House of Commons
Business before Questions
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Monday 4 May.
Malvern Hills Bill [Lords]
Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message (23 April) as relates to the Malvern Hills Bill [Lords] be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Monday 4 May.
Cheltenham Borough Council (Markets) Bill [Lords]
Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message (23 April) as relates to the Cheltenham Borough Council (Markets) Bill be now considered.
That the promoters of the Cheltenham Borough Council (Markets) Bill, which was originally introduced in this House 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 Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we come to questions, I wish to make a short statement. Numerous right hon. and hon. Members from across the House have written to ask me to give precedence to a matter as an issue of privilege. One of those letters is from the Leader of the Opposition. The matter concerns the Prime Minister’s answers to the House about the process for the appointment of Peter Mandelson and related issues.
I think it would be helpful to the House if I explained my role in deciding whether a complaint should be put to the House. Privilege issues should only be brought to the House sparingly, and it is my duty to act as a gatekeeper to ensure that frivolous applications are not taken forward. As a gatekeeper, my role is to decide whether an hon. Member has made a case that the House itself should be able to consider, not to decide whether someone is likely to have committed a contempt. If precedence is given, the Member tables a motion for debate. At the end of that debate, the House itself takes a decision on whether the matter should be taken further.
Some may be wondering why this issue is being looked at now. To be clear, I cannot determine when an application is made—I have to consider any application when it comes to me. In this case, having taken advice, I have decided to allow the House to come to a view on whether the Committee of Privileges should look at the matter. It is not for me to make any decision or come to any view. Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition will have the opportunity to put the matter to the House tomorrow. The debate will be taken after any urgent questions and statements and any ten-minute rule Bill.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The Government made their decision on this case on 29 January 2026, after giving the PHSO’s report careful consideration. The detailed reasons for our decision were set out in our response, which has been placed in the Library of the House.
James MacCleary
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has recommended compensation for millions of WASPI women. In 99% of cases, PHSO recommendations are complied with, so does the Minister accept that singling out this group by not complying amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex and age? If not, what possible justification can the Minister offer?
Torsten Bell
As I have previously said to this House, it is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government to take a different view from the PHSO. That does not mean that we have not taken its report incredibly seriously—I have also met its representatives—but as I have said, we set out the detailed reasons for the decision we came to in the response we laid in the House of Commons Library on 29 January.
Jim Shannon
I ask this question on behalf of the 6,000 WASPI women in Strangford. Given that the Department’s own 2007 evaluation raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of letters to pensioners, how can the Minister justify the decision that no direct financial loss occurred when thousands of women were deprived of the 28-month notice period required to adjust their life savings and retirement plans? In the light of the Scottish Parliament’s decision to again press this issue in February, will he please do the right thing, put actions before apologies, and deliver help and support? I say that respectfully, but I do want a good answer.
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member has raised this issue repeatedly over a number of years, and I recognise that. Specifically on the issues he raises, it was the ombudsman itself, rather than the Government, that initially set out that the women affected did not suffer direct financial loss. What is sitting behind the ombudsman’s judgment saying that is that the issue facing the ombudsman was not either the original decision in 1995 to increase the state pension age or the decision to accelerate the increase by the coalition Government in 2011. The ombudsman was looking narrowly at the question of how that increase in the state pension age was communicated, and I think it is really important to clarify that distinction with our constituents. It is the latter—the communication of the state pension age—that we have discussed in this House on numerous occasions.
The hon. Member specifically raises the 2007 evidence, which showed that a minority of people read and remembered such letters. However, it showed something else quite important, which was that those with good knowledge of their state pension entitlement were most likely to read the letters. It was therefore not a good metric for assuming that the majority of those who were sent letters would have learned something from that and changed what they knew.
Seamus Logan
These women were not properly informed about changes to their state pension. So said the PHSO on 21 March 2024, just in time for the election that year, when so many Labour Members of course promised to address the issue, if elected—another shameful, broken promise. First, can I ask the Minister to explain why the last ministerial meeting with the WASPI women took place in September 2024? Secondly, can he tell the House what work has been undertaken in his Department on a properly structured compensation scheme that could be implemented when the Government decide it is time for another U-turn?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member raises a question about what Labour Members were promising in the 2024 election. As I am sure he is aware, our manifesto was clear that it did not make a commitment to bring forward compensation. What is the case is that Labour Members opposed the acceleration of the state pension age back in 2011, which in some cases gave women only five years’ notice. However, we of course lost that vote in Parliament and subsequent elections, and the courts unfortunately upheld that decision. As I have said, what we are debating in this case is the communications, not the decision itself. On those grounds, we have set out in detail the reasons for the decisions we have made and laid that document in the House of Commons Library.
Mr Speaker
We now come to a marathon runner—five hours and 20 minutes—Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I will not lie, Mr Speaker: bobbing is slightly more difficult than normal this morning.
Can the Minister detail what the ombudsman found about the financial loss women suffered as a result of the delay in sending out letters? On a more general point, can he say what this Government are doing to support women in retirement in my constituency of Harlow?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend makes a large effort not only when it comes to pounding the streets, but in raising his constituents’ cases and, in this case, those of female pensioners. He is absolutely right to say that there is a distinction between the communication of state pension age increases and the increase in the state pension age, and it is the latter that has had such an effect on millions of women, particularly the speed of the increase in 2011. I think there are lessons for this House and for all Governments about what would happen in future, and we certainly would not be bringing forward such short-notice changes.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that what matters more generally is what we are doing to support pensioners, and making sure they have dignity and support in retirement. On that front, just this month we are increasing the state pension, and we will be continuing to do that over the course of this Parliament via the triple lock, which is set to increase it by up to £2,100. We are also making sure that £26 billion of investment is going into our NHS, bringing down waiting lists month on month, because this Government came into office with one in five of those aged over 75 on NHS waiting lists, and we cannot allow that to continue.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
When his party was in opposition, the Prime Minister promised compensation for WASPI women, but when faced with the economic reality of the costs, he and the Secretary of State chose common sense over ideology. In the spirit of that pragmatism, may I ask the Pensions Minister also to take a sensible, thoughtful approach to mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill, and to remove clause 40 altogether?
Torsten Bell
We have debated this issue quite extensively in recent weeks, and the House will have another chance to do so later today. As I have set out during our debates, representatives of the industry itself have said that it is in the interests of savers to invest in a wider range of assets. That reflects lessons from across the industry—from open defined-benefit schemes, but also from those in the rest of the world, where the lack of exposure of the UK’s defined-contribution schemes to that wider range of assets makes it stand out. We have introduced a reserve measure to backstop the changes that the industry says are needed to solve a collective action problem. I will not try the patience of the House by repeating them now, but the aim is to ensure that savers do not lose out. We have also put in place significant protections relating to an affirmative vote, as well as the savers’ interest tests that enable pension schemes to spell out what is in the interests of their members.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Our annual report and accounts 2024-25 states that, in that year, we answered some 43 million calls—up from 37 million in the previous year. Our call-answering rate increased to 86%, and the average answering time improved by one minute and 12 seconds. However, we do of course want to make further improvements where we can. We have continued to prioritise the service by focusing extra resources, and are currently making a systematic effort to clear agent work queues to free up capacity. We hope to see that progress lead to further improvements very soon.
Vikki Slade
I am glad that the call answering has speeded up, but, like those of many other Members, my office is constantly dealing with very long delays on the part of the DWP. Back in September 2024, my constituent Jackie appealed against a personal independence payment assessment for her husband, who died a couple of months later. In January, she received a letter saying that she had been overpaid by £7,000. I became involved in the middle of last year, when it was established that the figure was £75. The DWP confirmed that in January, but in April—so we are now nearly two years on—my constituent received a letter saying that she now owed £4,086. Given the radical plans to cut civil service numbers, what steps will the Secretary of State and his team take to deliver a better service in order to ensure that constituents such as Jackie do not suffer emotional or financial distress?
Andrew Western
I would be happy to look into that case if the hon. Lady writes to me. I am sorry if she feels that her constituent has been let down. We are taking additional steps—beyond those relating to call handling—to look at responsiveness more broadly. I apologise: it was not clear from the wording of her original question that she was referring to correspondence as well as telephony.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The number of youth apprenticeship starts has fallen by 40% over the past decade. Because we want to give more young people the chance of apprenticeships, we are fully funding youth apprenticeships for small businesses, introducing a £2,000 hiring incentive for non-levy-paying employers, and expanding foundation apprenticeships in hospitality and retail. All that is aimed at more opportunity and more work for young people.
James Asser
I very much welcome the work being done to prioritise and expand apprenticeships, but all too often their image is dated and the modern situation is not fully understood. While my local university tells me that good work on promoting apprenticeships is being done in private and grammar schools, that is not always reflected across the wider state sector. Will the Government consider how we might tackle the issue, working with apprenticeship bodies, industry organisations and the unions, to ensure that modern apprenticeships are fully known about and the opportunities they provide are fully understood?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to say that promoting apprenticeships must start in schools. Our brilliant apprenticeship ambassador network brings together about 3,000 employers and apprentices, who go into schools and colleges and share stories about how apprenticeships can transform young lives. Those ambassadors have now reached 97% of the state-funded secondary schools and colleges in England—nearly 3,500 in the past three years—but, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given, we have got to do more work to make information about apprenticeships as clear and easy to use as possible.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I raised with the Prime Minister at PMQs a couple of weeks ago the case of Twentyfour Hair, a salon in Princes Risborough in my constituency, which for the first time in 21 years cannot afford to take on a new apprentice. That message is echoed by businesses across my constituency. In order to improve uptake in new apprenticeship starts, which I entirely support, what steps is the Secretary of State taking with the Chancellor to get rid of this punitive level of business taxation, which is preventing businesses from taking them on?
Pat McFadden
I referred in my previous answer to the step I am taking, which is to put in place a £2,000 hiring incentive for small businesses taking up a new apprentice. If it is someone who has been unemployed and on universal credit for six months, there is the potential for an additional £3,000 hiring incentive on top of the £2,000. We want to incentivise small businesses to take on apprentices, for reasons that I think are shared right across the House and because of the great opportunities that they entail.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
This month I launched a space apprenticeship pilot in Portsmouth North, bringing together Airbus and the Solent Growth Partnership to ensure that candidates who narrowly miss out on an Airbus apprenticeship are matched directly with defence and space SMEs in the area. Following the failure of the last Government, does the Secretary of State agree that this Labour Government’s reforms are finally delivering high-value opportunities in aerospace and cyber, and will he work with me to look at how we can extend this initiative across other sectors, such as maritime and construction?
Pat McFadden
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on what sounds like a fantastic initiative? She puts her finger on something very important: sometimes people who narrowly lose out on a particular apprenticeship could benefit from one elsewhere. I did refer to the work that we are doing to try to improve the information, and the initiative she has taken is a great example of what can be done. Just because people do not get their first choice should not mean that they lose out on the opportunity of an apprenticeship entirely.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Apprenticeships offer young people a great pathway into rewarding careers, so I very much welcome the Government’s ambition to create more of them, but a report published last week by the Social Security Advisory Committee highlighted the so-called apprenticeship penalty, whereby low-income families can lose up to £330 a week in child benefit and universal credit the moment a 16-year-old takes up an apprenticeship. What is the point of creating more apprenticeships if a cliff edge like this discourages young people from taking them up? Will the Minister commit to urgently fixing this penalty, so that no family are left worse off simply because their child chooses an apprenticeship over full-time education?
Pat McFadden
I am always grateful for the work of the Social Security Advisory Committee, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but one thing that she missed out is that apprenticeships are paid, so a young person taking up an apprenticeship opportunity will be earning money that contributes to the family’s income. We have to take that into account, as well as all the other sources of the family’s income.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I really welcome my right hon. Friend’s work in this area, given that so many young people are unemployed, but what is he doing to evaluate how many apprentices get proper, long-term, full-time jobs as a result? Clearly, that is the end goal that we all want to see.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend will know that when people complete an apprenticeship, their chances of employment are very high. I am pleased to report that apprenticeship achievement rates are up in the latest figures, as are the apprenticeship start numbers.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Leicester college, a further education college, is facing a funding crisis that is putting apprenticeships at risk. The Government have a noble commitment to building 1.5 million homes and training 60,000 construction workers, but young people wanting construction apprenticeships are being turned away. No bricklayers, no electricians and no plumbers means no homes. In Leicester, the rate of young people who are not in education, employment or training is nearly 6%—five times higher than the national average. We have the employers and we have the demand, but without proper funding, we cannot deliver the skilled workforce that this country desperately needs. What real-terms funding increase will the Secretary of State commit to in order to ensure that young people have the opportunity to access skills via the apprenticeship scheme?
Pat McFadden
We always listen to representations that ask for more funding for many good causes. On the issue of construction, a specific construction sector skills package was announced last year. It is aimed precisely at training the bricklayers, electricians and plumbers we need to meet our construction targets, not only in housing but in the many investment projects around the country that are being supported by this Government.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
With the number of young people not in education, employment or training hovering at the 1 million mark, apprenticeships now more than ever are key to supporting opportunity and aspiration for so many of our young people. Conservative Members fundamentally believe that the best path out of poverty is being in work and contributing to society, with all the economic freedoms that a job brings. Given that the number of apprenticeships in the Secretary of State’s own Department dropped from 5,000 in 2024 to 3,500 in 2025, is it not the case that the Government’s message to business is, “Do as we say, but not as we do”?
Pat McFadden
I agree with the shadow Minister that work is the answer. As I said a moment ago, apprenticeship starts are up on the latest figures and apprenticeship achievement rates are up. The reforms that we are putting in place will mean more youth apprenticeship starts, and that is where the money should be directed, because that is where the need is greatest.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
A recent Guardian report highlighted how young people from more deprived communities are facing discrimination through the apprenticeship system. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) alluded to, there is a penalty if someone’s family also receives child benefit. How can the Minister intervene to support the most vulnerable families?
Pat McFadden
It is important to remember that apprenticeships are paid and that the people undergoing them get a wage. When we are considering the overall economic impact on a family’s income, we have to take that into account. Frankly, if the hon. Member pushes me and asks me whether it is better for that income to come from benefits or the constructive work of an apprenticeship, I know which one I would pick.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The CMS publishes several metrics regarding how quickly it responds to parents. In the quarter ending September 2025, on average, 96% of applications were cleared within 12 weeks and 83% of changes of circumstances were cleared within 28 days. Those are targets for the CMS set by the Department.
Iqbal Mohamed
I have constituents with court orders confirming genuinely shared care who are none the less required to pay full child maintenance for extended periods while disputes are resolved and/or system processes are completed. How does the Department ensure that evidence of shared care is applied consistently, fairly and speedily by the CMS? What support is available to constituents who face continued financial liability and hardship while they wait for delays in CMS decisions or tribunal outcomes to be resolved?
Andrew Western
Shared care can be incredibly contested, and questions about the suitability of evidence and which evidence takes precedent are often disputed. The hon. Member suggests that he has particular cases that he would like the Department to take a look into. If he writes to me with them, the responsible Minister, my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock, or I will provide a response.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Government’s planned major changes to CMS payments are welcome, but my casework inbox is inundated—absolutely chock-a-block—with complaints about the CMS’s poor customer service, which is damaging the lives of dozens of my constituents in the process. What steps can my hon. Friend take to rapidly improve the effectiveness of the CMS?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there is a significant improvement journey under way in the Child Maintenance Service. I am always keen to point out to Members that while we see a large number of CMS cases in our caseload due to the more adversarial nature of the cases it deals with, it is a fraction of the overall number of cases that the Department deals with. We continue to ensure prompt payments to more than a million children.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
My office deals with hundreds of Child Maintenance Service cases. In one case, a mum applied to the CMS in June last year and was initially awarded just over £100. She applied for a mandatory reconsideration and the figure was increased. However, the increased payments have still not been made, and she is experiencing significant financial hardship and stress as a result. Has the Minister considered how failings in the service facilitate post-separation abuse?
Andrew Western
My noble Friend Baroness Sherlock takes a very keen interest in this issue, in particular how we can look at the abolition of direct pay to subvert some of the instances of financial abuse and coercive control that we continue to see. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me about her specific case, I will ensure she receives a response.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
My constituent Rebecca and her now 13-year-old have not received child maintenance for over a decade. Arrears exceed £10,000, but because her son’s father has moved in and out of employment he has evaded enforcement, even where deduction from earnings orders have been made. I welcome that child maintenance systems are being reformed, but will the Minister tell us what action will be taken so that Rebecca and parents in similar situations across the country get the support they are entitled to?
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that she has been representing Rebecca for some time in seeking a resolution to that case. We seek to introduce a range of changes when parliamentary time allows, but clearly there is further work to do to ensure that enforcement processes are also strengthened. Baroness Sherlock would be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend if she feels that would be appropriate, and I would be happy to facilitate such a meeting.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Child Maintenance Service is not working for parents and it is not working for children. My own casework shows that the majority of those getting in touch about the CMS believe it to be ineffective, with systemic issues in communication, timeliness and case handling. My constituents are not alone. The independent case examiner received 1,827 complaints about the CMS in 2024-25, up from 1,519 in 2023-24. In November 2024, the charity Gingerbread published a report, “Fix the CMS”. In October 2025, a House of Lords Public Services Committee report recommended a range of changes to do the same. The Government have responded to both, but when will the Government enact the changes to bring forward the recommended and acknowledged improvements to the service?
Andrew Western
As I said in a previous response, we will do so when parliamentary time allows. My noble Friend Baroness Sherlock is also considering a calculation review. There is a range of issues with the CMS that need to be looked at and resolved to ensure that the children in the middle of this get the support to which they are entitled.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
In the six months up to March last year, we appointed an additional 111 case managers to help deal with increased demand for child DLA. The current target is to clear 90% of new child DLA claims in 45 days. Performance has steadily improved, and I am pleased to say that in March we did hit that target.
Sarah Olney
Over the past two years, only 3.5% of applications for disability living allowance for children have been approved by the Department for Work and Pensions within its own target timeframe. Parents of children with disabilities work tirelessly to ensure that their children can have the same opportunities as everyone else, and the disregard the DWP has shown towards supporting their claims is unacceptable. One of my constituents has experienced those lengthy delays first-hand and an administrative error meant she did not even receive her first payment award. Will the Minister commit to urgent action to ensure that the DWP’s pathetic processing time for children’s DLA applications does not continue?
Sir Stephen Timms
As I said to the hon. Member, we did hit the 90% target last month. That reflects a steady improvement over the last few months. We are also introducing a new online evidence portal to improve evidence gathering, in particular from schools and people in education professions. That will also reduce delays, and we plan to roll that out fully in autumn. We are on the case and making significant improvements.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Government are committed to reforming the Child Maintenance Service to get more money to children by removing direct pay to combat hidden non-compliance, streamlining enforcement by introducing administrative liability orders and improving our most serious enforcement measures. That said, there are currently no plans to introduce curfew measures; doing so would require amendments to primary legislation and raise significant safeguarding concerns for paying parents and those who live with them.
Dr Mullan
Every year, millions of pounds of child maintenance go unspent, not including deductions for money hidden away and parents who pretend they cannot work. As far as I am concerned, if someone has children and they can pay towards their maintenance, they absolutely should. Enforcement is not working, because the Government treat it like an unpaid utility bill rather than a moral obligation that people have towards their children. I would like the Minister to revisit his suggestion that the Government would need primary legislation to use curfew orders, as that is not my understanding. If all the other measures are not working, why should someone who does not pay for their own children be able to go out on the lash on a Friday and Saturday night when the Government can stop that happening?
Andrew Western
I will handle that question with care, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I know that the hon. Gentleman has been consistent on this matter for a very long time. A range of serious enforcement powers are already available to the Department, including disqualification from driving, removal of a passport, taking control of people’s goods and even, in some cases, commitment to prison, but very serious safeguarding concerns can arise as a result of the use of curfew orders; in one very tragic case recently, an individual subject to a curfew order murdered members of his family. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question as to whether use of the orders requires primary legislation, I will follow up in writing to confirm that or otherwise.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Redundancy payments are not taken into account in the standard maintenance calculation, which is based on gross taxable income from earnings, although the capital may be considered through an asset variation if the paying parent holds the income in a bank or savings account and the amount is at least £31,250. The Child Maintenance Service may also take the redundancy payment into account when considering any maintenance arrears.
Zöe Franklin
I thank the Minister for this and previous answers on the CMS. I hear the Government saying “when time allows”, but this really is important for the families who have suffered for too many years. My constituent, for example, has successfully appealed at tribunal, with both the judge and the Child Maintenance Service agreeing that the parent’s declared income did not reflect their true earnings, and arrears were awarded. Yet after receiving a substantial redundancy payment and despite holding significant assets, including property and substantial pension investments, no maintenance is being paid, and enforcement has not taken place. Does the Minister accept that this exposes a gap in how redundancy payments are treated by the CMS and the wider enforcement framework, and will he urgently review both to ensure that children are not left without support and no longer suffer?
Andrew Western
Part of the challenge here is that the legislation currently requires us to use earnings information and figures provided by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and, because redundancy payments of up to £80,000 are exempted from tax, they do not show up in that way. However, I hear what the hon. Lady is saying and the wider mood of the House with regard to the Child Maintenance Service, and I will share the concerns that she raises with my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I believe my hon. Friend will welcome the changes the Government have made to statutory sick pay, which came into force earlier this month. For the first time ever, we have removed the lower earnings limit for statutory sick pay, as well as the waiting period so that people can access sick pay as soon as they need it. These changes will mean that up to 1.3 million more people will be covered, helping the low paid and those who work for more than one employer in particular.
Yuan Yang
I am indeed very proud of this Labour Government’s historic Employment Rights Act 2025, which, from this month, means that workers will get statutory sick pay from the first day they are ill, rather than having to wait till the fourth. Too many people in Reading—even those working in health and care settings—are working through their illnesses; this measure will protect them, their clients and patients and improve the productivity of their workplaces.
While the ERA is an important step forward, does the Secretary of State accept that the current flat rate of statutory sick pay—at four fifths of average earnings—remains a barrier to those on low incomes, and thus remains a barrier to tackling illness in the workplace?
Pat McFadden
I believe that removing the three-day limit and giving access to statutory sick pay from day one, as well as making it available to those who work for multiple employers, should decrease the pressure on workers to have to work through illness.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the “Keep Britain Working” review led by Charlie Mayfield also aims to work with employers to help keep people in jobs while they cope with some of the long-term sickness issues that can develop as workers get older.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We are determined that disabled people should have the confidence to try work. Our “right to try” legislation will come into force on Thursday. People claiming universal credit, new style employment support allowance and personal independence payment can take steps towards employment and be confident that doing so will not automatically trigger benefit reassessment.
Ben Coleman
I thank the Minister for that positive answer. Could he reassure my disabled constituents under the age of 22, many of whom are in education and low-paid work, that they will not lose their universal credit health payments? This financial support is vital to helping young disabled people, because they face the greatest barriers to work. Does he share my concern that removing it could push them further away from employment and deeper into poverty? Has an assessment been made of the impact on poverty of removing that support?
Sir Stephen Timms
There is an urgent need to address the big rise in the number of young people not in work, education or training that took place before the last general election. We think that better support might help young people more than extra cash. Alan Milburn’s review on the NEET problem more broadly will report in September; we will wait until then to decide whether to delay access to the universal credit health element until the age of 22. If we did do that, there would need to be exceptions.
Tom Rutland
Thanks to grant funding from DWP, my local Labour councils in Adur and Worthing are joining the Connect to Work programme, helping local people get into good local jobs. But for young people, including those with disabilities, being not in employment, education or training remains an issue. What more is being done to work with businesses and get more young people into the opportunities that they can thrive in?
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend’s local authority is joining up with Connect to Work, which will be available across the whole of England and Wales by this summer. These regulations are a very important step forward. More needs to be done to give people confidence that moving into work or embarking on volunteering will not trigger a benefit reassessment. I also point him to our Pathways to Work guarantee, giving tailored personalised support to young people in the position that he described, and to the “Keep Britain Working” review by Charlie Mayfield, making employer vacancies accessible to my hon. Friend’s constituents and others in the position that he described.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
My disabled constituent Joanne was holding down a good job, but delays in Access to Work resulted in her not receiving the necessary support to stay in it. The Government’s new “right to try” initiative is a positive move, but will the Minister commit to resourcing vital support services like Access to Work, and to eliminating its backlog of over 62,000 cases as a matter of urgency? If not, we will find ourselves in the same position a year from now.
Sir Stephen Timms
The support provided by Access to Work is absolutely vital. There has been a big surge in demand for the scheme over the last few years, which has led to some significant delay. I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has been affected in the way that he described. We said last year that we wanted to reform Access to Work, and that reform is much needed given the greatly increased demand. We are working on proposals and as soon as we are able to put them before the House, we will do so.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It was a great joy to spend time last month in Kendal for the Disability Confident employer scheme. It is gaining more and more members in our community and is helping people with disabilities into work. Around 20% of working-age people live with a disability; many work, and many more wish to. What is the Minister doing to support Disability Confident employers, to make it easier for them to employ people with disabilities and to support those with disabilities into the workforce?
Sir Stephen Timms
I point the hon. Gentleman to the Keep Britain Working review, which Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading; it addresses exactly the issue that he rightly raises. We are also looking at reforming Disability Confident, which has huge potential—19,000 employers have signed up, I think. There is a lot of enthusiasm on the part of employers. We want to make sure that those who sign up to the scheme then progress up the levels so that Disability Confident makes a really significant difference. I am very hopeful that it will.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The latest unemployment figures published last week show a fall to 4.9% in February, which I am sure the whole House will welcome. Along with growth figures of 0.5% earlier this year, that is more evidence that the economy was heading in the right direction at the beginning of the year. But I have to warn the House that external effects caused by the war in Iran and the rise in energy prices may affect jobs as well as prices in the coming months.
Mr Snowden
Fylde’s stunning coastline and countryside mean that the hospitality, tourism and leisure industry is at the heart of our local economy. But I have met many businesses that, following the changes to national insurance, have let go so many young people from that industry and are simply not taking on new seasonal staff. Could the Secretary of State update the House on the current trends of unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds?
