’s recommendations, and I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on them. The first recommendation, which is key for not only young adult carers looking to access higher education, further education, employment or training but all young carers, is to improve the identification of carers. I often tell the story, from my time as a teacher, of when I was unaware that a young person in my class was a young carer until it came to parents evening; I think that that is particularly relevant and moving. That is an issue for not only secondary schools but higher and further education institutions, and it is perhaps even more of a challenge in universities, where the same relationship is not necessarily built with teachers as in schools. It is also important to improve the support for young adult carers in education.
I am delighted to have a fantastic school called Mark Hall Academy in my constituency, which does some fantastic work to support young carers. I would emphasise the importance of having a young carers lead in every school to support young carers not only in school itself but in any transition they make moving forward, and with careers advice.
Secondly, there is removal of financial barriers. A report has come out today that talks about the 21-hour rule, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that. I would also ask the Department for Work and Pensions to provide financial solutions so that young adult carers do not have to choose between caring and learning.
We should also improve young carers’ access to employment and training opportunities. Again, I welcome the Milburn report, but I would call for a cross-Government carers strategy to ensure that young carers and young adult carers are a key thread in everything the Government do. I would also ask the Minister and Ministers from the DWP to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that local authorities can meet their statutory obligations on transition assessments, so that they provide assessments for all young adult carers and, of course, age-appropriate support on top of that.
I would also like to talk about the importance of improving data about young adult carers. We need to be led by the data. In Essex, for example, there are 10,000 young carers and young adult carers. I suspect that the number is actually much higher, because many young carers do not necessarily recognise that they are young carers. Again, I emphasise that any reporting on NEETs should include whether people have caring responsibilities.
I feel passionately about this subject. From day one in this place, I have been determined to ensure that I continue to be a champion for young carers and young adult carers, as I was in my previous role. None of us could fail to recognise the hugely important role of young carers and young adult carers, not just in supporting their loved ones but in the wider community.
When we talk about young carers and young adult carers, many people talk about the huge economic benefits they provide. If these young people did not take on that caring responsibility, there would be a greater number of admissions to hospital and a greater cost to the NHS. I do not like to think about it like that, because that is not why young carers and young adult carers care for their loved ones; they do it for love, don’t they? Equally, we must make sure that they are supported as much as possible throughout their lives, not just at school but as they transition to higher education, training and employment.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee—I am a member of it, so I would say that—for allowing me to have this debate, and I look forward to hearing the contributions from other Members, including the shadow Minister and the Minister.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for requesting time to debate this vital topic. I do not think he ever makes a contribution without mentioning Harlow, and well done to him. Indeed, I have probably never made a contribution without mentioning Strangford, but that is by the way. It is important to remember who we represent and speak on behalf of in this Chamber.
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his energy, his interest in this subject and his incredible speech, which was detailed and full of information we all need to consider. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. In this debate, I suspect every one of us will be of the same mind, including the Minister. At the end of my speech, I will have a number of asks of him.
The situation in Northern Ireland is no different from that in Harlow or anywhere else. Members from various constituencies are here to talk about a group of people who are the backbone of our society, but who often remain invisible. Their endeavours are perhaps not seen or talked about, but that is not why they do these things: as the hon. Gentleman said, they do it for the love of their siblings, their mum or their dad—whoever it is they are caring for. There are literally thousands of young people in Northern Ireland who, instead of focusing on their exams or their social lives, provide vital care for their loved ones. This debate is a chance to tell their story.
Over my years as an elected representative, I have had many opportunities to speak to young carers and meet their families, and to understand their situations. Early in my time as an Assembly Member, I spoke to a young boy who looked after his mum in the West Winds estate in Newtownards. I remember the commitment that that young boy had to his mum and also to his siblings. His mum was a single parent, and she was housebound and, if I recall rightly, wheelchair-bound as well. That young boy gave great physical help to his mum, including by getting his siblings to school in the morning. Those are things the mum would have done, but he did them because she could not. It is very important that we remember that. The example of that young fella from way, way back always sticks in my mind.
The scale of responsibility is staggering. According to the latest figures, there are some 17,500 child and young adult carers in Northern Ireland, representing roughly 8% of all unpaid carers in our region back home. The 2021 census highlights a very stark age profile: we have at least 2,500 carers under the age of 15. I know that this is not how they see it, but those young shoulders have to support a physical and an emotional burden. When they move into early adulthood, those numbers grow: over 5% of our 15 to 19-year-olds and more than 8% of our 20 to 24-year-olds are providing regular unpaid care.
It is not just about the numbers. Although the stats are important to give the mathematical background, they do not fully explain the issues—it is about the intensity of that care. In Northern Ireland, more than 10% of young carers under 18 are providing over 50 hours of care every single week. I think of the intensity of that care and that young boy who I knew some years ago and whom I referred to—he is now an adult; he has married and moved on in his life. There is an intensity of care if someone is wheelchair bound, bed bound or unable to do things physically, and the duty falls on the shoulders of the daughter or the son to sometimes do things that are quite intimate, which is also a problem. Those 50 hours of care every single week are more than a full-time job, balanced on the shoulders of someone still in school or starting their career.
That commitment comes at an incredibly high price. Research shows that young carers are 1.5 times more likely to experience educational difficulties than their peers because the pressures on their young shoulders are enormous. They are also facing a poverty penalty—a point on which the Minister could respond. People will ask what that means; it means that roughly one in four unpaid carers in Northern Ireland live in poverty. For many of our young carers, it also means missing out on school trips and socialising with their friends, because when they get home from school they are looking after their mum or the other children and making their tea, looking after their health needs and giving them their medications.
Young carers are even missing out on basic essentials such as heating and food. One guy told me that they are often
“one white good appliance away from destitution.”
In other words, they are dependent on everything working in the house—the microwave, the toaster, the kettle and the lift up the stairs or into the shower—for those things that are otherwise impossible for someone who is severely disabled to do themselves. We know the value of this work. Unpaid carers save the Northern Ireland Executive, my Assembly, an estimated £5.8 billion every year. That is what those 17,500 young carers do every year, yet the support they receive does not ever reflect that contribution.
It is time for our Government to move beyond Trojan work and—I say this with great respect—patronising praise. My first ask of the Minister is that there must be financial recognition through an uplift to the carer’s allowance. I know that these things will not necessarily be within the Minister’s remit, but I would appreciate him pushing for them following the debate today, ever mindful of what is happening.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I apologise for my tardiness in arriving, Mrs Harris. The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point. Does he agree that as well as challenging the Government about what they can do for young carers, we must challenge our colleges and education establishments to ensure that they are environments where young carers can thrive?
I would like to highlight the excellent work of Michelle Dowse at Heart of Worcestershire college in my constituency. The college offers one-to-one support, transitional visits and external support so that, when young carers make it into higher or further education, they have support right there on those campuses to make sure that they can thrive. We have to challenge the Government but also our education establishments.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member; that was going to be my fourth request, by the way, so well done.
Jim Shannon
It means we are thinking alike about what we need to do, and that is important. We have collectively understood the issues.
My second ask is for what I would refer to as a carer’s essentials payment to cover the unavoidable extra costs of caring. There are things that creep up—I was going to say that we all know how the household works, but my wife knows more about it than I do—and there are exceptional cost issues for a carer looking after someone.
My third ask is for the implementation of a new carers strategy. Again, if we understand the issue better, hopefully we can respond better. That should protect young carers under equality law because, with respect, sometimes the law falls short of the high standards we set and expect for our young carers.
My fourth ask is that, as the hon. Member mentioned in his intervention—I thank him for that—there should be educational grants and a systematic approach to identifying carers in every school and college so that they never have to choose between their education and their family. The hon. Members present, the Minister and the Government all want to ensure that our young carers reach their goal or their vision of what they want in employment.
I think about that young boy I referred to, who was my first introduction to a young carer many years ago when I was in the Assembly. He achieved his goals eventually; he was a strong young fella supported by his family. It is about the colleges, schools, teachers and education system wrapping their arms around young people and saying, “We know you’re under pressure at home, but can we help with some teaching there? If you’re not able to make it to school one day, we’ll understand and help you catch up.” It is about giving them full support. The hon. Member for Harlow made that specific point at the beginning.
As the hon. Member said, we could go on and on because there are so many examples, but the bottom line is this: young carers are propping up a health system that would collapse without them, and we need to remember that. We recognise their good work, but we should also be there to support them. They deserve to have a childhood, an education and a future that is not defined by financial strain. I say this with great respect: let us stop closing our eyes to their struggle. It is time to see them, value them and, most importantly, support them.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate. Like many, I think this debate should start with a very strong and clear thank you to carers across this country. Young adult carers are one of the most overlooked groups, as mentioned by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Harlow. In that moment just after formal education, when young carers become young adult carers, they move into an informal space where care for them is even more desperately needed.
As many hon. Members have today, I will put on record the scale of the work that young carers do. More than 131,000 young people aged 16 to 24 provide at least 20 hours of unpaid care every single week, and more than 40,000 of them care for more than 50 hours a week, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. That is more than a full-time job. As the hon. Member for Harlow highlighted, there are many who do not even know they are caring. They are just showing love to their family members, but they give so much.
I mentioned young adult carers, who are past formal education, but the question of access to education and training starts before that. In 2025, fewer than half of young carers left secondary school with five GCSEs including English and maths. By the time young carers are doing their A-levels, they are 60% less likely than non-young carers to achieve the equivalent of three A-levels.
Nearly half of young carers were persistently absent from school last year through no fault of their own. We talk about almost 1 million young people being not in education, employment or training, but we need to make sure that Ministers do not overlook this group as part of that picture. When we look at NEETs, how many of them are carers, as the hon. Member for Harlow mentioned?
Just last week in Harpenden, I met the organisation Carers in Hertfordshire. There was a mix of ages, including a young carer named Jordan, who spoke so lovingly about how he supported his mum. Themes were raised that ring true for this debate. One carer described unpaid caring as “a one-person care home” with
“no place to think and no headspace.”
Another spoke of feeling invisible, living “behind closed doors”, and said that simply meeting other carers was itself a lifeline.
Many young carers, as I mentioned, do not know that they are carers; they are simply doing what they can for loved ones. Identifying who they are is key, as the hon. Member for Harlow highlighted. Jordan, whom we spoke to, highlighted the choices he is making now about the college he is going to and about work, and shared lovingly how his responsibilities shape those choices. It does have an impact. What came through these discussions was that triple failure: lack of funding, lack of support, and the all-encompassing life of being a family carer.
The APPG inquiry confirms that this is systemic. As care increasingly shifts out of hospitals and into homes, more young people are quietly being handed responsibilities that the NHS used to carry, with nothing offered in return, and their education and training options are impacted as a consequence.
The Liberal Democrats have for a long time been champions of carers. I am sure many know that our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), knows first hand what it is to be a young carer for his mother and is now a carer for his son. We believe that education, apprenticeships and employment must be genuine, accessible options for every young adult carer, no matter where they live. We must ensure that young adult carers get the full support they need to have the chance of the future that they deserve.
My very first question in the Chamber was about having cross-party discussions on social care, because at the heart of this is also the caring system that encompasses our NHS, and that is vital. To further support young carers, the Liberal Democrats would abolish the 21-hour rule for carers’ allowance, which is also part of the recommendations. That 21-hour rule forces young people to choose between studying and surviving.
We would require every school and college to appoint a young carers lead; fund proper breaks for young carers; restore maintenance grants; and make caring a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Will the Minister commit to abolishing that 21-hour rule, which is actively pushing carers out of education? Will he look at a youth guarantee and jobs guarantee, specifically addressing the needs of young adult carers, and not treat this as an afterthought?
Young carers give everything to their families, as do carers. However, young adult carers are at the cusp of coming out of formal support, and that is so difficult. We must ensure that the Government do as much as they can to give back to them. I again thank the hon. Member for Harlow for securing this debate.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate. He is proving to be a formidable parliamentarian and—I can say this as a friend—a decent human being, all in all.
I also pay tribute to the young carers across our country. There are an estimated 1 million young carers aged up to 18 in the UK, with many carers aged under 10. I agree with my good friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I suspect we are of one mind; I remember the carers who come to see me in my surgeries. I remember their strength and resilience, but also how often they go about their responsibilities so quietly and unassumingly. From this debate, I want them to know that we in this House see them and that they matter.
During this debate it is critical that we do not lose sight of the sacrifices that young carers make every single day. The responsibilities of caring mean that young people miss out on social plans, extracurricular activities and their schooling to help support those they care for. Young carers give time after school, at weekends, and live with the constant worry about the wellbeing of those under their care. Those are enormous burdens, especially for children.
I want to reflect on some of the work done by the previous Government to support young carers. It was the view of the previous Government that young people should be protected from inappropriate and excessive caring responsibilities. We recognised that the important roles they played often went unnoticed, putting their education and childhood aside to care for others. We committed to amending the school census so that it included young carers. That raised the visibility of young carers in the school system and gave us a wealth of demographic evidence on the young carer population. That allowed schools to better understand the impact of caring in education, particularly on issues including attendance and absenteeism.
In addition, the previous Government introduced the pupil premium in 2011. That gave schools additional funding to improve outcomes for children facing disadvantages, and helped young carers gain critical extra support. The previous Government also introduced bursaries to help with the cost of education, including travel, books, childcare and residential costs where needed. In the academic year 2023-24, more than £160 million of bursary funding was allocated to institutions to help disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds.
Furthermore, the previous Government introduced the Young Carers in Schools programme, which addressed the need to ensure that schools do more to identify young carers and increase their engagement in school. The programme set out 10 key steps to help schools to identify and support young carers, and each step provides a key practical tool that can be adapted to support the individual school.
Lastly, in 2018, the Conservatives published the carers action plan, which contains proposals to support young carers. It aimed to improve the identification of young carers, which built a rich and informative evidence base to better identify how support can be provided.
As we have heard, despite that, young carers are still under extreme pressure. In all our constituencies, there are hundreds—perhaps thousands—of young carers. In the borough of Solihull, of which is my constituency is part, the average age of a young carer is 11 and it is estimated that one in five young people is a carer. Although there are fantastic organisations that do excellent work in raising awareness about young carers and what they go through, including Solihull Young Carers, debates such as this are critical in raising awareness among parliamentarians.
Young carers often put their lives on hold for others. They are responsible for cooking, cleaning, supporting with schoolwork and many more tasks, as has already been laid out in this debate. That makes their lives a constant battle, balancing an array of different possibilities. In the education and training context, balancing schoolwork can be particularly hard. It is all too easy to put off that bit of homework because you have had to be up early to care and just want to catch up on a bit of sleep or get some well-deserved rest.
The Carers Trust’s most recent report from January highlights the concerning fact that three quarters of young adult carers say that their caring roles make it difficult to take part in training or educational opportunities. That research shows that young carers are missing on average 23 days of school every year—one month in total. Come secondary school, over half of young carers are persistently absent.
Some of the information we have on this topic is down to the previous Government and our steps to better identify young carers in school settings. I am more than happy to work on a cross-party basis to help our young carers. What work is the Minister doing to help add to the data? What conversations is he having with school leaders to ensure that we build on this important evidence base?
The evidence shows that young people who care are missing out on available learning opportunities. In reality, that means they will be struggling to keep up with their peers and will fall behind for the rest of their lives. When it comes to taking exams, the time spent out of the classroom will no doubt mean that their grades are lower than their peers’. What steps are the Government taking to help support young carers in school settings? What plans does the Minister have in that regard? We have heard today that the Carers Trust has proposed that every school has a young carer lead—a point made by the hon. Member for Harlow. Has the Minister considered that? Will it be part of the Government’s plans going forward?
While in Opposition, the now Education Secretary said:
“a Labour Government would ensure that young carers’ voices, needs and rights and the support that should be made available to them are taken seriously.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 206.]
I noted that in the post-16 education and skills White Paper—this has been mentioned to me by a number of carers—there were no references to young carers. Would the Minister be able to explain his thinking? Perhaps it is to do with the Milburn report, which he might want to elaborate on.
In response to a written question about additional support for young carers in schools, the Minister for School Standards stated:
“The Government is preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers which we plan to publish later this year.”
On behalf of the Opposition, I ask the Minister whether he will be able to expand on the timeframe for that and what the key principles in those plans will be.
In November 2025, the Government commissioned Alan Milburn to author a report into the number of people not in education, employment or training, and part of that will include a call for evidence from parents and carers for young people. Given the pressures that young carers are facing, it is essential that that inquiry finds ways to better support young carers in education and training.
I am sure the Minister will agree that young carers cannot be left behind at school, because the knock-on effects are substantial, and it will lead to more young carers struggling to get into work. Does he recognise the correlation between NEET numbers and the number of young carers? Will he highlight the engagement he has had with the DWP in that regard?
We have heard some excellent speeches. Once again, I praise the hon. Member for Harlow, who set out the case for young carers so eloquently. I finish by paying tribute to young carers, who give up so much to care for those in need. Every single one of them makes an amazing sacrifice. I hope that many of them are watching, and that they recognise that we think they should be very proud of themselves. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps the Government are taking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this debate, the second Westminster Hall debate he has instigated. He continues to be a fantastic champion for these young people and does a brilliant job of putting the spotlight firmly where it should be in this place. I also recognise the contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who did a wonderful job of explaining the reality of what it means to be a young adult carer or young carer using personal stories, which are often what move parliamentarians the most.
I fully recognise the difficulties that young carers and young adult carers face. They make an often overlooked and misunderstood contribution supporting family members and friends. The sacrifices they make at such a young age can be immense. Earlier this year, my noble Friend the Minister for Skills met a group of young carers at the launch of the report on the barriers to education for young adult carers by the APPG led by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), mentioned the role of the Minister for School Standards, who also has a lead responsibility for this. I reassure Members that the issue cuts across a number of portfolios in the Department and is an interest and focus for all of us.
The APPG chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is driving important work to support young carers across the country. The stories of young carers, including those I have heard as a Member of Parliament, are inspiring and bring to life the challenges they face when caring for loved ones, supporting themselves and their family financially, and accessing education and training, which is the focus of this debate.
This Government offer a wide range of high-quality education and training opportunities for young people so that they can get on in life and get the skills they need for a chosen career. The Government’s mission is about breaking down barriers to opportunity, which applies particularly to groups such as young carers. However, we know that group often faces more difficulties and challenges in accessing such opportunities than their peers. That is why the Government are actively working to ensure that changes under way across education and social care, which apply to many groups of young people, deliberately improve outcomes for young carers specifically—be that through better inclusion in education or a focus on better whole-family support and family help through changes to the children’s social care system.
We are making progress. There were a number of references to the importance of data. We are shining a light on the educational disadvantage faced by young carers by publishing, for the first time, attainment data at both key stage 2 and key stage 4 last autumn. I recognise that that piece of work has carried over between Governments; it is a good example of important work continuing regardless of party stance and despite the colour of the Government at any given moment. That evidence is driving change. For example, the new Ofsted education inspection framework introduced last November will put a direct focus on the needs of young carers. As Ofsted can be important as a motivating force for decisions by schools, although it has limitations at times, that also means that by putting it firmly in the framework, school leaders are attending to it in the way that is needed.
The Minister for Care chairs a regular cross-Government meeting with Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Education to consider how best to provide unpaid carers of all ages with the recognition and support they deserve. As has been mentioned, we are preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers, which will be published later this year. It will include action specifically to strengthen further support for young adult carers. We are also committed to providing bursaries for further education students aged 16 to 19 so that young carers can seek support for essential costs, such as books, equipment and travel, to help them stay in education. For those going into higher education, we are providing adult dependants’ grants for carers, and new maintenance grants will be available for students from low-income households.
Hon. Members have mentioned the Milburn review. I have had the chance to speak to Alan Milburn specifically about concerns to do with NEET rates for care-experienced young people. When I next have the opportunity to speak to him about his work, I will raise the importance of young carers, too.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned carer’s allowance. I recognise the issues around the 21-hour rule, which I appreciate can be a source of genuine frustration for young carers and their families. It is a long-standing principle that the benefits system does not normally support full-time students; rather, they are supported by the educational maintenance system. Part-time students can receive carer’s allowance if they meet the entitlement conditions.
I recognise the issues for a number of students finishing school and in programmes of study that are more than 21 hours. That means that many young carers who are also full-time FE students cannot claim carer’s allowance as a result of the 21-hour rule. The Minister for Social Security and Disability has taken a strong interest in this issue, including by meeting with Carers Trust, Carers UK, and the Learning and Work Institute to discuss it, and I am happy to follow up with him after this debate. How we can best identify and support young carers to combine study with their caring responsibilities where they can, including taking account of changes in the education system, will be one of our priorities going forward for this group of young people.
Jim Shannon
Not to interfere with the flow of the Minister’s reply—he is saying positive stuff, and I thank him for that—but perhaps the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) should be at that meeting and the follow-up, if that would be agreeable. The hon. Member could feed back to us, as participants in this debate, on how it went, if that is okay with the Minister.
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will do a much better job of convincing people than anyone else in this room, so I will gladly make sure that he is the focus of attention in that conversation. It is very much my intention to follow up with the Minister for Social Security and Disability and ensure that a conversation takes place.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. He has his London marathon bib sat next to him, and mine has just been delivered—on a whole range of fronts, he is raising attention and money for good causes, including this weekend. For this, for his many years of campaigning, and for his work as a teacher, we all thank him.
Young carers and young adult carers often put the needs of others before their own. They make an enormous contribution to the wellbeing of their families, their neighbourhoods, their communities and the country. They deserve to be championed, and to be assured that we will support them in return for their actions. However, the system needs to improve to meet the developing needs of children and young carers. They must be at the heart of our opportunity mission. I look forward to helping to progress some of these issues in the months and years ahead.
Chris Vince
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his powerful contribution and for recognising the sacrifice that young carers and young adult carers make. As the Minister said, he made it personal and very real for us. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for his contribution. Some universities and higher education colleges do support young carers very well, and that is hugely important. During our APPG’s inquiry, we heard representations from Liverpool University, the Open University and others that want to get this issue right.
I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for recognising the unique challenges facing young adult carers. Having worked in the charity sector, I often found that although there is funding to support young carers or adult carers, that middle group is not supported. There is a big difference between a 21-year-old supporting a loved one and an older person doing so. That is an important point to make.
I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for his kind words. He is not a bad bloke—for a Man United supporter. I recognise the genuine attempt by the previous Government to improve the data on young carers, but we need to do more to make sure that schools fill in that census properly. I think that 69% of schools still say that they do not have any young carers, which we just know is not correct. The hon. Member rightly recognised the importance of the Government working to improve that data.
I thank the Minister for his contribution. He will be finishing the marathon at least two hours quicker than me on Sunday. He correctly recognised the importance of better inclusion in schools for young adult carers and of improving the data. I welcome Ofsted—that is a rare thing for a former teacher to say—and its focus on young carers. The Minister is right that schools have a number of challenges and things they need to focus on. They cannot do everything, but making sure that it is in the Ofsted framework will ensure that schools focus on the issue.
This needs to be a cross-party and cross-Department conversation. I recognise the Minister’s comments about bursaries and maintenance grants, and appreciate his commitment to talk to Alan Milburn about his inquiry. He recognises the challenges posed by the 21-hour rule, and has endeavoured to go away and look at that. I am happy to attend any meetings he is having with anybody, because he is a very good Minister.
Finally, huge thanks to everyone who has participated in the debate. I hope that it has been productive. I am sure that we will continue to have conversations about young carers and young adult carers. I certainly intend to, and we have some positive steps to move forward with.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to education and training for young adult carers.
Gambling Advertising
(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
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered gambling advertising.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, particularly as you have taken such an interest in gambling harm over many years. I am grateful to be able to open this debate on gambling advertising and its impact across the United Kingdom, and to be joined by Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who is co-sponsoring the debate and who, like me, is a member of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform.
The interest in the debate reflects the growing concern in Parliament and beyond about the scale, reach and consequences of gambling advertising in the UK and about its growing impact on children and young people. This debate comes at an important moment. This week, the APPG and Peers for Gambling Reform released their report on gambling advertising, which brings together academic evidence, lived experience and policy analysis to make the case that our current system is not working.
Gambling advertising is everywhere: on our television screens, in our football stadiums, on local radio, on social media, where it is promoted by influencers, and on video games played by children. It is also increasingly sophisticated, targeted and personalised. Our APPG report shows that the industry now spends £2 billion a year on gambling advertising and marketing, in a deliberate and sustained effort to drive engagement, normalise gambling and grow the market, including by creating future generations of gamblers.
We must be honest about what that means: greater exposure leads to greater participation, and greater participation leads to more gambling harm. We have heard repeatedly—through research, from clinicians and, most importantly, from those with lived experience—that gambling advertising acts as a trigger. For those trying to stop gambling, it undermines their recovery.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Government’s own gambling White Paper said there was no evidence of a causal link between gambling advertising and an increase in problem gambling. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is set out in the White Paper quite clearly?
Alex Ballinger
I will not accept that. Having met lots of people with lived experience of gambling and having seen the evidence in our report, I know there is a clear link between gambling advertising and halting the recovery of people with gambling addictions.
An argument often used by the industry is that more evidence is needed, but I will come later in my speech to why that is not a problem—it was not a barrier, for example, when we introduced restrictions on tobacco advertising several years ago.
For children and young people, the situation is even more concerning, because gambling advertising normalises gambling long before they are legally able to gamble. Our report highlights data from the Gambling Commission’s “Young People and Gambling” report, which found that 79% of children had seen gambling adverts or—64% of them on television, and 74% online. That is four out of five children in the country exposed to gambling advertising, which is more than the proportion of children who read for pleasure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have already apologised to you, Mrs Harris, to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and to the Minister for the fact that, because of the strikes, I need to take a taxi to catch my plane, so I cannot, unfortunately, be here for the whole debate. However, I spoke to the hon. Member for Halesowen before the debate about Northern Ireland’s gambling laws, and although I think he is already aware of this, I would like to put on record that those laws predate the internet, meaning that remote or online gambling is completely unregulated in Northern Ireland. Gambling operators can advertise in Northern Ireland if they hold a licence from the Gambling Commission. However, it is notable that the Gambling Commission does not have jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, meaning that the Advertising Standards Authority cannot refer operators that commit multiple breaches of its codes there to the Gambling Commission. Does the hon. Member agree that that lack of regulation must be rectified urgently? I suppose that that is also a question for the Minister to respond to at the end.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member is completely right: gambling regulation is devolved in Northern Ireland, and the problem there is similar to the one we have in the rest of the country; in fact, the scale of gambling harm is even higher than it is in Great Britain. Members of the APPG have been talking to colleagues in Stormont in a similar all-party group, and they face similar challenges in calling for greater regulation. I completely agree with the hon. Member’s comments, and I am glad he has put them on the record.