Pat McFadden
I recently joined a successful jobs fair close to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the industries that he mentioned were hiring more people—it was one of the most successful such events that we have seen. I hope that he will welcome the fact that 330,000 more people are in work this year than at this time last year. When it comes to young people, he will of course know that there is a national insurance exemption for employees under 21.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Because of the previous Government’s actions, the number of people not in employment, education or training rose by nearly 250,000 between 2021 and 2024, leaving many hundreds of my constituents among the almost 1 million young people in that situation today. I am glad to see, then, that the Secretary of State is taking action to support young people in Erewash through the youth guarantee. Further to that, will the Secretary of State please explain the measures that his Department is taking to address the decade-long trend of growing youth unemployment?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend will know that the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by about a quarter of a million in the last three years of the Conservative party’s time in power, but that Government did nothing about it. We are putting in place a youth guarantee that offers training, work experience, subsidised employment and hiring incentives to small and medium-sized employers for both regular jobs and apprenticeships. That is all part of the effort to make sure that young people do not graduate from education to a life on benefits, and that they get the chance in life that a decent job brings.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), so let me help him. Unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds is at 14.3%—that means that one in seven young people is unemployed. There are thousands fewer jobs and thousands fewer vacancies under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. I speak to young people across the country, who tell me that it is desperately difficult to get a job, and it is no wonder. His Government have made it much harder for businesses to employ people, especially young people.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State may be trying his best with his plethora of work schemes, but they are just a sticking plaster for the damage that the Chancellor has wreaked. Governments do not create jobs; businesses do. His Government need to change tack and back businesses to create opportunities for the next generation. I am on their side—isn’t he? Will he help the Chancellor understand before it is too late?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady neglected to mention that youth unemployment never recovered to levels enjoyed under the last Labour Government at any point during the Conservative party’s time in power; it was exacerbated during their last few years in particular. The difference is that we are responding with the initiatives that I have set before the House today. That is because we believe that work is the best answer and the best opportunity for young people. I will keep going, to give young people hope and opportunity because that is what this Labour Government stand for.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Since our last DWP oral questions, I have updated the House on the expansion of our youth employment offer, I have been to an excellent job fair in Glasgow, I have said that the latest unemployment figures show a fall, and last week I went back to university—it was the McDonald’s Hamburger University. My Big Mac was not perfect, but I welcome McDonald’s as the latest employer to support our youth guarantee. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability has said that the “right to try” regulations have come into force and, as we have mentioned, we also have the changes on statutory sick pay, which significantly expand coverage and make it available from the first day of employment.
Mr Dillon
I worked at McDonald’s throughout my GCSEs and A-levels and while at university—it is a good employer for those who are studying. Newbury Soup Kitchen is a local charity that is supporting a constituent of mine, spending many hours on the phone to universal credit staff. However, they do not consistently accept the authority to discuss, demanded an in-person meeting despite the resident being wheelchair dependent, and offered a Teams meeting only for the resident to find out that Berkshire does not offer Teams meetings. Will a Minister meet me to discuss the case and the process failures?
Pat McFadden
I am happy to ensure that the hon. Member gets a meeting with a Minister from the Department to discuss his constituent’s case.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right that we need everyone—not just central Government—to be involved. I would like local authorities, businesses—all of us—to see the youth opportunity challenge as a national endeavour worthy of all our support. I am happy to work with her local authority to try to make it as successful as possible.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Mr Speaker,
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”.
That is the view of the author of the Government’s strategic defence review, the Labour peer, former Labour Defence Secretary and former Secretary-General of NATO Lord Robertson. Which will the Secretary of State choose: defending the country or paying people not to work?
Pat McFadden
The Conservative party failed to reform welfare and failed to back our defence forces—it left the armed forces at their smallest size since Napoleonic times—and it says that there is a choice. The truth is, the Conservatives did neither of those things; we are doing both. We are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—something they never achieved, despite inheriting that level from us when they took office—and we are reforming welfare by putting work and opportunity at the heart of everything we do.
Helen Whately
Let us put some facts on the table, because it is time for the Government to confront the hard choices. We are spending less than 2.5% of GDP on defence, but 5.3% of GDP on welfare. Six million people of working age are living on benefits. Under the Secretary of State’s Government, over a million more people have gone on to universal credit and hundreds of thousands have gone on to sickness benefits—and the Government are choosing to spend even more by scrapping the two-child cap. We cannot go on like this. When will he and the current Prime Minister come forward with a plan to bring the welfare bill down? Or is it like with Sir Olly Robbins: another topic where his judgment and the Prime Minister’s differ?
Pat McFadden
The shadow Secretary of State said that she wanted some facts, so let me give her some facts. The Tories inherited spending on defence at 2.5% of GDP; they left office with it lower. They left the Army at its smallest in two centuries, and they cut the number of frigates and destroyers by 25%. It is the Labour Government who are increasing expenditure on defence. It is the Labour Government who are reforming welfare, including the changes in universal credit this month, and the youth employment initiatives that we have talked about throughout these questions.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for a very good question. Here is another fact the shadow Secretary of State may not welcome: the truth is that before the pandemic, face-to-face interviews were the norm and after that, the numbers collapsed. Not only that, the previous Government signed off a new set of long-term contracts allowing most of the assessors to work from home, just a year before the general election. We are now increasing face-to-face interviews to provide a proper balance in the functional assessment process in the benefit system.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Department for Work and Pensions is currently reviewing over 200,000 cases of overpayments for carers, some of whom have accrued up to £20,000 through a situation not of their own making. In the light of this, will the Secretary of State stop applying carers penalties until the Department has completed this review?
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we have now started reviewing those 200,000 cases. We anticipate that there will probably be 25,000 people among the 200,000 who could have debts cancelled, or could possibly be refunded. If carer’s allowance has been overpaid and should not have been, we will of course need to recover the money. The problem has been that the previous Government’s guidance in the Department was wrong. We have now corrected that, so I am hopeful that that particular kind of mistake will not occur again.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Pat McFadden
The policies that I am advocating are creating opportunity for young people, through offering employers hiring incentives, through promoting youth apprenticeship starts and through the other initiatives that we have set out. We do this because we agree that work is the best answer for young people, and I want to do everything I can to make sure that they have the maximum chance to get work.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
Youth hubs are another part of the effort, and the advantage is that we can get the help that the jobcentre can give to where young people are in the community. This also means we can get help to people who are not necessarily signing on for benefits but who are looking for work, and it enables us to give a more flexible response across different services. We hope to expand these hubs to more than 360 locations, where they will be open to all 16 to 24-year-olds, whether or not they are on benefits.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I fundamentally disagree with the perspective of the hon. Gentleman on people who have been here for years, made a contribution and paid their taxes, and then require some help back from a state that they have paid into, sometimes for decades. Not only that, the figure that he uses is a complete conflation and a significant overestimation. He shows his ignorance if he does not understand that it is impossible to suggest that that money has all been paid directly to foreign nationals because the figure that he uses is drawn from the total number of households with a foreign national in them, and many of the individual claimants could in fact be British or Irish citizens.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Timms review is supposed to be shaped by disabled people and disabled groups, but I am hearing constantly that this is not the case, and that they are feeling sidelined. Can the Minister explain how we will ensure that there is true co-production, and that this is not just a tick-box exercise, and how the regions and diverse groups will be represented?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we are ensuring genuine co-production. Two co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, were appointed last October. The three of us have recruited a steering group of 12; they are almost entirely disabled people. Our fifth full-day steering group meeting was in Manchester last Thursday. We have issued a call for evidence, which is open until 28 May. We have had over 10,000 responses so far, and I hope we will receive many more. That is just step one in a programme of wider engagement. This is genuine co-production that will deliver.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Pat McFadden
I have discussed this subject a lot with hon. Members from right across the House, and the issue that the hon. Member raises about transport is raised quite a lot with me. It is important, and I am willing to look at anything that I can do on that front to help people take up available opportunities. We need to bring everything together to give young people the maximum employment opportunities.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for small and medium-sized enterprise house builders, I regularly hear about the growing skills shortage, and the urgent need to change perceptions about careers in construction, which is a highly skilled, rewarding industry that offers strong career progression, good wages and an opportunity to play a direct role in building the homes that our country needs. What steps is the Minister taking to invest in technical training for young people, so that SME house builders have the skilled workforce that they need to deliver the homes that this country urgently needs?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for skills for house building. We support those skills through sector-based work academy programmes. Last year, the Government announced a £625 million construction skills package, in order to recruit 60,000 workers by 2029 to all the trades that we need for building and the other physical investment projects that the Government are supporting around the country.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
As the Government’s reforms to special educational needs and disabilities provision focus on pushing children into mainstream education, they risk removing specialist support from many who need it and undermining successful work programmes, such as the Witherslack futures programme. Will the Secretary of State meet me and relevant groups to ensure that he does not allow SEND reforms to damage the chances of young people with special educational needs and disabilities to secure long-term, sustainable work?
Sir Stephen Timms
I welcome the hon. Member’s consistent interest in this important topic, and he will know that the SEND reforms that have been announced have been well received. Our youth guarantee will apply to young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and the trailblazers that we have set up are trying out new approaches, but I would be delighted to meet him and discuss how we can do this job.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I welcome the £2.5 million funding boost recently awarded to South Essex college; that will help equip even more residents from Southend and Rochford with the skills needed for fulfilling, lifelong careers. Following my conversations with Louisa Strachan, founder of Song School in Southend, on their desire for greater support for creative apprenticeships, can the Minister outline the steps that his Department is taking to support young people into the creative and music industries?
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend and sing a song of praise for the Song School in Southend. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the creative industries. Our creative industries sector plan provides £380 million of targeted investment, and, as part of the work on the youth guarantee, I was pleased to meet the film and TV industries at Pinewood Studios in January of this year to talk more about the opportunities that they offer young people in our fantastic creative industries sector.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Disabled people in England face a postcode lottery when it comes to the time in which they can use their bus passes. What conversations have been had with colleagues at the Department for Transport and the Treasury about removing those unfair time restrictions?
Sir Stephen Timms
I regularly meet the lead Ministers on disability from all Departments, including the Department for Transport; I know that my colleague there is particularly interested in transport accessibility for disabled people. I would be very happy to pick up with them the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Our declining healthy life expectancy, as underlined in today’s Health Foundation report, is a real worry, but as Professor Sir Michael Marmot has shown, that is no surprise after 14 years of austerity and its impact on our public services. There is the potential for a significant knock-on effect on Department for Work and Pensions spending. What conversations has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had with the Health Secretary on this issue, and is it being considered in the Timms review?
Pat McFadden
I know that the Chair of the Select Committee cares deeply about health inequalities in this country, which, to be honest with the House, are deep seated and long term. As in many areas of our work, I believe that constructive and productive employment is a big part of the answer in tackling inequality and prosperity issues right around the country.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am dealing with a constituency case in which an individual has paid £23,000 during a dispute about being the parent of a child. He was not on the birth certificate, and the mother refused a DNA test. After three hearings in the family court, the court has ruled in his favour. I am sure the House will appreciate that £23,000 is an incredible amount of money for someone to pay for a child who is not theirs. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how my constituent can have it reimbursed?
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
BriggsAmasco in my constituency invests heavily in apprenticeships for the next generation of mastic asphalt tradespeople. According to BriggsAmasco, only 11 people in that part of Scotland are fully qualified in this work, and the only route to qualifying is through training programmes in England. The only training provider in Scotland stopped accepting apprentices last September. Will the Minister meet me to see if we can find a way to back employers that want to employ, and apprentices who want to train? There is a shortage of workers in that profession.
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for being such a formidable champion for her constituency, and for opportunity within it. I would be very happy to talk with her further about this issue, but I point out that skills and apprenticeships are devolved in Scotland. The Scottish Government have received a record financial settlement—the greatest since devolution began—and I hope that opportunity for young people is part of their agenda.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
My office has been waiting over six months for DWP replies to certain cases. Citizens Advice has reached out because it is not getting replies either. Will the Minister commit to getting us those responses this week, and will he commit to greater resourcing for responding to Members, particularly in relation to universal credit?
Pat McFadden
I know that responding to hon. Members’ inquiries—be they direct or on behalf of their constituents —is very important. I raise that with the Department constantly. If the hon. Gentleman sends me more details of the constituents in question, I will ensure that their cases are looked at right away.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
We in Stafford welcome the announcement that Stafford college will become an advanced manufacturing technical hub, but we have a gap: more skilled jobs are needed than there are people to fill them. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the potential for Stafford to have a youth hub as soon as possible?
Pat McFadden
I know, because my constituency is not too far away, that advanced manufacturing is in the DNA of Staffordshire, so I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend said about her local college, and I will make sure that she gets a meeting with someone from the Department.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Earlier this year, I visited the High Speed 2 site in my constituency, where I had the privilege of speaking with several apprentices about the value of educational opportunities that offer a clear path into work. Given that there are nearly 1 million people not in education, employment or training, will the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to promote such apprenticeship schemes?
Pat McFadden
We are promoting apprenticeships for young people in particular through the way that we prioritise the funding in the apprenticeship levy, and we are putting in place hiring incentives of £2,000 for small businesses that want to take on an apprentice. For small and medium-sized businesses, we will also fully fund the cost of apprenticeships for under-25s, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that apprenticeships are a great opportunity for young people, and I want to do what I can to make sure that young people get more chances to avail themselves of those opportunities.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Can the Minister provide an update on the action plan to ensure that lessons are learned from the way that changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There absolutely are lessons for us to learn from this experience, both related to that particular case, and on the general point about giving adequate notice of any changes to the state pension age; that is the most important lesson, and we are absolutely committed to learning that. On the action plan, that will be focused on state pension age comms, and on complaint handling. We will work closely with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman on that right away, and I hope to be able to publish that action plan in the coming months. More broadly, we are not waiting for that, but are getting on with action. I am sure that hon. Members will have seen over the last few months the “check your state pension age” campaign, encouraging people to be aware of their state pension age.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Twelve weeks ago, I raised four cases with the DWP, and I am still waiting for a response, despite chasing. These delays are upsetting for my Wokingham constituents. What is the Minister doing to address this backlog, and when can my constituents expect a response?
Andrew Western
We are increasing the resources available to handle Members’ correspondence, but given the delays that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, if he wants to write to me with those details, I will look into them urgently for him.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Around half of working-age people are under-saving for retirement, which is why I welcomed the relaunch of the Pensions Commission last year. Can the Minister update the House on how the commission’s forthcoming interim report will set out a credible path to raising contribution rates, in a sustainable way, for those who need that most?
Torsten Bell
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, and he is absolutely right. We have seen progress in the last 15 years; 23 million employees now save into a pension, and that is restarting the business of workplace pension savings in the UK, but the job is not done. It is not done because of the issue that he raises about the adequacy of the amount saved by those who are saving, and because 45% of working-age adults are saving nothing at all. That is why there has been cross-party consensus that we should bring back the Pensions Commission to look at the question of adequacy, and I am pleased to say that its interim report will be published in the coming months.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
When a child is diagnosed with an illness such as cancer, their caring needs start immediately. Such a diagnosis upends any household; there are appointments, and often families are unable to work. Will the Minister review again the question of whether child disability living allowance should be paid immediately on diagnosis, as opposed to the family having to wait three months, and will he meet the Watson family from my constituency, who have, sadly, lived with this barrier to support?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Member is right; there is a three-month period to wait after the onset of the incapacity or impairment. Sometimes I think there is a bit of confusion; people think it is three months after the application, but it is not: it is three months after the issue arises. That is to make sure that it is a long-term incapacity; that is what the benefit is there to support. I would be happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member about this. Of course, this matter is devolved in Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland conventionally keeps in line with England.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
Last week was Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week. I recently met my constituent Rob Denham to discuss the issues he has had with claiming the personal independence payment in the past—he compared the experience with being put on trial. Will the Minister assure me, Rob and all those suffering with MS that the review that the Government are now conducting will not just make the system more effective and efficient, but make it fairer and more humane?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes. I was recently at a roundtable with someone who has multiple sclerosis who described to me the process of applying for PIP as “retraumatising”, rather like when she was initially diagnosed with MS. The steering group is determined to deliver a better system and when we report our recommendations to the Secretary of State in the autumn, I very much hope that that is what we will be able to do.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
One of my constituents in North Devon is a Royal Marines veteran who was just awarded over £2,700 in backdated universal credit, after the DWP failed to disregard his war pension from his monthly income. What can be done to ensure DWP staff understand armed forces pensions? Will the Minister assure hon. Members that this is not happening to other veterans across the country?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am very sorry to hear that the system was not properly understood in the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. He is absolutely right that there is special treatment for compensation payments of this kind within the universal credit system. I will certainly talk to my officials about ensuring that those arrangements are properly understood in the Department.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The potential rapid closure of St Andrew’s hospital in my constituency puts over 3,000 jobs at risk. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what package of support we can put in place for those people to ensure they can find good quality work in my constituency?
Pat McFadden
As I have said a few times today, I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with a Minister. I congratulate him on speaking up for his area and the workers within it.
Dunmurry Police Station Attack
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, I remind the House that there is an ongoing police investigation into the incident at Dunmurry. Members should avoid making any remarks that might prejudice future criminal proceedings.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the car bomb attack outside Dunmurry police station on 26 April 2026.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for her question.
Shortly before 11 pm on Saturday 25 April, a vehicle was abandoned just outside the front gate of the Police Service of Northern Ireland station at Dunmurry. The vehicle had been hijacked in the Twinbrook area of west Belfast a short time before, where a gas cylinder was placed in the boot of the vehicle and the driver was ordered to drive to the police station. When he got there, the driver informed the police, who immediately and very bravely evacuated nearby homes. A number of residents, including two babies, were being taken to safety when the device exploded. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with all those affected—residents who had to leave their homes, the police officers who were helping with that evacuation when the device exploded, and the delivery driver, who has been through a traumatic experience. It is incredibly fortunate that nobody was killed or injured.
A similar attack on the police station in Lurgan was attempted on 30 March, when a fast food delivery driver was also hijacked by two masked men, who placed an object in the boot of the car and ordered him to drive it to Lurgan police station or be killed. Mercifully, on that occasion ammunition technical officers were able to carry out a controlled explosion. They confirmed that it was a crude but viable improvised explosive device, and the New IRA later claimed responsibility. This was a shameless and cowardly attack on the brave men and women who work so hard to keep our communities safe in Northern Ireland. Urgent investigations into both incidents are, of course, continuing and I urge anyone who has any information to contact the PSNI.
Over the decades, Northern Ireland has been transformed into a much more peaceful society. However, a very small number of people who represent no one but themselves remain determined to try to cause harm to our communities. I join with the Prime Minister and all those from across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland who have condemned what happened on Saturday, and I know the House will join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, led by Jon Boutcher, and to our security partners. It is their tireless work that keeps our communities safe, and this Government will continue to support those efforts as together we seek to bring to account those responsible for terrorism.
Sorcha Eastwood
I am sure the whole House will join me in sending a message that terrorism never succeeds—neither in the past nor in 2026. I too wish to put on record my thanks to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the work that it does every day, keeping communities safe in the face of ongoing threats. In particular, I pay tribute to those police officers who were in Dunmurry police station on Saturday evening and who were helping to evacuate babies as the device detonated.
I also pay tribute to the officers at Lurgan police station who were there on 30 March when a viable device was driven through the front gates of the station. My thoughts are also with the two delivery drivers, one of whom was held at gunpoint as their vehicle was hijacked. It is only by the grace of God that we are not dealing with fatalities. The people who commit these acts of terrorism have no support from the decent people of Northern Ireland—they do not now, and they did not in the past. This is not representative of who we are.
National security is a reserved matter, so will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that the PSNI is adequately resourced to deal with tackling Northern Ireland-related terrorism, along with the other categories of extreme right-wing terrorism, extreme left-wing terrorism, Islamic terrorism and those acting without ideology? Those are stated national security priorities. It is clear that the PSNI is already operating within a challenging budget, and I am sure the Government will want to ensure that it is adequately resourced to tackle this threat.
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Member in her expression of thanks to the police and in her expressions of concern for all those who have been affected. As she well knows, PSNI resources are determined by the Northern Ireland Executive, but it is our job as a Government to play our part. We have given a record settlement to the Executive in the spending review last summer, and we have implemented the first increase in the additional security funding in more than a decade; it will be £130 million over three years.
I also draw attention to the fact that there is a Home Office counter-terrorism policing grant. The level of funding per head is the same as that given by the additional security funding. Northern Ireland received Barnett consequentials on top of that as a result of the announcement of the Home Office counter-terrorism policing grant. It is for the Executive to determine how much it chooses to devote to policing out of the record settlement that we give.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The two incidents in Lurgan and Dunmurry are of deep concern to us and to my Committee. I give my sincere thanks to the PSNI officers who have kept their communities safe. Does the Secretary of State agree that those responsible should face the full force of the law?
Hilary Benn
I certainly do. That is why anyone with any information has a responsibility to provide it to the PSNI so that people may be called to account.
The police and our security partners work hard every single day of the year to try to identify those responsible. For reasons that the House will well understand, a great deal of that work is unseen by the general public, but I assure my hon. Friend and the House that it is taking place, and we have seen that in recent times. In December, two men were sentenced to lengthy jail terms for preparatory acts of terrorism. PSNI investigations into drug criminality linked to the New IRA led to a man being sentenced last month in relation to the supply of drugs.
We have also acted against the New IRA and two individuals associated with the group through the Treasury’s counter-terrorism financial sanctions regime, which in effect takes control of the finances of those individuals. It is a very powerful tool to use, and, as my hon. Friend will see, we have already applied it on two occasions.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on having secured this urgent question. I associate myself with her remarks and those of the Secretary of State, although I gently say that it would have been better if this had been a Government statement. I cannot help but feel that had that car bomb been placed outside a police station in Westminster or Birmingham, Government Ministers would have come to the House with a statement.
It is, of course, profoundly depressing that we should be discussing this issue at all. However, it is an enormous relief that we are not today talking about casualties. As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, but for the grace of God, we would have been; but for the bravery of local people, we would have been. I pay very deep tribute to all those brave men and women in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who serve and keep our country safe. They were the target of this despicable operation, and it will be their hard work that brings its perpetrators to justice.
The people who have attempted to break the peace in Northern Ireland have no mandate and no public support—they represent only themselves, and are seeking to serve only their macho egos. The silver lining is, of course, that we are watching people in Northern Ireland from all communities come together this morning, united against them. We have come an incredibly long way, but as the Secretary of State referenced, this does appear to be the start of a pattern of new and deeply concerning behaviour. That is reflected in what happened in Lurgan last month, but also in the marching of masked paramilitaries in Easter parades. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the PSNI is going after those people who broke the laws that were laid down during the peace process, just as I know they will be going after those who tried to blow up the police station in Dunmurry?
The attack on Sunday raises a number of questions to which I hope the Secretary of State can provide answers, because he has responsibility for national security in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Chief Constable has the resources he needs? I say that because, notwithstanding his remarks about funding, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is going to put a huge additional financial burden on the PSNI. Even if the Chief Constable believes he has the resources he needs today, he will not have them tomorrow.
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Member in his tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and agree with him that the response from all communities in Northern Ireland to this terrible attack is a sign of the new Northern Ireland and shows that those responsible have no support at all. Sadly, though, they do have some capacity. As he knows, the enforcement of the law is a job for the police service, and if criminal offences have been identified, it is for prosecutors to take decisions. I hope the hon. Member will agree that my answer to the question from the Chair of the Select Committee about recent convictions and steps taken, shows that there certainly is capacity within the PSNI to go after people and—if the evidence can be found—to enable a prosecution to take place.
On the question of legacy, under the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which established the commission, every request for disclosure and information falls to the police service and other partners. That was already the case, regardless of anything contained in the legislation that we are currently taking through the House.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The people who planted this bomb in Dunmurry have set their faces against the people of Ireland, who made the decision long ago that the only route to constitutional change is a democratic one. They have attacked and tried to kill Irish police officers, they have murdered a young journalist in Derry, and just last weekend they have put children and babies in harm’s way. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House today that the only route to achieving the united Ireland that some of us want to see is the democratic route laid out in the Good Friday agreement, and that it is up to those of us who want to see that happen to make the argument for it? These people are only an impediment to that change.
Hilary Benn
I say to my hon. Friend that the huge significance of the Good Friday agreement is that it charted a way forward and made clear the peaceful means by which those who wish to seek constitutional change in Northern Ireland can pursue it, but I also make the point that there never was any justification for the violence. There was always an alternative to the violence, and that was shown in the negotiation of the Good Friday agreement.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I begin by praising the bravery of the police, the fire and ambulance services, and the delivery driver, all of whom put themselves in danger to prevent a tragedy.
I am sure the Secretary of State recognises that, as an act of terrorism, this is a matter of national security, which is the responsibility of the central Government. Unfortunately, whenever asked about funding to combat dissident republican terrorism, the Northern Ireland Office repeatedly points to general funding allocated to the Executive, as though the responsibility to combat such terrorism lies with them. Admittedly, some extra funding, as we have heard, is given for additional security funding, but that is intended to cover all forms of terrorist activity. It ignores the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, and has been described by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland as “minuscule”.
I want to press the Secretary of State on the same two questions. What additionally is he doing to ensure that the PSNI has adequate funding and resources to respond to the threat posed by dissident republican groups, and what discussions has he had with the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, and the Northern Ireland Executive to address their repeated concerns about PSNI funding?
Hilary Benn
Yes, it is a reserved matter, but there is a shared responsibility across Northern Ireland to defeat terrorism. That is a political responsibility and it is a policing and security responsibility. As I have set out to the House, the budget of the PSNI is determined by the Executive. We as a Government are playing our part by making sure there has been a record settlement. As I said, we have increased additional security funding for the first time in a decade, and the Home Office counter-terrorism grant was Barnetted across to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is for the Northern Ireland Executive to take the decisions about how they choose to spend the significant resources we are making available.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and the Secretary of State about the bravery of the PSNI and the delivery driver. This attack serves as a timely reminder that, for a handful of individuals in Northern Ireland, a return to violence is never that far away. Given the unique challenges to their own safety that members of staff and police officers in the PSNI have to face on a daily basis—and tomorrow is International Workers’ Memorial Day—would the Secretary of State work with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that nobody should be going to work and not coming home?