Gambling advertising is all over spaces that children spend time in, and unfortunately our regulations have completely failed to keep pace. We rely far too much on self-regulation and voluntary codes that deliver only partial measures, even as evidence mounts that children continue to be widely exposed. The evidence presented in our report is unequivocal: these measures have not worked.
The so-called whistle-to-whistle ban is a case in point. It was introduced with the intention of protecting children from exposure during live sports, yet research shows that thousands of gambling messages still appear during matches through pitch-side advertising, sponsorship and branding that falls entirely outside the scope of the ban. It is similar online, where regulators have struggled to respond to the rise of content marketing and influencer promotion. Those forms of advertising are often not recognised as advertising at all by younger audiences, who are less equipped to identify and critically assess what is being advertised to them.
The UK is also falling behind other jurisdictions. Countries such as Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium have recognised the risks to young people and have introduced meaningful restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorship and promotions. By contrast, the UK is delaying action, with a demand for ever more evidence. However, as our report makes clear, that sets an impossible standard. We do not apply that standard to other areas of public health, especially where children are concerned. We did not wait until the evidence became overwhelming before restricting tobacco or junk food advertising to children. Instead, we acted based on credible evidence of harm and a duty to protect the public, especially children and young people.
Jim Shannon
I spoke to the hon. Member about this beforehand, but problem gambling is a critical issue for us in Northern Ireland, where rate is 3%, compared with 2.7% here on the mainland. A recent survey found that 65% of adults in Northern Ireland felt there were “too many gambling advertisements”, 71% supported a watershed for gambling advertising and 42% said gambling advertising should be banned altogether. Does the hon. Member not agree that this House can and must work with the Northern Ireland Assembly back home to ensure that immediate protections are enshrined in law?
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member raises the scale of public interest in this issue in Northern Ireland, and the number of people who are fed up and have had too much of gambling adverts, particularly those that are bombarding our children. I am glad he raises the situation in Northern Ireland, and we should be working together more to tackle this issue.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Moving on slightly from Northern Ireland to Kilburn, in my constituency, there are a lot of gambling shops and casinos on Kilburn High Road. A constituent recently told me she had entered into the Gambling Commission’s self-exclusion agreement. Her regular casino knew that, but still allowed her in, and she subsequently lost thousands of pounds. My hon. Friend is talking about advertising, but is he aware of the shortcomings of the Gambling Commission’s self-exclusion agreement? It seems to be failing my constituents in Kilburn, who are exposed to so many gambling shops every time they leave their house.
Alex Ballinger
I am terribly sorry to hear my hon. Friend’s story about her constituent. It does sound like another failure of the self-exclusion system. We have heard similar stories in other places; I met one person with lived experience in Portsmouth, who signed up to self-exclusion but was able to gamble away his life savings in several shops that were not enforcing the rules properly.
The principle of credible evidence being shown—as it was with the tobacco industry and the junk food industry—should also be applied to our restrictions on gambling advertising. That is why our report calls for a significant intervention and a step change in how gambling advertising is regulated in this country, with protections for children and young people at its core. As shown in Northern Ireland, that is an approach that the UK public strongly support. According to polling, 65% of the public want stricter regulation of the gambling industry, and 68% say that under-18s should not see gambling advertising at all.
Let me highlight some of the key recommendations from our report. We recommend an end to gambling advertising before the 9 pm watershed, as part of a broader effort to reduce children’s exposure across TV and radio. We recommend an end to gambling sponsorship in sports, with the exception of horseracing and greyhound racing. Research by the University of Bristol in 2025 found that football fans were exposed to more than 27,000 gambling messages during the opening weekend of that year’s premier league—nearly triple the number in 2023. We recommend an end to content marketing and influencer-led promotion, where gambling is embedded in entertainment formats, making it particularly difficult for children and young people to recognise when they are being advertised to. Finally, we call for stronger enforcement, particularly of unlicensed operators, alongside greater transparency across digital advertising, including the introduction of “know your customer” requirements.
The current system has allowed commercial interests to outweigh sensible protections for children and young people, and we have a duty to change that. We have a duty to ensure that children are not routinely exposed to advertising for an activity that carries well-evidenced risks. We have a duty to support those experiencing harm, rather than allowing a system that can actively undermine recovery. And we have a duty to ensure that regulation keeps pace with the reality of the modern advertising landscape. This is not about being anti-gambling; it is about being proportionate, responsible and evidence-led. It is about recognising that when an industry invests billions in marketing, there are consequences, and those consequences are felt most clearly by children and young people.
This issue can be resolved now. The evidence is already there. The public concern is enormous. As the APPG report sets out, the Government have many of the powers they require to act; the question now is whether we are prepared to use them. I hope the Minister—she is not the Minister for gambling, so I appreciate her coming here today—will reflect carefully on our findings and share them with the Minister for gambling. I also hope Ministers will reflect on the case the report makes for a more precautionary public health-led approach that places the protection of children and young people at its heart.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us in her response what assessment the Government have made of the cumulative impact of gambling advertising exposure, particularly on children and young people; whether further action is being considered to reduce that exposure across sport, broadcast and online environments; and how the Government intend that regulation to keep pace with emerging forms of advertising, including content marketing and influencer promotion.
This is an opportunity to take a more coherent and forward-looking approach that reflects both the evidence and the expectations of the public.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I have listened with great interest, but is it not true that the hon. Gentleman has been written to on numerous occasions by the Gambling Commission for a misuse of their figures? Although I agree with some of the things he says, I am rather concerned that if that is the case, some of the figures he is citing here in Parliament, which will be reported in Hansard, are also not correct.
Alex Ballinger
I am afraid that is not correct. The Gambling Commission has not written to me challenging my figures. Members of the gambling industry have written to the all-party group challenging some of the figures in other reports, but our figures are from the Gambling Commission’s own survey on children and young people. The statistics I have pulled out today are directly from that survey, and no one is challenging those statistics.
Alex Ballinger
They have not written to me.
We need to properly safeguard the next generation from gambling advertising that aims to normalise an activity that has been proven to be extremely harmful, and something that the Government have the power to act on today.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on securing this important debate.
Sport is one of the UK’s soft power superpowers. Formula 1 is worth over £12 billion a year to our economy, supporting more than 6,000 jobs. Horseracing supports more than 85,000 British jobs and contributes over £4 billion to the economy. The Premier League adds a further £9.8 billion to the economy and supports over 100,000 jobs, those jobs contribute over £4 billion in tax annually. Sky Sports recently signed a £125 million five-year contract with the Professional Darts Corporation —double the previous contract—and we have seen a huge boost in that sport in the last decade or so, all underpinned by sponsorship from companies.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member talks about Formula 1, as well as other sports, but does he remember the rules that changed the tobacco sponsorship of Formula 1 and the strong resistance of that industry to those changes because of the arguments he is making right now? Does he also recognise that Formula 1 has become more successful after those changes?
Charlie Dewhirst
Over the decades, Formula 1 has always been a great British success story. The banning of tobacco ads in such a global sport was not necessarily such a problem, because its reach and ability to bring in advertising revenue from other industries was more than it was for, say, snooker or darts. The ban almost destroyed snooker, which had become heavily reliant on tobacco sponsorship. It took a number of years for it to increase those revenues again.
I will come on to the unregulated gambling market, because that is playing a part in some of these sports and it is really important that we cover that. We need to recognise that there is a particularly close link—a symbiotic relationship—between gambling and, for example, horseracing, particularly for the regulated sector and those British companies that we all know and see on our high street, so we must be careful.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I am listening to the hon. Member’s arguments with great interest. I want to be clear about the argument he is making. We all greatly value British sports, but if it is synonymous with issues that are causing harm to our children and our population, should we not move those sports forward without allowing that harm to occur?
Charlie Dewhirst
That is an excellent point; I will come on to some of the work that has already been done in that area. It is important that we do not just ban something and hope that will be a silver bullet—we do not know that it will. I worked in gambling 20-odd years ago for a company that pioneered new technology in the industry. As part of that we had to do a customer services role to give us experience talking to customers, to help us understand some of the challenges. It was around the birth of that time when companies started to be more responsible towards their customers.
A lot more progress has been made, and I agree that no gambling firm—regulated or unregulated—should be targeting children in their advertising, but we have to be careful not to just ban advertising without recognising that that could have severe impacts on certain sports. I know that the hon. Member for Halesowen does not want to take it away from horseracing and greyhound racing, but I would suggest that other, smaller sports also rely heavily on it and have a close relationship with the industry.
It is not bad to have that relationship; gambling is not an illegal activity. It is something that most people enjoy, and most people will not become problem gamblers. When we deal with problem gamblers, we need to look at how we can best protect and help those individuals.
Dr Cooper
I absolutely hear what the hon. Member is saying and I reiterate that great British sport is incredibly important. In terms of current regulation, does he agree that we are not regulating nearly enough and that we are therefore putting people who watch these sports and see ubiquitous gambling advertising in harm’s way?
Charlie Dewhirst
I think the industry is making good progress on this. It has certainly made a massive difference in recent decades, from where we have come to where we are now. As I said, and as I will go on to discuss further, there is a difference between the regulated market and the unregulated market. There are those companies that fall within the laws of this country and that are working hard to address some of these problems, and there are those that are not based in this country, over which we have no control. That is a serious problem.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member is making his point very well. He is talking about the unregulated market, which we also have real concerns about. Does he share my concern that some unregulated market advertising is being mixed with the regulated market advertising? Right now, we have premier league football clubs with unregulated front-of-shirt sponsors, and that should not be allowed.
Charlie Dewhirst
I could not agree with the hon. Member more. As a big football fan, this has been shocking for me. Growing up back in the ’90s, when Leeds United FC was last successful, what I would see on the front of a football shirt was a well-known brand, possibly British and possibly not. Looking at football shirts now, I often have no idea what the company is until I find out that it is, of course, an unregulated, foreign gambling site that is paying big money to the industry—I will share some figures on that in a minute. The Premier League has taken the right approach in banning those advertising deals from next season.
As I say, there is much we can do to work with the gambling sector in this country, but we also need to make sure that unregulated and illegal gambling firms do not have the ability to advertise to and target residents of this nation, because they are not regulated as they would be under UK law. We must also recognise the importance of preventing aggressive advertising towards vulnerable people and particularly children, as the hon. Member said in his opening remarks.
The balanced and evidence-led reforms made by the previous Government helped to strengthen protections, but there may be more to do. We can supplement the already-robust rules to ensure that we do more, but it is important that we do our very best to prevent children from being exposed in the way they might be at the moment. The hon. Member made an excellent point about the ways in which companies can dodge regulations, particularly those relating to football, where there has been a problem. The Premier League at least has recognised that and taken voluntary action to end it.
Dr Beccy Cooper
How successful does the hon. Gentleman think voluntary agreements have been? Given that the evidence suggests that we are one of the most unregulated countries in the world for gambling, does he not agree that more should be done through regulations that are not voluntary?
Charlie Dewhirst
I am not sure that we are necessarily the most unregulated country in the world when it comes to gambling. There are examples of other countries where gambling is completely banned, but they have an enormous black market, which obviously is totally unregulated and totally illegal, so no one is protected from anything. We need to be very wary of that happening here.
Charlie Dewhirst
The hon. Member makes a good point, but let us be quite clear that it is not some wild west out there. Gambling firms operate within quite a strict framework and take seriously their responsibilities to protect people as best they can.
Charlie Dewhirst
I would like to make a little bit of progress rather than just go back and forth with a Q&A.
We must recognise that betting and gaming is an entirely legitimate commercial practice for responsible gambling firms, as is advertising and sponsorship, but there are already alarming signs that businesses are facing difficulties in this area. The gambling sector is forecast to increase advertising by only 5% this year, which is a slowdown on last year’s 9% increase. Betting and gaming is declining as a share of advertising expenditure, as other sectors are expanding their advertising more rapidly.
Even more worrying is the growth of harmful and illegal gambling operators, the activities of which are unregulated both in the market in general and in gambling advertising in particular. Just a few years ago, licensed operators accounted for more than 80% of gambling advertising, but new analysis published this week by the global marketing intelligence firm WARC has shown that illegal operators now account for almost half of all gambling advertising. Within two years—by 2028—it is expected that they will account for the majority of advertising spend in the UK, overtaking regulated British-based operators.
Esther McVey
I know that my hon. Friend understands this arena very well. My concern is that the unregulated black market for gambling is growing at a rapid rate—as he says, it accounts for over half of advertising. The focus on licensed, regulated gambling operators is surely going to squeeze them out of the market, meaning that the illegal market can boom, as we are seeing across the world.
Charlie Dewhirst
Absolutely; I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. We have seen that trend not just in gambling but in tobacco. Taxation levels have become so high that they have created an enormous black market, which I believe has led to the Treasury losing about £6 billion in revenue. Any sector that is over-taxed or over-regulated will be replaced by a black market.
Alex Ballinger
I was not expecting to hear the hon. Member parroting big tobacco talking lines. Because of all the public health benefits and because of the reduced number of people dying from lung cancer, I think the public would be happy that the rate of smoking has reduced from 60% in the 1950s to 10%. Some 65% of people think children should not be exposed to gambling adverts at all. Does he share the public’s concern?
Charlie Dewhirst
I used an example of another sector to make a wider point that, if we over-tax or over-regulate anything, it will encourage the creation of a black market. There are various issues with that, whether for those exposed to the black market or for the Treasury, which might have concerns about the impact of a black market on its bottom line. It was a wider point about over-regulation and over-taxation, and there are number of examples of that.
I have already said that we should not allow gambling firms to target children in any way because they are not legally allowed to bet, and there has been progress. The reforms under the last Government were quite robust, and I always welcome ideas about how we can go further on that, but we should not necessarily go too far. Banning gambling advertising in sport, with the exception of horseracing and greyhound racing, feels excessive to me. There are other ways that we can address this.
Esther McVey
We are removing advertising for regulated, licensed gambling. Illegal gambling is now so large globally that, if it were an economy, it would be smaller only than that of America and China—that is how big the gambling black market has got.
Charlie Dewhirst
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The gambling black market is extraordinarily large globally; it is hugely significant. As I mentioned earlier, there are specific challenges elsewhere in the world where gambling is not allowed at all, but we all know that gambling exists in those countries at very significant levels. That is a matter for other nations to try to solve, but it is an example of how banning something does not stop it happening.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Dr Beccy Cooper, you will be making a speech. There will be an appropriate time for you to make your points.
Charlie Dewhirst
Thank you, Mrs Harris.
I will put some numbers on my discussion of the value of regulated versus unregulated advertising. The regulated market is expected to decline by more than £107 million this year, but unregulated companies will increase their expenditure to £845 million this year, which is up 32%, and to £934 million by the end of 2028, which is another 10% rise. A significant proportion of that investment originates from overseas companies that are not paying British tax, not regulated by the British market and not subject to British laws.
It is not just about advertising. More advertising by unregulated and illegal gambling companies only drives people to the harmful, unregulated and untaxed black market. Stakes on the illegal market are already estimated to equate to £4.3 billion per year. A PwC report based on H2 Gambling Capital data shows that the size and growth of the UK’s unregulated market has increased in recent years, alongside the implementation of tighter regulations. In my opening, I mentioned that regular betting and gaming contributes £6.8 billion to our economy and generates £4 billion in taxes—£4 billion that the Treasury could potentially lose. The effects of that are self-evident.
There are other measures that are squeezing people. The Gambling Commission has found that there are concerns about the introduction of new checks and how intrusive they may be. The last Government wanted to pilot that scheme, and there are potential benefits to it, but we have to be a bit careful, because the concern is that blanket checks are being brought in without a pilot scheme. People are naturally nervous—the regular people who like to have a bet are concerned—about the intrusive nature of what private companies, and indeed the Government, are doing to try to access their financial data. We need to be wary of that, because it can put people off using British, regulated companies and push them toward foreign, unregulated spaces that are not subject to the same gambling taxation, which often allows for more attractive stakes and so on.
All of that is drawing people into a place we do not want them to be in. We do not want to over-regulate our own market and force people into a place that is of no advantage to us and that we have no influence over. We must be very mindful of that, whether it is gambling or any other sector.
The modelling shows a depressing outlook for the industry under the current taxation system. There is some very headline-grabbing stuff: Coral has pulled out of its deal to sponsor Cheltenham, and the industry expects to lose 16,000 jobs across the UK, a number of which are high-tech jobs. This is a high-tech industry these days; there is a huge online element to it, as we know. Those jobs will be lost in places such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme where the successful gambling firms are based. Those job losses will then filter down to the gambling shops on our high streets; in recent weeks, we saw William Hill announce the loss of 200 high street stores.
Beyond the costs to the taxpayer and people’s jobs and lives, gambling advertising and sponsorship also supports broadcast media and sports across the spectrum. As well as regulated advertising falling, the WARC report also found that sponsorship by regulated companies plateaued in 2021 and is set to decline. That sponsorship covers prize money, along with increased levels of interest, competition and viewership. It is a virtuous circle. It gets people enthused by sport and gets them involved. It is not something that we should see as simply a bad thing to do.
Given that much free-to-air sports coverage—along with the lower levels or grassroots of certain sports—is largely dependent on this advertising revenue, there is a risk that we will further lose free-to-air coverage because sports will have to look to a more lucrative broadcast deals. Look at examples from the grassroots, with those firms sponsoring lower league clubs in football and the good work that they do there to support grassroots football—it is not just about what is going on in the premier league. We see less of those things on a day-to-day basis, but they are going on in clubs across the country.
While sponsorship by regulated companies plateaued and is falling, total sponsorship by the gaming sector has grown, from £158 million in 2019 to £250 million this year. The growth is not by those regulated companies, however. Unregulated firms have accelerated their sponsorship—more than tripling it in the same period—and by next year more than half of sponsorship will be by unregulated firms.
Alex Ballinger
The hon. Member’s concerns are about the unregulated market. However, the proposals in the APPG report are talking about restrictions on gambling advertising, including unregulated gambling advertising. He talks about the growth in unregulated gambling advertising, which is of course a big problem. But surely if those restrictions were implemented, it would give a better chance to bookkeepers that already have shops on the high street and a well-known reputation?
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. These are very long interventions. Some Members have given a speech and others will have an opportunity to speak later and will be able to make their points. We need to make progress.
Charlie Dewhirst
The hon. Member has made a number of points on that subject. I will make some progress as I am sure that you, Mrs Harris, are keen for me to wrap up this contribution as soon as I can.
Esther McVey
Is it not right to say that we cannot regulate the black economy, so what the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) is saying is not possible?
Charlie Dewhirst
My right hon. Friend has jogged my memory. There is a serious issue here. A lot of this advertising is online in a space that we cannot necessarily regulate, and search engines will bring up these sites with obvious key words. For example, a problem gambler who has been part of GamStop or similar will have access to non-GamStop sites and that will bring up illegal betting sites. There is no way of regulating these particularly easily. That is why we need to be very conscious about what we do to damage our own regulated market.
We are exposing people to unregulated websites where protections for those who need them do not exist. In fact, illegal operators specifically promote those sites on the internet through the various ways that they can advertise in a less regulated space. They also do other things regarding how bonuses are constructed and how they target people and so on. Regulated betting and gaming operators are already committing 20% of their advertising to safer gambling messaging, in addition to the messaging that sits within all advertising. During Safer Gambling Week, 1.53 million safer gambling tool limits were in place—an increase of 22% on the previous year. I was at a gambling shop on my high street ahead of the grand national a couple of weeks back, and it was interesting to note that they now run a similar system to Pubwatch—so it is not just online. They share information about individuals in the local area who have problems and need to be supported should they wish to try and place a bet in one of those shops.
None of those robust protections and specific licence conditions for operators, nor the strengthening of the UK advertising codes in 2022—which included new protections for children and vulnerable adults—will make any difference if the Government drive people into the black market.
In conclusion, banning something does not necessarily stop it from happening, and the Government’s policies and this report—if it were to be implemented—could in theory move more people into that less regulated illegal space. The hon. Member for Halesowen said that he is not anti-gambling, but my concern is that he is anti-regulated gambling by UK companies, and there is a very real danger that we will push people into the black market.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
If we are to allow Front-Bench speakers to have ample time, we should bear that in mind with any interventions.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris.
It has been an interesting debate so far, and I thank the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) for taking so many interventions. It was incredibly interesting to hear the discussion. I come at this issue from a particular point of view. I am a public health consultant and I have spent many years working with my colleagues to understand how big tobacco works—I put that on the record.
This debate is both timely and important. We have reached a point in this country where the advertising of gambling products is so ubiquitous that it is almost unheard of to see a sporting event without it, a gambling-free advert break on the telly, or children’s YouTube watching that is not punctuated by colourful, cheerful ads for thinly disguised gambling opportunities. Social media algorithms? Well, they are fodder for gambling promo.
I would like everybody to try a thought experiment. I do not know whether this has been done before in Westminster Hall, but stick with me. Replay what I have just said about advertising everywhere in life—sports events, telly ads, children’s YouTube, social media feeds—but replace gambling with alcohol or smoking, and take a minute this evening to consider how it would feel if we were pushing booze and fags, particularly to children, at any and every opportunity with very little regulation. The fact is, of course, that that was pretty standard fare before public health took on big tobacco, with an increasing body of evidence that smoking is addictive and causes lung cancer. That is now a widely agreed fact, and even the most libertarian colleagues would be hard pressed to make the case that advertising smoking as a desirable life choice is in the best interests of anybody. Alcohol remains more nuanced for many reasons. From a health point of view, while it is undoubtedly an addictive product that has the capacity to cause serious health harms and early death, it is also possible to enjoy alcohol and perhaps even benefit from the antioxidants in red wine. We recognise that and have produced guidelines on consumption levels.
Gambling is an addictive product. That is an incontrovertible health fact, backed up by a large and growing body of evidence. However, as with alcohol, there is a spectrum of addiction across gambling products, which, again, is well evidenced. How do current advertising regulations reflect those facts? The short answer is not very well. The recent report by the APPG on gambling reform and Peers for Gambling Reform, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) said, brings together academic research, clinical expertise and lived experience, and its conclusion is clear. The current system of regulating gambling advertising is not working.
Gambling advertising is now pervasive across television, sport, social media and online platforms, reaching audiences far beyond its intended adult market. Evidence from the Gambling Commission shows that 79% of children and young people recall seeing gambling advertising across multiple channels. Emerging forms of advertising, including content marketing and influencer promotion, blur the line between entertainment and promotion, making risks harder to identify, particularly for younger audiences.
I want to touch briefly on the conversation about legal and illegal markets. I absolutely hear the need to regulate illegal markets. It was a conversation that we had in the big tobacco world for years and years, and the answer is: it is not either/or; it is both. We have to regulate the legal industry and the illegal industry. Talking about one or the other will simply not solve the problem.
Charlie Dewhirst
If something is already illegal, we do not regulate it. Does the hon. Member agree?
Dr Cooper
Let me see if I can answer that, and the hon. Member can tell me if I have not. During our experience with big tobacco, there was a big illegal market—a black market. We brought in various rules and regulations, and we got our environmental health officers and Customs on it. We were absolutely able to look at the black market in tobacco alongside regulating the legal industry. It is perfectly possible to do. In the world of online advertising—the hon. Member referred to the wild west—we have to be very intelligent in how we look at regulation, but it is possible. It needs better brains than mine to figure out how to do it digitally, but it absolutely is possible.
Moving on, evidence shows that one quarter of people who gamble have done so in direct response to advertising. That figure rises to almost four fifths among those at highest risk.
Esther McVey
I feel it only fair to raise the same points with the hon. Lady as I did earlier. She has been written to twice by the Gambling Commission for misusing its statistics and has been written to by the Office for Statistics Regulation about the misuse of statistics. As we listen to her numbers now, I wonder, are they right?
Dr Cooper
I am a public health consultant, and I am still licensed to practise as a public health consultant. I am trained in epidemiology statistics, and I have passed professional exams on both. We have had email correspondence from the people the right hon. Lady mentions, and we have replied to that evidence, stating why the statistics that we are using are absolutely the best evidence that we have. I am happy to share the correspondence, if that is helpful.
Gambling advertising is not passive, but a core driver of market growth. As we heard, the industry spends up to £1.5 billion to £2 billion annually on advertising, marketing and sponsorship. The cumulative effect is a system that embeds gambling into everyday life, increasing the likelihood and severity of harm. Like tobacco, gambling is not just an issue of individual choice, but a product designed and marketed to drive addiction.
What should we do? First, gambling advertising should be understood as a public health issue, not simply a matter of consumer choice or industry regulation. In fact, the World Health Organisation has called for restrictions on gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship as part of a public health response.
I am grateful that the Minister is taking the time to consider the issues on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport this afternoon, but I am of the opinion that gambling sits squarely in the world of health, alongside other addictive products, and the responsibility for it should be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Care. Addressing gambling as a public health issue requires moving beyond incremental, industry-led measures towards clear, enforceable statutory regulation. Our approach continues to rely heavily on lacklustre and ineffective self-regulation. Despite existing restrictions, children continue to be widely exposed to gambling advertising across television, sport and social media.
Parliament has previously taken a precautionary approach in areas such as tobacco, alcohol and junk food marketing, where there is credible evidence of harm. Gambling advertising meets the same threshold, given its demonstrated links to increased participation and harm. As we have heard, other countries, including Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Australia, have already introduced stronger restrictions based on similar evidence, The UK’s continued reliance on limited and voluntary measures has left it an outlier, rather than a leader in protecting public health.
The Government already have powers under existing legislation, including the Gambling Act 2005, to take further action. The issue is no longer whether change is possible, but whether there is the political will to act decisively. Public concern is already there, with about two thirds of the public worried about the volume of gambling advertising and its impact on children. There is now a strong case for more fundamental reform, including a new Gambling Act that reflects the realities of today’s digital and highly commercialised gambling environment. Ultimately, this is a question of priorities: to protect public health, in particular for children and young people; or to allow the continued expansion of a system that contributes to harm.
In summary, a famous gambling industry tagline is, “When the fun stops, stop.” I think that it is past time for us to acknowledge that gambling addiction is fun for no one, and exposure of our children to harmful, pernicious advertising from big gambling companies has to stop. I say to the Minister, there is no fun here; it is time to stop.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) for securing this debate, and I commend the APPG on gambling reform for its report.
This has been a fascinating exchange. We have been told that the gambling industry is worth billions of pounds to this country, but here we are discussing advertising. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) argued that if we over-regulate the regulated market—especially advertising—we might grow the unregulated market. There is an argument to be had about whether we can regulate the black or unregulated economy, but that relates to enforcement. The fact that an element of gambling is unregulated and takes place in an even more unsafe space is an argument for increased enforcement, not less regulation.