Hilary Benn
I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s last point. I meet the Justice Minister, the police and security partners on a very regular basis, and we discuss all of these matters and review what has been happening. All I would say is that the reduction in the number of bombings and shootings in the past decade is very marked, and that is testament to the efforts of the police and security partners. In fairness, I should also remind the House that the threat assessment at the moment remains substantial. It was previously severe in the wake of the attempted murder of John Caldwell, but it is currently substantial, which means that an attack is likely.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Following two car bomb attacks in one month, what my constituents want to know is what will be done to snuff out this terrorist threat before it develops further—and that must include dealing with the underfunding and the understaffing of the PSNI. Today the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland called out some Northern Ireland political parties for their failure to give unconditional support to the PSNI, which means that many young PSNI officers cannot live in nationalist areas. Does the Secretary of State agree that those parties need to do more, and that, in particular, Sinn Féin must match its pious words with actions of unconditional support for the PSNI and cease lauding its former car bombers, which only gives support to the current generation of car bombers?
Hilary Benn
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is the responsibility of all political leaders—indeed, of all in society in Northern Ireland—to give their full-hearted support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is there to protect everyone from all communities and stands against those who would do the people of Northern Ireland harm. I think that that is a fundamental part of the responsibility that all of us have as political leaders.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Jon Boutcher has been fairly critical of a number of political parties, including, it must be said, the party of government. He is clear about the fact that his force, the PSNI, is not funded like other forces across the United Kingdom, and he believes that that is partly due to legacy issues—a position that will be made far more acute by the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chief Constable or not?
Hilary Benn
I have had many conversations with the Chief Constable about funding and other matters. I would just point out, as I did a moment ago, that as a result of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which is the existing law under which everyone is operating at the moment, and the establishment of the legacy commission, the more cases the commission takes on—the number of cases is now over 100—the more there will be a requirement for disclosure anyway. What the Bill seeks to do is win the confidence of all communities in Northern Ireland so that this body, reformed, can hopefully enable all the families who are still looking for answers about how their loved ones died to find them.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Let me say on behalf of my party that we condemn the bombing at the weekend and we thank the police for their actions, which ensured that there were not the casualties that we would otherwise be lamenting here today.
It is significant that the bomb was set off at the same time as Sinn Féin was holding its party conference, at which bombers of the past were being praised. That glorification of terrorism only stimulates terrorism again today. The logic is clear: if we can praise the bombers of the past, why can we not bomb in the present? While the First Minister has condemned the bombing, does the Secretary of State agree that the schizophrenic attitude that Sinn Féin has developed towards past terrorism and present terrorism is only perpetuating terrorism in our society, and continues to pump the poison of violence into our society? Will he call on the First Minister and her party to stop being ambivalent towards policing and stop being ambivalent towards past terrorism, and make it clear that terrorism has no place in society?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I have already said that I think that all politicians, in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom, have a responsibility to encourage support for the work of the PSNI. I also welcome the condemnation that has been heard from those across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland—including Sinn Féin, which has made it very clear, as has everyone else, that those who were responsible for the attack on Saturday and the previous attack in Lurgan have no support and no place in the new Northern Ireland.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given what the Secretary of State said about the nature of the Lurgan bomb, it sounds as if these weapons are unsophisticated and presumably not detonated remotely. This must mean that the delivery drivers were in exceptional peril, because such crude devices could have gone off at any time. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is liaising closely with people in the Republic of Ireland, and that their attitude is nowadays one of complete support for the discovery and prevention of a new version of the terrorism of the troubles?
Hilary Benn
For reasons that I hope the House will understand, I am not going to speculate about the nature of the devices, but the right hon. Gentleman is right: given that the device on Saturday did explode, the lives of the two delivery drivers were self-evidently in great peril at the time they were forced to convey the devices to the respective police stations. The condemnation of terrorism is seen right across Ireland—in Northern Ireland, as we have just been discussing, and in the Republic of Ireland. These people have no support whatsoever, and it is important that we find out who did it and hold them to account.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I pay tribute to the courage of the delivery driver and to PSNI officers, whose bravery saved lives in this deplorable attack. I also want to use this opportunity to pay tribute to one of my predecessors, Ian Gow, who was murdered by the IRA in a car bomb attack outside his Eastbourne home in 1990. His memory is enshrined in this Chamber via a shield above the door.
As well as ensuring that the PSNI is resourced to ensure that terrorists face the full force of the law, can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has been made of the threat that dissident republicans pose to the British mainland, with a view to ensuring that no community anywhere in the United Kingdom suffers what has scarred the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Eastbourne?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Member in remembering the late Ian Gow, who gave such distinguished service to this House and was killed in that terrible attack—one of a number of Members who suffered at the hands of terrorist violence in the past. The assessment of the nature of the threat—which is currently substantial and has previously been severe, as I am sure the hon. Member will know—is carried out by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and is formally reviewed twice a year. I can assure him that JTAC’s staff take their job extremely seriously, and any information about any threats is circulated to all those who need to know.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
We can all agree that the public should be protected from anybody who is willing to use violence against innocents and the police to get what they want, but I wonder how the right hon. Gentleman intends to enforce that. What message does he think it sends to those who have had the courage to protect the public, including British soldiers during the troubles, when this Government are making it easier for them to be dragged through the courts decades later?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the hon. Member’s characterisation of what is in the troubles Bill that we will be discussing later, because the threshold consideration for prosecutions remains absolutely unchanged in the legislation currently before the House. However, I recognise that veterans are concerned about the impact that any changes may have on them. That is why the Government have put protections in the Bill and will bring forward further such proposals in Committee.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
What price does the Secretary of State put on a Northern Ireland life? What price does he put on the lives of PSNI officers, whom we have praised in this House today for saving so many lives at the weekend? The majority of his answers at the start of this session referred to Barnett consequentials and budgets, not the people who went out of their way to save lives. Why do he and this Government believe that if terrorists in Northern Ireland are attacking Northern Ireland people, it is only a Northern Ireland problem?
Hilary Benn
Well, I do not accept that I said that it is only a Northern Ireland problem. The reason I answered questions relating to the funding is because I was asked by hon. and right hon. Members about the funding that the Government make available to the Executive in Northern Ireland, out of which the Executive take decisions about the funding of the PSNI. That is their responsibility. I simply say to the hon. Member that the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland—be they police officer or ordinary citizen—are beyond price.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is hard to believe that it was 34 years ago that one of these proxy bombs was driven into my checkpoint in west Belfast. I remember it like it was yesterday. I agree with the Secretary of State that we must find the perpetrators of this evil act, and I, too, encourage the community to come forward, because that is where the answer lies. Will the Secretary of State ask the Chief Constable how many Police Service of Northern Ireland detectives are allocated to investigating legacy issues, versus those allocated to finding the perpetrators of the Dunmurry police station attack?
Hilary Benn
I will take the hon. Member’s question away. The allocation of resources is a matter for the Chief Constable. This is a very urgent investigation. I point out to him that one of the consequences of the legacy Act that the last Government passed was that responsibility for investigating troubles-related cases departed from the PSNI; it does not rest with the PSNI today, but with the legacy commission. It is the commission that does investigations in respect of the cases that have been referred to it, not the PSNI.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I, like every right-minded person, utterly condemn the abhorrent attack on Dunmurry PSNI station and the one on Lurgan in my constituency. I commend PSNI officers for their bravery in dealing with these attempts on their lives. Does the Secretary of State agree that Sinn Féin’s response drips with rank hypocrisy, condemning the bombers of today while glorifying, lauding and even erecting illegal statues to the bombers and terrorists of yesterday? Does he agree that the decision to put forward Órlaithí Flynn MLA—daughter of Patrick Flynn, convicted of an IRA bomb in Dunmurry—to condemn this attack was a calculated insult to victims and a grotesque reminder that Sinn Féin’s words condemn terrorism, but their politics still romanticise it? Surely the Government should reflect on their decision not to strengthen the legislation on glorification of terrorism and act to legislate against it immediately.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Member, quite rightly, speaks with great sincerity and anger about what has happened. On the very last point that she raised, she will be familiar with the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006. As she will be aware, the Government have recently agreed to ask Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, to undertake a review of section 1 and report back.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
In the last year, there have been nine bomb attacks aimed at the PSNI from the men of darkness, who hide behind dark doors, in the dark and behind balaclavas. What action can the Secretary of State take to ensure that the PSNI has adequate funding? It is 700 police officers down, and the funding is still not in place. Will he agree to meet me and the Chief Constable to listen to those concerns about funding, so that we can beat the men of evil and not return to the past?
Hilary Benn
I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is treating this particular investigation with the urgency that it requires. Referring to the question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)—I thank him once again for his service in Northern Ireland—what would help the police to bring the men of darkness to the light of justice is information that somebody probably knows. That information would enable people to be arrested and, if there is sufficient evidence, prosecuted for what they have done. That is the single most important contribution that can be made to assist the PSNI in trying to find out who was responsible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. Police numbers, intelligence, CCTV, IRA infiltration, people sending information—those are all issues. It is beyond disappointing that this same New IRA was able to plan to hijack and deploy a second device in west Belfast without any prior interception. The Chief Constable of the PSNI and the Police Federation for Northern Ireland have continually highlighted a lack of resources for policing. Will the Secretary of State please explain whether the lack of ability to combat this group of murderous, terrorist thugs is due to failures in intelligence sharing—MI5, MI6, special branch—or to a lack of police service on the ground that affects patrolling in high-risk areas? More importantly, what steps will the Secretary of State undertake to address those issues?
Hilary Benn
There is a huge amount of effort going in, as I indicated earlier, and most of it is unseen by the general public for reasons that everyone in the House will understand. As much information as can be gathered on what these people are seeking to do, we seek to acquire, but we either have to catch people in the act or get information from those who know who was responsible in order to see them prosecuted. It cannot be just left to the PSNI and our security partners, who once again I pay tribute to; they do a truly extraordinary job on behalf of us all, but they need some help from others who have information that they can bring to bear, so that people are held to account for what they have done.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Given the upcoming Prorogation and state opening of Parliament, I thought it would be helpful to return to the House to provide an update on the progress the Government have made to respond to the Humble Address of 4 February as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
As Members will know, the Government published the first tranche of material on 11 March. That first tranche primarily related to the aspects of the motion regarding Peter Mandelson’s appointment and his subsequent dismissal as ambassador, in addition to the details of his severance payment provided to him by the Foreign Office. Following the publication of the first tranche of material, we have been working at pace to lay a second tranche before the House. The House will recognise, given the breadth of the motion, that a very significant number of documents have been found to be in scope and that it is taking time to process them accordingly.
The Cabinet Office team responsible for the Government’s response to the Humble Address has been working through a large quantity of material, working closely with many officials across Whitehall, particularly in the Foreign Office. The team has been seeking to take an approach to sifting and publishing information that allows it to respond to the will of this House thoroughly but expeditiously, and in line with the approach taken by previous Governments in responding to Humble Addresses. This includes co-ordinating a number of requests to Government Departments to identify documents potentially in scope of the Humble Address, particularly electronic communications and the minutes of meetings between individuals and Peter Mandelson. This is the section of the motion that has the broadest scope.
As Members will have seen from the first tranche, the Government cannot publish certain details, such as the names of junior officials, personal information or legally privileged information. Separately, in line with the process agreed by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations. As colleagues will appreciate, both those processes require detailed consideration. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its constructive engagement in that process, which we recognise has constituted significant additional work on top of its existing responsibilities. As I have set out previously, the Cabinet Office has also been working with the Metropolitan police to avoid prejudicing a live police investigation.
I can confirm that by the end of today, the Cabinet Office will have passed to the ISC all the material it has processed as part of the Humble Address and judged to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This has amounted to over 300 individual documents. It includes a number that are relevant to the processes of Peter Mandelson’s security vetting, too. As I mentioned earlier, I am very grateful to the ISC for the important role it continues to play in the Humble Address process, and for the speed with which it is processing the documents.
I would like to reassure colleagues that Parliament will receive the second tranche of material as soon as possible following the state opening and the conclusion of the work of the ISC, and I will return to the House at that point. I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for taking this statement himself; it is good of him not to delegate. This was not his mess—that was the 2024 Budget—but I am afraid it is now his mess to clear up.
I have to ask: where are the documents? The Humble Address was nearly 12 weeks ago. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on that occasion the House asked for a huge range of things: the due diligence document that was passed to No. 10; the conflict of interest form; the material that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Peter Mandelson; papers for and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson; electronic communications; and so on. Where are they? Since February, the Government have asserted that they are working with urgency and that everything will be available very shortly, that they are working, in that least reassuring of Government phrases, “at pace”, and—today’s favourite—that the information will be available as soon as possible. That is, no doubt, as soon as possible after the local elections.
In the documents that have been released, what we appear to see is either an enormous cover-up or a very significant breakdown in the expected process of government. We have seen nothing from the Prime Minister, nothing from his chief of staff and nothing from Peter Mandelson himself; we have seen no minutes of meetings, no billets-doux, no annotations and no box returns. The official civil service guidance on this matter says explicitly:
“Keep submissions with ministers’ comments. If ministers write on a hard copy, keep the minister’s handwritten comments. Keep correspondence reporting ministers’ responses along with background provided to ministers in the medium in which they were created”.
We have seen none of this. This is either a cover-up or a terrible return to the days of sofa government under Tony Blair.
Simon Case told the Prime Minister that in order to complete due process, there had to be security clearance before he made the appointment, and a conflict of interest declaration had to be made by Peter Mandelson. To date, we have seen none of that information. I am pleased to hear the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister say that material associated with Mandelson’s vetting is now being handed to the ISC, but where is the conflict of interest form? I hope it is not the case that this is being disguised as personal information of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman said would not be disclosed, and I would be grateful if he could confirm that it is not.
I would also like the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to confirm that that declaration of interest form exists. There is no good reason why he cannot tell us whether it does. Indeed, the former Attorney General wrote the other day in the papers that there is no legal reason why the Government cannot tell us which documents are being retained by the Metropolitan police. There should be a catalogue of all documents that exist; even if the House cannot look at them, we should be allowed to know what is out there and what will come to us in due course. The titles of documents will themselves not prejudice a trial.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has today talked about the non-disclosure of personal information. I ask him again to tell us about the conflict of interest form and whether Peter Mandelson’s personal information is considered to be in scope of that ruling. Will he set out the Government’s precise approach to redactions vis-à-vis the documents that will be given to this House, rather than the ISC? It will be useful to understand his thinking.
On electronic communications, despite this being in the Humble Address on 4 February, I understand from the Cabinet Secretary, who wrote to me over the weekend, that there was no instruction to hand over non-corporate comms until 13 March—about five weeks after the Humble Address. Why this delay? Is the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confident that no material was deleted in that five-week period? How can he be sure?
I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm or deny whether the ISC release contains the information about Lord Mandelson’s interests. This is of specific concern to the House, given how Peter Mandelson may have behaved when he was ambassador in Washington and given the meetings that he may have taken the Prime Minister to.
It is time the Government come clean—not on their own terms or to their own timetable, but on the terms set down by the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman finally tell us a hard deadline for when these documents will be handed over?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, which I will take in turn. To the question of where the documents are, those in scope of the Humble Address are currently in one of three locations: first, with the Government waiting for the publication of the second tranche; secondly, with the Intelligence and Security Committee; and thirdly, with the Metropolitan police. We have sought to publish all those documents—those that the Government hold and those that the Intelligence and Security Committee are considering—in a combined bundle, in order to aid the House to see the documents in a chronological order. Otherwise, I suspect there would be questions about what documents were missing, subject to the conclusion of the Committee’s work.
I can confirm that documents that relate to Peter Mandelson’s security vetting have been passed to the Intelligence and Security Committee today, and that we intend to publish those as part of the second tranche, subject to discussions with the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I was asked specifically about the documents that have been given to the Metropolitan police. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been advised by the Metropolitan police that I am unable to list those documents, and so I will not seek to do so. He asked me about redactions policy; obviously the key redactions policy is in relation to information that the Government consider to be prejudicial to national security or international relations. That goes through the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration. If there is a disagreement between the Government and the Committee, there is a process of redactions hearings between them to resolve that.
As I mentioned in my statement, other redactions relate merely to information such as the names and contact details of junior officials, in line with established freedom of information policy as it relates to the publication of Humble Addresses.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The whole House came together around the Humble Address on the basis that Parliament had found its way forward to deal with the evidence around the appointment of Peter Mandelson. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee the House that no documents are being withheld? Around the time that it was reported that the Prime Minister had not been told that Peter Mandelson had failed his security vetting, there were civil servants who were seeking to withhold documents. Can he give an assurance that that is no longer the case?
Darren Jones
As has been alluded to at the Dispatch Box, there were documents that the Humble Address warranted to be published as part of that process. The Cabinet Office was very clear about that. It took some time to get access to some of those documents, specifically in relation to UKSV recommendations. That has now concluded and the documents are going through the Intelligence and Security Committee, as I set out in my statement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him did so at enormous personal cost. We must never lose sight of the fact that their bravery is the reason we are having this conversation at all.
The Prime Minister promised honesty, integrity and accountability. Instead, we have a tawdry saga of a political ally waved through despite serious security concerns, a senior civil servant forced out, and a Government who have descended into recrimination and infighting rather than dealing with the very serious issues the country faces. Parliament asked for transparency, and the public deserves answers. Every day this drags on, trust in our institutions erodes further.
Even though Lord Mandelson has stepped away from the House of Lords, will the Government bring in formal legislation to revoke his peerage? Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether the Government plan to bring in further legislation for much-needed reform of the other place? The deputy Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), asked in business questions on Thursday about potential further redactions made on grounds other than national security or international relations. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that there have been no redactions in what he said will be sent to the Committee by the end of today?
It has been reported that the Prime Minister is set to whip Labour MPs to oppose his referral to the Privileges Committee. Even Boris Johnson did not block his MPs from voting for scrutiny. Labour MPs must surely be given a free vote and not be forced into feeling like accomplices to a cover up. Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether Labour MPs will be whipped on tomorrow’s vote or not?
Darren Jones
It is not for the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to speak about whipping arrangements at the Dispatch Box. I will leave that to the Chief Whip and the usual channels. The hon. Lady asked me two questions about reform to the other place, in particular the removal of peerages. I can confirm that legislation will be introduced shortly to bring forward the proposals that I have talked about at the Dispatch Box. She asked me further questions about redactions policy; I refer to my previous answer on that question.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The pain of the Epstein victims sits heavy with all of us in this House because we expect the highest standards of all of us. The challenge with this incident is that it involves a convoluted process that raises difficult questions about Government vetting and appointments. Given that, can my right hon. Friend tell us when he expects the Adrian Fulford review, which is to identify whether any other cases of concern have come to light about how appointments have been made, to be completed?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise that question. The terms of reference have been confirmed with Adrian Fulford. That work has been started, and I expect it to complete in three to four weeks’ time.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his kind words about the hard work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He will recognise and want to reflect with the House that we cannot work any faster than the speed at which the documents are given to us by the Government; the last of them, as he said, is being given to us today. The process will not be complete by Prorogation, as perhaps it should have been.
I would like to raise two points of concern in what the Minister has said to us this afternoon. The first is about redaction. He has made it clear that the Government intend to redact for reasons beyond the Humble Address exemption related to international relations and national security; he has described that as the names of junior officials, personal information or legally privileged information. On Thursday, I put it to the Leader of the House that the Government document describing their approach to redactions is substantially wider than that. It says:
“It may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including”—
but of course not limited to—
“commercially sensitive information.”
Will the Minister please, either today or in writing, explain clearly on what grounds the Government intend to redact these documents? If, as I suspect, some of the grounds on which the Government propose to redact are beyond the scope of the Humble Address, will he confirm that the Government must return to this House and seek consent so to do?
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, my final point is also about redaction. The Minister has said in his statement that the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations. As he knows, in accordance with the process agreed, it will be for the Intelligence and Security Committee to determine those questions, not the Government—won’t it?
Darren Jones
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question and confirm that the Government share the view that it is not the fault of the Intelligence and Security Committee that documents are not yet ready to be published; we hope that they will be ready shortly after the state opening of Parliament.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about redactions policy. I refer him to my earlier answer, but he did ask me some specific questions; I commit to seeking further advice on those and returning to the Dispatch Box. I hope that he and the House know that my intention, from the beginning of when I was asked to do this process, has been to ensure proper transparency with Parliament, which I and the Government take very seriously. If there is any suggestion otherwise, I will answer questions about that here at the Dispatch Box.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s second question has fallen out of my mind.
Sir Jeremy Wright
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was about whether the Minister would confirm that it will be the ISC that determines redactions on the basis of international relations and national security.
Darren Jones
I can confirm that the Government’s agreed process with the Committee stands.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. I am interested in the costs. We know about the £75,000 payout, and obviously a police inquiry is incredibly costly. There are the costs to his Department in complying with the Humble Address. Will he publish the costs? Will he also publish the costs in relation to Global Counsel? Its clients included Palantir, with which the Government have £800 million-worth of contracts. Will he publish how much money Global Counsel had been able to procure from the Government for being able to advance Palantir’s business interests at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment?
Darren Jones
My best answer is to refer my hon. Friend to the contracts finder tool, which publishes all public procurement contracts and their value. In relation to questions of the internal cost of processing the Humble Address, I cannot commit to give a round number; essentially it involves lots of hours of civil servants’ time across Government. They are working very hard to be able to publish these documents as quickly as possible.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
May I, through the right hon. Gentleman, thank the officials in the Cabinet Office who have assisted me in the work that I have been doing in this area as Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee? He will know that not all Government communications are carried on Government devices. Will he, for the benefit of the House, explain what is being done and what can be done to secure and get into the right domain correspondence between the principal players who have used their personal devices, rather than their Government devices? Will he also assure the House that when he and his colleagues do the sift as to who sees what and when, parliamentary privilege and all that that means is still absolutely at the heart of the decisions that he and his officials take?
Darren Jones
The tranche of documents will be published in the normal way to ensure that parliamentary privilege is attached to those documents and any debate that we subsequently have in relation to them. The hon. Gentleman asked me questions about personal devices and personal communications channels, which we refer to as “non-corporate communications channels” or “NCCCs” in the documents that we have published. I confirm that all relevant stakeholders who had to consider submissions to the Humble Address process have been told that that includes their personal devices and personal channels as well as any Government-owned devices and Government channels. I thank him again for his work and confirm to the House that he, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, kindly agreed to look at documents given to the Metropolitan police in relation to the police investigation so that we had a way—albeit a closed way—of showing due process and transparency to the House in relation to the Humble Address.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Further to the security vetting issue in relation to Peter Mandelson, last week in the Chamber I asked questions—including to the Minister and through a point of order to the Speaker —three times, but I have not had an answer, so I would really appreciate an answer. At the point at which the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney was involved in the appointment of Mandelson, did he himself have security vetting? On what date was Morgan McSweeney granted developed vetting clearance? Prior to that date, did Morgan McSweeney ever handle documents for which he would have required developed vetting clearance? I asked that three times in the Chamber but have not had an answer. I would be really grateful if the Minister could answer.
Darren Jones
The House will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual applications of policy in relation to private individuals who are no longer employed by the Government, but I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that all appropriate processes were followed.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In respect of the Humble Address, perhaps contrary to what was suggested earlier, the House agreed to it only on the basis that Labour MPs were about to rebel against the position that the Government had adopted. Tomorrow, something similar may arise in respect of a potential referral of the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee. Surely the Chief Secretary has an opinion as to whether his Members behind him would want to have a free vote in respect of whether the Prime Minister has misled the House.
Darren Jones
I always enjoy the right hon. Gentleman’s interventions, but that did not pertain to the statement before us. [Interruption.]
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]. Are we all finished? I thank the Chief Secretary for returning to the House again on this issue. Will he reiterate how due process for the conducting of security vetting before appointments are announced will change as a result of this affair?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As has been said at the Dispatch Box before, it was previously due process that for the appointments of ambassadors and direct ministerial appointments, vetting took place after the announcement and before the commencement of the contract for employment. Given the problems that have been shown to be applicable to these processes, that has now changed.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
A referral to the Privileges Committee has always been considered a House matter—a matter for the individual judgment of Members of Parliament. It would be an abomination if it were to be whipped by either side, wouldn’t it?
Darren Jones
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Could my right hon. Friend the Minister please confirm whether any documents that were previously in the scope of the Humble Address have been deemed no longer to be within its scope due to the application of litigation privilege in respect of the dismissal of Olly Robbins?
Darren Jones
I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question, but I commit myself to taking it away.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I am just a humble Member of this House, and it is our job to hold the Government to account. It was unclear from the Minister’s first response what the process will be, so could he clarify again whether, if the ISC members disagree with the Government, that matter will be brought back to the House for a decision? I do not believe it is right for the Government to judge and mark their own homework.
Darren Jones
I refer to my previous answer about standing by the commitment made between the Government and the Committee. There is an established process for any disagreement through a redactions hearing.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The worst outcome from this process is that a police investigation is compromised by materials making their way into the public domain before time. While Opposition MPs seek to rush this process through, can the Chief Secretary confirm that no documents of interest will be put in the public domain until they have been cleared by the Met police? [Interruption.] If Opposition Members want to know how Labour voters are going to vote tomorrow, they just need to join the Labour party.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend asks an important question. As has been said before, at the heart of this entire scandal are the victims of the most heinous crimes who have yet to see any justice whatsoever, apart from this becoming part of big political debates here in the UK and in other countries. That is why the Government have been absolutely committed to supporting the Metropolitan police in its criminal investigation. We continue to do so, and we would not do anything to undermine that process because the victims have to come first.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. He said that,
“in line with the process agreed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations.”
That sentence is correct, but it implies that this is a Government process that the ISC has acceded to, and that is not quite right. Rather, the Government propose redactions and the ISC directs that redactions be made on the basis that full publication would be prejudicial to national security or international relations. This matters because we want to maintain trust in the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member. Does the Chief Secretary accept that the Government propose redactions and that the ISC considers them and directs which ones should be made?
Darren Jones
The hon. Gentleman sets out the process that has been agreed between the Committee and the Government and, as I have said to other members of the Committee, that process stands.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
This has been a very damaging issue. Peter Mandelson should clearly never have been made ambassador, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister has rightly apologised. There are, however, lessons to be learned already before the end of this Humble Address process. Can the Minister confirm that his Department has already started learning and implementing those lessons?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right. There is a whole series of processes that this Government inherited as the status quo, including the due process from the previous Administration that was used in the past for other political appointments and direct ministerial appointments. This episode has shown that those processes needed to be updated, and the Government are working on modernising those rules and will bring those reforms to the House in due course.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Is there any truth in the claims that the delay in the Government adhering to the Humble Address motion is because Cabinet Ministers are refusing to hand over their mobile phones because of the messages between them and Mandelson that they contain, and the embarrassment that that will cause them?