As the hon. Member for Worthing West said, gambling advertising is a public health issue. Of course, there is a great industry, but we are talking about the public health element of advertising, including advertising to vulnerable people and children. The question is: what is the cost of that advertising? The financial cost is £1.4 billion every year drained from our economy in the form of financial harms and the associated impact of problem gambling—but there is another cost, which has not been mentioned today and cannot be expressed in monetary terms. Public Health England highlights that every year 400 people take their own lives as a result of gambling. That is 400 families shattered—it is more than one person every single day.
The damage from gambling runs through our society in many ways. As the hon. Member eloquently put it, there are fun and light elements of gambling, but the addiction runs deep. My brief covers social media, so I know how much addictive behaviour has been built into that technology. That is exactly what happens with a lot of online gambling apps—and it goes deep. Today’s debate has helped us to look at that more clearly.
There are other harms too. Nearly two thirds of those who gamble carry gambling-related debt—not “many”, not “some”, but two thirds. That is the true scale of what we are dealing with. It is not all fun. Those statistics about the money, the debt and the lives are not statistics that we should accept. The report from the APPG on gambling reform highlights that it is vital to question the role of advertising within that.
I have constituents who worry about gambling. Some have written to me specifically about young people being increasingly and dramatically harmed by gambling. Members across the Chamber seem to agree with that. Some 30% of 11 to 17-year-olds regularly spend their own money on gambling—that is driven largely by unregulated gambling, but that is about enforcement. Importantly, nearly half of young people see gambling adverts online weekly, predominantly through social media. As the hon. Member for Halesowen highlighted, those targeted ads are really pernicious—the algorithms are so strong.
It is strikingly clear that we need reforms to protect the young people and adults impacted by gambling. It is not just the Liberal Democrats and Members across the Chamber who think so: the World Health Organisation and three leading public institutions in the UK alone recommend ending gambling advertising. Many countries have already acted so, as the hon. Member for Worthing West highlighted, the UK is falling behind.
Although the Liberal Democrats welcome the statutory gambling levy and the increase in gaming duty, we do not think those steps go far enough. The evidence is there. Gambling advertising leads to people starting to gamble; it leads those who already gamble to gamble more, and it leads those who have stopped gambling to start again. There are clear solutions to reduce the harm that gambling is causing in this country, and it starts with questioning the role of advertising.
Will the Minister help to curb the negative impact of gambling advertising, whether it is sponsorship or direct gambling marketing? Will she end pre-watershed gambling advertising? Will she look at a statutory independent gambling ombudsman with real powers to protect consumers and resolve complaints? Will the Government finally replace the failed self-regulatory system with independent, enforceable regulation that actually protects people?
There is harm from gambling, as we have discussed, and that speaks for itself. There are 400 gambling-related suicides a year in England alone. That is not inevitable. The Government have the power to fix it, but that starts with taking this seriously and with tackling gambling advertising.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) for securing this debate.
I wish everyone a happy St George’s day. Perhaps the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts is off celebrating St George’s day in his own Scottish way somewhere—I was looking forward to delivering that joke to him, so I am disappointed he is not here. Although I welcome the Minister covering this very important debate, I know there will be some confusion among the public about why no one from DCMS with direct responsibility for this policy area was available to respond. Hopefully, the Minister will still be able to answer some of the key questions on behalf of the Government before their complete collapse.
We all know that the Government are yet again distracted by their latest scandal in Downing Street, and that Labour MPs are preparing the runners and riders for their leadership contest; but we meet today to discuss gambling regulation at a very important juncture in terms of how we move forward with the regulated gambling industry in the UK. As we predicted would happen before Labour’s latest tax-hiking Budget, jobs are being lost and high street shops are closing, as we have already heard. Sponsorship for British sport is also being cut, and an illegal, dangerous black market continues to grow each week. Quite clearly, Labour did not properly vet the information they were being provided.
This is also a crucial time for the Gambling Commission. Major changes are happening at the top of the organisation and, as I understand it, it is deliberating on whether to move forward with controversial affordability checks despite major concerns from a range of stakeholders about their accuracy and, again, the unintended consequences of fuelling the illegal and dangerous black market. Today’s debate is therefore timely, and I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber.
As always, there are a range of views. On the left, we have some who are more prohibitionist and view all forms of gambling through the prism of harm. On the right—thankfully not represented in the Chamber today—there are those who believe that party leaders should be allowed to promote their own crypto and pyramid schemes with no accountability. Then we have the rest of us, more in the middle ground, who are trying to find a sensible and pragmatic approach to regulation that provides protections and support for those suffering from addiction while recognising the regulated gambling sector’s contribution to jobs, the economy, British culture and sport.
As I have said in previous debates, I have no problem bashing the bookies; it is a British pastime between punter and bookmaker, and I am unashamedly pro-consumer. But as we are seeing now, the Government have inadvertently stacked the deck in favour of the illegal black market. In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of what gambling looked like when I was growing up in south-east London: those dark and dingy betting shops with beads covering the shop doors, and the wall of smoke that would occasionally escape, allowing some fresh air into the building.
While some of those small pens might have stayed in some shops, times have changed. The regulated industry has modernised, and technology has transformed how many people gamble across the country.
Alex Ballinger
The shadow Minister is talking about an historical example of a bookmaker’s. At that time, how many children and young people were exposed to gambling advertising? Is he happy with a Premier League weekend having 27,000 adverts that families might be watching?
Mr French
That is an interesting point about how bookmakers operate. My grandfather was really keen on horseracing when I was growing up; I remember often standing in the corner of the betting shop while he had a gamble or watching horseracing on the TV. The hon. Member’s APPG has made an interesting distinction about the carve-out of the advertising ban that it has committed to; if I understand it correctly, the APPG believes that younger people or children do not watch horseracing, compared with football—is that the argument for why there is a carve-out?
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Ballinger, please sit down. Shadow Minister, please speak through the Chair.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Thank you. Mr Ballinger, if you want to intervene, can you do it appropriately?
Alex Ballinger
The APPG recognise that horseracing and greyhound racing are much more dependent on gambling advertising than other industries; that is why we made that separation.
Mr French
I thank the hon. Member for making that distinction; I understood it as being something to do with whether children watched racing. The point I was trying to make was that times have changed. When I worked in a shop—some 20-odd years ago, when I was a student—a strict rule was brought in to stop children being allowed inside the premises. There was a lot of discussion then about whether it was safer for a child to be just inside the door of a bookmaker’s or to be standing outside. That is probably not as big an issue today as it was then, but I remember that discussion being had circa 20 years ago. Times have changed, and how bookmakers operate has also changed.
The debate around gambling and gambling harms boils down to a simple but important question: how do we reduce harm from gambling without driving people into more dangerous spaces? Advertising, the subject of today’s debate, forms an important part of that discussion. Gambling, when properly regulated, is a legitimate leisure activity enjoyed by more than 20 million people across the United Kingdom every month. That averages out at more than 30,000 people in every constituency across the country. The overwhelming majority of those people gamble without harm.
The role of Government is to balance regulation for people who enjoy a flutter safely, while ensuring that those who need help can receive it as a matter of urgency. Government should not act as a heavy, puritanical hand prohibiting all avenues of fun. That is why the distinction between the regulated and unregulated market is so important. Advertising by UK-licensed operators is not a free-for-all, as some would have us believe; it is controlled and is subject to oversight by the anti-gambling commission and the Advertising Standards Authority, which has been strengthened significantly in recent years. That has resulted in some good progress: for example, I understand that the whistle-to-whistle ban has reduced children’s exposure to betting adverts during live sport by 97%. The Premier League will soon ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors, and online campaigns are age-gated, with operators prohibited from using personalities with strong appeal to children. However, those regulations do not apply to those who act beyond the law in the black market.
The Government have been clear that there is little evidence of a causal link between exposure to advertising and problem gambling. Crucially, the evidence does not show that advertising drives participation. Advertising influences which brand people choose, not whether they gamble at all. That matters, because restricting the regulated sector too heavily will not remove demand; the Government will simply be redirecting it to the unregulated market, where harm becomes the norm. Independent analysis from WARC suggests that UK gambling advertising spend will reach around £1.9 billion this year, with half—between £800 million and £900 million, and increasing—already coming from unregulated operators.
We are approaching a tipping point. Close to half of all gambling advertising seen by UK consumers comes from operators that are not licensed in this country and can act beyond the law. It is the direction of travel that concerns me most: WARC’s research shows that while licensed operator spend has fallen, illegal and unregulated spend is growing sharply. That is a sign of a market shifting quickly and decisively, and we must be honest about what sits behind that shift. The Government have increased regulation on the legal sector, but done very little so far to stop the illegal black market.
While licensed operators are seeing their ability to advertise reduced, illegal operators are expanding aggressively, particularly online, and particularly aimed at children and younger people. Those unregulated operators do not follow the rules. They do not verify age; they do not offer safeguards such as deposit limits or self-exclusion; they do not contribute to treatment or research; they do not pay tax. Those companies actively market themselves as being outside the system, with “Not on GamStop”—a favoured slogan that is deliberately used to appeal to the most vulnerable. This is not a marginal issue. Up to 1.5 million people in Britain are estimated to be using these sites already, staking as much as £10 billion a year.
Today’s advertising frontline is not so much television as social media, streaming platforms and influencers. Around 62% of children report regularly seeing gambling-related content online on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Twitch and Instagram—I use some of those platforms myself, though I am not sure what Twitch is. What they see is not the regulated sector: they are seeing influencers who are paid to promote black market gambling sites—sites that would never be allowed to advertise through regulated channels and that offer inducements and access without safeguards. Among those young people who follow gambling content, nearly one in three report seeing an influencer advertising the products. The reality is that we have built a system that tightly regulates those who comply with the law, while those who do not are free to exploit the faster-growing parts of the media landscape.
We must be honest about the risk of getting this wrong. By clamping down further on regulated advertising without tackling illegal activity, we will not clean up this space. We will simply cede the territory to the illegal operators. We will make it harder for consumers to distinguish between safe and unsafe operators, pushing more people towards platforms that offer no protections at all. The Government’s priority must be enforcement in the spaces where harm is now most concentrated.
I will conclude by asking the Minister a series of specific questions that I hope she can answer or follow up in writing. First, will the Government bring forward proposals to place a clear duty on social media platforms to identify and remove illegal gambling advertising, particularly influencer-led promotion of unlicensed sites? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking against unlicensed operators targeting UK consumers online? Thirdly, can the Minister set out a timeline for action on unlicensed gambling sponsorship in sport, and will the Government go further to prevent UK clubs from entering into partnerships with operators that are not licensed in this country?
Esther McVey
Can my hon. Friend help me? A little earlier I raised a point about misinformation being used by the Gambling Commission, and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that it had not been called out for misusing statistics. However, this is listed on three separate occasions on the Gambling Commission’s public log of requested corrections. Can my hon. Friend explain the clear discrepancy on what we have heard in this debate?
Mr French
I do not believe I can answer my right hon. Friend’s question, but it might be something that other Members want to correct via a point of order to ensure that, as we have this important discussion, we have all the facts in front of us. That is vital. There is a range of views, but we are here as policymakers and we need to ensure that we make informed decisions.
My fourth question is, what steps are being taken to improve consumer awareness, so that individuals can more easily distinguish between regulated and unregulated operators, as well as the dangers of the latter over the former? Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that any future restrictions on regulated advertising are assessed against the risk of displacement into the black market?
If the Government are serious about reducing harm, we must focus on where harm is growing fastest. If they fail to act, the Government risk undermining the very protections that successive Governments have worked hard to build. While there are risks that this House should not be willing to take, there must be balance. Let us not start legislating and regulating just because some Labour Members have the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to respond to this debate, standing in for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on securing this debate and setting out their concerns so clearly and thoughtfully. We have had a genuine debate, with an exchange of different viewpoints on this important issue.
I recognise that gambling advertising is a key area of focus for the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform and many other Members of this House, who have met the Gambling Minister to discuss the issue. The Government thank all Members for their ongoing work in this area, as their contributions are vital for informing the development of Government policy. I note that the APPG this week published a report setting out its case for change, and I know that the Gambling Minister will want to consider that work carefully. I also note the passionate call from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West for gambling to be considered from a public health perspective.
This Government are committed to supporting a gambling industry that is modern, responsible and sustainable. However, the industry must also demonstrate that it can operate without exacerbating harm among the most vulnerable. Getting that balance right is crucial. We are focused on further enhancing protections for those at risk of harm, but we also want to enable the sector to bring value through providing jobs, boosting the economy and providing a leisure activity for adults to enjoy.
That is why, since the election, we have been focused on supporting the licensed sector to further enhance protections for the young and vulnerable. This has included raising standards in a number of areas to ensure that gambling advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. However, we also recognise that, as a legitimate industry that makes a significant contribution to the economy, the gambling industry should also be able to advertise the services that it offers. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) set out that case in his contribution.
Let me start by explaining the robust rules in place to regulate gambling advertising. All gambling operators in the UK must comply with advertising codes, which are enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority, independently of Government. These advertising codes apply across all platforms, including broadcast, online and social media. When the ASA deems that the codes have been breached, the Gambling Commission has the power to take enforcement action.
These mandatory advertising codes are further supplemented by the voluntary industry code for socially responsible advertising, which has been strengthened in recent years. This code includes a number of measures such as the whistle-to-whistle ban, which prohibits gambling advertising during the pre-watershed televised broadcast of live sports events. I note the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen has raised about its effectiveness, and I also note the statistics shared by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French).
In the past two years, the Gambling Commission has introduced a range of new controls to regulate gambling advertising. These new measures further raise standards to better protect vulnerable people from harmful gambling practices. From 1 May 2025, operators have been required to provide customers with options to opt-in to the specific types of marketing they wish to receive. This choice gives customers greater control in order to lessen the risk of harm.
From January this year, the Gambling Commission has also banned operators from bundling different gambling products—such as betting and slots—into single incentives. This is because mixed promotional offers were often confusing and led customers to engage in higher-risk gambling behaviours. This measure boosts fairness and openness to ensure advertising does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling.
I am aware that a number of Members have focused specifically on advertising standards within sports, and we know how important that issue is. Since the election, we have seen a number of developments in the regulation of gambling marketing and advertising within sports. These include gambling sponsorship codes of conduct within all major sports, and the landmark introduction of the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from the start of the 2026-27 season. These changes reduce the prominence of gambling advertising within mainstream football matches, acknowledging that the connection between sport and gambling must be managed with care. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these measures over time.
The Government are also conscious of the need to be vigilant and responsive to the fast-evolving digital landscape. I want to address directly the concerns raised about social media, which are likely front of mind for many Members, particularly given its potential impact on children and young people. I want to be clear that gambling advertising on social media must adhere to the same standards set for other mediums. This means that advertising rules apply in full to paid social media adverts, to operators’ own social media content, to content marketing and to affiliate marketing carried out on their behalf. However, they do not apply to editorial content, which is not deemed to be selling a product or service.
Advertising codes also require operators to ensure that targeting is used responsibly, using tools available on platforms to exclude under-18s and other vulnerable groups from exposure wherever possible. Where operators fall short of these standards, the ASA can take action or refer to the Gambling Commission for possible enforcement action. We continue to work across Government, with platforms and with industry to measure the effectiveness of these rules.
Last year, the ASA significantly strengthened its rules specifically to address the rise of influencer marketing. That includes a change to prohibit any influencers or personalities with social media followings totalling more than 100,000 under-18s across different platforms from advertising gambling. The further strengthening of these rules ensures that children’s exposure to gambling is limited, and that gambling is not marketed to them by aspirational figures as a risk-free pastime or lifestyle choice. This sets higher standards to prevent gambling-related harm.
Nevertheless, I recognise that many Members would like the ASA to go further in its regulation of the sector. I know that the Gambling Minister is meeting the ASA shortly, and I am sure she will raise some of the issues we have discussed today. I am also sure that she will be paying attention to this debate.
We are also very conscious of the need to address the illegal market, and specifically the advertising of illegal gambling in an ever-changing digital landscape, which a number of Members have mentioned. Advertising is one of the primary advantages that licensed operators have to distinguish themselves from operators in the unlicensed sector, particularly when the risks associated with the illegal market are growing. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), made that argument this afternoon.
Although estimates suggest that, historically, the illegal market in the UK has been relatively small, the issue of illegal gambling is of course a concern for this Government. That is why, since the Budget, we have increased efforts to tackle the illegal market. As the websites and advertisements of unlicensed operators can fall outside the scope of the robust rules that we have in place for licensed operators, we are paying particular attention to the issue of illegal gambling advertising through the work of our illegal gambling taskforce.
Esther McVey
I ask this question through the Minister, as she obviously does not have the relevant figures because she is not the Gambling Minister. What has been the growth of illegal gambling in the UK in the last few years? As I understand it, there has been a considerable increase in the illegal market.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the right hon. Member for her question, and I will ensure that she receives a written response.
By bringing together industry, platforms, regulators and Government, we will identify ways to clamp down on illegal advertising. We hope to ensure that exposure to illegal gambling advertising is reduced, particularly for vulnerable individuals. The Gambling Commission also continues to engage with online platforms to support the removal of illegal gambling content, which remains an ongoing priority. An additional £26 million has also been allocated to the Gambling Commission across the next three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market.
More recently, we announced our intention to consult on banning sports sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators. By reducing awareness of and exposure to unlicensed operators, such a ban would further protect vulnerable consumers from the unregulated illegal market.
It is important that we do what we can to ensure that all advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. Where there is evidence to support it, the Government would like to see more action being taken to ensure that advertising does not adversely affect the young and vulnerable. In the coming months, we will continue to explore this alongside our wider work on reducing gambling-related harms.
Mr French
I appreciate that the hon. Lady is covering for another Minister. However, I made the point in a previous debate that the Government seem to be saying that they are keen to reduce the harm to children from gambling and that they particularly recognise the issue of social media, which I raised in my speech today. Why do they not just back the Conservative party’s proposed ban on social media for under-16s?
Lilian Greenwood
As the hon. Member will know, we are currently consulting on measures to protect young people from online harms. He is aware of that work, which is continuing. Of course we want to protect children and young people, but we need to make sure that any measures we bring in will be effective.
We recognise that the regulatory framework must keep pace with technological change. That is why we are working with the Gambling Commission and the ASA to ensure that existing rules are applied to new and emerging channels. We are also clear that all policy and regulatory decisions must be made after considering a wide range of impartial, accurate and up-to-date research about the scale and impact of gambling advertising. We must ensure that our interventions are as impactful as possible.
As Members may be aware, last year we introduced the landmark statutory gambling levy, which has raised just under £120 million in its first year. This funding will be ringfenced solely for independent research into and prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms; 20% of the funding collected will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling-related harms, which includes research on the impacts of gambling advertising. We will therefore consider next steps in the context of this strengthening evidence base.
Where appropriate, our approach will also include comparison with regulation in other jurisdictions. A number of suggestions were made, and examples have been given of the way in which other countries are doing this. However, just because a particular country has moved further than us on advertising restrictions, that does not mean that we should automatically attempt to match it. We should instead be guided by the lessons that such jurisdictions offer, and we should consider what has and has not worked.
An important point that I want to stress is that if we decide to encourage or take further action on advertising, we want to do so in a way that is supported by the evidence available. We should avoid putting in place too many restrictions that could have unintended consequences. Where standards can be raised in a careful way, we should look to do that. The Government remain open-minded about how that can be done, and we will reflect on the points that have been raised today, including in the important contributions from the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
I want to address a couple of questions that hon. Members have raised. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup raised concerns about the introduction of financial risk assessments. FRAs of online gambling customers are a widely supported principle and a key consumer protection measure from the White Paper. We are aware of concerns about so-called operator affordability checks; new financial risk checks would replace those and are better for customers and for racing. The Department has worked closely with the Gambling Commission throughout, to ensure that FRAs remain in line with the clear principles in the White Paper. If the Gambling Commission decides to introduce FRAs, it will work with operators on guidance. That guidance will ensure a proportionate approach when deciding how to manage consumers where financial risk is present and the customer continues to spend at a high level.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup also asked a number of specific questions. I will ensure that, where I have not already dealt with them in my speech, he receives a response in writing.
Mr French
On financial risk assessments, also known as affordability checks, will the Minister pass on a query relating to the gambling White Paper? My understanding from the previous Gambling Minister and from the then shadow Gambling Minister, who is now the Sports Minister, was that the checks could go ahead only if they were truly frictionless, hence the pilot. Can the Government confirm whether the Gambling Commission has the authority to proceed if that is not the will of Parliament?
Lilian Greenwood
I can tell the hon. Member that FRAs have been piloted to ensure that they are genuinely frictionless before implementation and that they are targeted at those showing signs of harm, rather than simply those spending high amounts safely. The FRA pilot found that only 3% of all gambling accounts would be subject to an FRA where their losses were significant enough to warrant it, and 97% of checks would be frictionless without any change to customer experience. Nevertheless, if there is further information that the hon. Member requires, I am sure he will follow that up.
I conclude by reiterating our commitment to working with a wide range of stakeholders, including industry, on this issue. We will continue to do what we can to ensure that gambling advertising, wherever it appears, is socially responsible and does not exacerbate the risks of gambling-related harm. I am grateful for the contributions from all hon. Members today; it has been a genuinely interesting and constructive discussion. The Government look forward to continuing this work in the months ahead.
Alex Ballinger
Thank you, Mrs Harris. I thank all Members who have joined in this lively debate: the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. We have covered a lot of issues and it has been one of the few debates in which we have had an exchange of views rather than of party political positions, so I appreciate that.
I will respond to the comments of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I have not seen that correspondence, but she seems certain that I have received it, so I will go back and check.
Alex Ballinger
I will check, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West responded on what the all-party group may have said.
I should say very briefly that there seems to have been a big debate about the unregulated market and the regulated market. I think that is important. There were questions about the size of the unregulated market, and some of that is in our report, which I have just looked at: it is approximately 9% of the online space, with 700 operators, according to Yield Sec. As everyone has said, that is largely driven by the unregulated market going after people who have been banned by GamStop.
Alex Ballinger
I will not give way at this point, because I am just wrapping up—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Can we not have debate across the Chamber, please? Can you finish your wind-up, Mr Ballinger?
Alex Ballinger
Absolutely. This has been driven a lot by the argument that the unregulated industry will somehow capture the market. If we are talking about restrictions on gambling advertising, that should include such restrictions on the unregulated gambling market, which as we can see is already advertising in football and online in lots of spaces. Those are things that we are calling for, too. That 9% of the market, which is in our report, will hopefully not grow.
We should not pretend that the unregulated market is the only one causing problems. There are issues in the regulated market as well. We have heard about the bonuses, the promotions, the free bets and other issues from people with lived experience, who have faced them in the regulated market too, which is the majority of gambling harm.
Across the House, I think there is a wish to go further in protecting children and young people, even though we may have disagreements about how we do so. There are some good recommendations in our report, I hope, for sensible steps to protect children and young people from gambling advertising, and particularly from gambling harms that might come to them in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered gambling advertising.
Written Statements
MOD Arm’s Length Bodies: Reform
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I wish to update the House on changes to arm’s length bodies within the Ministry of Defence, delivered as part of defence reform and the productive and agile state programme. These changes strengthen ministerial oversight, reduce duplication, and ensure that Ministers continue to receive high-quality independent expert advice where it is required.
Defence is undertaking the most significant reforms in 50 years. The strategic defence review endorsed the defence reform programme to ensure defence can deliver the armed forces the country needs to keep it safe, maximise investment in the frontline, and support economic growth.
These reforms also support the Government plan for change and the Prime Minister’s productive and agile state initiative. ALB reform is embedded within defence reform, which is committed to delayering and simplifying the arms’ length bodies delivery landscape, reducing duplication and inefficiency, driving reduced costs, and repatriating policy oversight to ministerial control with improved accountability.
In spring 2025, the Cabinet Office undertook a review of arm’s length bodies in line with the aims of the Government plan for change. As part of the recommendations of this review and in delivering defence reform changes, defence has completed one ALB closure and has reclassified two defence ALBs previously classified as advisory non-departmental public bodies as departmental expert committees.
Two defence ALBs have been reclassified.
The independent medical expert group provides essential independent advice on medical and scientific aspects of armed forces compensation scheme and is responsible for:
investigating the issues on which advice is requested;
reaching conclusions and making recommendations based on evidence;
providing evidence comprising independent, published, peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature; and
consulting other experts and inviting interested parties to submit relevant research.
The Nuclear Research Advisory Council provides independent, external, evidence-based advice to the Chief of Defence Nuclear, MOD Defence Nuclear Organisation Director General Warhead, MOD Chief Scientific Adviser, and other senior MOD officials. The committee will also update its name from Nuclear Research Advisory Council to Nuclear Research Advisory Committee to reflect this change.
Both committees will continue to operate with their existing remit, secretariat and membership, ensuring continuity of their work and no disruption to the provision of expert advice.
The provision of independent advice to Government are vital to effective policy and decision making, and these changes ensure that Ministers continue to have access to the right expert advice at the right time, while strengthening accountability within the Department.
Following a review, Defence concluded that it no longer required advice from the Scientific Advisory Committee on the medical implications of less lethal weapons, an advisory NDPB, and the committee was closed in November 2025.
[HCWS1538]
Ajax Programme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The Ministry of Defence had aspired to update the House via a written ministerial statement on the armoured cavalry programme today. Political channels have requested that this written ministerial statement is delayed until next week, as a result of key meetings—both cross-Whitehall and with the defence prime in question—occurring this week. We have every intention to update the House via a written ministerial statement early next week and would welcome support in agreeing to this delay.
[HCWS1539]
British International Investment: 2026 to 2031 Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for International Development and Africa has today made the following statement:
I wish to update the House on British International Investment’s new five-year strategy for 2026-2031, launched today. BII is the UK’s development finance institution, investing in private sector businesses in developing countries to support productive, sustainable and inclusive economic development. Its investments improve peoples’ lives and help protect the planet, while making a positive financial return, which it reinvests to support even more businesses. BII’s portfolio of investees support over 1 million jobs and in 2024 paid $2.5 billion in taxes.
The world around us is changing rapidly, reshaped by global instability. Faced with growing global security threats, the Government last year took the difficult decision to reduce official development assistance to the equivalent of 0.3% of gross national income by 2027. We are modernising our approach to development to have the greatest impact abroad and secure the best value for money for taxpayers at home. Our work will be underpinned by a focus on economic development, supporting greater resilience in partner countries and reducing dependencies.