Darren Jones
Cabinet Ministers have received instructions from the Cabinet Office about the declaration of the information that they hold on either corporate or personal communications channels, and they have all complied with that direction.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
With regard to the release of these Mandelson documents, there is genuine concern about what may be redacted and what may not. Given the ongoing dispute as to the pressure brought to bear between No. 10 and the Foreign Office, can the Minister confirm that nothing will be redacted with regard to pressure brought to bear on the Foreign Office about the vetting process?
Darren Jones
Redactions are done in line with the policy I set out previously.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I politely say that the Minister’s overly sincere, butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-his-mouth act is beginning to wear thin—the way he suggests that the process he is going through has not put a foot wrong. He has repeatedly failed to answer questions that I put to him with candour around Mandelson, despite the fact that this evening we will pass a Bill that makes it law for Ministers to answer questions.
Can I follow up on the questions around mobile phones? Ministers will be asked whether they have any communications left on their personal phones. Are they also being asked to tell you, and will we be told, if those messages have disappeared because they have disappearing messages on their phones?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Let us keep our questions short and omit the word “you” because I am not responding.
Darren Jones
I am sorry that the hon. Member is not happy with my performance—I will try harder in future. In relation to his question, I refer him to my previous answer.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
What is the Department’s internal deadline for concluding the release of the Mandelson files? If there is an internal deadline, who will be held accountable if the Department fails to meet it?
Darren Jones
The Department has now handed over all the final documents that it needs to hand over to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Once that process is able to conclude, we will publish the second tranche shortly after that.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
The truth of the matter is when the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister says that process was followed to appoint a diplomat, a professional diplomat would not have been appointed if they had taken dodgy loans, tried to flog passports and leaked to the Chinese and the Russians, so that was not the case. The motion on the Humble Address got through this House because it said that all documents would be handed to the ISC, because that is the most secure place for them to go. It is not in the gift of the Government not to hand this over—that was the view of the House. This is not being done in good faith. When will all these documents be given to the ISC, which was exactly what this House said should be done?
Darren Jones
I answered that question in my opening statement. All final documents relevant to the ISC process are being handed over today.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Today’s statement is interesting, but we need to remember how we got here in the first place: the Prime Minister is facing allegations that he misled the House about the process by which an individual was appointed who had well-documented associations with a convicted paedophile and human trafficker. The Chief Secretary said yesterday that the Committee of Privileges is reserved for the most serious allegations. Does he recognise how that belittles what has been suffered by the victims and survivors?
Darren Jones
I am not quite clear what the question was in relation to the Humble Address. In relation to the Committee of Privileges motion before the House tomorrow, I refer to my previous answer.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Last week, I asked the Prime Minister if he would publish his decision note on the box note given to him on 11 November from Simon Case. The Prime Minister said he could not remember the answer in that box note, and in the debate last week, the Minister himself said that redactions are only in black. The decision response on the box note has been left blank. Was there a decision, why has it not been published and will the Minister now undertake to publish the decision on that request from Simon Case, because this House and I believe that it will be fundamental to see whether the Prime Minister is actually telling the truth?
Darren Jones
I am happy to reconfirm that all redactions are in black in the documents that are being published in the Humble Address tranches. All documents that the Government hold in relation to that period of time have been published in the first tranche. Of course, decisions are communicated sometimes orally and sometimes in writing. The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically about Simon Case’s advice and the process that was followed subsequently. I refer him to the letter published this afternoon from the previous Cabinet Secretary, who confirmed to the Prime Minister that due process had been followed.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
How does the Prime Minister’s promise of delivering honesty, integrity and accountability reconcile with the potential blocking of a motion to the Committee of Privileges? If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is not willing to comment on the Government’s voting intentions tomorrow, will he commit to accountability by ensuring that he votes in favour for it being referred to the Committee?
Darren Jones
I am not sure that I should declare my voting intention from the Dispatch Box, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Government are keen to emphasise their transparency in the course of dealing with the Humble Address requests and demands, so here is an opportunity to put that to the test. Last Tuesday, I put down a question for written answer by the Prime Minister:
“To ask the Prime Minister who first suggested to him that Peter Mandelson should be appointed as Ambassador to the United States.”
It was accepted and published as such by the Table Office. Subsequently, it has been transferred to the Cabinet Office, for which he has responsibility. It is due to be answered tomorrow. Will the Minister give the answer to that question tomorrow, on time and substantively?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s responsibilities are just growing and growing!
Darren Jones
I am deeply grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always ensure that I honour parliamentary questions in a timely fashion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement— he is a decent and honourable man. In phone calls to my office only this morning, Strangford constituents have expressed their dismay about Government cover-ups. Even my constituents’ bank account comings and goings are questioned, and when they make withdrawals, they are asked where their money is from and what it is for. There is a perception out there that there is one rule for the Government of the day and another for everyone else. How can the Minister begin to show people that we are all accountable to scrutiny?
Darren Jones
The Humble Address is an example of Parliament holding the Government to account, and of the Government being accountable to Parliament.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Could the Chief Secretary confirm that responses to submissions are written on the paper of the submissions, and not on Post-it notes?
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, in which he said that
“the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations.”
My question is: in whose judgment? Ultimately, is that the judgment of an official or of a Minister? If it is that of a Minister, which one?
Darren Jones
In the first instance, officials make those judgments and refer those requests to the Intelligence and Security Committee, where parliamentarians take a view.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
One of the glaring omissions in the first release of documentation was the Prime Minister’s response to his box notes about the proposed appointment of Peter Mandelson. The Government have now had three months to think about it. Will the Minister set out whether there is any reason why those documents will not be part of the next release?
Darren Jones
All the documents that the Government hold in relation to the initial appointment and subsequent dismissal have been published in the first tranche, and all subsequent relevant documents will be published in the second.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
When he was asked on 20 April why there is no record of his and Peter Mandelson’s meeting with Palantir in Washington, the Prime Minister said:
“That was a routine meeting in the course of a visit I was on in the US.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 62.]
Does the Minister agree that that was a routine meeting, and if so, where is the record of it, as required by the ministerial code?
Darren Jones
As the Prime Minister said, that was part of a series of visits that he was undertaking. It is of course proper that closed-door meetings between Ministers and stakeholders are attended by officials, minuted and reported in the normal way, but when visits are undertaken, they are managed differently. This was no secret to anyone; photos were taken and published on the Government’s social media account.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster has asked today and previously, as have other Conservative Members, about the existence or not of a declaration of interests form for Mandelson. Does that form exist?
Darren Jones
All relevant documents will be published in the normal way.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Minister says that 300 documents have now been shared with the ISC, but how many are left to be processed? More importantly, what has the process been in ascertaining a document’s relevance, and who decides whether a document is important?
Darren Jones
The Cabinet Office has now processed all the documents ready for the second tranche. In relation to the Intelligence and Security Committee, those final documents have been sent or will be sent today. In relation to who decides whether a document is referred to the Committee, that is based on officials screening each document to see whether they engage international relations or national security, and whether they warrant a redaction request.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked how the Government intend to vote tomorrow, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said that he would not answer, because the question did not pertain to the motion before us. He then used that as a justification for not answering the questions of numerous Opposition Members. How are we supposed to get an answer from a Minister when they believe themselves to be not only a member of the Cabinet, but the Speaker, or perhaps a Deputy Speaker, of the House of Commons?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The right hon. Member has got his point on the record. Unfortunately, I am not responsible for the content of Ministers’ speeches, let alone the answers—if only we were. We do not want to continue this debate, but that point is, no doubt, now on the record.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On this afternoon’s carry-over motion on the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, over the weekend, the Government briefed journalists that they would bring forward amendments to the Bill in order to give Members reassurance that adequate protection would be given to veterans. However, this morning, no Government amendments appeared on the amendment paper. Is there anything that His Majesty’s Opposition can do to require the Government to publish those amendments in advance of this afternoon’s debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Chair has no power to compel the Government to produce amendments earlier than the tabling deadline set out in the Standing Orders. However, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s comments. When we consider the carry-over motion later—there is some time for that—he will have a chance to raise the matter with the Secretary of State, who will no doubt be back in the Chamber.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to admit that I am confused, which is not unusual. I seek your guidance. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said that documents have been published in the first tranche relating to the box note issued to the Prime Minister on 11 November by Simon Case. I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister whether that had been redacted, and he said to me that redactions are in black. The Prime Minister’s decision box is blank. I have asked three times now; why is there no response, and why has that not been published? No Minister has answered that for me. My question to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is: where can I go to get an answer?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member is a very professional Member of Parliament, and will no doubt know which other avenues he can take to get the answer. Unfortunately, I am not responsible for the answers that Ministers give here in the Chamber, but he will no doubt use every opportunity to hold the Minister to account.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over a number of weeks, I have been raising the issue of Labour Together and its link with the agency APCO Worldwide. APCO prepared a report for Labour Together that smeared journalists. I called for an inquiry into Labour Together. A number of hon. Members then submitted subject access requests to both Labour Together and APCO. Labour Together has gone for an extension, and the three-month period should be up shortly, but a number of us received responses from APCO. I raised this in the House; the responses were heavily redacted, but they demonstrated that APCO was collecting information on hon. Members of Parliament. Last week, a whistleblower—this is before the London Court of International Arbitration at the moment—confirmed that APCO had instructed one of the freelance employees involved in the investigations to destroy materials related to the investigation, and evidence. May I request again that Members on the Treasury Bench take back to the Prime Minister that we need a full, independent inquiry on the role that Labour Together, and APCO in particular, has played?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. The Government’s decision on whether to undertake an inquiry on the subject is not a matter for the Chair. However, his comments will have been heard by the Front-Bench team, and they will take action, if they wish to.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a rather more mundane point of order. Last Thursday, my website, provided by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was compromised. Malicious links were inserted, redirecting users to south-east Asian gambling websites. I guess it could be worse. We took the site down immediately. It was restored, but then came under a sustained distributed denial of service attack traceable to China. In just 24 hours, the site was hit with 142 million requests, consuming nearly 800 gigabytes of data. This is not a minor nuisance; it is direct interference with a Member of Parliament carrying out his duties. What are the House and the House authorities doing to prevent these kinds of attacks on Members’ websites, and to help MPs protect themselves against interference by a foreign state?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order, and for raising this very serious matter. It would not be appropriate to discuss publicly the details of preventive action, and of how Members are supported to protect themselves against these kinds of cyber-threats. If Members would like security advice on how to make personal accounts and devices more resilient, they should contact the Parliamentary Security Department. For matters relating to parliamentary accounts or equipment, Members should contact the Parliamentary Digital Service through the PDS service desk.
Bills Presented
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 167 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 270 / Noes: 170 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 269 / Noes: 170 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 171 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 2
Areas of competence
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords Amendment 2 but proposes Amendment (a) to the Lords Amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 36, 90 and 155, insists on its amendments 155A to 155F to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement with Amendment 155, and proposes further Amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 37 and 91, does not insist on its amendment 37A in lieu, and proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of those amendments.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 94B and 94C.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 but proposes Amendments (a) to (h) to the Bill in lieu of those amendments.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak once again on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am pleased that we have worked constructively throughout the Bill’s passage to ensure that the Bill is as strong as possible. We have engaged in good faith with Members from across the House and incorporated their feedback. With that, I turn to the amendments that remain in scope for ping-pong.
Lords amendment 2 seeks to add “rural affairs” as a distinct area of competence in clause 2 of the Bill. As I have said before, there is no difference in policy intent here; the Government’s position remains that those matters are captured in the existing areas of competence. Nevertheless, we recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed by noble Lords in the other place. As we extend devolution beyond the predominately urban centres of England, it is right that strategic authorities look to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wide range of geographies, whether urban, rural or coastal. The Government are therefore prepared to accept the addition of “rural affairs” and “coastal communities” to the list of subjects included in the areas of competence.
Hon. Members will know that the Government’s objective is for every part of England to benefit from devolution, and that we want this to be fundamentally a bottom-up process. For the benefit of the House, I will repeat the Government’s commitment not to commence the ministerial powers of direction to establish non-mayoral strategic authorities or expand existing strategic authorities without local consent for a period of two years following Royal Assent. This is the approach that we have taken in conversation and engagement with local authorities in order to form foundation strategic authorities, and this is the approach that we continue to take. At the same time, we have listened carefully to concerns raised by some in this House and in the other place about the backstop powers set out in schedule 1. We therefore propose removing the power for the Secretary of State to establish a mayor in an area without local consent.
On brownfield land, the Government fully agree on the importance of prioritising the development of brownfield land. As previous stated, planning policies and decisions are, and should be made, under the national planning policy framework. It remains the right place to set clear expectations on how and where developments should come forward. I have previously set out that imposing a legal requirement in the Bill would risk undermining effective plan-making and local flexibility in supporting sustainable development. The Government consider the amendment passed by the other place to be impractical, as it would undermine effective plan-making, limit consideration of local circumstances, and create inconsistency between the requirements for spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities, and those prepared by upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities. I therefore invite hon. Members to reject the amendment in lieu on brownfield land.
Let me turn to the issue of local authority governance arrangements. We remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance—in particular, the leader and cabinet model—provide the clearest and most transparent decision-making in local government. We continue to believe that our approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance across England’s local authorities and respecting local democratic mandates and decisions where a committee-run council has adopted its governance model more recently. We have got the balance right; we have listened and adapted, and we do not intend to go further. I invite hon. Members to reject the Lords amendment.
I recognise the strength of feeling about the role of town and parish councils in neighbourhood governance. The Government have considered Lords amendments 37 and 91 carefully, and we cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the principles of autonomy and localism. The creation of new parish councils is for local authorities to decide on, based on their community’s needs. Central Government should not intervene and direct that any particular model of neighbourhood governance is right for a place.
However, we have proposed a further amendment, building on our previous commitments. The new change requires local authorities to engage with town and parish councils where appropriate regarding parish representation under neighbourhood governance arrangements. That makes it clear that parish councils, where they exist, have an important role to play in neighbourhood governance. Again, we absolutely recognise the role of town and parish councils—I have made that point consistently throughout the passage of the Bill. We believe that our amendment strikes the right balance, alongside our commitments to reviewing and updating the guidance on community governance reviews, and to publishing a neighbourhood governance framework.
While I thank my noble colleagues for their insightful comments on the “agent of change” principle, I continue to hold that the most effective way to ensure the proper consideration of that principle is by strengthening existing mechanisms. National planning policy is not wishy-washy, as some have suggested. The framework carries significant weight in the planning system, and we are already in the most ambitious period of planning reform for a decade. I recognise the concerns that have been raised with me throughout this debate, and it is clear that the principle is not being effectively implemented. We already propose updating policy to address these issues, and I have committed to reviewing the guidance, in order to help disseminate best practice. Again, there is no fundamental difference in the policy intent; we are talking about the mechanism for taking it forward. We believe that the changes that we have in train will ensure that important businesses are protected from the effects of new development. With that, I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.
The Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny in ping-pong so far, and we are incredibly grateful. We are pleased to be able to offer concessions on rural affairs, coastal communities, the power to direct a mayor, and town and parish councils. However, the Government are not prepared to accept any of the other Lords amendments that we have discussed today—not because there is fundamentally a difference in policy, but because we are thinking about the most effective mechanism for ensuring that these policies bite. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position and accept the Government’s concessions.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Despite the Minister’s centralising zeal, I detect a slight weariness on her part as we once again go toe to toe on Lords amendments. It remains the position of the Opposition that the Government are bringing forward in this Bill overall a set of centralising measures that are fundamentally about extending control from Whitehall into our town halls. Those measures come from a Government who have a record of imposing additional cost and responsibilities on our local authorities, as we hear continually from local government leaders.
It is welcome to hear from the Minister that there has been additional recognition from the Government of the differences that exist in our rural and coastal communities—I do have some coastline in my constituency, but I do not think Ruislip lido was what we had in mind when making the argument. It is clear that the needs of our rural and coastal communities, and the potential that they offer, are often different from what we see in urban and suburban areas, so we will not be pushing for a further vote on the matter of extending the recognition of rural affairs.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The point that my hon. Friend is making is a very accurate description of what is happening in my local area of Bexley, where developers are trying to argue that greenfield sites are now ripe for development because of the Government’s planning changes. Does he share my concern that the Government are continuing to try to barge those changes through this House, and that both Reform and Labour support the Government’s position on the grey belt, which will have a detrimental effect on our local community and our natural environment?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People in Old Bexley and Sidcup—just like those in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and, indeed, in many of the constituencies that are represented by Conservative Members—are concerned about a Reform party that is championing tearing up the green belt across our capital in pursuit of housing targets, and about the ambiguity that has been created by the Government’s position on grey-belt land. That description seems to be applied to any site on which a developer can argue that housing could be delivered because it has had some previous use. That level of ambiguity is another one of the reasons why we are keen to make the very strong case for brownfield being enshrined as the priority, and for the Government to accept that case.
I will now turn briefly to the Lords amendments dealing with the leader and cabinet model of local government. To be clear, as an Opposition, we do not have a strong view about what governance arrangements town halls should choose. Many of us will have had experience under the committee system or under the leader and cabinet model, some with executive mayors. However, the reason why we intend to push the Government on this issue is that it once again represents their centralising tendency—a view in Whitehall that the Government know best what structures should be used. I happen to agree with Ministers that the leader and cabinet model is the most effective and efficient model, but it is not for us to tell locally elected officials and councillors what arrangements they should make.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and congratulate him on his efforts yesterday. I am sure we are both struggling to bob in the Chamber this afternoon.
I agree with the shadow Minister about the cabinet model for local councils. I am sure he agrees that one of the advantages of that model is that there are fewer meetings, which makes being a councillor more accessible for those who have jobs and childcare commitments and means that we do not just rely on councillors who are perhaps retired. On his point about the Government’s approach to local authorities, does he agree that one good thing that this Government have done is ensure multi-year funding for local councils? When I was a councillor in Harlow—I got my mention of Harlow in—it was a real challenge for the opposition to do its shadow budgets and for the administration to do its budgets.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It would be interesting to know the timings of the shadow Minister’s marathon.
David Simmonds
Suffice it to say that I was significantly slower than the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), whose outstanding efforts will, I am sure, leave him a little bit sore when bobbing today.
The hon. Member will know the benefits of an effective leader and cabinet model, because he has a good Conservative local authority led by Councillor Dan Swords, and the work of Councillor Dan Swords and his team has driven forward the improvements Harlow has been able to enjoy over many years.
David Simmonds
I am going to make a little progress, if I may.
The key point is to ensure that our local authorities can set out their governance arrangements in a way that reflects the needs of their community. The Government have already accepted the argument that we need to ensure a degree of nuance in the Bill for rural and coastal communities, and this is another example of exactly that argument.
On parish governance, I know we do not all have parish councils in our local areas, but they are a significant feature of civic life across the country and many of them run important local facilities such as leisure centres and car parks. It is clearly important to ensure that their role is enshrined, especially at a time when this Government’s wider agenda of local government reorganisation is leading to a significant transfer of services to parish councils from districts due to be abolished, so it is welcome that the Government are moving forward on that.
On the final two groups of amendments we are debating this afternoon, the so-called agent of change principle is the idea that a new arrival in a community should bear the cost of consequent changes on its gaining planning consent: if somebody opens a new music venue or builds a new residential development, that should not be at the expense of existing and long-established uses. Many of us as constituency MPs have had experience of when, for example, a property developer creates a new residential development and seeks to close down an existing venue such as a local pub—I had an example to do with a bus garage—because they are concerned about the impact it would have. Clearly those established uses with prior consent need to have a degree of priority, and that has already found its way into law in Scotland. We believe that it is reasonable to recommend that the Government take this forward and ensure that those existing uses have sufficient protection in the Bill that they are not subject to the unfair impact of new and subsequent arrivals seeking to pass the costs of mitigating the consequences of their activity on to them.
Finally, Lords amendment 98 is about the Secretary of State’s powers on changes to strategic authorities. It was hotly contested as the Bill made its way through Committee that it contains chapters and chapters of new powers for the Secretary of State to direct mayors or combined authorities, which very much speaks to the point that this is centralising legislation. While it introduces a new layer of local government, it none the less results in central Government having significantly more powers to levy a precept, to create a new housing development, to create zoning to ensure development takes place, and to bring together groups of local authorities and assume some of their responsibilities. All of those now fall much more strongly within the purview of the Secretary of State issuing directions from Whitehall about how things should happen locally.
It remains the Opposition’s position that, as supporters of and believers in devolution, we should not simply pay lip service to it in the title of the Bill, but ensure that those measures have the consent and support of the locally elected politicians whose mandate gives them the power to make those decisions on behalf of their community. We remain determined to push ahead in favour of that principle of consent and ensure that local communities continue to have champions who speak up for them in this Chamber.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
In my comments, I will address the agent of change principle. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music, and this has long been on our agenda. The shadow Minister got the gist of this right when saying that it is about existing or long-standing venues—music venues and nightclubs, in particular—having to bat back legal challenges from residents of any new build residential property, but primarily apartments. We have had examples of cases, such as Alphabet and the Moth club, where there have been legal costs of £50,000 or more from having to take on new developments that are challenging their ongoing operations.
I encountered a case of this kind in my constituency, which we had to fight in the planning committee. An organisation called Music and Arts Production provides music and arts education in its building for young people who have been excluded from school and who would otherwise become NEET—not in education, employment or training—but who are thus kept within the education system. One of its main sources of funding is Cosmic Slop, an event that raises a significant amount on Saturday nights.
There was to be heavy residential development in the area in the form of a new block of flats in Mabgate, opposite the MAP building. The problem was that there would be no sound protection or mitigation; in its local plan, Leeds had not mapped music venues or nightclubs. I received thousands of emails about the planning application from as far away as New York. We had to have significant discussions with the planning department and councillors to ensure that the necessary stipulations were made for noise reduction, and to ensure that the new residents could not, in effect, close down the club night, because if that happened MAP would have to close as well, and all those young people would become NEET.
I sympathise with the Ministers dealing with this matter, because throughout the process the national planning policy framework, on a non-statutory basis, has forced local authorities to take such action. I think we should consider ways of addressing this issue through secondary legislation and the local planning process, because at present neither the Bill nor the NPPF protects venues adequately. I know that, like mine, the Minister’s constituency contains many music venues and nightclubs, and she obviously cares deeply about such venues. I hope she will reassure me that the Government will look at the agent of change principle and ensure that, both locally and nationally, the relevant protections are available so that further pressures are not put on those venues. Nightclubs in particular are already suffering as a result of the business rates increases and other recent cost pressures, and the additional costs of having to fight developers will eventually push them out of existence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision not to insist on their disagreement with Lords amendment 2, which proposes the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences for strategic authorities.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Too often, rural communities such as mine in Wiltshire have been overlooked by successive Governments and treated as an afterthought rather than as places with distinct needs, challenges and enormous potential. Decisions are far too often made on urban assumptions, leaving rural areas struggling with weak transport and fewer services. Does my hon. Friend agree that by embedding rural affairs at the heart of strategic authorities, the Lords amendment will ensure that rural communities are no longer overlooked or left behind?
Zöe Franklin
My hon. Friend is right. We have fought for the amendment consistently because rural communities are indeed overlooked too often, and it would put them at the heart of the Bill.
As I was saying, we support Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which adds coastal communities to the list of strategic competences, so I am grateful to the Secretary of State for tabling it. Together, the changes ensure that rural and coastal areas are explicitly recognised in the framework of strategic authorities and will be taken into account when powers, funding and responsibilities are devolved. The changes ensure that such areas are explicitly recognised in all decision making.
As my hon. Friend says, rural and coastal communities have too often felt overlooked, and their needs really need to be considered properly in the devolution process. We Liberal Democrats have long championed these communities, and many of my hon. Friends in this Chamber represent rural and coastal areas. We really welcome the constructive approach that the Government have taken in working with us, and I will continue to press for that spirit of collaboration as this Bill is implemented and, indeed, when further legislation on local government is introduced after the King’s Speech.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Many people in my constituency are very nervous about how local government reorganisation will impact them, and they worry that it could lead to a top-down style of devolution, which entirely misses the point of making decisions locally. The Government’s backing down on Lords amendment 2 will provide some reassurance to rural and coastal communities, like those in my patch, that the governance of rural and coastal affairs will be meaningfully devolved to local leaders. Will my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the Government’s acceptance of the Liberal Democrats’ calls to add both rural and coastal affairs as competences required of a strategic mayoral authority following LGR?
Zöe Franklin
I am happy to thank the Government for agreeing to put that on the face of the Bill.
I turn now to the issue of brownfield development. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches continue to believe that development must follow a clear principle of brownfield first—not green belt by default, and certainly not the vague concept of grey belt. From experience in my constituency, I know how important that principle is in practice. Brownfield first is not an abstract planning preference; it is how we protect the precious green spaces that communities value most.
Across Guildford, we have brownfield sites that currently cannot be developed because of severe flooding constraints. With the right flood alleviation investment, including support from the Government, these sites could come forward for housing and regeneration; without that support, pressure inevitably shifts on to surrounding green spaces. Ministers have talked a lot about embedding environmental considerations across their programme, but it is difficult to reconcile that with continued resistance to practical, deliverable measures. If we are serious about sustainable growth, we must support councils to reuse land responsibly, not force them to make false choices between meeting housing need and protecting the environment.
I set out my party’s position on local authority governance last week, but as the Government are again seeking to reject the Lords amendment on this issue, it bears repeating. We Liberal Democrats do not believe that compelling local authorities to change governance arrangements that were chosen democratically by the communities they serve is devolution; that is direction from central Government, dressed up as localism. Ministers are demanding that councils give up systems that work for them—not because local people have called for change, but because Whitehall prefers a different model. That fundamentally undermines the principle that this Bill claims to advocate. Devolution is about trust, and devolution without choice is not devolution at all.