BII’s new strategy will deliver on the UK’s modernised approach to development. As our main bilateral vehicle for investing in the private sector, BII is central to the UK’s shift from “donor to investor”, partnering closely with countries to unlock growth, jobs and trade, and drive private sector development. BII will also play a key role in delivering UK-backed climate investments.
Over the next five years, BII will make £7 billion to £8 billion in new investment commitments, increasing the proportion of its climate finance investments to at least 40%, and targeting at least 30% of its core investments to improve economic opportunities for women. BII will continue to prioritise investments in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Ukraine, delivering investment where it is most needed. BII will invest across a wide range of sectors—including financial services; power, trade and digital infrastructure; and sustainable industries—ensuring that it can support the varied needs of partner countries. BII will continue to support critical minerals value chains by investing in the enabling infrastructure and supply chains necessary for long-term, resilient growth.
The Government have agreed three key shifts that will underpin BII’s approach over the next five years:
Focus on what matters most to development—BII will increase its focus on investments which go beyond delivering direct results, to shape and strengthen wider markets to make them work better for the people they serve.
Sustain UK commitment to least developed countries—BII will commit at least 25% of its new core investments to least developed countries. In a smaller number of focus LDCs—Nepal, Sierra Leone and Zambia to begin—BII will strengthen its work by combining policy engagement and technical assistance alongside its investments.
Accelerate private capital flows in emerging markets—BII will aim to mobilise up to £7.5 billion of commercial capital alongside its own investment over the strategy period, including from the UK financial sector. A cornerstone of BII’s strategy is the launch of British Climate Partners, which will direct private investment into the energy transition in select Asian countries by developing and scaling an investable pipeline of transactions.
BII’s investments will make a difference for people, businesses, markets and the planet. BII will:
Back small business growth in Africa and Asia—BII will support 10 million micro, small and medium-sized businesses to get the finance they need so they can grow, innovate, and create economic activity across the countries where we invest.
Expand economic opportunities in Africa—BII will support jobs and economic opportunities for 10 million people across Africa.
Drive the shift to clean energy in Africa and Asia—BII will support countries to move to renewable power and strengthen electricity networks, powering 10 million households with clean energy.
The Foreign Secretary’s statement of 19 March on ODA allocations confirmed that the FCDO plans on providing BII with £429 million in capital over financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29 for its core portfolio and Ukraine investments. BII’s £7 billion to £8 billion of new investment commitments over the five-year strategy will mainly be financed by reflows from its existing investments.
The FCDO has an arm’s length relationship with BII. FCDO agrees BII’s five-year strategy, including its objectives, performance criteria and investment parameters. BII’s board is accountable for performance against the strategy, with BII’s senior management responsible for delivery. BII’s board members are chosen for their relevant skills and experience, with the FCDO appointing the BII board chair and two non-executive directors. The FCDO has full transparency on BII’s performance in delivering the strategy through regular formal governance meetings and reporting.
[HCWS1541]
Illegal Migration: Small Boat Crossings
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I have been clear about this Government’s determination to crack down on small boats. No one should be making dangerous journeys, undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. We must restore order and control to our borders. That means bearing down on these dangerous crossings and bringing people smugglers to justice.
I wish to update the House on our joint work with France on tackling illegal migration. The new multi-step approach, delivered under this Government and endorsed at last summer’s UK-France summit, has already had a significant impact: since the election, joint work with the French has prevented over 42,000 small boat crossing attempts through intervention and dispersal. Joint law enforcement operations have also seen 480 migrant traffickers arrested in 2025 alone.
We must go further. Today the Home Secretary will agree a landmark £662 million multi-year partnership with the French Minister of the Interior, Laurent Nuñez. This deal boosts law enforcement boots on the ground, scales up French maritime interventions and increases intelligence sharing to target smuggling networks at every stage of the route. Specifically, this deal includes:
A significant uplift in frontline law enforcement, front-loading deployment in time for the summer. Numbers will increase by 42% to nearly 1,100 law enforcement, intelligence and other frontline officers in northern France to track down illegal migrants and stop them boarding boats.
Five specially trained police units, including a new riot police unit, specially trained in the use of riot and crowd control tactics and equipment will be deployed to deal with violent tactics.
The French will roll out millions of pounds-worth of state-of-the-art drone surveillance, two new helicopters and a new camera system surveillance to track down and intercept people smugglers and illegal migrants.
Expanding maritime capability to intercept taxi boats at sea. In the last two months, the French have stopped six migrant taxi boats, returning all migrants to France and sentencing five smugglers to prison and deportation. We are backing these tactics with a new vessel and an increase of more than 20 additional maritime officers.
Of the total £662 million, the UK has committed to a foundation fund of £501 million, committed over three years, and a new flexible innovation fund of £51 million in year 1 and £110 million in years 2 and 3. If these new tactics are not working, funding will stop after one year and will be put into activity that does. This new deal is underpinned by robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that ensure every intervention is evidence led and responsive to changing circumstances. Every pound spent will target impact, maximising the effectiveness of UK investment to tackle small boat crossings.
Our work with France is complemented by the most far-reaching overhaul of the asylum and migration system in modern times. This programme of reform, outlined in “Restoring order and control: a statement on the Government’s asylum and returns policy (CP 1418)”, is reshaping the UK’s protection and settlement offer to make the system faster, firmer and significantly less open to abuse. This Government are closing every asylum hotel, moving asylum seekers into basic accommodation, including ex-military sites.
We have already removed or deported nearly 60,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals since this Government took office—up 31%, and immigration enforcement action to tackle illegal working has reached the highest levels in British history, with an 83% rise in arrests and a 77% increase in raids.
This historic agreement shows how this Government are working with international allies and taking action to secure our borders and deliver a transformed, results-based partnership with strong safeguards for taxpayers.
[HCWS1540]
Automated Passenger Services Permitting Scheme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
This statement provides an update on the Government’s work to enable the automated passenger services permitting scheme from this spring, a key step in implementing the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 and supporting economic growth through the safe deployment of self-driving technology.
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are today publishing our response to the automated passenger services permitting scheme consultation and laying the Automated Vehicles (Permits for Automated Passenger Services) Regulations 2026.
Automated passenger services represent one of the most significant transport innovations of our generation. When introduced safely and responsibly, they have the potential to transform how people move around the country, improving road safety, widening access to transport, and supporting greener, more reliable journeys.
The APS permitting scheme establishes a dedicated licensing route for passenger-carrying automated services to operate on public roads. It was created by the Automated Vehicles Act 2024—a world-leading regulatory framework that sets out clear legal responsibilities, a robust safety framework and the regulatory powers necessary to support deployment while protecting the public.
Following consultation, one change has been made to the statutory instrument to increase the scope of data sharing and enable wider non-safety related information to be shared with emergency responders, ensuring that there is an awareness of how to interact with and respond to any incidents involving a permitted automated passenger service.
Safety will always be the Government’s highest priority. Automated passenger services will be required to meet stringent safety standards before they are permitted to operate, ensuring that passengers, other road users and the wider public are protected. This includes safeguarding considerations and a clear focus on the needs of vulnerable users. As services are introduced, safety will be independently assessed, monitored and enforced, giving the public confidence that these new services are operating responsibly.
The Government are also committed to ensuring that automated passenger services support a more inclusive transport system. These services have the potential to widen travel choices and increase independence for disabled people and older passengers. To support this commitment, the Department for Transport is establishing the APS accessibility advisory panel, a new non-statutory body that will provide advice on accessibility considerations and support the development of non-statutory guidance as services are deployed.
The APS permitting scheme is unlocking growth and significant economic opportunity. By providing businesses with the regulatory confidence to invest in deploying passenger-carrying automated vehicles, the Government aim to support innovation, attract private investment and create high-skilled jobs, while strengthening local economies and improving access to essential services.
The Government will continue to work closely with industry, local communities, user groups and experts to ensure that automated passenger services are introduced safely, inclusively and responsibly.
A copy of this publication will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1537]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Steel Sector
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to incentivise investment in and strengthen the long-term competitiveness of the steel sector.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, steel is a vital component of the UK economy. That is why the Government have published their first ever steel strategy, underpinned by up to £2.5 billion of funding, to create stable, competitive conditions and to secure the long-term future of British steel-making. The strategy will attract investment to strengthen long-term competitiveness. It will also introduce a robust new trade measure to counter the damaging effects of global overcapacity, and reflect the importance of steel for critical national infrastructure and defence. It will also lower barriers to investment, through energy, grid and planning reforms, and mobilise demand for UK-made steel.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for his Answer but, on that “robust” trade measure, can he say what proportion of UK steel imports of finished steel will be covered by the proposed reduced quotas and increased tariffs? Is it the intention to exclude Tata Steel and other finishing mills from import tariffs on their semi-finished feedstocks?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the advanced sight of his follow-up question; I also commend the forensic, technical nature of the Question. The trade measure to which he refers covers 20 categories of steel, including all steel that is made in the UK. That includes bright bar, wire and stainless steel. Categories that were not covered in the steel safeguard are all now in scope. This means that the measure protects 100% of steel production domestically in the UK, whereas the steel safeguard protected only 96%. We engaged extensively with industry when developing this measure, and have sought to balance the need to protect the domestic steel-making industry while maintaining secure, reliable supply chains for downstream businesses. We will continue to engage closely with industry as we implement the measure, and we have committed to reviewing it in the next 12 months to ensure that it is entirely fit for purpose.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lord, can my noble friend the Minister indicate what further helpful measures there may be for this beleaguered industry in terms of energy costs? Green taxes, which are necessary, have dealt severe blows to the long-term prospects for steel, and in Wales we have seen the erosion of tens of thousands of steel jobs. I also ask him to bear in mind that rail connections between steel producers are crucial: the giant steel plant at Port Talbot in south Wales, for instance, sends a daily steel train 150 miles to north-east Wales’s Shotton works. On that train, which is 26 huge wagons long, is hot-rolled coil. If the hot-rolled coil does not reach Shotton, there will be problems. I hope that he will bear that in mind.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
On energy prices, the transition to green energy is absolutely critical for the sector. We remain as committed as always to sovereign energy supplies that can withstand the global shocks we are seeing through Iran and the war in Ukraine. We have that commitment and the only way we can bring down energy prices is with secure domestic supply. The noble Lord made a further point around the steel strategy in Wales. I refer him to the steel strategy; it is important that our steel industry is protected in the whole of the UK. The infrastructure he mentioned remains critical to ensuring that our steel industry can be competitive in the long term.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that steel produced by the electric arc furnace method cannot match the quality standards of steel produced in traditional blast furnaces? Therefore, British industry will still need to import a large proportion of its requirements from countries which still permit the operation of traditional blast furnaces. Can the Minister tell the House what proportion of British steel will need to be imported in that way?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
On the consultation with the industry, the industry clearly states that arc furnaces are the future. They have a lower cost of production and lower overheads in terms of manpower. I cannot give an exact number on steel production. We are trying to make sure that we have the right amount of trade barriers in place to protect our own industry while allowing business to be competitive and import the steel that they require. That balance will be critical, but we will remain in consultation with the industry and review that if it does not satisfactorily prop up the industry and make it fit for the future.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I return to energy prices, which are obviously one of the main constraints for the growth of the British steel industry. Earlier in the week, the Government announced that they are breaking the link between gas and electricity prices, with a view to reducing electricity prices. To what extent does this new measure impact the steel industry in a positive sense? To the extent that it will, how quickly does the noble Lord expect the measure to take effect?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Energy supply and the sovereignty of our energy supply remain critical. All departments are currently looking at measures where we need to intervene in the near term to protect those industries with high energy demands, and to come up with the right practical solutions for the long term, which is our transition to renewables. That is a live conversation. We have had many meetings in the past week, and I think we will hear something in the coming days.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, both sides of the steel industry have welcomed government plans to speed up grid connections and make it easier for developers to build their own grid connections. All that will help to boost investment. Will my noble friend the Minister commit to regular updates on progress on those commitments so that we know that it is happening? Will he join me in congratulating the “Save our Steel” campaign for defending jobs and the progress it has made so far?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. The issue of grid connections partly sits in my department; the House might be interested to know that we have 800 gigawatts of demand in new projects to 60 gigawatts of supply. Grid connections and making sure that the grid is fit for the future will be a massive part of what we do. We also have a prioritisation process that helps prioritise the highest value projects, not just economically but socially. I would be happy to update the House on that.
As to the “Save our Steel” campaign, it is worth stating that the steel factory in Scunthorpe is close to where I grew up and I have many friends who work in the industry. I commend that organisation and the work that it does in ensuring that we do not lose sight of the fact this is not just an economic story for the UK but about real lives and communities. The work it has done has been excellent.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s steel strategy and procurement guidance require all government departments to consult UK Steel’s digital catalogue and consider whether the national security exemption in Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 applies. However, at the same time, the Government are asking the Ministry of Defence to find £3.5 billion in savings, even as our Armed Forces are being asked to prepare for a far more dangerous world. In the circumstances, does the Minister agree that this is a wholly perverse bureaucratic requirement to place on the MoD? If the Government truly accept that national security must now come first, will they exempt the MoD from these domestic steel procurement requirements so that it can source steel rapidly?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a critical question around how we balance the national resilience of our steel industry with security concerns; that balance is paramount. We remain in conversation with the MoD about making sure that this does not have a prohibitive impact on its procurement and access to products. Equally, it is really important that we utilise the UK Government’s procurement processes to ensure that we are prioritising UK products and services to meet the demand of all our government departments. There are a number of initiatives working on procurement, but I agree that we need to make sure that that perverse incentive does not drive the wrong behaviours.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Will the Government make any payments to the Chinese owners of the Scunthorpe works, or take on any of their debts, bearing in mind that, to effect the transfer, there will be enormous continuing losses to the taxpayer?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The Government remain in positive and constructive conversations with Jingye. I know that the noble Lord would not expect me to comment on the specifics of that deal. All I can say is that we are hoping for a positive outcome. The real importance for us is ensuring that we have a steel industry that is fit for the future and for private investment. That is our target aim at the moment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Following on from my noble friend’s question, has the Minister made provision for ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer’s money to be paid into the steel industry?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The UK Government’s £2.5 billion commitment is provisioned for.
Home Ownership: First-Time Buyers
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote home ownership for first-time buyers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we are increasing housing supply across all tenures to improve affordability for young people. Our ultimate objective is to help more people get the keys to their first home, increasing the overall home ownership rate. We support first-time buyers through government-backed schemes, including shared ownership, and the Treasury will shortly consult on a replacement for the lifetime ISA. Following FCA clarification, most buyers can borrow around 10% more, and this year we will publish a home-buying and selling reform road map, which is expected to save buyers £180 million a year and shave a month off transactions.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Recently, the Prime Minister said:
“For my family growing up, the roof over our heads was everything. But for so many families today, homeownership is a distant dream. My government will make it a reality once again”.
For millions of people renting or living with their parents, it remains a dream. Many of them could actually afford the mortgage repayments, but without access to generous relatives, they cannot afford the deposit. Back in January, when I asked the Minister about hope for first-time buyers, she said:
“A great deal of work is going on in my department and with financial institutions to make sure that we make this process work for first-time buyers and others in the housing market”.—[Official Report, 8/1/26; col. 1314.]
Should there not now be a fresh initiative to deliver the Prime Minister’s promise?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I always agree with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Of course I also welcome the HCLG Select Committee’s work, which has particularly looked at the types of inequalities that the noble Lord highlights. Three in 10 people get help from family or parents and, increasingly, access is being determined by family wealth, not earnings. We are working hard on this. From speaking to lenders, we know that many first-time buyers are not aware of all the innovative mortgage products and recent mortgage reforms that may help them get on the housing ladder. We speak regularly to lenders on how to raise awareness of different options among first-time buyers, including hosting two major industry round tables last year, both of which were covered in the mainstream media. Of course, there is more work to do, and the Government are keen for all stakeholders who work with potential first-time buyers, including estate agents and brokers, to play their part in helping them understand their options.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I will follow up the important points that the noble Lord made. Home ownership makes up 62% of housing tenure, and getting first-time buyers to their first house is crucial, but social housing also plays a really important part in helping people to get into a decent, secure and affordable home. It is known that local authority social housing aids social mobility. Can the Minister therefore explain further the contribution of all tenures, particularly social housing, in getting people access to the home they want at a price they can afford in an area where they want to live?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Social and affordable housing sit side by side. We have confirmed a new 10-year £39 billion social and affordable homes programme to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 homes over the programme’s lifetime. At least 60% of the homes delivered will be for social rent, with the remainder available for other tenures, including shared ownership, affordable rent and intermediate rent in London. This programme is active now. The councils and housing associations are bidding into that programme, as are other bidders, and I hope we will be able to deliver at pace very quickly.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is the longer-term effect of having fewer first-time buyers that really counts? When you retire as a tenant, you have not paid off a mortgage, you have not got a capital asset and you see your rent rising every year but your income falling. It catches up with you on retirement. In that longer-term perspective, I ask the Minister: what has happened to the Government’s long-term national housing strategy, which she promised me on 11 February would be out by 31 March? Is this on the way, and will it include a good chunk on how to bolster the number of first-time buyers, which is so important?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to say that, where people are not able to buy their own homes, this can lead to problems later on where people on fixed incomes later in life are on rapidly increasing rent. So it is very important that we try to encourage as many young people as possible who are able to buy property to carry on doing so. On his point about the long-term housing strategy, it is on its way. We said we would publish in the spring, and spring is not quite over yet. I hope we will be able to deliver it very soon.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a strong mix across all tenures creates a healthy market for first-time buyers? Does she therefore share our disappointment on these Benches that fewer than 15,000 social rent completions were achieved last year? Does she accept that that leads to first-time buyers having to achieve an almost impossible deposit of over £60,000, and that they will continue to be squeezed out of the market until the mix of tenures is much healthier?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I set out in my earlier answer the importance we place on the mix of tenures. The £39 billion programme to increase the provision of social and affordable homes is designed to do exactly that. We are taking measures, particularly confidence measures for consumers, to help some of our young people to understand this. Probably two generations now have been told that house buying is out of reach, so, when I work with the financial institutions, which we have been talking to very closely, we are keen that they promote better some of the mortgage options that are available.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that freezing tax bands makes it much more difficult for those in work and those striving to earn money to get to that £60,000? That is the problem in my view.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can only repeat what I said: it is very important that we encourage our young people, and others looking to buy homes, to consider the wide range of options that are available. I mention two particular institutions that I have been talking to, Lloyds and Santander, which are already going out there with very extensive campaigns. I encourage anybody who is keen to buy a house to go and talk to a broker or lender, because there are options available for people.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I am very glad that the Minister has mentioned shared ownership schemes, because the terms for new schemes are really very good, but many people are stuck on previous detrimental schemes. Following Grenfell and the requirements for them to pay for upgrading, they are absolutely stuck in their homes. Will the Minister say what she is going to do about that, so that people can move into homes where they can have families, because these are often one-bedroom flats? Secondly, will she consider asking the Government to increase the rent a room scheme allocation so that people whose mortgages are going up and are renting out a room can be to some extent compensated to stay in their current homes?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Shared ownership has a very important role to play in supporting households into home ownership that would otherwise struggle to purchase a property on the open market that meets their needs. We are aware, of course, that some people who have entered shared ownership have faced challenges. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his work during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Bill to introduce the measures to help with that. We have introduced new expectations for landlords to improve the customer experience. These include giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability and increasing transparency and fairness on costs. Shared owners will also benefit from the wider leasehold and commonhold reforms in a variety ways. We will debate the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill in due course—but the Act of 2024 grants shared owners the right to statutory lease extensions and makes it easier for them to challenge unreasonable service charges.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, stamp duty is a huge drag on those wishing to have their own home. In London, for the average first-time buyer, stamp duty is £15,000—a huge sum for those seeking to get a deposit. It also makes climbing the housing ladder extortionately expensive and prevents those wanting to downsize, thereby freeing up family homes, from being able to afford to do so. Does the Minister recognise that stamp duty is a bad tax, and it should be abolished so that people can afford to buy and to move?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is a bit rich coming from someone who was in the government party for the past 14 years. First-time buyers benefit from paying no stamp duty on up to £300,000, and they can claim relief on purchases up to £500,000.
Sustainable Farming Incentive: Flood Prevention and Drought Resilience
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether funding will be available under the Sustainable Farming Incentive to permit farmers to undertake environmental measures for the purposes of flood prevention and drought resilience.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
The sustainable farming incentive will continue to support flood prevention and drought resilience. The streamlined SFI offer for 2026 includes actions that slow the movement of water during periods of heavy rainfall, keep soil covered and increase organic matter, which improves the soil’s ability to retain water. Applications will open in June this year for small farms and those without an existing environmental land management revenue agreement, and in September for all farms.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome that Answer and the information. I also welcome the department’s recently published independent report on flourishing uplands, which highlights graphically the tensions between farmers and environmentalists. It makes no economic sense at all for productive farmland to be flooded when farmers are providing 62% of the UK’s food. In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that there is a positive role for farmers to play, particularly in the uplands, in flood prevention and drought resilience? Will she therefore make sure that not just the SFI but all forms of environmental payments will look to putting livestock back on the land and making farmland productive and, at the same time, contributing to flood resilience and drought resilience?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: it is important that we recognise the role that farmers, land managers and landowners have in supporting the Government’s ambitions on flood and drought resilience, and that this should be delivered through any way that is practical and possible, while at the same time looking at continuing to support farm profitability.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, will the Government consider adopting the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management’s recommendation requiring large corporates to disclose climate-related and nature-related risks in their supply chains, and to align that with the UK’s sustainability disclosure requirements, using the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures? Will they also use that transparency to direct more private investment into flood prevention and drought resilience on farms?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes some really good points. The Government are keen to look at how we can encourage more private funding and support for much of the work that needs to be done, whether that is in the climate sector or in nature restoration. I completely take on board the points she has made.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, action under the ELMS budget, such as establishing buffer strips along watercourses or restoring peatlands, can improve biodiversity while naturally reducing flood risk, and would be important to consider, particularly with our changing weather patterns, which result in persistent rainfall during the winter and periods of drought over the summer. Can further thought therefore be given to storage ponds for such water to help with food security, farm production and overall resilience in our farming sphere?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Storage ponds are incredibly important. In where I live in Cumbria, for example, the West Cumbria Rivers Trust has been working closely with landowners to do exactly that—to look at storage ponds and balancing ponds, because they have an important role to play in flood management on land.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there are 28,000 agri-environment agreements which cease either this year or next, and the applicants must wait for agreements to expire before they can start a new SFI application. We can imagine in terms of sustainability and the welfare of our farming community that those who have such environments need assurance that they will be able to apply and to continue delivering the outcomes without a break in their payment. Can the Minister give such an assurance?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned in my initial response, the window for all applications will open in September. We are also trying to give a bit more stability around the SFI. The aim is to completely minimise any changes from now onwards, because farmers need stability to support long-term planning. Having said that, there may be changes because we have targets that we want to reach and outcomes that we want to see, but the right reverend Prelate makes a good point.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, flood prevention still requires affordable insurance to back it up, because floods still happen when you try to prevent them. The eligibility criteria of Flood Re mean that for the outbuildings of small farms, if the farm office is inside the farmhouse, the farmhouse is not eligible for Flood Re. Flood Re’s eligibility criteria in this respect were set 10 years ago—is it time to look at them again?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I know the challenges around Flood Re and insurance that the noble Earl is referring to. The issue we have with the kind of outbuildings the noble Earl describes is that they are registered as businesses in the insurance field. As I am sure he is aware, businesses are not eligible for Flood Re. There are complications around including businesses in Flood Re, and I do not think that the Government are likely to change their position on that. Having said that, we need to consider how we look long-term at flood insurance for businesses so that it will be possible to insure them in these cases in the future.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register as a farmer and landowner. The Government have stated that each farm can have only one SFI agreement, even if that agreement does not reach the £100,000 cap. Given the ever-increasing importance of flood prevention and drought resilience, will the Minister commit to allow related SFIs to be exempted from these rules and stacked on other SFIs without a cap?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is not something I can confirm today, but I am more than happy to take that back to the department and to discuss the different options.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister is obviously aware, all these schemes will require funding contributions from the farms in question. That will probably rule out most small farms, so we are discussing medium to larger-sized farms. The Minister mentioned sustainability, long-term planning and profitability, but these are the very farms that will be hammered by the family farm tax, which, as well as destroying jobs and family farms, will prevent money going into these schemes. I suggest that, if she wants to rebuild credibility and trust with the farming community, she and other Ministers should now call for this policy to be reversed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that the Government made some changes to the inheritance tax policy. We are continuing to listen to farms and farm businesses. I am sure noble Lords know that we have a small holding; I am very aware of the challenges for small farms and know a number of small farmers where we live. It is important to look at how we get farms into profitability—that has to be the focus—which is why I was so pleased to see the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. The Government are looking to introduce many of her recommendations.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is not transferring resource support to smaller farmers and tenant farmers the right thing to do to stop rich billionaires getting funded, rather than the farmers who are trying to provide food?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have already said, when the new SFI offer opens, it will be targeted at small farms. It is important that we look at how we support all farmers to ensure that they can support us with our aims on food stability and security.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the arbitrary cap on SFI, which was mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, militates against economies of scale and driving the farm productivity and profitability that the nation needs and the land use framework requires?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The most important things we can do to move forward on farm profitability and to support farms are, first, to listen to them and, secondly, to look at what the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, says in her report. It is an extremely impressive, comprehensive report on how we improve farm profitability. We should listen to someone with her expertise and experience on how we move forward to increase farm profitability.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Can the Minister say whether the SFI will provide support for on-farm reservoir projects aimed at mitigating environmental impacts from drought at the catchment scale?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The SFI26 offer has 71 separate actions, of which 35 are designed to support flood and drought resilience. It is incredibly important that we recognise the huge damage that drought can cause to our farmers. The new SFI offer, in looking very carefully at both flooding and drought, recognises the long-term implications of climate change for our farms and food production, which is important as we move forward.