We continue to differ from the Government on whether this Bill really does deliver devolution, but I hope that Ministers will see today not as the end of the conversation but as the beginning of a more ambitious programme, building on what I imagine will be set out in the King’s Speech. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches stand ready and look forward to working constructively with the Government to achieve real devolution.
Local government is the bedrock of our democracy. It shapes the daily lives of our constituents, often more directly than this House does. If we are serious about renewing trust in our democratic institutions, we must start there—by trusting communities, respecting their choices and giving them a real voice over the decisions that affect their lives. This is the test of true devolution, and it is one that we still must strive to meet.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I encourage Members to ensure that their contributions are linked to the amendments that are in front of us.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I welcome the Government amendment to include a competence covering coastal communities, in addition to the existing Lords amendments on rural areas. As many Members have already mentioned, coastal communities have lagged behind the rest of the country when it comes to economic growth since the great financial crash. Our constituents have more physical and mental health needs, lower life expectancy and higher rates of major diseases, and they are generally older. On average, they have lower educational attainment and higher rates of school absences, and once they enter the workforce, they are paid less. Our coastal towns are also more likely than non-coastal towns to suffer from high levels of deprivation. Coastal towns face unique economic pressures, including seasonal economies, struggling industries such as fishing and hospitality, and acute housing crises caused by the spread of short-term holiday lets and a lack of social housing.
Connectivity is also a major issue for our constituents. Along with a lack of quality public transport and less broadband availability, our constituents are at the forefront of the impact of the climate crisis and the sewage scandal. Renewing our coastal towns and their local economies will be crucial to ensuring that all parts of the country share in the national renewal that the Government are aiming to bring. That is why this amendment is so important. I hope that the Government will be clear in their expectations of what metro mayors with responsibility for coastal communities should do. There needs to be a strong economic focus, with an understanding of how public services and infrastructure underpin the ability for a community to prosper. Can the Minister confirm that one of the commissioners will have to have responsibility for coastal communities, if a metro mayoral area has a coast?
Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will discuss with colleagues on the Treasury Bench how an economic strategy for the coast might be developed through the designation of a coastal economic area. That would complement the new competences outlined in this Bill to ensure not only that our national strategic priorities for growth reach the communities that could benefit from that investment, but that we can contribute to the economic health of the nation.
Will my hon. Friend consider some of the perhaps unintended consequences of the local government reorganisation planned for the coming years? I am very much in favour of unitarisation, not only for efficiency, but for the ability for places like mine to come together to develop a strategic vision for the wider economy and society of east Kent. However, research I have commissioned suggests that there may be unintended consequences for coastal towns from the local government reorganisation as planned. There are 33 coastal towns and cities with a council’s main office, town hall or headquarters within their boundaries. Some 24 of those are going through the local government reorganisation process, and 22 have a proposal or multiple proposals that could result in their being dissolved in their current structure and merged with other councils into a larger unitary that covers a bigger area. If that happens, the new unitary will need to decide where they have their headquarters.
Town halls in coastal towns or cities are at a particularly high risk of relocation because of their often peripheral location, their relative lack of proximity to the new, larger constituent population, their weaker transport links and other issues such as flood risk. Those relocations would have a detrimental impact on local economies, at a time when many of those 22 coastal towns and cities are already struggling. They would also lead to the those places being more cut off from public leadership, increasing that left-behind feeling. I remind the House that some of those high-risk areas include Clacton-on-Sea, Sittingbourne, Margate, Blackpool, Cromer, Grimsby, Southend-on-Sea and Eastbourne. It ends up being a list of exactly the kind of places that we should be helping, so mitigations should be put in place for precisely that.
I will also refer to the parish and town council amendments as outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) said that there was a commitment to
“hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working”—[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 250.]
into the new governance proposals. It is a shame, however, that parish and town councils are designated only to be important local partners, rather than there being a legal requirement for them to be consulted. I say that because the town councils in Broadstairs and Ramsgate are highly valued and complementary to the existing local authority structures of Kent county council and Thanet district council. We notice the difference between what we see happen in Ramsgate and Broadstairs, which have town councils, and in Margate, which does not.
The reality is that Margate is about to secure its own town council thanks to fantastic, strong community campaigning by some of my good friends and allies in Thanet Labour party, and that will help to correct a democratic deficit that would otherwise occur. Indeed, Margate has always been short of democratic governance, and it will be needed all the more because of unitarisation. Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me and colleagues that town and parish councils really will be fully incorporated into the new settlement, and that, as outlined in the new Government amendments, existing town and parish councils will have a role to play? Can she also reassure us that those without existing town and parish councils will have the opportunity for strong neighbourhood governance?
In summary, we need to ensure: that the commissioners who will be part of the metro mayoral settlement have an economic focus if they are responsible for coastal communities; that every metro mayor who has the power to appoint a commissioner and has responsibility for the coast ensures that one commissioner has that focus; that local government reorganisation factors in appropriate mitigations for when there are risks of reduction of local government presence in coastal towns; and, finally, that parish and town councils continue to be a vital part of the local government settlement.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and in particular her points about parish and town councils. In Cornwall, where we are completely parished and towned in that sense, they are an important vehicle for communication up from the community. They enable communities to articulate their views. Indeed, one might even argue that parish and town councils are the highest tier of local authority in the sense that they are closest to the people and to the pulse of local opinion, and are able to articulate that in the process.
I would like to make remarks on two other amendments. On the proposals regarding brownfield first, which I strongly support, I am disappointed by the Government’s response. The Government’s policy, in particular with regard to rewriting the NPPF, will result in a goldrush to the greenfield edges of our towns and communities. In December 2024, they set a new housing target which effectively means that local authorities can no longer defend the edges of their towns if they are unable to demonstrate that they have a five-year land supply. At present, therefore, policy is going in exactly the wrong direction. It also fundamentally undermines local authorities and local communities that are seeking to advance rural exceptions policy. All those rural exceptions opportunities are now effectively lost as a result of local authorities no longer having five-year land supplies. That is to the detriment of communities that are desperately seeking to meet local housing need, hence the importance of ensuring that local authorities are under a stronger obligation to bring forward brownfield first.
The other amendment I welcome the opportunity to speak to—the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) will echo these concerns—relates to the Secretary of State’s powers regarding combined authorities without local consent. That is the critical matter. The only way in which the Government can demonstrate that they have the backing of local communities is to ensure that they consult them throughout.
The Isles of Scilly are keen to work with Cornwall to ensure we achieve the maximum level of devolution, and it is really important that the Government look at the very special case of Cornwall. We have a number of cultural and language designations that mean that the integrity of Cornwall becomes ever more important when navigating one’s way through the extremely sensitive process of devolving power. It is easy to undermine the great strengths of places such as Cornwall if those matters are not properly considered.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that half of Cornish MPs are present tonight, at this late stage and in a relatively sparsely populated Chamber, and that the others would be here if they were able to be, is testament to the fact that although it feels as though we are part of the way towards Cornish devolution, there is still deep concern, as this process draws towards a conclusion, that we are not considerably further forward in that process?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I am aware that Members wish to make stellar contributions on behalf of their constituencies, but I do not believe that we are discussing Cornish devolution right now. Let us keep the debate in scope of the amendments in front of us.
Andrew George
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are simply giving the example of Cornish devolution as one of the potential products should the Government not reject the opportunity for local authorities to be properly consulted, which is what is on the amendment paper this evening. That is the most important thing this evening: to ensure that local authorities are consulted. We are seeking to make this an effective vehicle for achieving what is very much desired throughout Cornwall, both by the local authority and by local Members. I accept your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but fundamentally, be it Cornwall or any other local authority that is seeking to ensure that its local and wider communities are properly consulted, it is not a question of our seeking a process of isolation, as I think the Government recognise.
The point that we make perpetually in relation to Cornwall—and the Isles of Scilly, which we hope will be co-operating with Cornwall as a combined authority—is that it is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity across the United Kingdom. I hope that, in that spirit, Ministers will respond constructively and, in spite of the passing of the Bill, we will have a vehicle to achieve the desired ends as far as Cornwall is concerned.
Perran Moon
Before I start, I would like to ask for a little leeway, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak to two amendments, but they have a direct impact on my experience of devolution, which is in Cornwall. Therefore, I just ask for a little bit of leeway, but in relation to the amendments themselves.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
So long as you are referencing the amendment to which you are speaking, then of course—the Floor is yours.
Perran Moon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome amendment (a), which would include coastal communities, as the changes are very encouraging, but I would also like to speak to the Lords amendment on local authority consent. I am deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State’s right to impose on a local authority without local assent has been delayed for only two years. The reason why, and this is where I have to reference our experience in Cornwall, is that for centuries—since the Stannary Parliament ceased to meet in 1753—Cornwall has longed for greater powers to control its own affairs. The amendment was an opportunity to work with Government to provide that level of devolution. It should also be noted for constitutionalists that the Stannary Parliament was never actually revoked.
The hunger for greater devolution runs deep in Cornwall, and in the 21st century it has been enhanced by the Council of Europe’s framework convention of national minority status, which recognises the Cornish as a national minority. I fear that the Government’s refusal to accept some of the amendments that were tabled, including this one, runs in contravention to article 16 of that framework convention. The national minority status process began under the previous Labour Government. I am also very grateful for the elevation of the Cornish language to the status of all other British Celtic languages.
With this hunger for devolution and commitments from the party, expectations were high. However, as we approach the end of the Bill’s passage, I am disappointed by the progress made by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is not as though the Ministry did not know what devolution we were looking for. I am deeply grateful to the Minister and to two Secretaries of State for so frequently meeting Cornish Members from both parties to elaborate on what constitutes a devolution deal. I am very grateful that the Treasury has delivered the Kernow industrial growth fund. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is moving ahead with support for the language, as I mentioned, and the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education are investing in Cornwall. However, it feels a bit like MHCLG is not moving at the same pace as the others. This was never more starkly exposed than on the day it was announced that Cornwall was losing its shared prosperity funding, and new shared prosperity funding was announced in northern English mayoralties.
I am grateful that in November 2025 the Secretary of State was mindful to offer Cornwall single strategic authority status, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned. Cornwall will never willingly become part of a mayoral combined authority, because to do so would compromise national minority status, as I have mentioned. However, when she gets to her feet, could the Minister please confirm when those outstanding areas, including transport, economic development, strategic place partnership for housing and British-Irish Council attendance, will be dealt with? Until then, there will remain distrust and scepticism of the Government’s intentions for devolution in Cornwall and its place within these British Isles.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I will keep my contribution brief and speak once again on Lords amendments 98 and 98A, to allow other hon. Members to speak. Along with many of my constituents, I was very disappointed last Tuesday that the Minister failed to mention Cornwall once in her closing speech, despite my pointing out the dangerous powers that the Government are still trying to instil into law—powers that could be used by this Government or a future Government, which could force Cornwall to merge with another authority without the consent of the Cornish people. Cornwall still faces the prospect of having no legal protections in the Bill. Liberal Democrats have made efforts here and in the other place to secure protections that would take our national minority status into account under the European Framework convention for the protection of national minorities.
I fear that my constituents are being held to ransom by this Government, who say, “Accept our terms, effectively give up your national minority status, be forced into a merger with another region, and we might give you more money—and if you don’t accept our terms, we have the powers to force you to do so in two years’ time anyway.” In my eyes, that amounts to nothing more than economic coercion against a national minority. The Minister keeps repeating, as she did last week, that the Government have already committed not to use these powers for two years. How does that provide comfort for my constituents? Either a future Government or this one could use that power after two years.
I therefore hope that all my Cornish colleagues and Members from across the House will join me this time to vote against the Government’s latest attempt at blocking Lords amendment 98. Let us please not hand this Government or future Governments this unlawful power to combine authorities against the will of local people—our constituents. To the Minister, I say again that she has not considered Cornwall’s national minority status, contrary to the European framework convention, and so she will likely expect a legal challenge if the Bill becomes law.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I would like to speak to Lords amendment 94B and 94C on the agent of change principle. My particular concern, as I said last week, relates to grassroots music venues and the impact on them of the current lack of robust application of the agent of change principle through planning guidance.
To set a little context, there were 1,150 grassroots music venues a few years ago. The Music Venue Trust now believes that has fallen to 800 venues. Grassroots music venues are important, and not just to local cultural identity—Sunderland is a music city, as we all know. Those venues are core to the UK music industry, which is worth £5.2 billion a year in this country, and grassroots music venues are the research and development department of that industry.
It is tempting to assume that a lot of money is sloshing around because of the success of some of our international acts, but that is absolutely not the case for grassroots music venues trying to keep the show on the road, as it were, on our high streets. That is why 350 have closed in recent years. Of the 366 small venues that Ed Sheeran played in when learning his trade, more than 150 are now closed. Of the 34 venues that Oasis played in before being signed, only 11 remain. If we do not work to ensure that the agent of change principle is properly applied, which Lords Amendment 94 sought to do, we risk further catastrophic loss of venues. The closures are due not just to economic factors on the high street, which people have discussed; the Music Venue Trust conservatively estimates that since 2015 over 125 grassroots music venue closures have been due specifically to planning issues.
Ms Billington
The specific issue of licensing is important. Small venues in my constituency are vital for our visitor economy and in being part of the pipeline for developing enormous amounts of talent. It is worth pointing out that the UK representative at the Eurovision song contest comes from Ramsgate. If it were not for strong music venues such as Ramsgate Music Hall, as well as Faith in Strangers, Where Else? and Olby’s in Margate, the likes of “Look Mum No Computer”—our entry in the Eurovision song contest—might have had no prospect of being able to develop.
Lewis Atkinson
I fondly remember the vibrant cultural scene during my time in Broadstairs. Too many grassroots music venues risk facing their own “Waterloo” at the moment.
Perran Moon
I cannot let this moment pass, particularly following the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), without raising the son of Redruth—one Mick Fleetwood, of Fleetwood Mac. I highlight the importance of the cultural diversity in Cornwall, including my home town of Redruth. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we celebrate these great musicians?
Lewis Atkinson
Absolutely. Too many music venues risk becoming old news by being forced to shut, even if they are where the likes of Fleetwood Mac learned their trade. I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
The Government recently made a welcome commitment to set out a new high street strategy. The high street is, of course, changing due to changing retail habits, including online shopping. Cultural venues such as music venues are absolutely core to the regeneration and future of the high street, which means that the sort of protections envisaged in Lords amendments 94B and 94C become even more crucial.
Alex Sobel
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are particular issues for councillors on the planning committees of local authorities? The amendments would bring a clarity that would make it much easier for planning committees to operate and give music venues and nightclubs the reassurance that they need.
Lewis Atkinson
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come on to say a little about the national planning policy framework at the moment. When my hon. Friend spoke, he made a good point about local plans. Part of the issue at the moment is that local councils have very different approaches. I wonder whether there is scope for the Government to ensure, or certainly encourage, local authorities to explicitly reference and identify grassroots music venues in their local plans so that when such planning applications are put in, there is explicit recognition of those venues.
It is not just the risk of actual closure that the lack of “agent of change” envisages; there is also the ongoing uncertainty. The Night & Day Café in Manchester spent three days fighting noise abatement proceedings from a nearby development, which put stress and risk on that establishment over time. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) is not in his place today, but he intervened last week in the debate, referencing venues like that one.
I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgment from the Dispatch Box that the current planning framework is not operating as initially envisaged. I think the “agent of change” principle was first put into the national planning policy framework in 2018, following a private Member’s Bill secured by the now Lord Spellar—MP for Warley at the time. That guidance has not been sufficiently implemented; the Music Venue Trust reports that there has not been a meaningful reduction in the number of planning applications that risk threatening music venues. There is an issue about enforcement. Will the Minister say a little about the work that the Government are doing to increase the resources and the ability of local authorities to enforce the national planning policy framework when it comes to “agent for change” in future?
The other reality, I am afraid, is that the NPPF, including the draft NPPF set out by the Government recently, is not strong enough; Lord Brennan of Canton referred to that in his speech in the other place last Thursday, I believe. To reassure the Minister, I should say that I am not seeking a widespread power that would extend noise protections to all sorts of establishments. My concern, and that of others across the House and in the other place, relates specifically to cultural venues—in particular grassroots music venues and nightclubs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) has ably set out.
I support the Government’s mission to build more houses and create more residences. The example in my constituency is that the lack of clarity and enforcement of the current framework is stopping properties being built—some flats in my city centre are not being built because the developer tries to get away with what it can under noise abatement, in the absence of a clear statutory duty. A local music venue is therefore stressed about potential threats, and a developer is not able to build houses.
There is reported to be greater clarity in Scotland. I understand that the Scottish planning system is significantly different in many elements from the one in England. The Music Venue Trust reports a significant reduction in the number of venue closures in Scotland.
Ms Billington
I want to reaffirm on the record what my hon. Friend has said. This is an important way of ensuring that we have a place-led way of shaping our communities; without that, we will not be able to get the homes that people desperately need in the places where they need them. Furthermore, we will not be able to ensure that those places are worthwhile living in because they have other things apart from homes. The cultural venues that we are talking about are so vital—not only to the economy, but to making sure that people actually want to spend their time in places. That balance is going to be required, and that is why the power needs to be there.
Lewis Atkinson
I entirely agree. The title of this Bill includes the words “community empowerment” and “devolution”. I want my community in Sunderland to be empowered: to have the powers to ensure that our key cultural venues—such as Pop Recs, Independent and the Bunker—retain protections from further development around them.
I turn to the draft national planning policy framework, which the Minister referred to. I understand the Government’s difficulty in breaking what some might say is a precedent by not putting planning guidance into statute. I understand that there is a genuine judgment to be made, even if there is a shared policy intent. But the existing draft national planning policy framework states, in P4:
“Existing businesses, community facilities, public services and defence and security activities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on their current or permitted operation”.
“Should not” gives far too much leeway. There is also no explicit reference in the draft national planning policy framework to specific actions about noise levels, sound insulation, licensing outcomes or operating hours, despite those being the most common and predictable mechanisms through which “agent for change” risks threaten our music venues. If it is the Government’s intention to try to get the policy solution through planning guidance rather than through statute, will the Minister commit on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Planning to reconsider some of the language in the draft NPPF to strengthen those points in particular? Will the Minister also write to local authorities on ensuring that local plans include grassroots music venues?
There has to be a review of the NPPF. Could the Minister say a little about how long she believes it is appropriate to monitor the implementation of the NPPF if this is where we end up at the end of ping-pong and there are no statutory powers engaged to protect our music venues? If inappropriate planning applications that threaten our music venues continue to come in, how long will she and the Government wait before reviewing the policy and looking to further strengthen it? Indeed, if there is any chance of a late concession in the event that the agent of change returns here from the other place, will she consider taking potential statutory powers not to be used except when needed to safeguard our grassroots music venues?
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am really pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) with my own story of an early venue. In 2007, I remember visiting the Stage Door in Southampton—a venue above a pub—for one of the very first, intimate gigs of Scouting for Girls. They are now internationally renowned and celebrating their 20th year, but there were so few of us at the gig that we actually helped them carry their kit there and back afterwards. Without those little gigs, they would not have had that success such that 20 years later we can go and enjoy them at summer festivals.
I rise specifically to speak to Lords amendment 37. During the Bill Committee, as the Minister will recall, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and I spoke frequently about the importance of town and parish councils and the need to strengthen them as unitary councils take decision making further away from local people and dilute the identity and priorities of clearly defined places. As local government is reorganised and councils cover ever larger geographies, it is critical that communities retain hyper-local democratic structures not as an add-on but as an essential part of effective devolution.
There was a lot of talk originally about what other structures might be in place as part of the Bill if not a town and parish council, but that does not seem to have made much progress. I am disappointed that without something really strong in that place, there is nothing recognising the critical place of our town and parish councils, whose strength forms part of our communities, as so passionately talked about by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George).
I spoke on Second Reading about how the forthcoming local government reorganisation—it does not affect my area—will see the end of authorities such as Winchester and Southampton city councils. It is inconceivable that historic places such as Winchester will not either immediately or within a couple of years re-establish a town council to protect their identity and ensure that their unique needs—beyond those covered by the fairly nebulous unitary authorities that will replace them—are met. Parish and town councils give residents not only that opportunity to create their sense of place, but a direct, accountable voice.
In Dorset, the plan for change created in 2016, which came before our local government reorganisation, talked about the expansion of town and parish councils and the creation of neighbourhood-level structures, but those decisions were deferred for future administrations to progress. On the Dorset side, the gaps were filled so the whole area became parished, but in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole they were never implemented after being blocked by the then Conservative-led councils. A decade on, we are having to retrofit them at local cost and with an administrative burden.
I welcome that Conservatives in the other place have recognised that encouraging the expansion of parish governance in currently unparished areas really does matter—it is ironic that their colleagues have chosen not even to stand for election in the new town councils in Broadstone and Poole.
As the remit of unitary authorities has expanded, funding has inevitably focused on statutory services and neighbourhoods with the highest levels of deprivation. I welcome that, but as a consequence many of the facilities that residents really value—the fabric of everyday community life—have quietly fallen away.
When I moved to Broadstone at the turn of the century, Christmas lights, street furniture repairs, tree planting and small community grants were considered standard and funded, or at least supported, by the local authority. Today, they are routinely deemed out of scope for huge councils doing their best to protect the most vulnerable through statutory services. However, those things still matter deeply to the residents they serve; without them, communities begin to feel overlooked and to look unloved.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their continued engagement on the Bill and their insightful contributions to the debate. I am glad that our concessions have secured support. I thank both my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches and hon. Members across the House for their feedback and insights, which have led to these concessions—[Interruption.] Thank you. Since the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) piped up, I will start with him.
There is the consistent theme of the hon. Member accusing the Government of making this a centralising Bill and, in a way that is becoming tradition, I must push back on that. I remind him that this is the biggest transfer of powers out of Whitehall and Westminster to our local leaders at regional level and to our communities. I also remind him that his Government had over a decade to drive through wholesale, consistent devolution in the way that this Government are doing, and they did not take up that opportunity. We had a decade of slow, ad hoc, piecemeal transfer of power to our communities and our local leaders. We do not agree with that approach.
In the Bill, we are doing two things. We are setting out a framework for clear economic devolution to our regions that makes devolution by default the norm and creates a mechanism by which that can happen without individual deals being negotiated. Critically, we are also building the power of our communities, whether through strengthening the community right to buy so that communities can take hold of assets of community value or through the creation of neighbourhood governance so that we have a tier of local governance that ensures that communities have the power and voice to drive the change they want to see in their place and shape their neighbourhoods and communities.
Ms Billington
I am interested to hear the Minister explain how we can ensure that town and parish councils, particularly existing ones, are integrated into the new local government settlement. They are particularly important when unitarisation is happening, increasing efficiencies of scale and enabling more strategic deployment at the kind of scale that is important. However, there is a concern that if those local parish and town councils are not integrated into the local government settlement, we will have a reduction in democratic accountability.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question and for being a clear, consistent and passionate advocate of town and parish councils. I will pick up her point, but I want to start with her forceful and effective contribution about coastal communities and the amendments that we are proposing.
The Government have heard the concerns that rural affairs will be marginalised with our new devolution framework. As we extend devolution beyond the urban centres of England, it is absolutely right that strategic authorities look to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wide range of geographies, whether they are urban, rural or indeed coastal communities.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am grateful for the steps that the Government have taken today in recognising the importance of rural and coastal communities. The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made reference to my constituency earlier in this regard, and I thank her for doing so. The Government clearly realise how important it is to recognise a rural and coastal communities in this Bill. Has the Minister now had her mind changed such that we should recognise rural and coastal communities with their own Cabinet position?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Polly Billington) made about commissioners and the governance arrangements. We are clear that strategic authorities absolutely must think about how they drive the prosperity and wellbeing of their rural and coastal communities. The structures—and, indeed, the policy framework—that they put in place to do that will be in the gift of local leaders and the mayor. That is right, and that is the basis of devolution. What we are trying to do through the Bill—I think we have achieved it through the amendments and the existing provisions—is to ensure that there is a clear framework that strategic authorities and mayors are working towards.
We as a Government absolutely recognise the important role that coastal and rural communities play. We are committed to doing our part to support strategic authorities, to ensure that they are dealing with issues from housing through to transport and the infrastructure that we need, in order to ensure that our rural communities thrive. Members across the House have our commitment that we will do that, so that local plans reflect the composition of different parts of the country, and that we are putting in place the building blocks to ensure that none of our coastal or rural communities are left behind.
Lewis Atkinson
I understand the temptation to distinguish between urban, rural and coastal communities, but does the Minister recognise that urban communities such as mine in Sunderland are also coastal communities? By the limitations of geography, our economic activity is limited by 180°, and there are particular issues regarding transport links, economic geography and so on. Does she agree that it is not a binary distinction between urban, rural and coastal, and that many city council areas such as mine, as well as combined authorities, need to be considered as coastal communities as well?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. Indeed, the reason that the Government originally resisted this amendment was on that very point. Ultimately, we believed that the framework and the set of competences that we had set out were broad enough to capture the complexities of different areas with a mix of urban, rural and coastal. However, we understood the strength of feeling in the other place and we have made this concession. Now it is for our local leaders, through the context of devolution, to ensure that they come together to put in place a plan that can deal with the specifics of their area.
Let me turn to the points on town and parish councils that hon. Members have raised. I have been consistent through the passage of this Bill that we absolutely recognise the importance of town and parish councils. I would like to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), who has been a consistent advocate for town and parish councils, both in Committee and in the House. Our amendment in lieu provides that regulations made under clause 60 may provide for parish councils to be represented on neighbourhood governance structures. This locks in the importance of town and parish councils within the new neighbourhood framework that we are putting in place. It places beyond doubt the expectation that local authorities should engage with parish councils about parish representation under that framework.
Vikki Slade
Can I just clarify the use of the word “should” rather than the word “must”? Where these bodies exist, they must have a right to be included; this is not just a “should”. I worry that the word “should” will allow a mayor or a larger authority to have the power over what is, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) commented, possibly the most important level of local government.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I absolutely agree that communities are a fundamental level. Part of the reason we are putting in place a neighbourhood governance structure is to address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet made, which is that at the moment the neighbourhood structure is not built within our framework for local government. We believe that communities must be empowered, and this is an important step to rectify that. Where we disagree, however, is that I think it is wrong for Government to impose on places any particular neighbourhood governance structure. It is absolutely right that it is left to local areas to decide the right neighbourhood governance structure for them.