Office for National Statistics Labour Market Data
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Office for National Statistics labour market data published on 21 April; and what steps they are taking to address rising economic inactivity and falling vacancies.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, April’s statistics show that economic inactivity has fallen by nearly 360,000 since we came into office. Vacancies began falling in 2022, but we have stabilised and slowed the rate of decrease. In the last 21 months of the previous Government, vacancies fell by 363,000, more than double the rate that we have seen under the first 21 months of this Government. We inherited a broken economy from the previous Government, but we are taking a different approach and driving a more inclusive labour market for all.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, with over half a million 18 to 24 year-olds unemployed, nearly a million 18 to 24 year-olds not in training, education or employment, and vacancies now down to 711,000, the Government’s answer seems to be to commission a review by Alan Milburn. Is it not blindingly obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense that the problem lies with the jobs tax, the unemployment Bill and rising taxes across the board? What a waste of human resources that now so many young people are just unable to find gainful employment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I note that the noble Lord has changed the usual formulation of his regular Question on unemployment figures because the unemployment figures fell to below 5%, as seen in the latest figures earlier this week, something I thought that he would have welcomed. It is rather rich that he talks about NEETs, when the number of young people not in education, employment or training increased by a quarter of a million between 2021 and 2024. We are well aware of the problem, and this is why we are investing £2.5 billion over the next three years, through the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy, to support almost 1 million young people getting into education, employment or training. Unlike the last Government, we take this issue with the utmost seriousness and we are acting.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, we know that AI will have a profound impact on work, particularly for young people. As it is already getting harder for graduates to get work, will the Minister urgently commission and publish research into the future impact of AI on the labour market, so that we can have a transparent evidence base for future policy-making?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. AI is very much at the forefront of all our minds as we continue to grapple with the long-term impact that it will have on our economy. That is why, in January, we announced that every adult in the UK is eligible to take free courses to gain practical AI skills for work. This programme has already upskilled 1 million workers. Our ambition is to upskill 10 million by 2030. The noble Baroness mentioned research. We have already launched the AI and future work programme and are establishing an AI economic institute, which will lead cross-government analysis to monitor the emerging impact of AI on the economy and co-ordinate the Government’s response.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the GDP per capita of Wales historically ran 20% below that of the UK, largely because of depressed activity rates arising from the work patterns in heavy industries, such as coal and steel. That has persisted. Now, there is a crying need for the activity rates to be raised in order to ensure that the standard of living in Wales can rise to be nearer the UK average. Will the Government undertake to co-operate with the next Government of Wales to give priority to getting this right?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The Government have always worked closely with the current Government of Wales and we will continue to work with any future Government in Wales. It will help if they continue to be led by the Labour Party, but we will see what the electorate decide. We are constantly aware that we must do more to support people into work. That is why we are going further with our jobs and careers services, the youth guarantee and pathways into work across the country.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in Northern Ireland, economic inactivity remains stubbornly high, as it does across the UK. Sadly, we have the highest per capita. In that context, I welcome the Government’s defence growth deal, which was announced in Northern Ireland yesterday—some £50 million of investment. Do His Majesty’s Government see such growth deals as a mechanism to try to deal with those who are economically inactive to get them into worthwhile jobs?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am pleased to welcome the noble Baroness’s welcome for the defence deal. It is vital. We talk about repairing and improving the country’s infrastructure, and here we are talking about the defence infrastructure. It is a source of many high-skilled, high-paid, good-quality jobs across the whole country, including in Northern Ireland. At this point in time, the defence of our country is foremost in our minds, and this deal shows that we are very serious about it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, one of the most worrying figures of all, in the most worrying of areas, is the increase of economic inactivity and people who are not required to look for work or who are not even searching for it. Given the impact on young people, which I know the Minister is very concerned about, why does he think that this figure and others are going up on this Government’s watch?
Lord Katz (Lab)
It is important to understand what we are doing through our youth guarantee trailblazers in England to tackle inactivity and to solve the problem of the number of NEETs, which across the House we want to see solved. Through eight youth guarantee trailblazers in England there has been an expansion of youth hubs to more than 360 areas. The youth guarantee gateway being rolled out in jobcentres provides 16 to 24 year-olds on universal credit with a dedicated session and follow-up support to help move more people into work, training or education. That means that there are 300,000 more opportunities to gain workplace experience and training, including up to 150,000 work experience placements and 145,000 employer-designed training opportunities, such as the sector-based work academy programmes. It is important to give young people that start on the ladder of gaining work experience and an understanding of what the world of work is like. That is the way that we will tackle the problem of NEETs.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that one of the great benefits to British businesses and to young people for their employment opportunities was that they had great flexibility in working with our main trading partners in the European Union? Does the Minister see the Government’s reset Bill that we are likely to see in a new Session as a good opportunity to allow youth mobility with our key trading partners? Does he regret slightly that the Government may have said that that was a red line? Might they be a little more flexible for the benefits of our young people and our businesses?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord tempts me to cross a red line which is a little above my pay grade in talking about our trading arrangements and any future trading agreements with the European Union. However, it is clear already from what we have done with the Erasmus schemes that we take this seriously. The European Union is our closest trading partner and one of our most important trading partners. It is absolutely right that we promote good links between all participants in the UK economy and those in Europe.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed the improvement in economic performance that we have seen in the Manchester and Liverpool regions? Does that not show what a Labour Government can do with Labour regions to regenerate this country?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. Strong Labour councils and strong Labour mayors working with the Labour Government have delivered economic prosperity—and, I add, not only in Liverpool and Manchester but just down the road from me, in and around King’s Cross and the Knowledge Quarter that is being created there. The links between the Labour-run Camden Council, the Mayor of London and the Labour Government show that we are developing and are at the cutting edge, being the place to come, across the whole world, to develop jobs and skills in industry, the life sciences and other areas.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that many young people get their start in the workplace in leisure and hospitality. He will also know that UKHospitality estimates that, because of the Government’s fiscal changes, from April this year there will be an extra burden of £1.9 billion on those businesses and that 70% of them are going to curtail their recruitment, particularly of young people. Is it not the case that the Government’s changes are having a negative effect on youth employment? Is it not time that they review those fiscal changes, if they really are serious about tackling welfare dependency and worklessness?
Lord Katz (Lab)
We have taken action on business rates for businesses in that sector. Positively, just last year we introduced foundation apprenticeships for young people in targeted sectors. In the retail and hospitality sector, we introduced a sector-based work academy programme pilot, which was launched in partnership with UKHospitality and businesses in a number of areas, including coastal towns, which are suffering the most.
Malvern Hills Bill [HL]
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Malvern Hills Bill [HL]
That this House resolves that the promoters of the Malvern Hills Bill [HL], which was originally introduced in this House on 22 January 2025, should have leave to suspend proceedings on the bill from the day on which the current session ends in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150A (Suspension of bills).
Cheltenham Borough Council (Markets) Bill
That this House resolves that the promoters of the Cheltenham Borough Council (Markets) Bill, which was originally introduced in the House of Commons on 22 January 2026, should have leave to suspend proceedings on the bill from the day on which the current session ends in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150A (Suspension of bills).
Procedure and Privileges Committee
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Changes relating to Grand Committee and delegated legislation debates; Procedural changes resulting from the coming into force of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026; Highlighting International Agreements Committee Reports in House of Lords Business (7th Report, HL Paper 288) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the first part of the report proposes changes to Grand Committee sittings and to debates on delegated legislation in order to increase the House’s capacity to scrutinise legislation before it and to give Peers more certainty around timings.
The committee recommends that the default maximum sitting length of Grand Committee should be increased to five hours, with Grand Committee on Thursday starting at 12.15 pm rather than 1 pm. Furthermore, we recommend that there should be an additional Grand Committee for delegated legislation only, on Tuesday starting at 11 am and sitting for up to three hours. As now, these provisions will be used only when necessary.
We also recommend changes to debates on delegated legislation to create greater certainty for Members—both those taking part in debates on delegated legislation and those taking part in business after such debates. We recommend time-limiting debates on delegated legislation in the Chamber to a maximum of 60 minutes and having a speakers’ list. The usual channels would, in exceptional circumstances, be able to extend the time limit to 90 minutes or longer.
The committee also recommends that, during debates on delegated legislation, both in the Chamber and in Grand Committee, the clock should time the length of speeches rather than the whole debate, bringing practice on the use of the clock into line with that for debates on primary legislation. All these changes, if agreed by the House, will be implemented for a trial period only and reviewed in spring 2027.
The second part of the report seeks the House’s agreement to changes to the Standing Orders and the Companion that reflect the coming into force at the end of this Session of the core provisions of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026. This requires the repeal of eight Standing Orders and the amendment of another, along with consequential changes to the Companion.
Finally, the report seeks the House’s agreement to minor changes to the Companion following the House’s decision on 14 April that departing hereditary Peers should have the same access rights as Members who retire under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. I commend the report to your Lordships and beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as the chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I want to put on the record that I very much approve of the suggested additional day on Tuesdays specifically for delegated legislation. It is important that delegated legislation is given the stature that it deserves, and I think this will be a popular addition to the abilities of Members of your Lordships’ House to discuss delegated legislation. I note that it is only for a trial period initially, but I feel sure that it will be adopted on a permanent basis at the end of that period, which I would very much welcome.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to express some concern about paragraph 16 of the report, under “Proposals relating to Delegated Legislation”, on time-limiting debates to 60, or possibly 90, minutes. For the sake of clarity, I wish to know whether that also applies when there is a regret or fatal Motion—I am getting a nod from the Chief Whip—or, indeed, both regret and fatal Motions, or sometimes multiple regret and fatal Motions. At this point, I guess all I can do is ask the usual channels to assure us that they will appropriately use that possibility of extension—I am getting a nod here, too, which I am putting on the record.
I am thinking back to the debate, which I am sure many noble Lords will remember, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb regarding the proscription of Palestine Action. From memory, that debate took three or four hours, engaged very many Members of your Lordships’ House and was a very serious issue for the country.
It is terribly important. We are seeing, and we hear many times, the problem with Henry VIII powers and the way in which the Government are using delegated legislation, instead of full legislation that we can debate and amend. This could very much be seen as a way to shut down debate on really important issues on which there is great concern in the House. I want to put that on the record and say that we will certainly be watching this very closely.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Mr Lords, those were two interesting comments. I would obviously also want to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and his committee for undertaking a very key part of our committee work. I say to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that I specifically said that the committee wanted to have this as a trial. The intention behind all this rationale, when we as a committee looked at it, was in no sense to stifle scrutiny—indeed, it was to give Peers greater certainty about timing. We had had a number of observations about the difficulty of this issue. It is, as I say, for a trial. In fact, I know from chairing the committee that at no point did any of us see this as a route to—to use the words of the noble Baroness—shutting down debate. It is very important that these matters are properly scrutinised.
As this is one of my passing and final shots as Senior Deputy Speaker, I would say that whenever I have spoken to the House, it has almost unanimously felt that we should all speak succinctly and to the point and not overstress your Lordships with lengthy contributions. In this trial, we all need to ensure that there is proper scrutiny, yes, but that it is done in a way that is conducive to the whole spirit of having these debates in the terms I have described.
On that basis, and with the points made by noble Lords, I hope that your Lordships will approve the committee’s report.
Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows: Delete Standing Orders 3 (Peers by descent not to be introduced), 9 (Hereditary peers: by-elections), 10 (Register of hereditary peers), 77 (Committees for peerage claims), 78 (Claims of peerage), 79 (Claims of Irish peerages), 80 (Claims of Irish peerages in abeyance), and 81 (Report if improper arrangement entered into between co-heirs).
Standing Order 21B (Temporary exclusion)
Paragraph (6)(c), delete “9 or”.
Standing Order 36 (Balloted and time-limited debates)
Paragraph (1) delete “If a balloted debate or a time limited debate” and insert at the start “If a balloted debate, a time-limited debate or a debate in the Chamber on delegated legislation”.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
12:38 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 143 - Motion A1 agreed.
12:49 - Division on Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 207 - Motion C1 disagreed.
13:33 - Division on Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 145 - Motion D1 agreed.
14:23 - Division on Motion E1 - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 141 - Motion E1 agreed.
14:34 - Division on Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F) - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 144 - Motion F1 agreed.
14:47 - Division on Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G) - Ayes: 208 / Noes: 138 - Motion G1 agreed.
14:59 - Division on Motion H1 - Ayes: 199 / Noes: 146 - Motion H1 agreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, C, C1, H and H1. It is a pleasure to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I thank all noble Lords who engaged extensively in the brief period we had between Report and ping-pong. I also thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments agreed by your Lordships during earlier stages of the Bill. As she outlined, the Government’s central aim with this Bill is to devolve power and money from central government to those with skin in the game, building a different type of state where communities with local knowledge are given the power to shape their areas.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell, Lady Scott and Lady Pidgeon, for the first group of amendments today. Lords Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, seeks to add rural affairs as a distinct area of competence to Clause 2. While I very much appreciate the good intention behind it, I do not believe this change would address the underlying concerns that noble Lords have raised. I have reflected on the points made on Report, and the central issue is not whether rural affairs appear as a separate area of competence, since rural affairs are already within the scope of the other competences. Rather, it is about how strategic authorities and their mayors exercise their functions, taking proper account of the needs of rural communities.
To address that, the Government propose to issue non-statutory guidance to strategic authorities to ensure that they consider the needs of those who live and work in rural areas when exercising their powers and functions. Separately, we are providing mayors with the ability to appoint up to 10 commissioners, which will give the flexibility to assign multiple commissioners to a particular area of competence. This approach enables commissioners to focus on specific aspects within those areas, such as rural affairs, should they wish to do so. With these points in mind, I ask the noble Baroness not to insist on her amendment.
Lords Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to ensure that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process and that the criteria and process for appointments are published, as well as commissioners’ remuneration. Through the passage of this Bill I have been emphatic about the Government’s focus on accountability in local government, and commissioners are no exception to that. I trust that the statutory guidance published by the Government on 16 April, which covers important issues raised in this House, provides confidence to noble Lords in that regard. Members in the other place raised concerns about appointments being based on merit. I am pleased to confirm that the guidance explicitly states that appointments should be based on merit and fair and open competition, and that details of a commissioner’s role, once they are appointed, must also be published on the website of the combined authority or the combined county authority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, queried directly with me how adherence to the guidance is monitored and enforced. As the guidance is statutory, relevant authorities must have regard to it unless they have a good reason to depart from it and can explain that reason. If the guidance is not properly considered, decisions may be unlawful and therefore open to challenge through a judicial review. Failure properly to consider the guidance will also be a relevant consideration for government in assessing whether an authority is meeting its statutory responsibilities, including compliance with the best value duty, and would form part of MHCLG’s assessment of governance and improvement.
Lords Amendments 13 and 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would enable the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s budget with a simple majority. The Government will simplify and ensure consistency in the voting arrangements across mayoral strategic authorities, including London. A general principle in that simplification is that the voting arrangements for exercising functions should match those for agreeing the budget that funds those functions. In mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities, most functions will now be decided by the default arrangement of a simple majority of authority members, which must include the mayor, but some functions—strategic planning, bus franchising, mayoral development corporations and fire—are exercised solely by the mayor. For that reason, these authorities have two budgets, one for functions exercised by the authority as a whole and one for functions exercised solely by the mayor.
The Bill streamlines the process for setting and agreeing the budget for functions exercised by the authority as a whole. They will now be subject to a simple majority, including the mayor. However, mayoral budgets will continue to require a two-thirds majority to amend, as set out in existing secondary legislation. It is right that we empower democratically elected mayors to set the budget for functions exercised solely by the mayor, with the appropriate checks and balances that the two-thirds majority provides. The GLA’s budget and governance are fundamentally different from those of combined authorities. All functions are exercised by the mayor, so there is a single consolidated mayoral budget for the GLA. The assembly’s role is to scrutinise the mayor’s budget and exercise the functions, not make decisions on them. It is therefore appropriate that the threshold for amending the final draft of the Mayor of London’s consolidated budget remains a two-thirds majority, as is the case for mayoral budgets in other mayoral strategic authorities.
That is why it is the Government’s view that this House should not insist on these amendments, as they would put the scrutiny of the mayoral budget in London out of step with those in combined authorities and combined county authorities. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for raising it and for providing a helpful opportunity for the Government to clarify the position. I am happy to confirm that the Government will update the guidance and explainers setting out voting arrangements across mayoral strategic authorities to ensure that this principle can be easily understood.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned that there are a very few exceptions to that, and I will detail why that is the case. Those differences exist for technical reasons—for example, in the east Midlands, given the Nottingham tram contract, or where the number of constituent authorities within a CCA does not allow for a neat two-thirds split. The Tees Valley has five constituent authorities, and therefore a three-fifths voting threshold is the closest equivalent to two-thirds that is possible with that number of constituents. As I said, the Government will publish guidance setting out voting arrangements.
On Amendments 87B and 87C in lieu, the explanation that I have given clearly sets out that a review of voting arrangements for the London Assembly’s ability to determine the Mayor of London’s budget is unnecessary. I hope that this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords, and that they will agree to the Motion from the other place not to insist. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press her amendments in lieu.
Finally, Lords Amendments 85, 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, collectively seek to remove the powers for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority or a combined county authority, or to provide for a mayor in certain circumstances. The Government do not support these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that devolution can play a central role in boosting regional growth, attracting investment and improving outcomes for communities, with decisions taken closer to the people they affect.
The powers in the Bill are intended to ensure that progress towards those aims is not stalled indefinitely where there is a clear potential for devolution but, importantly, where no workable proposal has come forward locally—because that is what we all want to happen, ideally. They provide a backstop power to be used only where necessary and appropriate, and with clear statutory safeguards. In practice, our approach continues to be one of collaboration with local partners.
That commitment to partnership has been reinforced by the assurances given by the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities in the other place, where, as your Lordships will know, the Government made clear that for a period of two years following Royal Assent they will not commence the powers enabling the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of non-mayoral strategic authorities or the expansion of existing strategic authorities without local consent. They have further committed that for a period of four years following Royal Assent they will not use these powers to provide for a mayor without local consent. These commitments provide a clear and proportionate backstop power while preserving the legislation’s ability to support devolution over the long term. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments to Schedule 1.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.”
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A. The Commons have disagreed with our amendment, which was carried 285 to 156: a majority of 129 and a pretty convincing endorsement of the strength of feeling in the Chamber for rural affairs to get the recognition they deserve. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter and offer for rural affairs to be included in non-statutory guidance.
The reasons given by the Commons were that rural affairs are covered by the other competences in Clause 2 of the Bill, as the Minister has already referred to. Just as rural-proofing was considered an essential element of any service delivery, infrastructure project or change to local government, it should have been an essential element of the planning all through the process. The question should continually be asked, “How will what is being proposed affect rural areas?”
Rural England covers the largest geographical area of England but has the smallest proportion of population. The large towns and cities, due to the ease of connectivity, attract business of every description and provide jobs and economic prosperity. Ever since the Industrial Revolution of the early 1800s, this has been the case—but even Arkwright built his mills in rural Derbyshire.
This morning, I have been contacted by Richard Hebditch of the Better Planning Coalition, who emphasised how important rural areas are. If I may, I will quote from his email, in which he states:
“The concept of strategic authorities draws on the previous development of metro mayors for large urban areas. Much of their focus will be on economic growth, transport and other infrastructure, and the Government is clear that it sees its cities and larger towns as the focus for both economic growth and infrastructure investment. We are concerned that there is a strong risk that rural areas will be sidelined as strategic authorities draw up SDSs as well as in the other strategies and plans. We therefore welcome current Lords Amendment 2, which inserts rural affairs as a competency for strategic authorities”.
I am grateful to Richard Hebditch for his information this morning.
Those who live in rural areas want the same benefits as those who live in highly populated areas. We want the strategic authorities and the mayors to consider how their future plans will affect those in rural areas. The benefits of a thriving economy, good infrastructure, a buoyant jobs market, decent homes and good connectivity, especially digital as we enter the AI-dominated era, should be the right of those in rural areas. The town and parish councils are likely to be overlooked if care is not taken.
I recently returned from a short stay in rural Norfolk, where my mobile phone coverage was very patchy. Even at home in Hampshire, where I live on the outskirts of a village but only 200 yards from the secondary college which services a large area, bringing students in on double-decker buses, I have difficulty with my mobile reception. If I want to make a phone call or answer an incoming call, I have to go into the lounge at the front of my home to get sufficient signal to be able to have anything like a decent conversation.
The majority of 129 on the amendment on 24 March was one of the largest majorities, if not the largest majority, on this Bill, and demonstrates the strength of feeling in the Chamber on the importance of rural affairs. I remain convinced that rural England will get the recognition it deserves only if it is in the Bill and is covered in statutory guidance, not relegated to non-statutory guidance, which is not sufficient. Every policy and strategy brought forward by mayors and strategic authorities should have been through a process whereby the question has been asked and considered, “How will this affect those living in rural areas?” How will this affect their safety, environment, access to decent affordable housing and travel arrangements? Asking commissioners to consider rural affairs if they wish, I am afraid, does not cut it. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, first, I give my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing forward again her Motion A1 on the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences. I agree with every word she said, including about broadband and mobile reception in rural Norfolk, which I have to deal with on a regular basis. While we have been suspicious of the expanding role of commissioners, if this Government wish to push forward their reforms, it is only right that rural affairs be added to the list of competences.
I know the Minister has outlined that rural affairs are already within the scope of other areas of competences, but the same could be said about the addition of culture, for example. What is more, the Government tabled amendments on Report which allowed a commissioner’s work to relate to one or more aspects of areas of competence and allow work on cross-cutting issues.
I feel very strongly that a commissioner for rural affairs with a rural area as part of their responsibilities would allow that rural-proofing, not just of rural things but of all other services that the mayor is considering. As a result, my understanding now is that this would not mean that every mayor has to appoint a commissioner for rural affairs. That may not be suitable, as I have said, for each area. However, adding rural affairs to the list of competences would allow the work of commissioners to at least relate to rural affairs and enshrine them into law, rather than leaving them, as we have heard, to non-statutory guidance.
This brings me to the appointment of commissioners. I am very grateful for all the time that the Minister has given me and others and for her work and engagement on this and other issues. Amendment 4 sought to ensure a fair and transparent selection process for the appointment of the commissioners. I am very pleased with the draft statutory guidance, which fulfils most, if not all, of everything we asked for. I thank the Minister for early sight of that guidance and for assuring us that it has sufficient teeth so that mayors can be held to account. We will therefore not be pushing this amendment.
Turning to voting arrangements on the London Assembly, I am also grateful for the work that has gone into setting out the Bill’s exact position on this. It was very complicated, so it was useful to have that explanation of the voting arrangements for mayoral budgets, which usually require a two-thirds majority. But, as the Minister has continually said on the Bill, the Government want consistency. We are not all sure that we agree with that, but the Government have made it clear that they want consistency across the country—so why not in mayoral voting arrangements?
However, as we and the Minister have said, there are exceptions across the country. We have the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the North East Combined Authority and the London mayoral voting arrangements. Given that this extensive Bill seeks to simplify the system of local government as a whole, it is not clear why this has not been addressed. That is why we have tabled Amendment 87B, to ask the Secretary of State to review the London Assembly’s voting arrangements in the context of the budget-setting arrangements for strategic authorities across the country. I recommend that the Government do more work in this area to ensure that voting arrangements not only are consistent but allow sufficient democratic scrutiny of all mayoral budgets. I am therefore minded to test the opinion of the House.
Finally, I turn to our package of amendments to Schedule 1. On the Secretary of State’s powers to direct changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities, based on the principle that these changes should be based on local consent, I note that the Government have committed not to use these powers for two and four years respectively. Surely this concedes that their use is an unacceptable breach of local trust. We have made it very clear throughout the Bill’s passage that we do not agree with imposing any changes on local government, of any type, without the agreement of local councils and, particularly, of local communities. The use of these powers, whether by this Government or by a future Government, could do serious damage to the relationships between central government and combined authorities and, crucially, their constituency councils and their local communities. For these reasons, we remain concerned about the inclusion of these powers in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will see the risk that they pose, not just now but in the future, and will support Motion H1.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall add some comments on rural affairs, but first, I am grateful for the Government’s movement on the appointment processes for commissioners. At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I had a lot to say about commissioners, their appointment, and their terms and conditions. My worry throughout was that we should never get to a position in which commissioners are appointed for reasons of political favour or similar. What we actually need are the best people for the job. Therefore, the guidance that has been issued is very helpful.
On rural affairs, there is a problem in the documentation that we now have. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was absolutely right to point out that the Commons reason for rejecting our amendment was:
“Because the matters that are within the scope of the other areas of competence already cover rural affairs”.
That is not the case; they do not. The noble Baroness mentioned one or two of those areas. I will explain why this is not sufficient.
It is very important that rural affairs are embedded in decision-making among all the competencies that an authority has, such as transport. I am sure that they will be by the commissioners, the mayor and those charged with making decisions. The problem is that there are things that are not within the competence framework. One example is the impact of energy costs on domestic users and small businesses in rural areas. It is not clear that this lies within any of the competences that the Government have come up with. There are issues around the cost of living, and travel costs for young people to education and training. Indeed, many young people undertake placements as part of their education, and these require substantial travel costs. Travel is more expensive in rural areas than in urban ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred to the communications problem. There are communications problems for young people, and all residents of rural areas, that are not within the competence framework that the Government have come up with.
In general terms, the availability of public services would simply fall between two stools. The provision of NHS services would have a different focus if there were to be a rural affairs commissioner, and the same is true of leisure facilities. One can think of many areas of policy that are not within the areas of mayoral competence, so it would be very helpful if the Government would come back to this.
Having said that the Commons disagrees with the Lords amendment, the Under-Secretary of State said,
“I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 244.]
It would be really helpful if that became statutory, as opposed to non-statutory, guidance. I would like to know more about what is planned and the timescales for that, because it really matters.
There is a danger. Some of these issues are of lesser importance in wholly urban areas because there are no rural areas within them. Where you have a wholly rural area within a mayoral structure, due attention inevitably will be given by the mayor. But I see a problem coming where there is a very large urban area and a smaller rural area in terms of population. That rural area may feel it is losing out. Unless something like statutory guidance is given, I think we will find, in a year or two, that people feel short-changed in rural areas.
That takes me to a final suggestion to the Minister. There is to be an annual review. The Government should state clearly in the other place—if the House decides that this goes back to the other place, as I hope it will—that an annual review to assess what is really happening on the ground could be very helpful. I hope the Minister will take in good spirit the points made across the Chamber. There are issues here that need to be addressed. If the noble Baroness decides to press her amendment to a vote, I will certainly support her.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I wanted to speak to Conservative Motion C1. As I was in the Chamber when that was addressed, I was told I could speak.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
The noble Baroness was not in the Chamber. I saw her take her seat.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I have just had advice that I can speak, otherwise I would not have.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
If the noble Baroness was not here at the start of the debate, I do not think she is able to speak.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion C1, in support of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. The Minister will be aware that, during the passage of the Bill, I have suggested on a few occasions that there should be a full review of the London mayoral governance process, because there is lots of learning since the original scheme was brought through that really should be revisited.