Town and parish councils exist across 80% of our geography, so in many areas they will be the default, but in other areas they may not be. We are criticised for being centralising, and I have pushed back against that constantly. I think it would be hugely centralising to say that, irrespective of what your community wants—whether it is an area or ward forum, a neighbourhood forum or a structure that already exists—central Government think you must have this model and this model only, and that is not the approach we are taking. Yes, we recognise the importance of town and parish councils, but we ultimately think it must be left to communities and local areas to decide the right neighbourhood governance structure for them that represents what the community wants and can be the voice for the community to drive the change that they want to see.
Vikki Slade
I am grateful to the Minister for letting me come back on this, because the missing link is not necessarily that it is a town and parish council structure; it is that 20% of the country has nothing, and there is nothing in place to ensure that those people have something. In the area that I represent, a huge cost has now come to the local area because there was a failure to put anything in place. Whether it is a town or parish council or another neighbourhood governance, the current structure does not provide for there to be anything.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member is completely right. There is a gap, and we are putting in this provision for a neighbourhood governance structure across the country to address that gap. Many areas that do not have town and parish councils will have other mechanisms in place. I point to my borough of Southwark, where we have area committees that work really well and represent the community. The key principle here, however, is that it must be for the community to determine the right structure that represents their area and can be an effective voice. We cannot and must not dictate from central Government.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As someone who was a parish councillor in a previous life and now represents a seat that has no parish level of governance whatsoever, I wonder whether the Minister sees a role for arbitration over where there is conflict between what that local mechanism might look like—for instance, where a residents association encroaches on another set of streets that might be considered another part of a residents association. Where do the Government see their role in facilitating resolution so that those powerful local bodies can exist in a way that is representative, fair and equal?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We as a Government are committed to putting in place a neighbourhood governance framework, and that framework will set in place the key principles. It will be a guide for what effective, strong neighbourhood governance looks like. We will put in place regulation and guidance to support local authorities as they go through the endeavour of working with their communities to put the right structure in place. We have done a huge amount of work with the sector, and have taken evidence, which has informed the principles, but one of the big messages we got from everyone across the sector is: “Whatever you do, do not dictate what this looks like; build on what exists, and ultimately leave it to communities and local areas to come up with the right model for them.” When the sector speaks, we listen.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
If the Minister reckons that Ministers should not dictate what local government structures should be, will she let areas that have two-tier government, and that want to keep their district councils, keep them? My area does; it wants to keep Conservative-run Broxbourne district council. Why is she mandating that we go to unitary authorities, when she is clearly saying, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, that she does not want to dictate what local government looks like across the country?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have had this debate many times with the hon. Member. His Government were in power for over a decade and oversaw the decimation and denuding of local authorities through a sustained period of austerity. His Government saw that local authorities were not sustainable, yet did not act. It falls to this Government to recognise those failures. We care about having strong local government that can deliver services for communities. Local government reorganisation is neither easy nor fun—it is hugely time-consuming, and we know that it is a difficult endeavour for our local authorities—but it was a necessity because of the previous Government’s failure to act for nearly a decade and a half. They saw the failings and issues in local government and did not respond; we have not done that.
We were clear that, ultimately, we would ask local areas to come forward with a range of proposals, based on a set of criteria. They have done that, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness is judging the proposals that have come forward against the objective criteria that have been set. What we would not do—I will never concede on this point—is nothing, because that would have left local government collapsing at the very time when our communities need it to be working.
I reassure hon. Members that we think that we have struck the right balance, particularly on town and parish council governance. We are clear that town and parish councils have an important role. We are driving forward community power—something I am fundamentally passionate about and committed to—but we have balanced that with the imperative that national Government must not dictate the structure; that must be left to local areas to decide.
I would like to pick up on “brownfield first”, raised by the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). I continue to stress that the Government fully agree with, and support, the principle of “brownfield first”. There is no difference in policy intent here, and there never has been. We have demonstrated our commitment by strengthening support for brownfield development in national policy in December 2024, and we proposed further changes earlier this year. I have been clear that the NPPF is the framework under which planning policy and decisions are and should be made, and it remains the most appropriate tool for supporting brownfield development.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I absolutely agree that brownfield sites should be prioritised for development. On the NPPF, how can we further ensure that the right type of housing goes on brownfield sites? We are talking about social rent housing, and housing for older people who are rightsizing, and for first-time buyers; there is a huge shortage of that housing, across the country.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right: we need to build more homes. We are absolutely committed to doing that, but they have to be the right homes for communities. That is why this Government are investing £39 billion to ensure that we have the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation. We must build homes that our communities can afford, and that are appropriate for our communities.
Gareth Snell
In Stoke-on-Trent, we are outside a mayoral combined authority, but have oodles of old industrial brownfield. We are itching to get our hands on it, but we do not have those compulsory purchase powers that sit with Homes England. Once the strategic combined authorities are up and running, how soon will we be able to use those powers to purchase that land, so that we can build the houses that the Minister talks about?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are as impatient as my hon. Friend is to get building on brownfield land, so we are working closely with all our authorities and strategic authorities to ensure that they have the power and tools to do that. We recognise that a big barrier to building on brownfield land is funding. This Government committed a record amount—£5 billion over the spending review—to supporting the remediation of brownfield sites, so that we can unlock the development that we all want.
The Opposition, who are pushing this amendment, accuse us of centralising, yet the amendment would, by its very nature, remove flexibility, whereas the Bill allows our local leaders, be it at regional or local authority level, the flexibility to deploy policy in a way that makes sense for their area. The amendment is fundamentally centralising, and we would be much better off trying to achieve “brownfield first”, an objective that we all agree on, through a policy that gives local leaders the flexibility to apply policy in a way that makes sense for their area.
Lewis Atkinson
Will the Minister elaborate on funding for brownfield sites? In my constituency, we have Riverside Sunderland, the most ambitious city centre regeneration project in the UK. That is only possible because of £30 million of Homes England funding, which will create more than 800 homes. Does she agree that it is somewhat hypocritical for parties that voted against that funding to say that they favour a “brownfield first” or “brownfield only” policy for building?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I could not have put it better myself. If we believe in “brownfield first”, which we do, then it has to be enabled. That requires funding, which requires political will, which we Labour Members have, but which is sadly too often missing from the Opposition.
I turn to agents of change. I thank hon. Members for their contributions on the subject, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who talked knowledgeably, articulately and persuasively on this question. I reiterate our strong reason for maintaining the view that a policy approach is best suited to addressing issues of implementation, when it comes to the agent of change. As with “brownfield first”, there is no difference in policy here. I absolutely agree with the points and concerns that have been raised. National planning policy exerts a significant influence on the planning system in two principal ways. Plan-making authorities must have regard to national policy when preparing development plans that form the basis for decision making, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National policy itself is a material consideration, meaning that the NPPF can have a powerful and immediate effect on planning decisions, allowing policy changes to take effect quickly.
Furthermore, the new draft framework aims to improve delivery across the planning system by setting out much clearer policies for plan making and decision making. It makes it explicit that the decision-making policies should not be repeated in local plans and provides for these policies to bear on the system from day one. That is why we have not taken forward statutory national development management policies at this stage, although we are keeping that decision under review.
Alex Sobel
Would the Minister and colleagues be prepared to look at the idea that grassroots music venues and nightclubs should be in the local plan, so that planning committees and planning officers have to have regard to them? This is clearly a gap. If they are in the plan, this will not move on to a statutory footing, which is something that she is obviously concerned about.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Local plans can include community facilities, and we are committed to looking at ways, through the local plan, that we can strengthen the policy intent that we all agree that we are trying to achieve. First, we intend to work closely with local planning authorities, once the new NPPF is finalised, to ensure that the policy is fully understood and implemented. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, there is a discrepancy between planning considerations and what is actually enforced. We recognise that discrepancy and are looking at what more can be done to ensure that local planning authorities are enforcing planning conditions related to this important issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing is very exercised by this issue and is grateful for all the contributions that have been made by hon. Friends. He is content to meet to discuss what more can be done, but I hope that Members hear the Government when we say that we agree with the policy intent and that the national planning policy should be strengthened—we are undertaking that. We think there is an opportunity to make more progress through the local plan, and we are committed to working with local authorities to do that. We have committed to working with Members from across the House to ensure that this bites in the way that Members are keen for it to bite.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank the Minister for those welcome words, the acknowledgment that there is no policy difference here, and that she will keep statutory guidance under review, should that be necessary. Will she commit, on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Planning, to a meeting before the publication of the final NPPF, at which we could give serious consideration to explicitly mentioning issues such as noise reduction and insulation, when it comes to grassroots music venues?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am always very happy to commit my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing to any meeting that my hon. Friends would like. We are very keen to meet in advance of the NPPF biting.
May I also say a word about support for the music industry? My hon. Friends have talked with great passion about the music industry in their constituencies, and have shown that they care about it. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting the UK music industry as part of our industrial strategy. We will soon publish a music plan, drawing together all that the Government are doing to support the music industry, which is a vital part of our communities, cultural heritage and local economies. That includes a £30 million music growth package over three years from 2026, to support domestic growth, talent development and music exports. We are also supporting the sector’s work to adopt—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before she drifts off into the music industry in any great detail, may I respectfully remind the Minister that she must confine her remarks to the Bill and the Lords amendments thereto?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I got far too excited about the music industry. Suffice it to say that the Government recognise its importance. That is why the debate about the agent of change is so important, and why we are committed to playing our part in supporting that aim.
I turn to the Bill and the amendments. Let me pick up on the amendments relating to the removal of the Secretary of State’s directed powers. The Government have committed to not commencing powers to direct the establishment of non-mayoral strategic authorities for a period of two years following Royal Assent. That will provide sufficient time for areas that do not currently have devolution agreements to develop workable proposals based on sensible geographies.
At the same time, we have also listened and responded to concerns expressed in the other place. We recognise that it will be important for non-rural authorities to have the opportunity to build capacity and effective partnership working before taking on the deepest powers and funding at mayoral level. For that reason, the Government are removing the power for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent. We believe that that strikes the right balance, but I encourage Members from across the House to judge us by our actions.
Ms Billington
I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that it will be necessary to have local consent to take these matters forward. In these conversations about devolution, I make the observation that lines drawn on maps in Whitehall rarely work. It is therefore extraordinarily important to have local and public consent to taking forward these kinds of devolutionary powers. Otherwise, we will end up with a local government settlement that does not meet the needs of local people.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is exactly what happened under the approach adopted by the Conservative party in government. It created random boundaries and involved ad hoc devolution that did not treat our local leaders as equal partners who know their communities and can drive change. That is not our approach.
I ask Members to consider the approach that we are taking by setting up strategic authorities. We have gone to places and asked, “What is the local partnership that works for your place? Which geography means that you can drive the outcomes that your community wants?” We are not dictating from Whitehall; we are leaving this to local areas. That matters, because devolution works well when we have strong institutions, predicated on partnership between local authorities that understand their place and are willing to act collectively for it. We will not use the approach of imposing on places; rather, we will ensure that there is local consent. That is why the amendment works.
Gareth Snell
I will be brief. I completely understand the principle that the Minister is outlining of not wanting to force areas to have something that they do not want. She talks about consent, but what does that actually look like? In some areas, the board will have one or two intransigent members who will not allow progress—they could hold up a majority view that is in favour of a combined authority. What is the Government’s role, if they are removing their ability to tell parts of the community that they do not have the right to hold up something that a majority of local component units want?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The role that we will play is to work with our local authorities. Ultimately, the common thread is that we are working in service of and on behalf of communities, and it is for both national Government and local leaders to make decisions on the geography that makes sense for local economies and that works for their community. We will always advocate for the community in those conversations to ensure that we get the right partnership that can deliver for places.
Andrew George
The Government are promising that they will not impose things without local consent. The other side of that argument is that local authorities in areas such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly want to press on with devolution much faster than the Government seem willing to allow. Will the Minister account for that in the way in which the Government proceed on this matter?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I was just coming to the hon. Member’s earlier contributions. We absolutely want to move at the pace at which our most ambitious and fastest-moving places want to move. We recognise the unique circumstances in Cornwall. I have spent a lot of time with hon. Friends from across Cornwall, who have been very passionate, effective and robust advocates for their place. I had the pleasure of visiting Cornwall and seeing some of the issues, as well as the huge amount of work and innovation. We have invested £28.6 million in the current industrial growth fund—creating 300 jobs and an additional 1,000 jobs in the supply chain—because we understand and recognise the economic potential of the area. We are committed to working with the council and with Cornwall MPs to take that further. We have set out the framework for a devolution deal, we have set out the progress that we are making to recognise minority status, and we are committed to moving further in the days and weeks to come.
The Government’s approach to local authority governance arrangements has been pragmatic. We are ultimately trying to reach solutions that we believe will bite and work in places. I remind Members across the House that 80% of local authorities are already deploying the cabinet and leader model, and it is an effective model that allows strong decision making for communities. In areas that already have a democratic mandate for an alternative—whether committee or mayor—we have created the space for those structures to continue. But we are very clear that we are having to fix the mess of the last Government, which did absolutely nothing for local government and allowed a decade in which local government was denuded—I come back to that. Our job now is to ensure that we build strong local authority institutions, because we are localists: we believe in devolution, but we need strong institutions to do that. That means both having structures that work for the communities they represent and in which, critically, decisions can be made to improve the lot of their place.
We believe that the cabinet and leader model works. We think that we have found the right balance. I implore Members across the House, particularly given that 80% of local authorities are already deploying the model that we are talking about, that we are keen to make progress and allow our local authorities to move forward.
In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] No one is more pleased about that than me. In conclusion, I thank Members for their contributions and the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Bill. I hope that they see that we are a Government who are absolutely committed to pushing power into our places and our communities. It is beholden on all of us to make sure that this Bill does get Royal Assent, because this is the first step towards fundamentally changing the settlement between this place—between Government—and our communities, who do not feel that they have power and agency, and who do not feel that change is being driven in the way that they want. We have to rebalance that. This is the first step, and I implore Members across the House to support the Government’s position.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords Amendment 2 but proposes Amendment (a) to the Lords Amendment.
After Clause 37
Brownfield land priority
Motion made, and Question put,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 164 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Financial privilege is not engaged by any of the items in the Lords message relating to the Bill.
Clause 40
Certain schemes providing money purchase benefits: scale and asset allocation
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88A, 88C and 88E to 88P to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, but proposes further amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.
I thank the rather shrinking number of peers and hon. Members who have been engaged in the scrutiny of the Bill. It has clearly come a long way since I closed the Second Reading debate. I am glad, in particular, to see that some progress has been made in recent days with the other place’s agreement to this House’s amendments on the approach to defined contribution schemes achieving scale and on the transparency of public sector pension liabilities. That leaves one issue remaining: the Lords amendments on asset allocation. This House has already considered that question twice, and on both occasions it has rejected the Lords’ position by majorities of over 100. At each stage the Government have reiterated the need for the core policy intent to be delivered, while responding with changes to primary legislation that directly address specific issues raised.
I hope the House will bear with me while I explain what we are now proposing, and why I believe it is time for these exchanges to conclude. Let me deal first with the amendments to which we have previously agreed. The reserve power is capped at the Mansion House accord targets: no more than 10% in qualifying assets, and no more than 5% in UK-specific assets. It explicitly applies only to main default funds. Regulations cannot concentrate the requirement in any single asset class. The power can be used only once, and, if unused, lapses entirely in 2032.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
According to the Order Paper,
“The Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru have approved Legislative Consent Resolutions”.
Some of my colleagues in the Assembly back home have expressed some of the concerns that the Lords have expressed. I am conscious of where we are going and where we will end up. Can the Minister please give me some indication of the content of the discussions that took place with the Northern Ireland Assembly? Members of the Legislative Assembly tell me they expressed concern. I am trying to understand how a consent motion could be conveyed and agreed.
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that conversations are always ongoing to ensure that any legislation that comes from this place can be adopted by all the nations of this great country. I hope that some of the concerns that have continued to be raised by his colleagues, and by peers in the Lords as well, will be addressed by some of the detail that I am about to set out.
As I have said, that power can be used only once, and, if unused, lapses entirely in 2032. Even if it is used, however, the entire asset allocation regime falls out of effect and the statute book at the end of 2035. These provisions rule out any of the more lurid uses we have heard it claimed that the power would be used for, restricting it narrowly to underpinning the Mansion House accord.
As well as insisting on that package, the Government are today introducing further amendments to the savers’ interest test in the proposed new section 28G of the Bill. I remind the House that the reserve power exists because providers have said that they struggle to do something that is in savers’ interests, namely invest in a wider range of assets. However, the savers’ interest test exists for circumstances in which schemes can show that even investing as little as 10% in private assets—far below the levels that we see internationally, or in open defined benefit schemes here in the UK—might not be in their particular savers’ interest. In those circumstances, it allows them a route to seek an exemption from any requirements imposed by the reserve power. Arguments have been made, here and in the other place, about whether the test as drafted included sufficiently clear and strong protections. The Government have reflected on those arguments, and the further amendments before the House today respond to them. There are four changes.
First, we are lowering the threshold for an exemption. The Bill as drafted would have allowed regulations to require a scheme to show that compliance “would cause” material financial detriment. We are changing that to
“would be likely to cause”.
A scheme will need to show that detriment is the probable consequence, not a certain one.
Secondly, the Bill now makes it explicit that when a scheme meets the threshold, the regulator must grant the exemption. That has always been the Government’s intention, and the amendment ensures that there is no room for doubt.
Thirdly—here I want to respond directly to arguments raised by noble Lords about the weight that should be given to the judgment of trustees and scheme managers—we are proposing a change to put their assessment of savers’ interests centre stage. The new text makes clear that the responsible regulator must not only receive the scheme’s own assessment of why compliance would be likely to cause material financial detriment, but be required to have due regard to it. Schemes must set out their reasoning, and the regulator must engage with it properly and thoroughly. “Due regard” is established statutory language with legal weight: it means that the regulator cannot simply pay little or no attention to the scheme’s analysis.
Fourthly, the regulator must give reasons when it refuses an application. That matters because schemes have a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, a right that is strengthened if applicants know why they were turned down.
Let me draw this together. The savers’ interest test now provides a lower threshold, an explicit guarantee that exemptions will be granted when the test is met, a requirement for the regulator to give proper weight to the scheme’s own analysis, and transparency and accountability if an application should fail. Taken alongside the constraints on the power itself—the percentage caps, the single-use restriction, the 2032 sunset and the 2035 full repeal—this is a framework of strong and explicit protections.
There are those, here and in the other place, who would prefer the reserve power not to exist at all. As Members of this House know, we respect that position, but it is not a position that we share and it is not the position of the Government. There is a well-evidenced collective action problem in the defined contribution market, and the consequences of leaving it unresolved would fall on pension savers. That is not a risk that the Government are prepared to take.
This House has made its view clear on two occasions, and the Government have responded by baking in a raft of additional safeguards to primary legislation. This is now a third round of material changes, which I suspect this House may again endorse with a decisive majority. At some point, the question before the House is no longer the detail of the amendments, but whether the other place should continue to reject the clearly expressed view of the elected House and delay the passage of a Bill that delivers for savers in a whole host of ways. I urge the House to send these amendments back to the other place, and to bring these exchanges to a close.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening this evening’s debate, and for setting out the latest Government amendments, in place of the Pensions Minister? These ping-pong sessions with the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) have become a regular in my diary, and I will miss him this evening.
When this Bill was introduced last summer, we said that much of it was a sensible step forward that built on the work of the previous Conservative Government. We stand by that view, but supporting the broad direction of a Bill does not mean unqualified support for its every provision. Throughout its passage, we have challenged the Government on the local government pension scheme, on member communications and on the scale requirements in the Bill, but you will be pleased to know that those debates are behind us, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Today, there is just one issue left: mandation, or, as the Government prefer to call it, the reserve power—a power that sat in clause 40 until the noble Lords once again removed it from the Bill last Wednesday. The Government’s case for this power is straightforward: they want more pension investment in private markets and, by extension, more pension investment in the UK. That was the ambition behind the Mansion House accord, and it is an ambition that we share. We want to see the accord succeed, we want more productive investment, and we want pension capital to work harder for savers, but although the ambition is right, this policy is not. Mandation is the wrong lever to achieve those aims.
As the House has heard from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) at each stage of this Bill, mandation is flawed both in principle and in practice. The Government may call it a reserve power, but everyone knows what it is: a threat hanging over pension schemes if they do not fall into line. The Mansion House accord was a voluntary agreement built on trust, with mutual commitments between industry and the Government. Mandation replaces trust with a threat in law. Why would the pension sector, or in fact any sector, ever try to come together and agree a voluntary pact with the Government again if it is hammered into law a few months later?
Mandation puts in statute a power that, though more limited in its current manifestation, could be put to all manner of uses. It cuts across the fundamental duty of trustees to act in the best interests of savers; instead, that duty is trumped by Government requirements in law. It means that pension savings, or a share of them, will be put to work to serve the interests of the Government, not the interests of the saver who wants their pension to provide them with a decent income in later life. Perhaps most seriously of all, mandation risks undermining public trust in the pension system. That is why the power is not just unnecessary; it is dangerous and has no place in this Bill.
I will now turn to the Government’s latest amendments on mandation that are before us today, which apply to the so-called savers’ interest test. At the moment, if a pension scheme believes that complying with the Government’s mandation power would not be in the members’ interests, it may apply for an exemption, but to secure one, it must show that compliance would cause “material financial detriment” for members. That is an extraordinarily high bar. The Government have heard the concerns raised in this House and the other place, particularly by Lady Bowles, and have now brought forward further amendments.
The Minister told us that the amendments will strengthen the exemption process. Well, they do make it slightly easier for schemes to argue that a mandated investment allocation may damage returns. Instead of having to prove that mandation “would” cause material financial detriment, schemes will now need to show that such detriment is just “likely”—we have gone from “would” to “likely”. Frankly, if the Minister thinks that this one-word change offers a truly robust safeguard, I urge him to think again.
The need for these amendments tells its own story: the Government accept that mandation risks conflicting with the duties that trustees and pension providers owe to savers. If no such conflict existed, there would be no need at all for an exemption process. The right to appeal, enhanced through today’s amendments, demonstrates that Ministers accept that mandation may force schemes away from doing what is in their members’ best interests. Under the amended Bill, schemes must still prove likely financial harm before they are allowed to do what is best for savers. That misunderstands the principle at the heart of fiduciary duty. Trustees should not need state approval to act in the best interests of their members. These amendments just tinker at the margins; they do not fix the flaw in the policy.
I have been talking in somewhat technical terms, but I want to remind the House of the consequences of what we are talking about. If the Government push pension schemes into the wrong investments, those investments underperform and savers end up with weaker returns, who carries the can? Not the Minister, who has stepped in valiantly today, and not the Government, who legislated for this power. It will be pensioners, who will retire with less. Let us remember whose pensions we are talking about here. Who is most likely to suffer if the Government turn out to be a poor asset manager? The millions of workers who contribute via auto-enrolment—people who have never chosen an investment strategy, but who trust pension providers to do the right thing on their behalf.
Those people are not poring over fund fact sheets; they are getting on with work and supporting themselves and their families, hoping that one day they will be able to retire with financial security. This policy asks those savers to place their trust not in pension managers, but in Government Ministers. In doing so, it risks undermining the very trust on which auto-enrolment depends. We can debate whether the level of auto-enrolment is right, but no one challenges whether it is a good thing overall. Yet the Government are putting at risk this success story, around which there has been great political consensus, and the consequences do not stop with pension savers.
What signal does this send to the wider investment community? We hear that major City reforms are to come in the King’s Speech, but will the market really greet those reforms with confidence if this Bill becomes law with mandation in it? Confidence would be created if investors could see that the Government are committed to making the UK a good place to invest in. Mandation sends the opposite message. It tells people that we have a Government who are prepared to go where the UK state does not usually go: to get involved in the allocation of private capital. It tells people that the Government will take a shortcut to getting investment in the UK by forcing pension schemes to do so, rather than fixing the underlying problems. I do not think that the Minister’s colleagues have really thought this through. The easy answer is rarely the right answer.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us at an impasse, with agreement on the diagnosis but profound disagreement on the prescription. We all want more pension investment in the UK, and the Conservatives support moving from a focus on cost to a focus on value. We support removing barriers to the Mansion House accord, but there is no consensus for state compulsion. Pensions belong to the people who earn them, not Ministers. I have yet to find anyone who wants to trust a politician with their hard-earned pension savings, but that is exactly what the Government are trying to force on the country’s savers through this Bill.
Today the Minister finds himself tasked with defending the indefensible, and one provision is preventing an otherwise good Bill from passing. The Government amendments make mandation less bad, but if something is wrong in principle, it does not become right in smaller doses. I leave the Government with one simple message: remove mandation, and the job is done—this Bill will pass.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
As the shadow Secretary of State has said, there is a lot to be welcomed in the Bill. In considering the Bill, we have looked to Australia and Canada, and at best practice throughout the world, and there is much we have drawn from. For the Liberal Democrats, the pensions world that we are looking to enter with this Bill is greatly to be welcomed. Up and down the United Kingdom—from Tobermory in Mull to Torbay in Devon—we desperately need greater investment in our economy. We must make sure that we have a productive economy, but mandation is not the way to achieve that.
Andrew Western
I recognise, as the shadow Secretary of State set out, that there has been a great deal of consensus on many aspects of the Bill, and that we are wrangling merely over this one remaining issue. The Opposition argue that this power is wrong in principle, but we fundamentally disagree. We have had this debate on a number of occasions, including on Second Reading. I set out in my opening speech why this continues to be the Government’s position, and we have heard the arguments against.
I gently point out that the shadow Secretary of State’s letter to industry last week conceded that in the absence of this sort of power, funds are understandably cautious about being first movers, and that is a legitimate concern. That is the collective action problem that we have. The Mansion House compact has been running since 2023, but progress has been modest. The industry has identified competitive pressure to keep costs low as the single biggest barrier to delivering on its own commitments. In other words, providers want to diversify in their members’ interests, but they risk being undercut on cost by competitors that do not. The reserve power gives the market confidence to move together.