The Minister issued a letter to us this morning that, as I understand it, gave us this reason on changing to simple majority voting in London: the Assembly is actually a scrutiny function and not part of the mayoral budget process, and therefore that would not be right because it is not part of that policy-making responsibility. Indeed, in the Minister’s opening remarks she said that London is “fundamentally different” and “out of step” with others.
Does this not endorse my earlier proposal? Elsewhere in the country, in governance proposals that have been brought forward since, local council leaders are part of that policy-making process. That would give some opening for other people being involved. In London the current situation—the mayor has sole responsibility and there is a two-thirds majority for the assembly—means that it is unlikely to ever be challenged. Surely, London deserves better. Either it needs to be 50% or, as I suggested throughout consideration of this Bill, we need to relook at London.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will refer first to the amendments on rural affairs and the areas of competence. The issue here is not the areas of competence; the lack of an area of competence for rural affairs will not impede strategic authorities or disadvantage those who live and work in rural areas. The Bill is not prescriptive. The use of functions sits at the discretion of the relevant strategic authority or mayor. Where an authority has a significant rural population, it can and should consider the challenges and opportunities affecting those communities when exercising its powers.
As noble Lords will be aware, many existing strategic authorities and their mayors are taking the matter of rural affairs very seriously. In Devon and Torbay, for example, the combined county authority has published its working plan, which outlines the authority’s long-term goals for the next 10 years. Many of these goals focus on resolving the issues faced by the region’s rural communities, from poor transport links to digital isolation. I know our mayors have taken up the very important issue that noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised—the digital exclusion arising from poor broadband in many of our rural areas.
In York and North Yorkshire, the combined authority is rolling out DNA marking kits to reduce rural crime and thefts. The North East Combined Authority is investing £17 million into the rural economy, supporting farming businesses and rural tourism. The existing areas of competence and their associated functions empower authorities to engage in rural affairs, and that is why the Government view publishing guidance as the most effective means of ensuring rural matters are considered in strategic authority thinking.
To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the culture competence—why that has been made a competence and rural affairs have not—the areas of competence are intended to capture broad, thematic priorities affecting communities irrespective of whether they are rural or urban. The challenges faced by rural communities are already addressed within the existing eight areas. Not all strategic authorities have substantial rural populations; some are predominantly urban. A stand-alone competence for rural affairs risks implying that the challenges faced by rural communities are unique to those settings alone. While the specific factors affecting communities will vary by place, many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities, as in the examples I set out.
On Report, noble Lords outlined many of the issues that rural communities face. One example was public transport and the infrequency of bus services. As we are all aware, the Bill provides for an area of competence for transport and local infrastructure. It confers upon strategic authorities, via Clause 32, functions over local transport planning, including securing public passenger transport services and bus franchising. This shows that the Bill gives strategic authorities the tools and the means to address the issues that noble Lords have raised. However, it does not highlight the challenges faced by rural communities or assist strategic authorities in recognising and effectively responding to these issues. That is why the Government view the issuing of non-statutory guidance on the consideration of rural needs as the most effective way of ensuring that rural affairs are not overlooked.
Turning to the issue of commissioners, I welcome the debate we have had surrounding the new commissioner role throughout consideration of the Bill. Noble Lords and Members in the other place have consistently raised questions about the number of appointments, their selection and their ability to be held accountable. It is important that the increase in appointments be viewed in the context of improving operational flexibility for combined authorities and combined county authorities. The amendments we have made mean that mayors will have the ability to appoint a commissioner to the new culture area of competence, as well as allowing more than one commissioner to operate in a single area of competence. They also ensure that commissioners can work or exercise functions in any aspect of an area of competence, rather than needing to work on the whole area.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their comments about the guidance. I was really pleased that the guidance is thorough and deals with many of the issues your Lordships have discussed during the progress of the Bill. There are also clear arrangements around the remit of local scrutiny committees and commissioners when they are introduced to an authority. Commissioners will be subject to sanctions, including removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings of a local scrutiny committee, and financial penalties if they fail to answer questions or provide information or mislead a local scrutiny committee. With the new guidance that has been published, I hope we have dealt with many of the issues that were raised during our discussions on the Bill.
On voting arrangements, I thank noble Lords, including the noble Lady, Baroness Pidgeon, for her very collegial engagement on Lords Amendments 13 and 87 concerning the London Assembly. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that it is important that we remember that we are not debating whether there should be a review of voting arrangements in London. The Government believe that London’s devolution model has been successful over the last 25 years, but we will continue to work with the Mayor of London and London Assembly members to ensure that the model is fit to support the capital’s continued growth.
On the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as I have set out, these amendments would bring scrutiny to the Mayor of London’s budget. If the amendments were passed, they would bring him out of line with his counterparts in the rest of England. As such, I ask that the House does not insist. For the same reason, I also ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not press her Amendments 87B and 87C.
Lastly, on ministerial powers of direction, noble Lords will be aware that, without a backstop power, there is a risk that some areas will get left behind. I have been very clear that these powers will only be used as a last resort when all other options have failed. However, notwithstanding the safeguards in the Bill, I have heard the concerns raised by noble Lords. That is why my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, made the commitment that we will not commence the powers to establish a non-mayoral strategic authority or expand an existing authority without local consent for a period of two years following Royal Assent, nor will we commence the power to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal Assent.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank those taking part in this short debate, and I also thank the Minister for her comments. However, I disagree that leaving the consideration of rural affairs to the discretion of strategic authorities and mayors and not including it specifically on the face of the Bill, nor in statutory guidance, is sufficient. Non-statutory guidance can be easily set aside. Now is an opportunity to recognise the importance of rural affairs. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 13 and 87, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 13A and 87A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 87B and 87C in lieu—
“Review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of the voting arrangements for determining the Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the situation of the Authority in the context of the budget-setting arrangements for strategic authorities in other regions, and make recommendations on whether there is a case for reducing the majority required for the Greater London Authority.
(3) The review under subsection (1) must be published within one year of the passing of this Act.”
“(ia) section (Review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement) (review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement);””
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion C1 in my name. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 26 and 89, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 26A and 89A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion D, I will also speak to Motions G and G1. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady McIntosh, for their amendments in this group. Turning first to Amendments 26 and 89, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their engagement on this issue. As I have previously said to this House, the Government fully support a “brownfield first” approach to development. The NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework is a material consideration in planning decisions, and all strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, it is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.
I appreciate that there is a feeling among noble Lords that the NPPF has not had the full effect that is desired. However, conclusions on the effectiveness of brownfield policy are premature and cannot fully be seen at this stage. The nature of plan making means that there is often a lag between changes made to national policy and seeing impacts on the ground. Also, we have yet to publish our revised NPPF, so the full effects of our wider “brownfield first” policy interventions are yet to be seen. Prescriptive changes in primary legislation are therefore not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that would not support effective delivery or allow local circumstances to be taken into account. It would also undermine wider government objectives to deliver the homes this country needs, including new towns. We therefore must resist the temptation to do this.
However, we understand the concerns from noble Lords, and to further stress the importance of prioritising brownfield land over greenfield land the Government are committing today to prescribing in secondary legislation that when preparing their spatial development strategies, strategic planning authorities, including mayors and strategic authorities, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed.
On Lords Amendments 89B and 89C specifically, spatial development strategies do not allocate or designate specific sites or land. That is a role exclusively for local plans. Instead, SDSs are there to set a spatial framework and to identify broad locations for development. It is likely that some of those broad locations will contain both greenfield and brownfield land, and it is for the local planning authority to work out which land should be allocated for specific purposes. We intend SDSs to be high-level documents that are relatively quick to produce, and introducing what amounts to a series of legal tests would serve to slow that process and open up potential avenues for legal challenge. This would have a drag effect on setting the framework for the development that the country needs. For these reasons I respectfully ask the House to agree with the Motion not to insist from the other place, and I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not press her amendments in lieu.
I turn now to Amendments 41 and 94 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the noble Baroness, as well as my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lady Keeley, Lord Spellar and Lord Brennan, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their insight and very constructive engagement on this issue. I am also pleased to have met the Music Venue Trust yesterday to discuss this amendment and to further understand its concerns. While the Government do not consider that primary legislation is the appropriate mechanism, we fully share the objective of ensuring that new developments do not unduly impact existing businesses. That is why my colleague in the other place confirmed on Tuesday that guidance will be updated to set clearer national expectations and promote best practice across local authorities. In parallel, we will write to local authorities highlighting the importance of this policy. This commitment will support national planning policy, which already carries significant weight within the planning system, while allowing decision-makers the necessary flexibility to apply it in the light of the specific circumstances of each development proposal, including a proportionate assessment of impacts and mitigation. Updated guidance will complement the steps we are already taking to strengthen the effectiveness of the agent of change principle.
As part of our most substantial revision to planning policy in a decade, we have recently consulted on setting out more clearly what information decision-makers should take into account in the National Planning Policy Framework. A policy approach is more agile than primary legislation, and we can continue to refine it based on feedback on how it is working in practice. This is exactly what we have done through our recent consultation. We sought views on whether our proposed policy is sufficiently clear, and we are currently in the process of analysing responses. I believe we have had 20,000 responses to the NPPF consultation.
Furthermore, as part of the NPPF consultation, the Government have been clear that the decision not to designate statutory national development management policies at this time will be kept under review, and we will return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcomes of supporting more effective decisions. Therefore, I am not persuaded that primary legislation is going to be effective or necessary. Taken together, our changes to policy and guidance will help to ensure that businesses and cultural venues are robustly protected from the effects of new development within their vicinity. This is what we all want to happen, and that was certainly echoed by the Music Venue Trust yesterday.
For the reasons I have set out, I hope the House will agree to the Motion not to insist from the other place. I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, does not press her amendments in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Lord Jamieson
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 89B and 89C in lieu—
“Brownfield land priority
(1) A spatial development strategy prepared by a mayor, combined authority, or combined county authority must seek to prioritise the development of suitable brownfield land within the relevant area before designating greenfield land for development.
(2) Greenfield land may be designated for development where the authority is satisfied that—
(a) the use of available brownfield land alone would be insufficient to meet identified development needs, or
(b) development of such brownfield land would not be viable, deliverable, or would give rise to unacceptable environmental impacts, having regard to subsection (3).
(3) In applying this section, the authority must have regard to—
(a) the availability and deliverability of brownfield land,
(b) the economic viability of development,
(c) the suitability of brownfield land for the proposed development,
(d) the environmental impacts of any development,
(e) the need to meet housing and economic development requirements in the relevant area, and
(f) and relevant national planning policy.”
“(ka) section (Brownfield land priority) (brownfield land priority);””
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Throughout the debate on this Bill there has been agreement across the House that there should be a focus on brownfield first, putting homes where they are most needed—close to jobs, facilities and infrastructure. It is better for the environment, helps to regenerate our towns and cities and saves our valuable green fields. The current crisis has highlighted the need to grow our own food.
While prioritising brownfield is in planning guidance, it is not working. Greenfield development continues to represent around 50% of all housing development, with the loss of around 50,000 hectares in the last three years according to government statistics—and that excludes solar farms. Why? Because it is easier and quicker for developers to build on green fields. If we are genuinely to move the dial, we need to do more. We need a more proactive approach. Strategic development strategies are an opportunity to proactively look at how more can be done to build on brownfield to regenerate those urban areas and build the homes we need, to remove barriers and to support doing the right thing. That is why we are moving this Motion to make clear that this should be the case and to give it legislative backing.
The Minister raised some concerns, and I appreciate the time she has given to discuss this. We have listened to those concerns and have changed our original amendment, which the Minister thought might have unintended consequences and, as such, legal challenges. Our amendment in lieu reframes this as policy-led and aligns more closely with how spatial planning operates in practice. We have specified the amendment as pertaining to spatial development strategies and have recognised that land is allocated to meet specific identified development needs. Our amendment recognises that authorities must have regard to relevant national planning policy; housing and economic requirements for relevant areas; environmental impacts; and deliverability and economic viability of brownfield development. We do not believe, as the Minister said, that it will cause delay. In fact, it is the reverse: this is an opportunity to have more sites available for development.
I reiterate that we are not seeking to stand in the way of development. Rather, we want authorities, mayors and central government to properly address and overcome the challenges of brownfield development. I hope the Minister will recognise the constructive intentions behind our amendments in lieu, on which I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I also thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her efforts on her amendment in lieu, to bring it more in line with the arrangements in Scotland while seeking to reflect English planning laws.
We must remember that this is not just about music or cultural venues. It involves several other existing businesses and facilities, which deserve recognition in this debate. I look forward to the responses from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I echo the comments of my noble friend from the Front Bench, and I will speak to Motion G.
I take this opportunity to most warmly thank the Minister for meeting with a group of us this week and following that up with a meeting with the Music Venue Trust yesterday. I listened very carefully to what she had to say. I understood that, possibly, last week, the Government were minded to bring forward an amendment; it is still not too late for them to do so.
I declare that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate, and I would like to look to the Scottish model in this regard. The Scottish model gives a statutory legal basis, giving legal effect to the agent of change principle. The amendment is wider than the Scottish proposed law, which has now been in force for seven years, and our proposed amendment goes on to reflect English planning practice.
In the last seven years since the Scottish provision came into effect, the world has not caved in, and I do not think that, in that time, a significant number of music centres have closed, nor indeed have there been other instances of massive mitigation costs being sought. The Scottish provision has brought clarity and legal certainty to all those concerned. I am afraid I part company from the Minister: I think the House and the Government need to move on from light, fluffy, non-statutory policy to give statutory basis and legal certainty in the provision that I have set out.
We have set out in Amendment 94B that, in the event of an impact-sensitive development, regard is held and it is the agent of change—the new business—which takes any precautionary measures and pays the expense. It gives protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments.
I am very mindful of the fact that this mostly concerns music centres in England. We have had some figures recently from the Music Venue Trust in this regard. This is a wider issue than that. It reflects the fact that we have an urban-based problem here—a conflict between existing businesses facing competition and restrictions perhaps being imposed by others. While it is without doubt mostly music venues that have been affected by mitigation costs and the risk of businesses closing, the problem is wider and arises from dense urban living, brownfield regeneration and mixed-use development. The beauty of the amendment before us today is that it engages planning, licensing and nuisance in a way that would resolve this problem.
I firmly believe that the Government would be sticking their head in the sand by trying to go along with fluffy, non-statutory guidance followed up by a letter, and I ask the Minister to explain what status a letter would have. The provision proposed today, which would come into effect two months after the Bill is enforced, would resolve the issues once and for ever. It would give clarity to planners, developers, existing businesses and practitioners, and we could move on from the constant lack of clarity and uncertainty in various iterations of the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance. I am minded to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, under Motion G1: Amendments 94B and 94C, on the agent of change. I do so with particular reference to music venues. I also thank the Minister for the meeting we had this week.
The principle of the agent of change is not an issue in itself; that is supported on all sides of the House. The question is very much how best it can practically be enabled, and it is clear that the guidance by itself has not worked. The experience of the Music Venue Trust in terms of cases is hugely informing, and points clearly to the distinction made between the Scottish system as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which is statutory, and the English experience based on guidance. MVT says that the reason why the Scottish system works is that developers know applications will be rejected if they do not abide by agent of change. Response is, therefore, twofold: either applications abide by agent of change first time, which immediately speeds up the process, or if applications do not abide, the council has clear legislation to which to refer when declining the application. This means that organisations such as the Music Venue Trust do not enter a time-consuming back and forth of repeatedly objecting with the council and the developer.
Of the 300 music venues that have closed since 2015, the Music Venue Trust has documented 125 cases of venue closures where planning has been a direct cause of closure, rising to over 175 cases that include that as a contributory factor. But closure itself is not the only factor; as the MVT says, the absence of a clear statutory requirement means that every planning application near a music venue involves protracted negotiation over whether and how agent of change is applied. Venues spend months, sometimes years, in a process that a statutory requirement would resolve at the point of application. Moreover, as the MVT says, with only guidance in place, every time a developer seeks to circumvent the principle, a venue and its supporters must fund the legal and professional costs of enforcement through the planning process—costs that run to approximately £20,000 per case on average, rising to over £50,000 in more complex cases, which are not sustainable for the industry. A statutory provision would avoid this, but it is clear that the statutory solution has much wider support than in the industry itself.
In the just published and excellent Fan-led Review of Live and Electronic Music from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, a report for the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the fans’ charter states:
“The UK Government should embed the ‘agent of change’ principle in planning legislation in England. Following Scotland’s example, we would like to see the principle strengthened in law across the whole of the UK”.
The Government are saying that they will strengthen the guidance. There is no guarantee that this will work, and at the end of the day guidance is still guidance. We have the luxury of a ready-made template of the Scottish statutory system, proven over seven years to work smoothly, quickly and with minimal dispute. There is really no reason why the Government should not accept this amendment, based on that law, inclusive of that law, other than their aversion to a statutory solution.
I fully support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. If she divides the House, I will support her in the Lobby.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak for the first time on this Bill, and I apologise to the House for doing so rather late in the day. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has just explained why I have not been participating actively before: for the last year or so I have been undertaking a review of live electronic music, commissioned by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the House of Commons. He referred to one of the 50 recommendations in that excellent report, which I commend to noble Lords to study carefully. It is exactly as the noble Earl has just said: that the UK Government should embed the agent of change principle in planning legislation in England, following Scotland’s example. That is a key part of it.
I will just say the following on the Government’s Motion G and the amendment to it in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I pay tribute to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, who originally introduced the successful Private Member’s Bill many years ago in the House of Commons, which got the ball rolling, shall we say, on the whole agent of change issue around music venues and got it strengthened in guidance. That was a welcome step forward. However, even at the time I remember him saying to me, “This will not be enough; we will need a statutory provision eventually”.
I therefore very much welcome the engagement there has been from my noble friend the Minister, and the fact that the Government have acknowledged that this is not currently working effectively in practice and that it needs strengthening, and made clear commitments to do that within the National Planning Policy Framework. That is an extremely welcome move. However, I still have the view—I would not have said so in the review—that putting the agent of change principle around music venues in the Bill and making it a statutory provision will ultimately need to happen. Without that, there will always be the issues which the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, so effectively outlined for those people operating music venues.
Having said that, I would have preferred any amendment that was put down—I mentioned this to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—to replicate the Scottish position, which is specifically about noise nuisance caused by music venues. It is not about church bells, cockerels in the morning or living next door to a pig farm; it is about a specific problem that really needs to be dealt with, where an existing music venue produces noise but is operating legally, and a developer decides to move in next door and then expects that existing business to pick up the mitigating costs for any nuisance that might be caused to residents moving into the flats, houses or whatever they are. There is a danger, if you draw this too wide, that that principle will be diluted.
I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the debate. It remains my view that this should be a statutory provision, but I am very pleased that the Government are acknowledging that there is a problem, because this is not working currently, and that they have already committed to responding in due course to all the recommendations in my report.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I too support Motion G1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the Minister for meeting us this week and for meeting the Music Venue Trust yesterday.
The Minister in the other place told us that the agent of change principle is “already firmly embedded” in national planning policy since 2018, yet the Music Venue Trust intervened in 200 cases in 2024 alone, at a cost of up to £50,000 each, to save grass-roots music venues from closure. If that is what “firmly embedded” looks like, one shudders to think what neglect would produce.
The Minister’s answer is more guidance—updated, strengthened, consistent. But that is precisely what was promised when the principle entered the NPPF in 2018, and again in every consultation since. The guidance says the right thing—it always has. The problem is that guidance is only guidance. Developers know it. They test it, challenge it and too often circumvent it, because they do not have to comply. No amount of strengthened wording changes that; only statute changes that calculus.
The Minister speaks of flexibility for local decision-makers, but flexibility cuts both ways. It means inconsistency: one authority holds the line while another folds under developer pressure. It means venues exhausting their reserves on legal fees to enforce what policy already supposedly guarantees, and it means that venues without access to specialist support do not achieve a remarkable success rate. They simply close—quietly, invisibly and without appearing in any dataset as a planning casualty.
Even the Government’s own Back-Benchers in the other place were unconvinced. Lewis Atkinson, Member of Parliament for Sunderland Central, cited his constituency, where flats remain unbuilt precisely because developers lack the clarity that only statute can provide. The Minister offered him a meeting. One can only hope that the music venue at risk survives long enough to hold it.
Scotland did not offer meetings or updated guidance; Scotland legislated. Disputes there are vanishingly rare because the law is unambiguous and developers comply from the outset. There is no costly negotiation, no charitable fundraising to protect venues, and no protracted back and forth with planning authorities. The Government have had seven years to make guidance work; it has not worked. This amendment does not invent a new principle—the Government themselves have endorsed that principle repeatedly—it simply gives it the legal force it has always lacked so that decision-makers have a firm statutory footing, and developers cannot treat compliance as optional. I support Motion G1.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name has not been attached to either of these issues to date, but I give our support to both of them. They are both extremely important and I find myself convinced, having listened to the debate so far on both matters, that the case is sufficient for us to send both matters back to the other place. The issue is primarily about whether guidance is enough or whether one needs to place one’s intentions on a firm statutory footing. We need to put them on to a firm statutory footing—there is so much evidence that things are not working properly in either case and that the Government should think again. In either case, if there is a wish to test the opinion of the House, we would be supportive of it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the importance of prioritising brownfield land. The Government fully support the “brownfield first” approach, and we have set this clearly in national policy. We recently consulted on further measures to strengthen this, including higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. However, to reinforce the importance of prioritising brownfield over greenfield land, the Government are willing to commit to prescribing in secondary legislation that, when preparing spatial development strategies, strategic planning authorities, including mayoral and other strategic authorities, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. Our intention is for the regulations to come into force this year. I hope this will further demonstrate the Government’s clear commitment to a “brownfield first” approach. I assure noble Lords that this issue is being taken seriously. and I hope they will not insist on this amendment.
The agent of change principle lends itself to a policy approach, and I am concerned that setting it out in legislation would not provide decision-makers with sufficient flexibility to weigh up different factors in the planning balance. National planning policy, as it stands, already carries considerable weight in the planning system; it is certainly not “light and fluffy”, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, described it. The National Planning Policy Framework is a powerful, material consideration in planning decisions and must be taken into account in preparing the development plan. Our consultation on a revised framework, which closed on 10 March, proposes the most significant rewrite since its introduction over a decade ago, with clearer, more rules-based policies designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler plans.
Through this consultation, we propose strengthening the existing agent of change policy, setting out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and to engage early on with existing uses. The policy would be explicit that both current and permitted levels of operation of existing activities should be considered, which would include licences for music venues.
The Government have also considered introducing statutory national development management policies and have decided not to at this stage, given the impact that we expect the proposals in the consultation will have. We will keep this decision under review and return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcome of supporting more effective decisions. We are currently analysing all the feedback we have received and will publish our response in due course.
Furthermore, planning practice guidance is clear that a range of measures should be considered to mitigate impacts from existing uses. This includes using good design, incorporating noise barriers and optimising noise insulation.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their support and thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that the Minister has offered assurances that the Government will set out in regulation that strategic planning authorities, when preparing spatial development strategies, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land. However, as I said earlier, this approach has not worked. If we are genuinely going to move the dial, we need to strengthen the prioritisation of brownfield development. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion D1.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 36 and 90, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 36A and 90A, do not insist on its Amendment 155 and do agree with Commons in their amendments 155A to 155F.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions F and F1. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments in this group.
Lords Amendments 36, 90 and 155 would remove from the Bill the provisions relating to local authority governance and executive arrangements. The Government cannot accept these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide the clearest accountability and lead to more effective decision-making in local government.
As I have said before, these provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance in England. Your Lordships will recall my previous reference on Report to my own experience as an LGA peer reviewer and the examples that I gave highlighting the difficulties with co-ordination, decision-making and clear lines of accountability that can arise in councils operating the committee system. The Government have listened carefully to concerns raised in both this House and the other House and have responded constructively.
I will comment on the CIPFA governance review. In 2025, CIPFA led a sector-wide governance review and issued a framework, Delivering Good Governance in Local Government, which emphasised the importance of clear executive leadership, defined responsibility for decision-making and the ability to maintain a single coherent strategic overview. The review highlights the risks that can arise where accountability is diffuse or decision-making is spread across multiple committees. Executive models of governance are better suited to meeting these principles than committee systems, where responsibility and oversight are more dispersed, and leadership, responsibility and accountability can be less clear.
On Report in the Commons, the Government brought forward their own amendments to ensure that councils that have more recently adopted the committee system, whether by council resolution or by local referendum, will be able to continue with those arrangements for the remainder of their moratorium period and, where agreed locally, beyond that point. We continue to believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance and respecting more recent local democratic mandates, while avoiding unnecessary disruption for councils that have only recently changed their arrangements. In addition, the Government have responded to concerns about changes to statutory notice requirements and their potential impact on local media by retaining the existing requirement for councils to publish notice of governance changes in at least one local newspaper.
Lastly, I emphasise that the leader and cabinet model is not a uniform structure. As the independent Centre for Governance and Scrutiny has highlighted, there are many variations in the way the leader and cabinet model can operate, allowing councils to adopt an approach to decision-making that best suits their needs within the overall model. The Government stand ready to support any council required to change its governance model to ensure that it is able to operate a version of the system best suited to its local needs. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to agree the Motion that this House do not insist on these amendments.
Amendments 37 and 91 would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. We have heard noble Lords’ valid arguments about the important role that town and parish councils can play in delivering local services and representing their communities, and we agree with those comments. We have therefore proposed an amendment in lieu that helps to clarify the role that we intend parish and town councils to have within neighbourhood governance arrangements. The amendment adds an explicit provision to the clause that allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures.
Our intention here, which we will also set out when we publish our neighbourhood governance framework later this year, is that neighbourhood governance structures should include representation from town and parish councils where they exist in an area. The amendment gets the balance right. Some local authorities have hundreds of town and parish councils, so mandating the inclusion of each individual parish within structures would be impractical and inappropriate. Instead, we should ensure that we set a clear expectation of representation that retains the appropriate flexibility for places to develop the mechanisms that will work best for their communities.
Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the creation of new town and parish councils. While it is right that decisions on the creation of new town and parish councils are and should remain local decisions taken by local authorities in consultation with communities through community governance reviews, we will commit to reviewing and updating the statutory guidance that supports this process. That has not been updated since 2010, so it is time for it to be refreshed with examples of good practice for establishing new town and parish councils.
Clause 60 aims to complement the work of town and parish councils where they exist and to ensure that all communities, whether or not they have a town and parish council, have effective ways to address local issues. We will be setting all this out in non-statutory guidance alongside the regulations. In addition, I can confirm that we will be publishing further principles of our neighbourhood governance framework later this year. It should be evident to your Lordships that we, too, value the role of town and parish councils, and see them as important contributors to effective neighbourhood governance.