We have also heard that the power undermines fiduciary duty—it does not. Trustees’ duties of loyalty and prudence, and to act in members’ best interests, remain.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
With the greatest respect, the Minister is talking nonsense. At the end of the day, every trustee has a fiduciary duty to get the best return for their members. By putting in these mandation powers, the Government are fundamentally going against the most basic principle of the City of London, which is dictum meum pactum—my word is my bond. The Government entered into a pact with the industry, and they are now reneging on that pact by introducing mandation and not allowing the industry to move things forward. The Government are so wrong on this whole point. The Minister should withdraw the mandation powers and get rid of clause 40.
Andrew Western
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but that is not going to happen. We have to deal with the collective action problem that we are facing, to ensure that providers can move forward with the commitments that they have made. The power gives them assurance, but we hope that we will never need to use the power. The fact of the matter is that the industry requires that certainty; without it, it will not be able to move forward, given the collective action problem that exists. That point has been accepted by the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman is quoting selectively from a letter that I have written to the industry. We had this exact debate with the Pensions Minister last week. There is an acknowledged and debated collective action problem; on that, there is a level of consensus, but there is no consensus that mandation is the right answer. In fact, there is a consensus in the sector that mandation is the wrong answer. This Bill contains measures that will make a difference, and will go towards fixing this collective action problem, such as the value for money framework. The Mansion House accord was only signed last year, and the Government should give it time to work. We do not need mandation in this Bill.
Andrew Western
On the consensus in the industry, I say to the hon. Lady that it wants this Bill done and taken through this House. Tonight’s amendments make the savers’ interest test easier to pass, create a lower threshold for an exemption, and give certainty that the exemption will be granted where the threshold is met, with due regard being paid to the scheme’s assessment. Reasons for any refusal will be set out.
The House has now considered this Bill three times. On each occasion, it has endorsed the Government’s position. We have listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and we have responded with numerous material changes to the primary legislation across three rounds. The power is capped, neutral across asset classes, restricted to a single use, completely sunsetted in 2035 and subject to a savers’ interest test that tonight’s amendments have materially strengthened.
The TUC has said that it is “vital” that this Bill passes. Age UK has said that the measures in this Bill
“will help both today’s and tomorrow’s pensioners”.
The industry wants to get on with implementing these reforms. The Association of British Insurers and its members have said the same. They have welcomed the safeguards that the Government have put in place on the reserve power. It is time to get this Bill passed, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Question put.
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 176 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I remind the House that this is a procedural motion about whether the Bill ought to be carried over to the next Session of Parliament. While I will allow some leeway on scope, I gently encourage Members to focus their remarks on the issue of carry-over.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I beg to move,
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.
This motion will enable the House to progress the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is essential to remedy the failure of the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I am grateful for the careful scrutiny of the Bill by both the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. If dealing with legacy was easy, this aim of the Good Friday agreement would have been resolved a long time ago. It is not easy; it is very difficult, not least because there are many different and opposing views. We have a responsibility to do this for those affected by the troubles, including the many people who lost loved ones and are still searching for answers. I believe there is recognition across the House that we need to address the legacy of the troubles, because, after so many attempts, this is our last chance.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he has carried out his work on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill with such sensitivity to all parties. However, I would also like him to explain and give more detail on the responsibility to the victims and survivors of the troubles, as well as the special duty of care to our veterans.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with such distinction, and I will come directly to addressing the two questions she has just asked.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I represent a very large number of veterans. What are they to make of the remarks made by the Attorney General, who has suggested to his human rights lawyer friends that they have done more for the sum total of human happiness than the brave, highly decorated men and women of our armed forces, many of whom I have the honour and privilege to represent?
Hilary Benn
I would simply say that I think the whole House acknowledges the brave service of our veterans in many, many difficult circumstances, and that is one reason that this carry-over motion is necessary.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Hilary Benn
I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me.
Whatever its intentions, the legacy Act did not work. Its central provision—immunity—had no backing in Northern Ireland, has been found by our domestic courts to be incompatible with our international legal obligations and was never commenced by the previous Government. Immunity has been rejected by victims and families. Immunity is not supported by the three veterans commissioners, who have said that they do not call for immunity from the law, but fairness under it.
Hilary Benn
I hope that our armed forces personnel will listen to what I am about to say and see both the protections that are currently in the Bill and the commitment the Government have made to bring forward further such protections. Indeed, the Bill will put in place a means of dealing with legacy that is legally compliant and will hopefully, in time, command broad public support in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. It will also result in the unprecedented sharing of records by the Irish authorities with the new Legacy Commission as a result of the framework agreement reached with the Irish Government.
Since its introduction in October 2025, the troubles Bill has been welcomed by a significant number of victims’ families and representative groups. Many recognise that while it cannot be the perfect Bill for them, it balances many of the different interests and provides a basis on which families’ cases can be taken forward sensitively and lawfully.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before the debate started to check in on what he was putting forward. There is some indication that protections will be put forward that Ministers hope will support the armed forces, but there are no similar protections whatsoever being offered to personnel of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other branches of service in Northern Ireland. Some 319 RUC members gave their lives during the troubles, while thousands were injured; they deserve the same protection and help. Can the Secretary of State indicate what protections will be offered to the RUC personnel who gave so much for us, for their freedom and liberty?
Hilary Benn
The protections that are contained in the Bill currently will apply to RUC personnel and others who served the state, and the hon. Gentleman will see the further amendments that we will bring forward.
I would point out that every Member of the House has just received a letter from Joe McVey, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland, urging us to vote for this motion tonight and making the argument that
“beyond every clause and every amendment there are people whose lives have been shaped by loss”.
One important part of the Bill is the consideration it gives to those who served the state so bravely in the form of protections for veterans and police officers to ensure that they are treated fairly and with dignity and respect. In recent months, as I set out in my written ministerial statement last week, my ministerial colleagues and I have been consulting widely on the legislation. We have been very grateful for the time that veterans groups have spent with us, explaining how they think our legacy processes need to be improved. That is why we are putting in place new protections: no repeated investigations; an end to cold calling; requiring consideration to be given to the age and welfare of veterans; and enabling any veteran asked to give evidence to do so remotely and anonymously.
In Committee, I will be bringing forward a substantial package of amendments to further strengthen those safeguards, including clearly differentiating between the lawful actions of soldiers and police and the unlawful actions of paramilitary terrorists, and to put in place arrangements to oversee how those protections operate in practice. Without the Bill, all those new protections—which were not in the legacy Act—would not be there for veterans while the commission continues its work, including investigations. That would be a complete abdication of our responsibilities to families and veterans, who would face continuing uncertainty. Is that really what those who have expressed concerns about the Bill want to see happen?
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
For several months now, including when the Secretary of State has appeared before the Select Committee, he has in all good faith promised these amendments. Does he understand that his case this evening would be assisted if the House were to see those amendments? The motion effectively asks us to sign a blank cheque on a promissory note when we have no idea what it might contain.
Hilary Benn
The best way to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House see the amendments is to pass the carry-over motion tonight.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State be absolutely clear that if the Bill is not passed, veterans will have no protection whatsoever moving forward?
Hilary Benn
That is self-evidently the case, because the protections that I just read out, which the Government have put in this legislation, would not exist. That is a powerful argument why the Bill should carry over.
Hilary Benn
I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me; many Members want to speak.
I will turn briefly to some of the arguments that will be made against carrying over the Bill, because I think it is important that we conduct this debate on a shared understanding of the facts.
First, on prosecutions, in the last 28 years just one soldier of the 250,000 who served in Operation Banner has been convicted of a troubles-related offence. During all that time there have continued to be inquests and cases investigated. The truth is that the chances of prosecutions are rapidly diminishing. Secondly, I remind the House that the basis on which any decision about a prosecution is made rests, as it always has done, with independent prosecutors. No one who has done their duty lawfully has anything to fear. Thirdly, on the claim that paramilitaries—in particular the IRA—were given amnesty by the on-the-run letters, they were not. At the moment, there are eight troubles cases in which suspected paramilitaries have been charged with murder or attempted murder, including of soldiers and members of the RUC.
Let us not forget that, when in government, the Conservative party wanted to give immunity to terrorists. That is what the legislation said. Members and colleagues will be aware that there are many unsolved killings of British service personnel, whose families deserve answers, including of those in a number of the most deadly IRA attacks, such as Guildford, Warrenpoint and the M62 coach bombing. The Opposition’s argument against the motion rests on their wish to return to immunity, which never existed and is wrong in principle.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hilary Benn
I will conclude my remarks, because many Members want to contribute.
I am acutely aware of the stress that many have described in going through legacy processes, which is precisely why we will put the strongest possible safeguards in the Bill. If this motion is carried, the Bill will be brought back to the House early in the new Session for a Committee of the whole House, where I will welcome the scrutiny of all Members to ensure that we get this right. This Bill is about creating a legacy process in which all involved can have confidence. I hope that we can work together constructively and with the care that the families of all those who were killed or seriously injured deserve, to ensure that this legislation and the further amendments that we will make are given careful consideration in Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
At the outset, I pay tribute to the veterans who came to Parliament Square today, the veterans who have sent messages of support and are watching at home, and the veterans who are with us in the Gallery. I also pay tribute to the shadow Defence team, who have done so much to hold this Government to account for the mistake that they are making.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Alex Burghart
No.
We are now entering the season finale of the tragedy that is this Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It has been a long season. Despite taking office in July 2024, with a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, they have taken 15 months to bring this Bill to the House. Despite a Second Reading in November, nearly six months ago, the legislation has gone nowhere. Despite bringing forward their remedial order to strike down parts of the legacy Act in January, the Government have since failed to bring it before the Lords, because they know that the Lords do not support it. The troubles Bill is stuck in a legislative purgatory,
“Doomed for a certain term to walk the night”
till its “foul crimes” are “burnt…away.” The reason for that is an open secret in Westminster. The truth is that the Bill is trapped between the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and No.10, with the Prime Minister and his team unable and unwilling to make a decision about what the outcome will be. We have read this script before.
For its part, the Northern Ireland Office is simply carrying out the orders of the Prime Minister when he came to power—the instruction in the Labour manifesto—and the orders of Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, about whom, it must be said, some extremely serious allegations have been made in recent days: not least that he may have drafted or approved documents alleging serious crimes by soldiers without reasonably credible evidence, and that he continued pushing settlements after being told that his clients were lying.
The Ministry of Defence is all too aware of the open hostility held towards this legislation by members of the armed forces, present and past. It is all too aware of the dangers the Bill presents to morale, retention and perhaps even recruitment, but its Ministers are not always prepared to say what needs to be said in order to get their way.
Mr Bailey
I thank the Minister for giving way. We are having this debate because in hindsight the military forces deployed in Northern Ireland were not provided with adequate protection. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely cared about veterans and the protection of members of the forces in future, he would have submitted amendments to the Armed Forces Bill to prevent a recurrence. Can he make us aware of any such amendments?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I gently remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point.
Alex Burghart
I strongly encourage the hon. Gentleman to take time to read the Armed Forces Bill amendment paper. The two gentlemen sitting either side of me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), have tabled very many amendments. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go out this evening and to try to find one veterans organisation that supports what his party is trying to do with this Bill.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The hon. Gentleman is the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so he should know the lie of the land there. He has talked a lot about veterans. Has he read the letter from Sandra Peake, the director of the WAVE trauma centre? She is an unimpeachable character, who has stood up on behalf of all kinds of victims. She is imploring us to put the Bill through tonight so that we can properly scrutinise it. Has he read that letter? Is he going to mention victims at all in his speech?
Alex Burghart
I have read that letter. I have great respect for the WAVE trust; I did some work with it when I first came to the House. I respectfully disagree with what is in that letter, for reasons that I will set out in due course.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that any Government Member, including Ministers, who wants to be taken seriously by armed forces personnel needs to condemn the remarks of Lord Hermer and the disgraceful disparaging of our armed forces?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there will be ample opportunity for them to do so tonight.
Tonight the Government and Labour Back Benchers have a choice, and the choice is simple: to reject this controversial and unloved legislation, which promises much but would do no good.
Alex Burghart
We will get to immunity in a moment, but the Labour party needs to look down within its soul and its history before it says such things.
The Bill will reopen the door to vexatious litigation. It will drag old soldiers through the courts and subject split-second decisions taken under high stress decades ago to the post hoc algorithm of a legal framework that did not exist at that time. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said that military forces were not given adequate protection at the time—what has happened subsequently is that the legal framework has changed beneath their feet and held them accountable in a way that could never have been intended at that time.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Is the shadow Secretary of State more surprised that the promised amendments leaked to the papers at the weekend are missing from the debate or that the Armed Forces Minister is missing from the Chamber and will not be here to vote for this disgraceful carry-over motion, because he knows that it should not be voted for?
Alex Burghart
I am sad to say that I am not surprised by either of those things. I am not surprised that the Government are living on vague promises to table amendments—despite having had six months to do so. I am sorry to say that I am not surprised that certain Government Front-Bench Members have chosen to absent themselves while expecting Labour Back Benchers to turn up and go through the Lobby without them.
Jim Allister
The Member refers to the absence of publication of any amendments by the Secretary of State—promised, but not delivered. Might that be because this Secretary of State, who has embarrassingly shown himself to be wholly beholden to the Dublin Government, has not yet got their approval for those amendments? Might that be the truth of the matter?
Alex Burghart
I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This morning, we saw that Sinn Féin have spoken out in opposition to the very idea of amendments, so we wonder how it will be possible for the Secretary of State to table amendments without the agreement of Dublin, without the agreement of Sinn Féin, and without the whole framework he has built collapsing beneath him.
The Bill promises victims the earth. It raises their hopes, but I am afraid that in practice it will offer nothing in the way of conclusion or finality. That is because although there will be court cases, inquests, trials, reviews and challenges, as the Secretary of State himself has said, the prospect of conviction now is vanishingly small. The number of answers that victims will get will be minimal. All the while, veterans will be hauled before the courts, investigated for years and subjected to all the pain and ignominy that that will bring. The process has become the punishment. That is why none of the amendments that the Government are speculating to the press about tabling will do anything to solve the problem before us.
The Opposition have long argued that a different approach is necessary: one that draws a line under the conflict, draws a line under the legal conflict that has subsequently followed and builds a new system that builds on the strengths of the peace process as it was defined in 1998. In 1998 it was understood that there could be immunity in return for information; it underpins the legislation brought forward to support the peace process. That is why we have legislation on the destruction of weapons; it enables forensic information to be destroyed. It is why we have legislation that enables people to come forward and reveal where bodies are buried without fear of prosecution; that is immunity. It is why we had letters of comfort and royal pardons of mercy. It was understood that immunity would be an essential part of the peace process, for everyone who was not a veteran.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. However, this faux outrage was never—[Interruption.] My Committee has done some excellent work on this very sensitive matter, and when we were in Westminster Hall there was no faux outrage. These people did not turn up to speak up for the veterans they speak of now. The Secretary of State is doing an excellent job—so is my Committee—and I find it very wrong that these matters are being presented in this way on the Floor of the House. We need a carry-over motion. We need to be in a better place, where there will be amendments.
Alex Burghart
I genuinely respect the hon. Lady and the work that her Committee does, and she will remember that I was at that Westminster Hall debate. I must respectfully say that my outrage is not faux; I feel this very deeply. I have spent a lot of time talking to the people who are affected by this.
When the peace process was going through, when Labour was in power, it had no problem at all with creating immunity, and in 2005—as the Secretary of State will remember, because he was in the Cabinet at the time—Peter Hain, the then Secretary of State, brought forward a Bill that would have given immunity to terrorists, and terrorists alone. It was removed only when, under pressure from the Conservative party, the Government agreed to introduce immunity for veterans and Sinn Féin pulled its support, so the Government pulled the Bill.
Immunity is one of the things on which the peace process was founded, yet now in government, the Labour party has forgotten all about this and said it cannot possibly apply to anyone again. The Labour party has said that it cannot support immunity, and yet it used to. Similarly, the Government have said that they cannot support our legislation on the grounds that there was no support for it in Northern Ireland, but I am afraid that by that criterion this legislation has also failed, because where is the support for it in Northern Ireland? It is not there among Northern Ireland Members, and it is not on the streets of Belfast. This is an unloved Bill. There are lots of people who appreciate that this is the wrong way of going about things.
Jim Shannon
One thing that really concerns me is that this carry-over motion has been pressed by the Irish Government. That absolutely boggles my mind. The double standard is entirely shocking. The Irish Government need to be held to account for their role in protecting IRA murderers across the border. We think of all those ones who were murdered: Kenneth Smyth, my cousin; Daniel McCormick, his comrade; Lexie Cummings, and Stuart Montgomery. They were just four, but there were many, many more. Whenever there were murders, the murderers raced across the border. Does the hon. Gentleman share my anger on behalf of my constituents and my family, who want to know why the Irish Government have more say in this than the victims of Northern Ireland, my family and others?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend always speaks incredibly powerfully on this point.
The Government have also argued that our Bill was found to be incompatible with human rights legislation, but that is only partly true. The truth is that the Government failed to challenge the findings in the courts, and those findings themselves were highly questionable. There are high-level, highly credible legal arguments that show that the legacy Act may well have not been incompatible, precisely because the same logic around immunity had been used in 1998. So unless we are prepared to say that the legislation passed during the peace process is itself potentially incompatible with human rights law, the argument on the legacy Act falls. This is what is being considered in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court now. The Government cannot argue that that legislation was incompatible with human rights, because they failed to see the process to its conclusion.
All of that has been made clearer and clearer over the lifetime of this law’s delay. In the time that it has taken the Bill only to get through its Second Reading, we have seen, starkly and painfully, regular real-life examples of the problems it will perpetuate. I will give a few small examples. In February, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case. This was the case from February 1992, when four men—known terrorists armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards—attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were in transit to commit further crimes. They were confronted by members of the armed forces, who killed them. Those terrorists called themselves an army, carried weapons of war, sought to kill and operated entirely outside the bounds of any law, yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am afraid that that case is now being challenged, and the men involved are being subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of decisions they made in a split second, decades ago. Nothing in the amendments that the Secretary of State has discussed with the press will do anything about that.
In November, we debated the findings in the case against Soldier F from Bloody Sunday. He was found not guilty after the longest and most intricate inquiry in British legal history. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown Court that the evidence even then fell “well short” of the standard required. He said:
“A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.
The House must see again that it is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions, because the 1998 agreement was 27 years ago and the ceasefire began 31 years ago. Nothing in the Secretary of State’s proposed amendments or in this Bill will do anything to right that situation.
Several times the case of Soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised in the Commons. In October, the case was thrown out by a court in Belfast, where the judge described it as “ludicrous” and said it should never have come to his court—but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years. A further challenge was then mounted despite the judge having said it was “ludicrous”, and only recently has the veteran in question been freed from the weight of that.
I am afraid that if the Government’s Bill goes ahead, we will see a return to this repeat investigation of innocent men who will be dragged through the courts, and then at the end the legal cavalcade will move on, leaving them bearing the emotional burden of being investigated for having done nothing wrong. Nothing that has been speculated about in the press this weekend will do anything to right that wrong.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My hon. Friend is articulating it perfectly. Does he agree that the principle of innocent until proven guilty is no comfort at all for these people who are subjected to years of gruelling inquiry just to establish what we already know: they are innocent?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is quite right. The process has become the punishment. The process is being used to continue the conflict by other means.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Would the hon. Member accept that when the process exonerates the soldiers and the veterans at the end, the whole point of the process and taking them to the court in the first place is to give the daily headlines in the paper to allow Sinn Féin and the IRA to rewrite the history of the troubles?
Alex Burghart
I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is clearly what vexatious litigation looks like. This is vexatious litigation moved against men who did nothing wrong but are now confronted with a legal framework that creates endless potential for challenge against them.
Colum Eastwood
Has the shadow Secretary of State read the Saville report? He referenced the Saville inquiry not that long ago. Has he read what it says about Soldier F, about how many people he killed that day—unarmed, innocent people marching for civil rights shot down in cold blood by Soldier F, by his own admission? Has he read that?
Alex Burghart
I have read the Saville inquiry, and the hon. Member will have just heard me say that even after one of the longest, most expensive and detailed public inquiries in British legal history, it was impossible to get a conviction. Yet we are asking victims in Northern Ireland to believe that there will be some magical moment where suddenly it would be possible to get convictions in other cases. That, the House must understand, is for the birds; it will not happen. Victims will have their hopes raised and dashed in front of this legislation.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member agree that if ever there was a demonstration of the two-tier process in terms of legacy, we have it as a result of the Saville report? The same Saville report that was used to pursue Soldier F contained an assertion that Martin McGuinness probably had a submachine gun on the same day. He was never questioned, never mind pursued or taken to court—not once.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman raises a significant issue about the terrible events of Bloody Sunday, but I will not attempt to relitigate the whole of the Saville inquiry this evening—I understand the remarks that both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) have made.
Similarly, over the past few months, very senior veterans, senior generals and former members of the special forces have come out decisively against the Bill. On Armistice Day, in an unprecedented intervention, nine four-star generals wrote to warn that highly trained members of the special forces are already leaving the service. In January, seven SAS commanders wrote of the acute dangers of how
“a peacetime human rights framework”
now wields
“an effective veto over efforts to close the past.”
Last month, Generals Wall and Parker wrote that
“those who…did their duty in circumstances not of their making…are left exposed, without the shield of context or accountability that should rightfully belong to the state”.
This month, we read public reports that members of the special forces are quitting because they sense that the lawyers of the future will come after them.
I implore the House, on moral, practical and political grounds, not to support the Bill. I know that Labour Members will not wish to take it from me—and they do not have to—but they should take it from generals and special forces veterans who have dedicated so much of their lives to protecting their country and do not want to see their comrades-in-arms persecuted or their country weakened and put at risk. As politicians, I draw the attention of Labour Members to the fact that the Bill is not beloved by their constituents. They are being sent through the Lobbies tonight by people who may well change their position tomorrow.
The failings of the Bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen but long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not, and the Government persist, the next Conservative Administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The House will be aware that Mr Speaker has granted a limited waiver in this case to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings relating to historic troubles-related deaths. I remind Members that references to those cases should be limited to the context and the events that led to those cases, but should not refer to the details of the cases or to the names of those involved in them.
I will start by imposing a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, as I will be calling the Secretary of State no later than 9.46 pm.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
This debate is deeply personal for me, because, in addition to being the Member for Southend East and Rochford, I am a proud former paratrooper.
For me and countless others with military backgrounds like my own, the legacy of the troubles is not a distant memory but something that our community continues to carry the weight of. Back in November, I brought members of the Parachute Regimental Association, together with officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the Ministry of Defence. I had one simple aim: to ensure that veterans had a voice and their concerns about the Bill were heard clearly and directly. I thank those officials for their attendance and engagement.
Let me be clear: the legislation passed by the Conservative Government must be updated. This is not myth or fallacy; indeed, even some Conservative Members have acknowledged that the current legislation is inadequate. It troubles me when colleagues from this House head over to Parliament Square, as they did this afternoon, not to engage with former colleagues or members of their local military associations, but to “virtue signal”, as my teenage daughter would put it. Our duty as parliamentarians is to lead, make difficult decisions and speak with honesty and sincerity. It is not to spew negative and dangerous rhetoric, as some across this Chamber seem intent on doing. They parade around with lapel badges larger than some solar panels and bearing the slogan, “Proud of my country, ashamed of this government.” That does not help or resolve this issue, and it is certainly not why the public voted us into this special place. It is dangerous and unproductive noise.
However, I must be equally clear that, as it stands, the Bill leaves many questions unanswered and needs additional work. We cannot afford to rush it. Although justice must be delivered, we must also take the time to ensure that the legislation delivers the protections that our veterans need and deserve. Those who served in Northern Ireland followed orders and put their lives on the line to defend our country, and they cannot be an afterthought in this process. So I say to the Government that we should take the time to get this right, to continue our engagement, to listen to those who serve and the families who lost loved ones, and to ensure that before the Bill moves to its next stage veterans can have full confidence that it will deliver what is intended without creating serious unintended consequences that cannot be later undone.
In conclusion, I say that, to every member of our armed forces community who has served and those who continue to serve, we owe a debt that cannot be repaid. And to those watching from the Gallery today, I say thank you: thank you for standing up for the memory of those we have lost and for standing together to protect those who are yet to serve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring all those who served to uphold the rule of law during Operation Banner are treated with dignity and afforded proper legal protection. As a Member of a parliamentary party whose percentage of veterans is well into double figures, I assure the House that their experience informs my party’s approach and strengthens our determination to assist the Secretary of State in getting this right.
Before I address the substance of this motion, however, I would like briefly to correct something I said to the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) when we last debated this hugely consequential matter. In response to his intervention during the debate on the Government’s remedial order, I said that the percentage of veterans in my parliamentary party is greater than in his. During my research for today’s speech, however, I discovered that, while we are close, that is not the case. In my defence, what with the ever-dwindling number of Conservative MPs it is hard to keep track of the denominator in that equation, but I none the less apologise to the hon. Member and this House for my error.
This debate provides an opportunity to judge whether the troubles Bill is fit for purpose, commands confidence and does justice to those it seeks to serve. On all three counts it gives me no pleasure to conclude it currently falls far short.
As I hope the Secretary of State recognises, the Liberal Democrats have engaged with the troubles Bill constructively from the outset. Although we voted with the Conservatives on their reasoned amendment to kill the Bill, we broke with them to abstain on Second Reading to signify that, while we are deeply unsatisfied with many of the provisions, protections and omissions in the troubles Bill, we remain opposed to the blanket immunity confirmed by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, somewhat delphically described as “conditional” immunity by the Conservatives even though the only condition is the admission of guilt.
As a party that believes in the rule of law and fulfilling our international obligations under the European convention on human rights, we also supported the Government’s subsequent remedial order, which simply removed two provisions where the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal issued declarations of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998, one of which has never even been brought into force. Sadly, the Conservative party sought to weaponise that vote by creating a false dichotomy between veterans and victims, cynically pitching one against the other, seemingly oblivious to the fact that those two categories are far from mutually exclusive.
Cases like that of Private Tony Harrison, murdered by the IRA in 1991, bring this into sharp focus. His family has spent years seeking truth and accountability, only for legislation granting blanket immunity to terrorists to strip away hope that those responsible would ever be properly investigated, charged or convicted. Or there is Patsy Gillespie, who worked in an Army base and in 1990 was strapped into a van by the IRA while his wife and children were held at gunpoint—a hero whose last act was to shout a warning that saved the lives of many before he and five members of the King’s Regiment died as the bomb went off.