In summary, there are three points here. First, our amendment in lieu allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures. It is right that they should be included. Secondly, we have committed to review and update the statutory guidance on community governance reviews to better reflect good practice around establishing new parish councils. Thirdly, we have committed to setting out our overall intentions for how neighbourhood governance arrangements should interact with existing groups and institutions in a framework to be published later this year, ahead of laying regulations.
For the reasons I have outlined, I urge noble Lords not to insist on Lords Amendments 37 and 91, and to support the Government’s amendment in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Lord Shipley
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 155A to 155F to the words so restored to the Bill.”
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s statement a moment ago. We have debated this issue several times. I still believe that the case I have been making, with colleagues, remains the right one.
I was interested in the fact that the Minister cited in evidence a moment ago research done by CIPFA on a mayoral cabinet system, but of course what that research did not mention was that local people might have a view about it and wish to change the system. The problems have arisen in places where there has been a cabinet model that has worked badly, and where local people have wanted to change the model back to a committee system. That is the issue, and what is happening under this Bill is that they will no longer have the power to do so.
I read carefully what the Minister said in the other place when it debated our amendments on Tuesday. She said that the Bill
“sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in the Bill to give communities the power and control they are demanding to drive the change they want to see in their place”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 238.]
If that is what the Government believe, why does that not extend to the governance structure under which decisions are being made on communities’ behalf? They do, of course, pay the bills. I just find that the Government say one thing but are simply entering now the straitjacket of a single governance structure, giving no power to local people to affect change in their area where that does not work well.
I feel strongly that, even at this late stage of the Bill, we must safeguard local consent for local government changes. We need to promote parish governance for unparished areas and prevent the compulsory imposition of the executive model on all local councils. I have never understood why central government can claim that this Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, at the same time as forcing Clause 59 upon us, which does precisely the opposite of what the Government are seeking to do, and this very simple issue stays in place. There is still time for the Government to change their mind.
Throughout this Bill, my amendments have been to produce a more transparent system that the public can understand and thereby support. It would extend democratic engagement by all councillors across all parties and groupings and really help to improve the quality of decision-making at the point a decision is made. I have found this overcentralisation of power, which is the reality, very worrying in a Bill that masquerades as being about devolution in England and community empowerment, because in some respects, that is true, but in most respects, it is not. Therefore, I beg to move my Motion E1.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I want briefly to speak in favour of my noble friend Lord Shipley’s amendment. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about how the committee system does not necessarily work.
I want to share the Sheffield experience with the noble Baroness. In Sheffield, when we had a strong leader model, the leader picked her cabinet, and we ended up with 10 people deciding for the entire city. There were 84 councillors and 10 people chosen by the leader. There was one occasion—I think my noble friend Lord Scriven will remember this—where, in one ward, all three councillors were part of the cabinet and large swathes of the city had no say. What we ended up with—I hope noble Lords go and Google this—was the Sheffield tree fiasco, where even the noble Lord, Lord Gove, who is not in his place, came up and could not see what was going on. That was a result of the groupthink that existed within that strong leader model.
Let me tell your Lordships what the situation is at the moment in Sheffield. There is no party in overall control. You would think that would be chaos, but it is not. It is made up of nine councillors drawn from all political parties representing different parts of the city, who all sit on a particular committee. There is a leader of the council—at the moment, he is a Labour councillor. All the committee chairs sit on what we call a strategy and resources committee. Therefore, all councillors have a say. We do not have the ludicrous situation where the scrutiny boards, as previously under a strong leader model, are picked by the same leader who is in charge of the cabinet. It was a ruling group which had all the cabinet positions and the scrutiny positions. That is why we ended up with bad decision-making.
It is why I say: let local people decide. If this Bill is about community empowerment, let them decide. People in Bristol and Sheffield have decided to go for a different model. I referred to Birmingham on a previous occasion and how it had a strong leader model but was not able to make the difficult decisions that Sheffield most recently has, despite no party being in overall control and moving to a committee system. We have not been in the financial crisis that the likes of Birmingham have been in.
What I am saying is that different models can work, but let us trust local residents. Let central government loosen a bit of control and let local people decide. Given what is written on the tin of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, why are we not empowering communities? At the moment, it feels disempowering. Therefore, I hope the Minister will address the issue of the Sheffield experience.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion F1 and particularly Clauses 37 and 91. Large parts of England—about 20% or one-fifth—will be unparished when the Government have finished vandalising our councils with LGR—the historic county boroughs, cathedral cities such as Norwich and Oxford, coastal communities such as Great Yarmouth, Hastings or Eastbourne, and new towns such as Stevenage, where the noble Baroness served with distinction as leader for many years. I note my noble friend Lady Maclean is not in her place, so I will save her from saying that the town of Redditch, which she represented with distinction, is wholly unparished—save for little Feckenham in the south-west of that new town.
When Labour is done, these places will not have a properly constituted, legally incorporated and democratically legitimised local council to mow the park, heat the baths and run the carnival, complete with a proper mayor, wearing red robes and a tricorn hat, with ribbon-cutting, convening powers. Through Clause 60, what the Government have in mind for these unparished areas is a system where out-of-town patsies are parachuted in to play politics in toothless talking shops with no resources, because there is nothing left in the precept once social care has feasted on it.
I read with astonishment this morning what the Minister wrote to us in proposing Amendment 37A, which will allow town and parish councillors to attend those meetings. Does she not see the problem here? In those places, there are not going to be any town or parish councillors—that is the point. By what alchemy will she conjure up councillors from thin air to attend these meetings? It is just magical thinking. That is why Amendment 37A is worthless: you cannot send people who do not exist.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I simply say that I entirely agree with Motion F1; in the interests of time, I will not go further. I declare my interests as vice-president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, which have particular relevance to that Motion.
I will chiefly speak to, and offer the Greens’ the strongest possible support for, Motion E1. We believe in democracy; this is about democracy. I was intimately involved in the Sheffield tree campaign that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, set out. I will just tell noble Lords of one occasion at the end of that story, when the cabinet model was falling apart. The cabinet member responsible for overseeing the cutting down of trees stood in the council chamber and brandished a slice of a tree that had just been cut down. It was a memorial tree to two twin brothers killed in the Second World War. He celebrated how they cut down that tree. That was where groupthink and that model of governance had led us to: the council was set against the people of the city.
I will not go into any more depth on that; it is an issue I have majored on since Second Reading. Instead, I will refer to something that has happened very recently in Bristol, where we have a similar situation to Sheffield and where the people decided they wanted democracy and did the very difficult job of delivering that democracy against the current, the push, from Westminster. There was a glowing peer review for the Local Government Association just this month, specifically noting how in Green-led Bristol council the committee system had strengthened democratic engagement and transparency of the council.
If an independent, non-political overseer can see the benefits of the committee system, surely the Government can too. I am not saying that they should mandate a committee system—I believe in local democracy—but surely they should see that they cannot apply their own authoritarian ideology to local communities up and down this land. That is unacceptable at any time, but it is particularly so in a Bill that is supposed to be about devolution and community empowerment. This makes no sense. I urge your Lordships’ House, in the strongest terms, to oppose and to keep opposing Clause 59.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. At this very late stage, this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill. This is like a map of Sheffield—Manor Castle, Tinsley and Hunters Bar, and I am a former leader of Sheffield City Council—and the reason why we are speaking on this issue is not just because we saw what happened in Sheffield. We understand the power of giving local people the ability to hold others to account, not just at election time but in how they are governed, the administration and the powers devolved through all 84 councillors. This not only changes behaviour but helps to make the correct decision for a particular community.
I notice that a noble Lord opposite is shaking their head but, for Sheffield, it was the right decision. People turned out at the ballot box and decided that this was what they wanted, and—surprise, surprise—it has not created chaos. People in our city know who to go to about their bins or roads; they know who the chair of the committee is. They know that when they go to their local councillor, they have some power to influence the committee system, unlike the cabinet model where it is down to 10 people. My noble friend Lord Shipley has moved this Motion because if another Sheffield happens, once this Bill has gone through, there is no way the system can be changed. The community is left with an administrative system that they are completely locked out of other than at the ballot box in four years. Under the strong leader model, when I was leader of Sheffield I could have decided to hold all except reserve powers. I could have decided to have a cabinet of three people deciding what happened strategically.
The reason for this amendment—and why the Government must go away and rethink—is that we need to ask the Minister to answer this question. If another Sheffield arose in a year’s time after this Bill was passed, how would the local community change that system to make sure that local councillors had powers to ensure they were not held to ransom by three people within the strong leader model? If that question cannot be answered, it is really important to understand that communities are going to be left with systems that do not necessarily meet their requirements. It is really important. The reason why three people from Sheffield have spoken is because we understand what happens when it goes wrong, and we have faith in local people to use their knowledge and their votes to put that system right.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will raise a couple of broader points about where we are. A strong leadership system operates well when you have only two parties represented on a council. We are about to have local elections in which the number of councils elected with only two parties represented, and one party holding a clear majority, will probably be smaller than it has been for a very long time. Where we have multi-party politics, the need for co-operation and engagement among all those on council is of a different order than under the strong leadership model. If the Government do not recognise that, they are utterly failing to future-proof this Bill.
On Motion F1, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is going around the country talking about the Government’s failure to recognise the very radical implications of the strategic defence review. He talks about the need for mobilisation of the population at local level to deal with the new hybrid, civil and other threats facing this country. If we want to mobilise local volunteers and local services, we will have to engage our local population. If we have only distant councils representing half a million people, the population in Bradford will not be mobilised and will remain as disillusioned and unengaged as before, and the SDR will fail.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has just said, and I will add a couple of points. One is that in a committee system, every single member of the council has a role to play, has a function and is a part of the system. It is a really good way of encouraging good people to stand as councillors. In a cabinet system, nine-tenths of the council has nothing to do and you just get total disinterest in wanting to sign up for that, particularly if you are likely to be in opposition. We need good people in councils—we might even apply the same to Parliament. Having a system where only a few people have a real role to play is a big disincentive to seriously talented people joining an assembly of any variety.
Secondly, on Motion F1, as has been said I am a resident of Eastbourne, and we will have nothing that represents Eastbourne except a committee of a unitary authority, which may well have a completely different political make-up from the councillors elected in Eastbourne. There will be no way of expressing our voice as a community; we will just be waiting to be trampled on by other people’s ambitions. That is not the right way to run a local community. Yes, we need to improve on what we have at the moment—having one big town council with a runaway precept with no limits on it is not much fun either—so we need to think through what we should do at the parish level. But to have nothing—no initiative or sense that this is important—is a big hole in the Government’s thinking.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing forward his Motion on the cabinet model. In doing so, he raises a question about how best local authorities should be governed and where the balance should lie between consistency and local discretion.
I support this Motion to leave out Clause 59. The removal of the requirement to retain a leader and cabinet structure would allow local authorities the freedom to determine governance models that best reflect their local circumstances, as we have heard so strongly about in Sheffield. That flexibility is not only sensible but at times necessary. Local government is at its most effective when it is responsive to the communities it serves. Imposing a single governance model risks overlooking the diversity of those communities and the different ways in which effective leadership and accountability can be achieved. Allowing councils to make these decisions for themselves is a recognition of their democratic mandate and their capacity to govern in the best interests of their residents.
That principle of local discretion and trust in local leadership brings me directly to my Motions on town and parish governance. Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have quite rightly championed the voices of town and parish councils. These communities represent the most immediate and tangible layer of local democracy, rooted in the everyday lives of the people they serve. I and many others have been very disappointed with the lack of strong support from the Government in this Bill for parish and town councils as part of our true local government. Town and parish councils are the custodians of local identity, the stewards of community assets and often the first point of contact for residents seeking to shape the places in which they live. For this reason, Clause 60 must go further.
This Motion is modest yet important. It would enable parish council representation within neighbourhood governance structures—not just maybe in them. We are not imposing a rigid requirement, but we are encouraging inclusion where it is appropriate. This is a matter of democratic coherence. If neighbourhood structures are to speak credibly for their areas, they must reflect the full spectrum of local government within them. Excluding parish councils, bodies with a direct democratic mandate, with the word “may” in the government amendment would risk creating a disconnect between decision-making and those who know their communities best. Such inclusion would strengthen collaboration rather than complicate it. We should champion and encourage this important layer of local democracy, and this amendment reflects and respects its role.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I return to local authority governance arrangements. The Government have been clear and consistent in their view that executive models of governance, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide clearer accountability, stronger leadership and speedy and more effective decision-making for local government. That remains our firm view, and that is why we cannot accept these amendments.
However, as I set out earlier, this is not a rigid or prescriptive approach. The Government have listened carefully to points raised throughout the passage of this Bill and have responded. Councils that have only recently adopted the committee system will not be required to change immediately but may continue for the remainder of their moratorium period, after which they will undertake and publish a review of their governance arrangements. Meanwhile, the existing statutory notice requirements are being retained. Furthermore, it is also important to note that the executive forms of governance and the leader and cabinet model are also not rigid or prescriptive, but in fact leave room for flexibility in how they are implemented. While formally operating within the leader and cabinet framework, councils already employ a wide range of approaches to delegation, decision-making and scrutiny.
I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about most of the council doing nothing. I think that is completely wrong and denigrates the role that local councillors hold. Local councillors perform many important roles in councils, including scrutiny, licensing, planning and many other functions, as well as their very important role as ward councillors and, in the future, in the neighbourhood governance arrangements we are introducing. Some councils operate highly collective cabinets while others centralise decision-making. Some may choose to adopt a hybrid model, any of which can and should be employed best to reflect local needs. As I said, under the Government’s plans, councils that more recently adopted the committee system will retain this model.
In terms of evidence to justify moving away from the committee system, there are several individual examples that highlight the challenges of the committee system. Decisions can be slower. When Cheshire East switched to the committee system in 2021, an LGA corporate peer challenge found that its structure was large and meetings were intensive, with six policy committees and nine subcommittees involving 78 out of 82 councillors. It can be much harder for councils to keep a single strategic view. Co-ordination across individual committees can be a persistent challenge. That same peer challenge flagged the siloed nature of the council, with poor joint working across departments contributing to challenges in service delivery and communication.
Moving into and out of the committee system absorbs time and attention and increases administrative costs. Several councils that adopted the committee system later reverted to the leader and cabinet model, such as Brighton and Hove in 2024, and Newark & Sherwood District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, both in 2022.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister is making the case in her answer that local discretion is required to move from one model to the other depending on local circumstance, rather than being centrally prescribed by Westminster.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am making the case that moving backwards and forwards between different models does not serve the public we serve.
Accountability can feel diffuse and unclear, with some councils judging the leader and cabinet model to be more transparent, agile and accountable. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge.
The Government are not seeking total uniformity of internal process but clarity and effectiveness at the point of accountability and delivery. Residents should be able to see who is responsible, and scrutiny should be able to operate against clearly identifiable decision-makers. That is where executive models, and in particular, the leader and cabinet model, add the most value.
Councils can and should adopt a version of the leader and cabinet model that best suits their individual needs. When we were in opposition, Hertfordshire County Council had a set of cabinet panels that were very good at both pre-scrutiny and post-scrutiny of decisions. Councils should learn lessons from operating a committee model and then move forward with arrangements that deliver against local priorities, while strengthening accountability, effectiveness and clarity. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the Commons’ position and allow the Bill to proceed.
Clause 60 is about community empowerment, giving people a stronger voice in shaping local priorities, while allowing local authorities to build on what already works locally. Our amendment in lieu strikes that balance, recognising the valuable role of town and parish councils, where they exist, and setting out explicitly that regulations can provide for membership of neighbourhood governance structures to include representatives from town and parish councils. Our intention is that neighbourhood governance structures should include town and parish council representatives, where they exist.
Some places have hundreds of town and parish councils, ranging from very small hamlets to larger towns, so we want to retain the flexibility for local places to work out the right arrangements for parish council membership within governance structures.
We will set out expectations of town and parish involvement in neighbourhood governance arrangements in a framework on neighbourhood governance, to be published later this year, and in subsequent guidance, once regulations are laid.
I always find the noble Lord’s rhetoric entertaining, but rhetoric it is, I am afraid. We have committed to review and update the statutory guidance that underpins the community and governance review process, including adding good practice. That is the proportionate way forward for locally led neighbourhood governance. I therefore invite the House not to insist on its Lords Amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Motion E1. It has been a very helpful debate. Indeed, each time we have debated this issue it has been very helpful.
At the end of it, the issue is a simple one: are local people, who actually pay the bills, going to be trusted to make their own decisions about the governance structures that they want in their area? What the Government are doing in the Bill is saying that one model fits all. There has to be an alternative, and people have to be enabled to maintain the possibility of effecting change.
Examples can be quoted of some things having worked well, and others not so well. In the end, the government issue is: let the local people decide on the model they think is best for them in all the circumstances they know about in their area. For that reason, I beg to test the opinion of the House on Motion E1.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 37A in lieu and do not insist on its Amendment 91, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 91A.
“(3A) Regulations under this section about the membership of specified organisational structures may, in particular, provide for the membership to include one or more members representing any parish council or councils within the neighbourhood area.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 37, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 37A, and do insist on its Amendment 91, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 91A.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 41 and 94, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 41A and 94A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 94B and 94C in lieu—
“Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments
After section 70D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert the following new section—
“70E Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments
(1) A development that is the subject of an application for planning permission is an “impact-sensitive development” if residents or occupiers of the development are likely to be affected by significant impact from existing activity in the vicinity of the development.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of section 70(1), a planning authority—
(a) must, when considering under section 70 whether to grant planning permission for an impact-sensitive development subject to conditions, take particular account of whether the development includes sufficient measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effect of the anticipated impact of existing activities on the development from any existing cultural venues or facilities (including in particular, but not limited to, live music venues), or dwellings or businesses in the vicinity of the development, and
(b) may not, as a condition of granting planning permission for an impact-sensitive development, impose on existing cultural venues or facilities additional costs relating to design measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effects of that impact.””
“(z1) section (Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments) (protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments);””
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who spoke. For all the reasons we rehearsed in our arguments when we moved the amendments, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 85A and 86A, 97A to 116A, 120A, 121A and 123A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 85A and 86A, 97A to 116A, 120A, 121A and 123A.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Women’s Health Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the Statement. I am sure that the ambitions for the renewed women’s health strategy will be supported by noble Lords from all Benches. I know that the Minister recognises that women have too often felt unheard, as conditions such as endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain go underdiagnosed.
There was emphasis in the Statement on listening to women and tackling entrenched inequalities. This is, of course, welcome. We support the focus on a shift from treatment to prevention and from hospital to community, as well as the ambition to unlock the potential of digital innovation through NHS Online. I also thank the Minister for acknowledging that these initiatives build on work undertaken by previous Governments.
However, many women will judge this strategy not by its intentions and words but by whether it leads to tangible improvements in their day-to-day experience of care. All Governments announce grand strategies, but sometimes fail to deliver. While many of these individual announcements are welcome, I hope the Minister will allow me to ask for further clarity on a few points.
First, on waiting times and access to care, it is encouraging that waiting times for overall gynaecology have begun to move in the right direction, but many women are still waiting too long for diagnosis and treatment. We know what that leads to—a range of conditions, often worsening outcomes and poor quality of life. Can the Minister tell us what the department is doing to speed up the whole pathway from when the patient first presents through to treatment? How will it ensure that there is greater transparency for patients, so that they know where they are in the queue and how long they really have to wait, rather than estimates?
Secondly, the strategy rightly places an emphasis on listening to women and acting on their experiences. I am sure that noble Lords across the House share that objective. However, experience suggests that, unless you have clear structures for accountability, good intentions do not always translate into change. How will the department ensure that any feedback gathered in a patient consultation is not just perfunctory but consistently acted upon, and that it reflects a diversity of women’s experiences? There will be a range of experiences; it will not be the same for all women, especially for those who face additional barriers to being heard.
I will give your Lordships a couple of examples from my time in the department. I wonder what progress has been made. I remember when a young official came up to me and told me about her friend, a young Black lady, who had lost her baby. When they asked for the investigation and the paperwork, it had magically disappeared. How do we make sure that that sort of incident does not happen again, that there is real accountability and that there is no gaslighting, particularly for women from ethnic minority communities?
Another example comes from when I spoke to the baby loss charity Sands. Of course, we value the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, is doing on maternity care. I recently received an email from a lady whom I met at Sands, which said: “For almost three years, my case was handled by the same caseworker. Of course, sometimes I questioned their competence, but at least the caseworker knew my case and they knew about things. And, despite being advised that my complaint was at its final stages, I’ve just been told that it’s been reallocated to a new case handler. Someone has to relearn the case, but has not yet been given a date for when that case will be heard”. I wonder what the Minister’s department can do to ensure that people who have suffered terribly, and are still suffering physically and emotionally from what has happened, really get the justice that they deserve.
Let us move on to patient safety and redress. The Statement refers to unacceptable experiences of women harmed in the past. As the House will be aware, the recommendations of the Hughes report were intended to provide redress for medical interventions such as the pelvic mesh, sodium valproate and hormone pregnancy tests, but many women are still waiting for some form of redress or help. Often, they are racking up bills, such as taxi bills to go to appointments, and many of them are still in pain.
When I was in the department and I was being asked the question, in the Minister’s place, I would go back to the department and ask what we are doing about this. The first answer I would be given was that I should leave it to the responsible Minister as I was the Minister responsible for technology, innovation and life sciences. When I probed again over time, I was told by one official that the Treasury does not like to write blank cheques. That is understandable—the Treasury is the guardian of the national finances. I used to ask whether anyone was doing any work on how much this would cost so that we could then present to the Treasury the cost of providing some form of redress.
The Hughes report suggested £20,000 each for mesh victims and £100,000 for sodium valproate victims. We welcome the fact that 100 of the 10,000 women who suffered from the pelvic mesh issue have received some payout from manufacturers. What about the others? I am told that many women missed out due to limitations for civil claims. What can the Minister’s department do to help those poor women who are still suffering and make sure that more women receive redress as quickly as possible? As a result of the Hughes report, we now know that it is not a blank cheque. We know that there will be negotiations between the Department of Health and the Treasury. Can the Minister update us on those discussions so we can better understand whether these women are finally going to achieve some form of justice?
Going forward, we need not only to make up for the mistakes of the past that have occurred under all Governments but to address the outstanding issues, making sure that those women who suffered are receiving long-term support and learning the lessons so that if, sadly, this ever happens again, we know how to address those issues and give the appropriate care, compassion and redress to those who suffer.
Overall, there are a number of different issues covered by the women’s health strategy. I know some noble Lords will be concerned that, although it is wonderful to have a grand, overall strategy, what about the individual interventions that we need from the departments, clinicians and others? How do we deliver on all those various issues that women suffer from to make sure that patients across the country—whatever party they support or however they feel—particularly female patients, believe that the renewed women’s health strategy will finally deliver a safe system of health for all of them and justice for those who have suffered in the past?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and I, too, welcome the women’s health strategy, as it includes many important objectives. In communities up and down the country, we have seen the devastating toll of sustained failures to invest in and deliver better women’s health. Women’s lives, families and economic productivity are damaged when they do not receive treatment in a timely way. Indeed, this also happens when menopause difficulties are ignored. This is because vital services remain understaffed and underfunded, while women and girls go without the care they need.
In 2022, we had the previous women’s health strategy, which had similar important goals to this one with similar delivery mechanisms and the same reliance on local systems to make it happen. Yet four years on, the problems remain stubbornly in place, with half a million women suffering long waits for gynaecology, patchy access to services, women reporting that they are not listened to, women not being given pain relief when they need it and serious conditions diagnosed too late. These facts must give the Government pause for thought that perhaps things need to be done differently this time.
Medical misogyny is still a perverse and unacceptable norm in the health service and that requires a culture change, which is notoriously difficult to achieve. How does the Minister’s department plan to go about it?
This strategy is being implemented when the NHS is already stretched and ICBs are facing cuts while, at the same time, taking on some of the responsibilities of the disappearing NHS England. Now we also have soaring inflation, due to Trump’s war in Iran. In this climate, can we reasonably expect the strategy to deliver meaningful change? I really hope so.
Although the issues affecting women’s health generally are numerous, the NHS failures in maternity services are the most widely reported and deeply shocking. Review after review has uncovered the same failures across the country: a failure to listen to women, a lack of time for training, inadequate staffing levels leading to staff burnout, a lack of proper assessment, poor management of risk and a failure to learn lessons when things go wrong. All this is leading to a rise in perinatal mortality, with the figures showing inequality between different groups, such as those on lower incomes and some ethnic minority groups. How will that be tackled by the strategy?
That is why the Liberal Democrats recently launched our maternity secure package to make Britain the safest place in the world to give birth. We want every maternity unit in the country brought up to a good or outstanding level of safety. That could be done by guaranteeing one-to-one midwifery and specialist doctors on every unit. Will the Minister consider incorporating these proposals into the new strategy?
On medical misinformation, many people now get their health advice online, particularly via social media. Long waits for NHS services and GP appointments are pushing people into getting their so-called information this way, but advice on those platforms does not adhere to clinical standards or guidelines, which is leading to rampant medical disinformation, with sometimes disastrous results. There is some evidence that this is a particular issue in women’s health, where gaps in scientific knowledge and public awareness are being exploited. Does the Minister have any plans to tackle that?
It is possible to fight back. In order to be helpful, we are calling for the following for the Minister’s consideration. The first is a new kitemark for health apps and digital tools that are clinically proven to help people to lead healthier lives, regulated by the GMC. The second is a big effort by the NHS, with a ring-fenced budget, to dominate the health advice social media ecosystem and algorithms, with clinically approved information in plain English. That could improve patient care and save staff time and costs. The third is a new verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be written by a medical professional.
I have a few more questions before I finish. In line with the 10-year health plan’s objective to make care more local, is the Minister confident that women in every area will benefit from a family health hub, as promised, without the threat of closure or cuts, especially in this time of reduced resources for ICBs?
How will the new system linking feedback from patients to provider funding work? Will the results for each unit be made public? Will improved staffing be funded to achieve the promise that women no longer face long waits for diagnosis for conditions such as endometriosis? Will we be able to hear from the Minister in the education department about the promised menstrual education programme to ensure that girls are better equipped to recognise the difference between healthy and unhealthy periods, and will the programme be evaluated by the girls receiving it? Finally and most importantly, will women themselves be involved in developing the implementation plans for the new measures in the strategy and coproduction of their communication with other women?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the Front Benches for their warm welcome for this renewed women’s health strategy. It represents a major shift in this country and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, it recognises the fact that women’s voices have not been heard. It is shocking, although sadly not surprising, to know that some eight out of 10 women report not having been listened to. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talks about a culture change. The biggest culture change that we can make is to embed women’s voices into women’s healthcare, and that is exactly what we will do.
This strategy gives women and girls voice, choice and power over how they receive their healthcare. When we say that we are transforming care as part of the 10-year health plan, we mean it. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that strategy is one thing, but delivery is another.
I was asked why this is different from the 2022 strategy. Let me first acknowledge the importance of the 2022 strategy: it was the first time we had a women’s health strategy. I spoke to the women’s health ambassador, Dame Lesley Regan, about this, and she told me that, with this renewal, we have embedded women’s healthcare in the NHS in a way that has never happened before. I have been moved and struck by the responses I have had from stakeholders, women, parliamentarians—the list goes on—because their voices were heard.
I will pick up some of the points; I am sure that a number of the points raised will come up. The matter of waiting times is key. They have improved, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said—the number of patients on gynaecology waiting lists is down by over 25,000 in the same period—but there is much more to do. If I had to make just one point about this women’s health strategy, it would be that this is not the end of it but the start of the continuum of work we have been doing. How will we drive down waiting lists? I am very excited to say that, when we launch the NHS online hospital next year, we will prioritise gynaecology pathways. It is one of the limited number of pathways that there will be.
We are prioritising gynaecology for treatment in surgical hubs. We are piloting gynaecology pathways in clinical diagnostic centres, which are now in place up and down the country. We are increasing relative funding to incentivise more gynaecology procedures, as and when they are clinically appropriate. Those things are very practical and, alongside shorter waits and more convenient gynaecological care for patients, they will make that shift not only in practice but in culture.
One way in which this strategy is different from the 2022 strategy is in its considerable emphasis on measuring impact, which noble Lords have asked for. If we cannot measure something, we do not know what it is. There are three overarching measures of success: reversing the decline in healthy life expectancy, which was seen to decline in the 2010s; improving healthy life expectancy in the poorest regions to at least 61 years of age; and reducing the time that women spend in poor health, particularly for women experiencing the greatest health inequalities. That will be measured in the short, medium and longer terms. I would be happy to provide further information if required.
Women’s voices are a key focus, again in both practice and culture. We are establishing a women’s voices partnership, which means that women’s organisations, particularly those representing the more marginalised, will be able to influence national decision-making. We have described it as a direct line to Whitehall; in other words, this is not the end of the conversation. We have consulted very widely and will build on what was done with the 10-year health plan—that will continue. This has been welcomed.
In particular, we are introducing patient power payments as a trial. We will see how this goes, and I look forward to monitoring it. It will link provider funding to women’s experiences, particularly in gynaecology services, and whether a service is found wanting. The noble Lord asked about including those who are often excluded, and I absolutely agree with him. Again, culturally—to the noble Baroness’s point—women will not just have to come forward with a complaint. They will be asked, “What is your experience of care?” That is crucial. It may be that the care was excellent but the experience was terrible, and I think many of us will know about that. If that is the case, the provider will have money withheld. As I said to a former Health Minister, how do you make real change? You do it through finance, funding and systems. The money will be withheld, but it will come back into the improvement of those services. So women will not lose out, but that provider will have its feet held to the financial fire.
On the important matter of redress, we are carefully considering the work done by the Patient Safety Commissioner, and I am glad that she welcomed the women’s health strategy. I re-emphasise my deep sympathy with those who have been harmed, and I recognise the harm to those individuals and the families. We continue to look at the recommendations for redress and, as soon as we are able to make a comment, we will of course do that. In view of the time, I will just say that reducing inequalities is hard-wired throughout the women’s health strategy.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, on osteoporosis and post-menopause in particular, we could save a lot of money in the health service if interventions came in earlier. I am very concerned that we do not talk enough about this, and we certainly are not looking particularly at lower-income households and women, especially from minority communities, who do not always have diets that enable their bone health to be good. Will the Minister tell us what she is doing there?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be pleased to. This is an important point because MSK conditions disproportionately affect women. We are investing in diagnosis, and this financial year we are funding 21 new DEXA scanners in priority locations. That will mean some 60,000 scans per year, so we will be upping the game in that respect. On the noble Baroness’s important point, we aim to use polygenic risk scores to identify those at higher risk. It is about being proactive, not reactive. A study by Our Future Health, which is currently focused on cardiovascular disease, will be expanded to osteoporosis and dementia in the future. As your Lordships’ House knows, we will roll out fracture liaison services in every part of the country, and we have set an expectation for ICBs to roll out community service models in line with the 10-year plan.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists trust board, which greatly welcomes this strategy. But will the Minister agree that a well-resourced workforce is vital if we are to deliver it? In this context, is she aware that an RCOG survey finds that one in five obstetricians and gynaecologists is considering leaving the profession, citing burnout, poor working conditions and, above all, staff shortages. It would be helpful if she could tell the House, in this context, exactly when the workforce plan that I know she intends to publish will actually be completed and come out. I am sure she will agree that this plan is absolutely central to delivering the new strategy that we all welcome so much.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for echoing the warm response we have had from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and from a number of the other royal colleges. I put on record my thanks to the royal colleges, including RCOG, for their engagement throughout to help us get to where we are. That is another reason I have confidence in this renewed strategy.
I absolutely agree with my noble friend about the centrality of the workforce and the need for a comprehensive workforce plan. The trajectory, which I looked into, is on the way up for consultants in obs and gynae: we have 3.8% more than we had in 2025 and—I was rather shocked by this figure—81.5% more than we had in 2018. That is not to say the matter is over. The workforce plan will be published in the spring—we are currently in that season, so that gives some idea to noble Lords. We have discussed in this House many times how long spring goes, but we are definitely still there.
I have just one other point. I do not wish to speak for my noble friend Lady Amos, who is conducting an independent inquiry into maternity, which the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, also referred to, but I am sure she will have a number of things to say, including about workforce.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, my interests are well known in regard to women’s health. I congratulate the Minister on this report, which I think is a good one. The gaps are in how, in some places, it will be delivered on. But I also recognise her personal commitment to improving women’s health, and I applaud that.
I hope she will forgive me, but I observe that the strategy is called The Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England, so there is a suggestion that there was one before. And the Command Paper number is 1558. That was the year Queen Elizabeth I came to the throne, so I presume the strategy had not been renewed since then—but I joke.
The important point I want to make is related to research. Many of the issues recognised in the report are because of failure of research, conducted over a long period of time, in better understanding the biology and molecular basis of these diseases. They are treated empirically, and when they are treated empirically, the treatment cannot always be right. We need a strategy in research that focuses over a longer period on better understanding the biology of some of these diseases and finding treatments for them. One way to do this is not by project grants in areas of research, as this report suggests, but by promoting long-term research through what are known as programme research grants. These are given over a longer period of time and competitively allocated into academic institutions to address the issue of understanding the biology of diseases in women’s health and find treatments.
Polygenic risk scores sound sexy, but they will not be the answer. They are exactly what they say they are: they are based on scores. Some of them are evidence-based, and some are not. What we need is better evidence. My suggestion and question to the Minister is this: would the Government look at the possibility of investigating, with their research institution, developing programme grant funding for a longer period for research in women’s health? If she would like a more detailed conversation, I would be delighted.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very grateful, as ever, for that offer and the engagement of the noble Lord. To his point about Command Paper 1558, I do not think that is the year the first one or this one were published. I understand there have been that many Command Papers, but this is a cracking one, and I am glad that the noble Lord has welcomed it.
Research is extremely important, as the noble Lord identified. Through the strategy, our approach will be to research and development that actually works for, but also empowers, women. That is why I am glad we will be launching a femtech challenge fund. We want to accelerate the adoption of innovations and make sure they transform women’s healthcare. There is also an accelerator for female founders, and that is also key. I can confirm that the NIHR will be applying its new sex and gender policy. That will make sure that research is inclusive—as it has not always been in the past, as the noble Lord says—and is representative of women, and I welcome that.
On the point about the long-term research and programme grant, as we develop this work I will ensure that my colleague, Minister Ahmed, builds this in. I also offer the noble Lord a discussion, because this is an important point.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the commitment in the strategy to women’s health hubs:
“Where high quality women’s health hubs exist, they will continue to lead service delivery. In other areas we anticipate there will be a dedicated space within broader neighbourhood health centres”.
However, the guidance for neighbourhood health centres states that gynaecology is a minimum requirement, which is welcome given the waiting lists, but the women’s health hubs are not. Will the Minister explain the Government’s plan for women’s health hubs? How are they supporting and expanding the ones that are open, and how are they ensuring that women across the country do not face a postcode lottery for care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The whole point about the strategy is to ensure that the last point about a postcode lottery does not apply. Access to NHS Online will help hugely with that because it will not matter where you are. If you are referred to the NHS online hospital, you will be able to access the best without initial travel. That will help hugely.
On women’s health hubs, we are building on the pilots that were established. We are now asking integrated care boards to integrate women’s healthcare properly into neighbourhood health centres. It is a big push in the 10-year health plan and, obviously, because this is aligned with it in the women’s health strategy, it is about neighbourhood health, which I know the noble Baroness is a strong voice for. We will also develop more guidance for integrated care boards about how they provide quality and the right amount of speedy and appropriate healthcare for women in neighbourhood settings, which may well be through women’s health hubs. They have taught us a lot. I think we can probably move even further than women’s health hubs, so in that respect the pilot has been extremely helpful.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in responding to the Front-Bench questions, the Minister referred to holding providers’ feet to the financial fire. I believe that she was referring to the part of the strategy that says it will empower women to have a stronger say by asking them to say whether, based on their experience, money should be withheld from providers or where it should be invested. This is returning to the idea of competition, which has done such damage to our health and education systems. Surely if a service is struggling, it needs support; taking money away from it is going to be a real problem. We know that services very often struggle in the most economically deprived areas. Does the Minister agree that reducing funding has never improved a medical system or made it safer, more accessible or better?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is an interesting invitation to consider. It would probably be helpful if I reiterate or explain better the points about the patient power payments. As I said in response to the Front Benches, its strength—by the way, I emphasise that it is a pilot—is that women’s voices are the voices that are least heard, and we know that creates the biggest problem in women’s healthcare. We know that just asking women what they think—we will be doing that, and we will be transparent in publishing the results, which will drive improvement—will not be enough. The reason for the financial point is that if the provider—it could be a private or a public provider—is not providing the right service then why can women not be heard on that? What will happen is not a cut in funding but the direction of an amount to go into the improvement of the service. In other words, at present there are no consequences for giving poor service. I do not see why women should have to put up with that.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, having served as a front-line doctor in women’s health for more than 40 years, 30 of them as a consultant gynaecologist in the NHS, I warmly welcome the new women’s health strategy and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her efforts in making it happen. I also applaud the Government for the commitment to address the gender health gap and to tackle health inequalities in our country. Will the community hubs function as genuine one-stop clinics, with ultrasound and other facilities, to give women the diagnosis that they need without any delay, and will they take into account the needs of the local population so that women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and ethnic minorities are not left behind?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad that my noble friend, with her professional experience, welcomes the women’s health strategy. I assure her that community diagnostic centres are absolutely key, as I mentioned earlier, to the ambition and intent to shift care closer to home and improve women’s experience. By their very design, they are streamlined and more convenient; they offer a wide range of tests, often in a single visit and, increasingly, same-day testing and consultation, where that is clinically appropriate. There are about 170 CDCs operating across the country; many have extended hours to fit around people’s lives—and, on the point about inequalities, we are working with local systems to make sure that they are located and developed according to the needs of the population.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Government’s women’s health strategy. I know that the Minister is passionate about it.
I want to return to the first question, on osteoporosis. In her answer, the Minister talked about the rollout of fracture liaison clinics across the country—Scotland and Northern Ireland already have 100% coverage. She mentioned the 10-year plan but did not mention that by 2030 the Government still intend to have rolled out FLCs across the country. Can she confirm that that date still exists and is still a commitment? I welcome the DEXA scanners, too—but could she comment on the comments made by some radiographers that there are staff shortages in operating those and say whether there is anything that the Government can do about it?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am pleased to confirm to the noble Baroness the date of 2030, which she rightly gave. I thank her for her welcome for the strategy and kind comments.
On the matter of the workforce, I again refer to the workforce plan, which we will see shortly; it will take account of the very point that she makes. I also refer to the use of technology, because this is not about standing still—it is about enhancing what technology we use, which will drive productivity improvements. With the kind of improvements that we have been talking about, we estimate an up to 21% increase in productivity, which will make a big change and take pressure off the workforce.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome this strategy and thank my noble friend the Minister for all her hard work and persistence with it. It touches on many aspects of my experience but, in the interests of brevity, I shall focus my questions and comments today on endometriosis, having waited eight years myself for diagnosis. I am delighted that the strategy includes a new programme to help young girls to grow up understanding menstrual health and when to seek help. Knowing when to seek help would have saved me many years of monthly agony, vomiting and fever, convulsed on a cold bathroom floor. I note the commitment that women with fibroids and endometriosis will be listened to at first presentation. I have had many bad experiences of clinicians over the years, so I ask my noble friend how we ensure that primary care practitioners listen at first presentation and how we embed that so that future generations of primary care practitioners continue to do so, to save many women the kinds of experiences that I and other people I know have had.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sorry to hear of the experience my noble friend has had, and I am sure continues to have in some way. Her experience is reflective of so many women. The education programme for girls about their menstrual health, in which we are investing an additional £1 million, will be delivered through schools and community settings and is absolutely important. If I had to say one thing about the strategy, I would say to women—to us—that we do not need to put up with this. In saying that, you do not always know what is normal, and that is where education comes in and why this is so crucial. Heavy periods are potentially a sign of a number of conditions, including endometriosis, fibroids and others. We will also be working with GPs to improve diagnosis, and we have already introduced “Jess’s Rule”, where, if somebody presents three times with the same or an exaggerated condition, the GP will be required to review it.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
I would like to add my thanks to the Government and the Minister personally for the commitment and work done to renew the women’s health strategy. Other noble Lords have mentioned maternity services. Could the Minister tell us a bit more about the timetable for the conclusion of the review from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and how the new maternity and neonatal taskforce will then translate her recommendations into action and fully integrate maternity and neonatal services into this women’s health strategy, as the Royal College of Midwives has called for?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, has recently published an interim report. She has been meeting hundreds of families and the national call for evidence is still going on. In the next few months, she will give her final report. The Secretary of State has already chaired a new maternity and neonatal taskforce to develop a new action plan.
We have also not waited to take action on maternity and neonatal care. We have recruited 800 more midwives. We have invested over £140 million to address critical safety risks in terms of the estate, and we are also rolling out guidance to tackle the leading causes of maternal death. This is absolutely crucial and that is why it is taking such a high priority.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 4B and 4C, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4D in lieu.
“(b) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Before making regulations under subsection (1A) that relate to costs orders under section 17, the Lord Chancellor must—
(a) consult—
(i) the Law Society,
(ii) the General Council of the Bar, and
(iii) such other persons as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate, and
(b) publish an impact assessment in respect of the regulations.””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments relate to private prosecutions. I start by expressing my thanks to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to the Bill throughout its passage.
I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for their scrutiny and for all the time they have given in these debates. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, gave up his time on Monday to meet me and my officials and we had a productive discussion, for which I thank him.
I would especially like to express my sincere gratitude to the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench team, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for their constructive, helpful and friendly engagement throughout this Bill. While we have not always agreed, it has been a real pleasure doing business with them.
It is clear that this Bill has benefited from the quality of scrutiny in this House and has been strengthened by the considerable expertise and insight contributed by Members of your Lordships’ House, both during debates and in the informal discussions we have had around the edges.
I turn to Motion A, relating to Amendments 4B and 4C, tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. I am grateful to both Houses for the depth and seriousness with which Clause 12 has been scrutinised. I will briefly explain the Government’s position and set out the statutory assurances that we have brought forward for your Lordships’ consideration.
From the beginning, we acknowledged the concern about a possible chilling effect on private prosecutions and I reiterate the Government’s reassurances that this is not, and never has been, the intention. We recognise that Amendments 4B and 4C were aimed at encouraging scrutiny and bringing transparency in relation to any regulations that may be made to determine the rates at which private prosecutors can recover costs from central funds. The Government share those objectives. Where we differ is not on the importance of oversight but on the appropriate and proportionate legislative mechanism by which that oversight should be secured.
Amendment 4C would require any such regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, and we are committed to ensuring that any use of this power is subject to proper oversight. The question is not whether there should be scrutiny but what form of scrutiny is proportionate to the power that Parliament is being asked to confer.
As I have said on many occasions, Clause 12 is merely an enabling provision. Self-evidently, it does not itself prescribe rates, and, as matters stand, it is not yet possible to know the degree of technical complexity or granularity that future regulations may contain. To require in primary legislation the affirmative procedure in every eventuality would mean that there would have to be full debates in both Houses on regulations that may prove highly technical, detailed and/or operational in nature. The Government’s view is that such an approach would not represent a proportionate use of Parliament’s time, nor would it necessarily enhance the quality of scrutiny.
The negative procedure strikes the right balance. It ensures that regulations are laid before Parliament and are subject to scrutiny, including by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and that they may be prayed against, debated and annulled where either House considers the substance of the regulations, the supporting evidence or the consultation undertaken to be insufficient. That procedure preserves Parliament’s ability to intervene where there are genuine concerns, while allowing the detail of implementation to be addressed in a practical and efficient manner.
I turn to Amendment 4B, which would require the Ministry of Justice to publish an impact assessment prior to the laying of regulations. Again, I wish to make it clear that the Government believe in the importance of transparency and evidence-based policy-making. That said, as drafted, this amendment is not appropriately framed for the established process. Proposed new paragraph (b) appears to be based on a misunderstanding of how impact assessments operate. The Government do not respond to an impact assessment; rather, an impact assessment is published alongside a consultation to inform it. It is then updated to reflect the final position when the Government respond to the consultation and bring forward regulations. That is the established and proper process.
However, we have listened carefully to the strength of feeling expressed in your Lordships’ House about the need for proper evidential underpinning and stakeholder engagement before any rates are set. For that reason, we are now tabling an amendment in lieu that embeds those objectives effectively by placing clear, workable and enforceable requirements in statute.
First, the amendment will place in primary legislation a statutory duty requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult before laying any secondary legislation to set rates. This will not be a discretionary power but a legal obligation. The consultation will be full, thorough and public, engaging those with relevant expertise of those who may be affected, as well as those who may be affected—for example, charities and specialist lawyers. As part of the process of setting any rates, the Government will publish a full response to the consultation. This will not be a box-ticking exercise. The Government remain open minded about where the rates should be set. The consultation will take place at a formative stage, allowing evidence to inform and shape the rates in a meaningful way.
Secondly, the amendment requires that an impact assessment be published before any regulations are made. This will provide Parliament, and others with an interest in these matters, with a clear assessment of the likely effects on any groups affected by the proposed policies. Overall, the amendment in lieu will embed consultation, evidence gathering and impact analysis directly into the statutory framework governing the exercise of this power. It will ensure that the decision-making is transparent and accountable, while preserving the necessary flexibility for an enabling power to operate proportionately and effectively in practice.
I hope that this explanation demonstrates that the Government have listened, reflected and responded constructively to the concerns raised by your Lordships’ House. The alternative approach we now propose strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and practical administration, while ensuring that any rates set are founded on good evidence and tested through full and open consultation. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am going to intervene very briefly to say that it is good that an agreement has been reached on the difficult issue of the processes and arrangements relating to private prosecutions. As with many of the other issues we have discussed during the passage of this Bill, private prosecutions are a complex issue, and not one that can be resolved swiftly or even with a clause or two on the face of the Bill.
I thank the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lord Marks and me on a number of occasions during the Bill to discuss how we can set in place mechanisms to ensure that the Government’s changes will not have surprising or unintended consequences. My noble friend Lord Marks will talk about the details of those changes, which he proposed to the Conservatives at the previous stage of ping-pong; their amendment then reflected his proposal, for which we thank them.
I welcome the government proposals in Motion A. Amendment 4D includes the two key elements of any effective organisation: that there is data to inform decisions—in this form, an impact assessment that would be published—and that the Lord Chancellor must consult the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar and others considered appropriate. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will not use these methods just once. My noble friend Lord Marks has identified core action that will work elsewhere in the court system, where reform may well be needed.
As we come to the end of this Bill, I also want to put on record the support and help of Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office, and the many individuals and organisations who have worked with us, especially the offices of the London Victims’ Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman. We would not be where we are today without them, and I thank them.
Finally, I want to return to the discussions with the Minister. During the passage of the whole of the Bill, her officials have been enormously helpful and her personal willingness to discuss, both publicly at the Dispatch Box and privately in meetings, speaks volumes about her approach. I thank her for that and look forward to working with her again.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I repeat and echo all the thanks that my noble friend Lady Brinton has just made to the Minister, her officials and all the others who have helped with this Bill. I was going to say this at the end, but I shall say it now—I am also enormously grateful to and in awe of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, during the course of this Bill. Her dedication and thoroughness on issues that have concerned her and on which she has worked for many years has been awe-inspiring. Principally, I echo her thanks to the Minister for meeting us and, in particular, for meeting me after the first round of ping-pong last week to discuss our concerns. Notable has been the way in which she has recognised the risk of deterring private prosecutions by introducing inappropriate regulation of costs, and the way she and her officials have framed government Amendment 4D to Clause 12, laid in the Commons, which government Motion A today addresses.
Last Wednesday, we sought consultation on the regulations proposed by Clause 12 and an impact assessment and, as the noble Baroness rightly points out, a response to that impact assessment was also sought. On consideration, and after the discussions we have had, we are completely content that the consultations proposed involving the Law Society, the Bar Council and anyone else the Lord Chancellor believes should be consulted, meet the need for consultation on the regulations proposed.
Importantly, the Government have agreed to publish an impact assessment, and I accept the assurances that that will be thorough and worked-through. The fact that we originally sought a response to an impact assessment may have reflected a procedural misunderstanding. I take the Minister’s point, however, that the response will be apparent when the regulations, such as they are proposed, are in fact made and the response to the impact assessment will be reflected by the Government’s laying of the regulations.
I also take the point—as do the Government—made last Wednesday by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that there may be some urgency to the introduction of such regulations, and that insisting on a government response to an impact assessment beyond publication of the proposed regulations may delay them. So we are quite content with the steps taken, or to be taken, by the Government. Crucially, however, no regulations will be made before the consultation and the impact assessment are complete. That is the most important point. This is going to be a meaningful exercise in consideration of what needs to be done.
Granted, the Government have not conceded the affirmative resolution but, following a favourable consultation and a positive impact assessment, I accept that that is a secondary consideration. I also accept the points made by the Minister on proportionality. We are content that the Government have met our concerns and we will support Motion A.
Having mentioned my thanks to my noble friend Lady Brinton, I also extend my thanks to others in this Chamber, including those on the Conservative Front Bench, who have been helpful in achieving what is now a much better Bill than the Bill that came to this House.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Amendment 4D. This is likely my last appearance on the Front Bench though not, I anticipate, my last speech in this Chamber. I shall simply say that I have greatly enjoyed debating Home Office and justice issues, of which I have had practical experience both as a barrister and as a recorder and deputy judge. I have enjoyed sparring with the Minister, who some 20-plus years ago was a member of the Bar Council’s legal services committee when I chaired it. I continue to respect her ability and expertise, as demonstrated in all aspects of her portfolio in this House. It has been a pleasure to do friendly battle with her.
Moving on, private prosecutions are a vital safeguard within our justice system. They ensure that when the state cannot or does not act, victims, particularly charities, are not left without recourse. For charities, this mechanism is especially important. Fraud and theft—crimes that can often become cumulatively significant—divert funds from vital causes. They then erode public trust in those charities. With limited police and Crown Prosecution Service capacity, many such cases would, I fear, otherwise go unaddressed. Private prosecutions are therefore an essential backstop. They secure convictions and compensation without burdening public resources.
Crucially, the costs recovered from central funds are modest, and typically only partial. They represent a small proportion of overall public expenditure—just 0.18% of the overall legal aid budget. Yet recovery of the costs of private prosecutions enables charities to pursue recoveries that would otherwise be financially out of reach. If charities cannot rely on private prosecutions as a shield against theft and fraud, then we fear that the public will be unwilling to donate towards their causes.
Due to the importance of private prosecutions for access to justice, we tabled an amendment that Clause 12 do not stand part of the Bill on Report. Unfortunately, the Government cited financial privilege as a reason for rejecting the Conservative amendment.
My noble and learned friend Lord Keen instead tabled an amendment in lieu. That amendment would have achieved the following. First, it would have ensured that an impact assessment was launched on the potential effect of Clause 12, with particular regard to its consequences for charities and victims’ access to justice. Secondly, it would have constrained the Government in exercising their regulation-making powers until after a response had been published to the impact assessment. Thirdly, it would have required such regulation to be subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses.
The amendment in lieu offered by the Government today partially fulfils at least the first two of those aims. It would require the Lord Chancellor to consult the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar and other bodies considered appropriate before publishing an impact assessment. I suggest that charities as well as private prosecutors themselves would fall under this final category. There is no reason why not.
I thank the Minister in the other place for confirming that the Government will publish a full response to the impact assessment before setting any rates. That assurance is most welcome. Unfortunately, however, there is no provision that regulations made under Clause 12 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Minister in the other place said that, given that it is unclear how complex the structure of the rates will be,
“it would be disproportionate to mandate a process that risks lengthy debate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/26; col. 88.]
We argue that precisely because of the novel and complex nature of these regulations, the affirmative procedure is all the more important and in no way disproportionate. To reject it is to undermine proper transparency and accountability. However, I recognise that the Government have moved some real way on the issue of private prosecutions, so we will not oppose their amendment in lieu today.
The Conservative Party will always champion access to justice and the rule of law. We therefore keenly await the publication and findings of the impact assessment. We are also grateful for the co-operation and discussions that we have had with representatives of the Liberal party in this place and the impact that has had on the whole Bill and on the particular aspect of private prosecutions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to bring the Victims and Courts Bill through this House; it is now another step closer to becoming law. The Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to support and protect victims, restore confidence in our justice system and implement swifter and fairer justice.
I cannot leave the Bill without taking the opportunity to thank all the officials in my department who have worked so hard to bring this legislation forward. I wanted to thank them all by name, but I was told I was not allowed to, so I shall have to settle with doing a group thanks. They worked late into the night, tirelessly and always good-humouredly, which is quite something.
In closing, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments related to private prosecutions, and I look forward to working with your Lordships in this House as we take forward the implementation of the Bill.