The Conservatives, who claim to have always had our veterans’ backs, had little to say when their own legislation barred investigations into the maiming and murder of hundreds of state actors such as these. There is a stark irony here: a party that claims to stand by veterans introduced a system that precluded justice for the families of those very veterans, which is why every veterans organisation with which I am working is opposed to these callous attempts to use the very real plight of our veterans in a nakedly political assault on the Human Rights Act.
The Liberal Democrats remain adamant that supporting the remedial order was the right thing to do. It was a narrow technical measure to remove two unlawful provisions granting blanket immunity to paramilitaries and veterans alike. We consistently opposed these measures in the last Parliament as contrary to the rule of law and drawing an inappropriate moral equivalence between terrorists and servants of the state. More importantly, all the veterans’ organisations with whom I am working oppose those provisions, as do every political party and community in Northern Ireland.
However, voting in favour of the remedial order does not require us to do likewise regarding the Bill before us, because despite many months of patient negotiation between the NIO, veterans’ groups and commissioners, Opposition parties and the MOD, the Bill remains deeply flawed. The central issue is the lack of sufficient protections for veterans and failing to address the very real danger that the process becomes the punishment.
The Secretary of State heralds his six safeguards, but even he has now acknowledged that they do not go far enough. As currently drafted, there is no clear statutory threshold for repeat investigations without genuinely new evidence, no firm presumption in favour of remote participation, and limited clarity around how welfare, proportionality and the cumulative impact of past investigations will be applied in practice. Under the current Bill, veterans will continue to face uncertainty around repeat investigations, the threshold for reopening cases and the circumstances in which they may be required to engage again with investigatory processes.
I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has made clear his intention to bring forward amendments, but we currently have no idea how extensive those will be. There is still no confirmed date for the Committee stage, which has been repeatedly delayed and is still planned to be a Committee of the whole House, therefore precluding the detailed line-by-line scrutiny that could usefully take place outside the Chamber. In that context, it is difficult to justify carrying the Bill over without greater clarity.
Our position is not about opposing progress, but about ensuring that the legislation we pass is robust and capable of delivering a process that people, in particular veterans and victims, can trust. The carry-over motion risks extending uncertainty without resolving the underlying problem. It is important that my party makes clear that the current Bill is far from adequate. For these reasons, we will oppose the motion.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The first thing to say is that there was an alternative. There has been a lot of debate recently about whether or not there was an alternative to murder and mayhem: there was an alternative and that is represented by the party of which I am a member. The only honest way to deal with this particular issue is to make it clear that no matter whether the culprit or perpetrator was wearing a uniform or not, the murder of anybody was wrong. That violence brought us no closer to the aims that I hold very dear; it took democratic struggle to get us to the point of peace and opportunity for real change.
I was at an event on Friday in my constituency for the 45th anniversary of the death of a boy called Paul Whitters, who was 15 years old when he was shot in the head by a police officer and died. It was a very moving event. His family were there and his mother had come home from Glasgow—she had had to leave, of course, after all that heartache and pain. There were 186 children killed in our troubles: 80 of them were killed by republicans, 50 by loyalists and 49 by the British Army or the RUC. When we talk about this issue, I want people to think about those children. All I ever hear from certain quarters of this House is about veterans and organisations that are lobbying, and about votes and Back Benchers and all that stuff, but I want people to think about those children.
Julie Livingstone was 14 years old when she was shot in the head and killed in Lenadoon, a month after Paul. Stephen McConomy, whose family I know very well—they are decent, hard-working people—was 11 years old when he was shot and killed by a soldier in 1982. The people who went to try and comfort Stephen and see if he was okay were told that they would be shot as well. The soldier who carried out that murder—and that is what it was—was interviewed for one hour by the RUC. Six months after that, the RUC and the British Army came to Stephen McConomy’s house, and Bishop Daly said at the time that they were in the house longer than the time they took to interview the soldier who killed Stephen. Again, he was 11 years old.
Alan Jack was five months old and in his pram when the IRA set off a bomb in Strabane that killed him. I just want people to think about this. This is not some political game. Those of us who live there do not always agree, as Members might know, but we take this very seriously. This is about trying to give the people who have been left out of this process some truth and some justice if possible. We all know how difficult justice will be, but why are they not entitled to the same access to justice as any of us would expect today? If Members are against trying to sort out this problem, they should ask themselves, “Why not?”
Do not tell me to draw a line under the past. The people who want to move on the most are the victims who have been left behind in our society. They cannot just draw a line under the past when the truth is not out there about what happened to their loved one and the justice that they deserve has not been achieved. The bottom line is that if we are serious about bringing our communities together and reconciling them, whatever our constitutional views, we have to do it on the basis of truth and honesty. We should stop using our victims as political footballs.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate on the carry-over motion. We are here this evening as a direct consequence of the failure of this Government to honour their commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, to deliver on a manifesto commitment through a two-year Session of Parliament, and to bring with them the victims from Northern Ireland and veterans right throughout the United Kingdom.
This is not a failure of our making. The Secretary of State talks about and laments the fact that the Tories lost the support of all parties in Northern Ireland, but I see little support for the process that the people of Northern Ireland and veterans right across the United Kingdom have had to endure over the last two years. Time after time after time, we heard the Secretary of State talk of safeguards for veterans. Time after time after time, we heard him and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is sat beside him, indicate that those safeguards would protect veterans in the United Kingdom, yet here we have it—the Secretary of State has had to open up. He has had to tell us, as the Prime Minister confirmed to me, that he is going to bring forward further amendments to do what he said was already done. He has lost the confidence of veterans and victims.
We have talked about and asked the Secretary of State about equivalence. How can there be equivalence between somebody who donned a uniform, did service and made sacrifices legally and lawfully in this country and others who donned a balaclava, took an oath of allegiance to evil and sought to destroy our nation and all those in it? Can there be equivalence? No. Yet today, the Secretary of State says that he will bring forward amendments, and we are asked to support a carry-over motion on a process that has lost the confidence of the people it is meant to bring with it. That is a shame.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Despite the promised raft of amendments, this Bill does not and will never protect those who put on uniform and stood between good and evil—the bloodthirsty terrorists. When the East Tyrone killing machine of the IRA was taken out at Loughgall, it saved countless lives, and it was the same at Coagh. People have had enough of the hounding of those who served, and they have had enough of this Government bending the knee to Dublin. It is time that we stand up for our veterans, not throw them to the wolves.
Gavin Robinson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Secretary of State dismisses the allegation that this is all about Dublin, but what was the clarion call over the last week? There was a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference this week, and he knows that he is under pressure from Dublin to show progress, but what have we got from them? Nothing more than hollow words.
The Dublin Government said that they committed to information retrieval. How many requests have they accepted from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery? None. They have given no answers to any victims in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government have more secrets locked away in their drawers than lectures that they choose to give to this House. They still have an interstate case against this country. They promise lots; they deliver nothing.
Tonight, we are asked to support a carry-over motion. The amendment paper for this Bill, containing 49 pages of amendments from myself, my hon. Friends and hon. Members throughout this House. Although the Secretary of State was confident about this Bill, he now indicates that he is going to bring forward a substantial number of amendments. He would be better off scrapping the Bill and bringing back a Bill that can command the confidence of victims and veterans.
I listened to the powerful contribution of the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is no longer in her place. She will remember that one of the most startling experiences we had as a Committee was talking to victims who asked us this question: “Is the Secretary of State going to agree to early release for dissident republican prisoners?” On 21 May last year, he said to me that
“there are no such plans”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1011.]
yet that engagement continues. Worse, the Northern Ireland Office has now appointed a lady called Fleur Ravensbergen, who is engaging with the New IRA, who attacked Dunmurry police station just yesterday. Through their interlocutors and the International Red Cross, they are asking the Secretary of State to offer them early release. I say: shame!
Gavin Robinson
I will not.
When we talk of amnesty, I think of Martin Quinn, the brother of Glenn Quinn, and of Mrs Quinn, his mother —an 82-year-old woman who lost her son in January 2020. He was beaten to death by a loyalist paramilitary; he was terminally ill, and he was killed in his own home. An 82-year-old mother is sitting at home today with death threats from loyalists because of Colin Simms and the murder he committed in Carrickfergus. He does not have the support of his community or his comrades. If the Secretary of State can achieve anything tonight, it should be to inform Mrs Quinn that neither Colin Simms nor anyone like him will receive any sort of immunity or early release, for the sake of justice that is yet to be delivered.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
For my community, the home of the British Army, this debate goes to the heart of our history and who we are. In Aldershot, we remember 22 February 1972, when the IRA detonated a bomb targeting the headquarters of the British Army’s 16th Parachute Brigade. It was one of the first attacks by the IRA on mainland Britain, and took the lives of seven innocent victims: Father Gerard Weston, Thelma Bosley, Margaret Grant, Joan Lunn, Jill Mansfield, Sheri Munton and John Hasler. We remember them every year at the memorial that stands in their honour. We also honour the members of our armed forces who served in Operation Banner to keep the peace over many decades; I pay tribute to them for their service, including those watching over our debate tonight from the Gallery. I thank the Aldershot Parachute Regimental Association, the Royal British Legion, and the many individual veterans who I have been engaging with over many months.
I want the voices of our veterans to be heard in this debate. Too many families, including hundreds of armed forces families, lost loved ones in the troubles and are still looking for answers. Too many of our veterans have been left completely without legal protections because of the previous Government’s legislation, which was rejected by the courts. Ultimately, we are here today because of the previous Government’s decision to grant conditional immunity to terrorists like those who murdered British soldiers and civilians in my community. I believe that that decision was wrong, and that these issues need to be addressed. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading so that Parliament could debate how we fix these problems, and I am grateful to both the Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Ministers for the discussions they have had with me ever since the legislation was introduced.
However, I want to be clear with my Government that the veterans I have been speaking to over many months still need to be convinced by this legislation. They need further reassurances, and until we see the full package of amendments, I am reserving judgment. We must get this right. No veteran who served with honour, following orders in the most difficult, fast-moving circumstances, should be left fearing repeat investigations, and there should be no equivalence between those who served to protect lives and the terrorists who were only focused on taking lives. I wrote to the Secretary of State in January asking for more to be done on those points, and I am encouraged that the Government are now committed to strengthening protections for our veterans. Right now, our veterans have been left with no protections whatsoever—that needs to change. They need to be protected by law. I hope that much more can be done in the next Session before we reach Third Reading, so that we can give every veteran clarity and confidence.
Let me conclude with a reflection about what we owe our veterans who served in Northern Ireland and beyond. Last year, I travelled 8,000 miles to pay my respects to those from my community who fought in the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are British and remain British thanks to their service. The islanders told me that they owe a debt of gratitude to my community that can never be repaid. We owe a debt to all those who serve our country, now and forever, and I will always have their back.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call David Davis, after whom there will be a three-minute time limit.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and, given what I am going to say, to the fact that I was a trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for two decades up until a few years ago.
This Bill was sold to the House and the country on the premise that it would deliver human rights and the rule of law. As the House knows, I pay great attention to human rights and the rule of law—so much so that I defeated my own Government in court on exactly that issue—but what we have here is neither human rights nor justice. It is a perversion of rights and a travesty of justice.
The Government clearly have made promises to Sinn Féin, to IRA families and to would-be rewriters of history, including the Irish Government, putting those ahead of the interests of our soldiers. The recent revelation that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, pursued cases against our soldiers, despite knowing that the allegations might be false, is indicative, I am afraid, of the attitude of this Government to the rights of our soldiers, as was the Secretary of State’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The attitude is one of undermining our soldiers at home while they fight abroad, and the same will happen under this Bill.
We have already had a rehearsal or a preview of what is to come. This month’s Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Soldier B in the Coagh firefight is a perfect illustration. The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), read out some of the judge’s comments in that case; I will take things a little further. What happened in the Coagh firefight was that the IRA plotted to murder an Ulster Defence Regiment soldier. In the process of doing that, they were hit by an SAS patrol. The IRA terrorists all died, and an inquest found that the SAS actions were all entirely lawful. So what happened? One of the IRA members’ family used taxpayers’ money—legal aid—to force a judicial review. The judge threw that out, stating:
“In this challenge, this Court is being asked to slow the passage of time down, to analyse events in freeze-frame… It is ludicrous to suggest that this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner”.
He went on to say:
“I cannot conclude this judgment without expressing my surprise that legal aid funding was made available to mount such a challenge”.
Lincoln Jopp
My right hon. Friend is incredibly well informed on this subject. In his research, has he found any justification for public money being used in that way?
David Davis
No, but it is simply the rule that in Northern Ireland, it is easier to get legal aid for these issues. I can see that there was a reason for that in the past, but it has, in effect, perverted the course of justice in a case where soldiers did nothing more than their duty. That is what is going to happen under this Bill, too, because the case went on to appeal. If anything, the judge struck down that appeal in even more robust terms than the previous judge. A brave, patriotic, honourable soldier was dragged through three courts over several years, in gratuitous actions that were funded by the taxpayer.
I say “brave”, “honourable” and “patriotic”; these are not casual words. I have known Soldier B for 30 years. As well as being a brave soldier, he is a firm believer in the rule of law. He does not believe that there should be exemptions. He believes that there should be proper rule of law, which is not provided by the Bill. Indeed, given his history and his views, I would say that he has a better claim to have defended justice in our country than anyone in the House, and certainly than those on the Government Front Bench. What happened in that case is just a rehearsal for what will come if the Bill goes through. If it is passed, hundreds more—and I mean hundreds—will follow.
This Bill puts the interests of the Irish Government, Sinn Féin and IRA apologists above those of our veterans, and would put rewriting history ahead of providing proper justice. It is unpatriotic, disingenuous and dishonourable. It satisfies no one. It solves nothing. Everything it touches, it makes worse. I note that the Minister for the Armed Forces is not here for the vote, and I entirely understand why: he wants to avoid association with this disgraceful legislation. If he cannot vote for it, neither should we. We should reject this disgraceful Bill out of hand.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Andy McDonald, who has a three-minute speaking time limit.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Bill must be carried over. We need to replace the unlawful 2023 Act, and we must get this right. This is a test of whether the House is serious about addressing legacy in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement commits us to reconciliation based on self-determination, consent and rights. That must work for victims, veterans and civilians alike, and command confidence because it is rooted in human rights and the rule of law. The previous Act was found to be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, particularly the duty to properly investigate serious crimes. That is why the Government were right to bring forward a remedial order and introduce legislation to replace it. There is no justification for sweeping immunity measures that risk undermining both justice and reconciliation. Victims, including those who served in our armed forces, deserve more than slogans; they deserve answers, truth, and processes that they can trust.
We should listen carefully to Bernard Duhaime, the UN special rapporteur, who met the Secretary of State and briefed Members last week. He recognised that the September 2025 joint framework with the Irish Government provides a genuine multilateral foundation for a comprehensive legacy mechanism, but he also issued clear warnings: that the governance of any legacy commission must preclude interference by those whose conduct may be under investigation; that a reparations mechanism should be considered, to give victims an accessible route to remedy; and that claims of disproportionate targeting of veterans are simply not supported by the evidence. Protecting individuals from poor-quality investigations is one thing; shielding anyone from accountability where evidence exists is quite another, and the Bill must not permit that outcome. When the Secretary of State speaks of safeguarding Operation Banner veterans, he must take care not to alienate the families who are still seeking justice in cases involving the actions of British forces.
So I say again that opposing the carry-over motion would be irresponsible, and would undermine the pursuit of justice and reconciliation. However, confidence also depends on our getting the legislation right, and excessive delay or poorly judged amendments risk undermining that confidence too. We look forward to constructive engagement in the weeks and months ahead, because getting this wrong would be not just a legislative failure, but a moral one.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The motion may be dressed up as a matter of procedural convenience, but it is no such thing. It goes to the very heart of how this Parliament chooses to deal with the legacy of conflict, with the rights of victims and survivors, and with our fidelity to both our own constitutional traditions and our binding international obligations. The Bill, in its present form, fails the test. It does not command the confidence of victims. It does not command the confidence of the wider community in Northern Ireland, or indeed of our own brave veterans. To agree to its carry-over would therefore be more than a tidying-up exercise. It would be a conscious, deliberate decision by the House to prolong the life of a measure that is at best deeply contested, and at worst fundamentally misconceived.
We should be honest with ourselves: the Bill as drafted is not the solution that victims deserve, and it is not the solution that veterans deserve either. The Secretary of State has mentioned that amendments will be tabled to give better protection for veterans, but we do not even know what they are, so how can we pass tonight’s motion?
Dr Murrison
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the person who is likely to draft those amendments is the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, who is one and the same Lord Hermer? What confidence does the hon. Gentleman think the armed forces community can have that this Bill will be any better?
Alex Easton
I thank the right hon. Member for his comments, and I totally agree. There will not be a lot of support for this Bill among the armed forces.
These are not abstract or academic concerns; they go to the essence of what it means to live under the rule of law. The Bill fails to grapple in any credible way with the status of the so-called on-the-run letters of comfort, and with the plain injustice that flows from the position in which those who fled justice were handed such letters while veterans of Operation Banner have been handed only letters of continued investigation and the threat of prosecution. That is morally wrong, and this Bill does nothing to rectify it. In that context, the carry-over motion assumes genuine constitutional significance.
Carry-over is an exceptional procedure; it is not a routine device to be used to spare a struggling Bill from the consequences of its lack of support. The Government are not merely asking us to keep an administrative option open; they are asking us to confer an extended lease of life on a legislative scheme that has failed to win the confidence of those whose confidence is indispensable. The proposals must include real safeguards for veterans—men and women who are entitled to see concrete protections on the face of the statute, rather than being fobbed off with warm words and vague assurances of future safeguards. Those proposals must ensure that the oversight mechanisms, and any victim and survivor panels, are constituted in a way that does not invite those who murdered and maimed to sit in judgment or presume to adjudicate the human rights of the innocent. That would be an affront to natural justice and basic decency. The proposals must also exclude political parties that support terrorism—past, present or future.
To vote for a carry-over tonight is not to remain neutral or to keep all options open; it is to keep on political life support a scheme that many veterans, victims and survivors feel is being imposed on them. Many veterans regard the scheme with deep and understandable scepticism, and many people across Northern Ireland do not support it. Accordingly, I am unable to support the motion for carry-over, and I urge this House to do the right thing and reject it.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I thank the Secretary of State for appearing in front of our Committee on two occasions—he has truly embraced scrutiny. The JCHR is currently carrying out legislative scrutiny of the Bill, and the remarks I offer tonight are informed by the evidence that we have received, although we are still working through that process.
As we all recognise, there is no more complex and sensitive a legacy than that of the troubles, which is why it is so tragic that the previous Government’s legacy Act failed so greatly. It failed because it could not command cross-community support, because it was rejected as unlawful by the British courts and, of course, because it introduced immunity, including for terrorists—a point made most strongly tonight by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). We owe it to the victims of the troubles to do better, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) pointed out, that includes the families of service personnel and the police.
On veterans and those who served, I note that genuine concerns have been raised. As the MP for Sandhurst, I know how important this issue is for all those who put on a uniform and bravely put themselves forward to defend our country. I thank the Secretary of State for listening to those concerns and for committing to bring forth amendments. Although all Members of this House will scrutinise those amendments closely when they are brought forward, I am grateful for that commitment. It is important that we carry over the Bill, so that all Members can scrutinise it.
This Bill is our opportunity to finally begin to address the legacy of the troubles. I feel very strongly that all of us must take that duty seriously and carry it out with all due seriousness.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In the limited time I have, I say to the Secretary of State that this Bill was bad, and it is now a mess. He comes in front of the House to ask for a carry-over when he knows that carry-over motions are only ever to be used for Bills that are pretty well set, but have run out of time to progress. Such motions are not for highly contentious legislation that is about to be changed, possibly beyond recognition from what has gone before. He is now apparently addressing many of the issues, but we are not allowed to know, because they are a secret until next time, when we will come back to carry on with a massively changed Bill. It is bad procedure, and it is bad government. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of time—he knows that—that this is just a bad route to take.
The problem that the Government have had from the beginning is that they have been tied up with trying to satisfy Sinn Féin and the hand of Ireland. I worry desperately about the arrangements. As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, where are the promises on delivery from Ireland? For all these years, there has been all the stuff that they know about who did what, when they did it and how it was done. All that has been kept behind closed doors for so long, and the Irish Government could have dealt with it earlier. Instead, there are people who do not want this to be open and we are now singing to their tune. That is what really bothers me.
We are now being asked to take a pitch in the dark. Having denied all the way through the Bill’s passage that veterans would be pursued vexatiously through the courts and having said that there were controls in place, the Government have apparently finally realised that that was not the case. All of a sudden, the position has changed.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On the question of the failure of the Government of the Republic, the reality is that they have an outstanding interstate case against us.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is astonishing. My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I served early on in Northern Ireland, and I lost a very good friend—I apologise for repeating his name—in Robert Nairac. We have never got to the bottom of what happened to him.
I thought that the speech from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was incredibly interesting. It is very difficult to pursue truth, which is why I supported the previous legislation. That was not because I thought it was a great Bill, but because I wanted some truth to come out. I do not think the vexatious pursuit of veterans will ever produce the truth that he rightly seeks. There is a better way, and it is not this Bill.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will, but briefly, because I do not get any extra time.
Colum Eastwood
I am grateful to the right hon. Member. I understand his point, and a point was made earlier about the commission for the retrieval of remains. Basically, IRA members who were involved in the disappearance of people were given immunity within the confines of giving information. The bottom line is that it did not work. Jean McConville was found by a passer-by. Columba McVeigh has still not been found and others have not been found. The IRA did not give the information, even once it was given immunity. Immunity does not work, and it has been proven not to work.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
We will not altogether agree about this issue. We can debate what actually happened, but we will never know, because the Government refused to pursue this matter through the courts. South Africa was a good example of how it could be done. I went out to advise in South Africa at the time, and I genuinely believe that the truth and reconciliation committee got to the bottom of quite a lot of what happened in South Africa and allowed some mending of fences. We will no doubt debate that issue further. I have high respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I understand his position.
In conclusion, we are being asked to vote blind on a Bill that we knew was damaged before. All our protestations about the vexatious pursuit of veterans were denied, as were all the issues that the right hon. Member for Belfast East has raised throughout the whole of this debate. The legislation was rather arrogantly pushed through, and the Government said, “No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The legislation is perfectly okay.” At the last moment, when they have failed to get the Bill through, they have produced this idea that somehow there are amazing new amendments that will protect veterans going forward. Why should veterans, who have been vexatiously pursued endlessly for no particular reason, other than because they were veterans who served in Northern Ireland, now say, “Oh, that’s okay; it’d be a good idea to see what comes next time around, because they were so honest this time around.”? The Government have failed to be honest about this from start to finish.
The Armed Forces Minister is not here for a reason—because he knows very well that he does not want to be sitting on the Front Bench when the Bill gets voted through to the future. [Interruption.] I say to all colleagues, it is time to call time on this piece of bad legislation and kick it into the gutter.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
A teacher in my constituency wrote to me today with concerns about the Bill, pointing out that some MPs will be voting tonight who were born after the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. We need to let that settle for just a moment. The Secretary of State is right to say that this is our last opportunity to get legacy issues right.
The fundamental reality is that life during the troubles exposed ordinary people to fear and danger that few outside Northern Ireland could ever comprehend. Those who lived and worked through that period—in particular those charged with protecting the young people in our communities—lived under constant threat and uncertainty. That burden deserves recognition and respect. I think we all agree about that in this House. Those years placed extraordinary pressures on everybody involved. It would be profoundly wrong of this House to disregard the risks faced by members of the armed forces, the police, the emergency services and civilians during that time, including the teacher who wrote to me today to say how difficult the situation was.
I was reminded at my St George’s day parish quiz on Saturday night at church that the RUC is one of only three organisations that collectively received the George Cross. May I take this opportunity to commend Councillor Tommy Judge, who has been the member for Sharston in my constituency for 25 years? He was on the 1974 M62 bus. He sat in a different seat that day, when 12 of his colleagues died and 38 were injured—there but for the grace of God. I thank him for his service in our armed forces, and I thank him for his municipal service in Manchester for the past quarter of a century.
This is our last chance for those who remember. The purpose of the Bill, as I see it, is not to deny the experience of those who served the state in good faith. On the contrary, it reflects a recognition that for decades the legacy of the past has not been addressed properly or lawfully. Families from all communities have been left without answers, and confidence in existing processes has gone. The shadow Secretary of State said “post hoc”. “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” is how the phrase continues—correlation does not equate to causation.
I am acutely conscious of the human dimension of this, having grown up as a Mancunian Irish Catholic and seen the bombs through the ’70, ’80s and ’90s, and, because we had the wrong accents, having seen how our family was treated. But there was no equivalence with those suffered in Northern Ireland. That is why this legislation matters and why Parliament must approach it with seriousness and respect for all those lives shaped by the troubles.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Bill is a betrayal of our veterans. It is a betrayal of the men who put on a British uniform and served their country, risking their lives to protect people of all communities in Northern Ireland during the period of the troubles—men like David Griffin, who I had the privilege to meet: an 84-year-old Royal Marine veteran who lives out his life at Royal Hospital Chelsea. He is a man who, half a lifetime ago in 1972, in a split-second decision when he was ambushed by terrorists, made a call. That call should not haunt him in the last years of his life. He should not have to wake up every morning worried that a letter will drop through his letterbox telling him that he is going to be prosecuted.
Old men like David Griffin have been hounded for far too long. That is the reason why—belated, yes, but belatedly it did happen—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 provided a degree of immunity to those brave men. This Bill rips that up. It will be open season for men like David Griffin. Men like David Griffin deserve better than this Bill.
Men who are serving this country now do so as well, because this is not just about the past—it is about the present and future, too. What signal does the Bill send to those who sign up to serve our country? That half a lifetime from now, new laws may come in, and they will be hounded through the courts, living out the last days of their lives worried about a knock on the door or a letter through the post? No. That is wrong. That is not the country that I want to live in.
When I hold this Bill up to the light, I see all over it the fingerprints of Lord Hermer—a man who frankly hates this country. Let us be honest with ourselves. I never thought I would see the day that Gerry Adams’s lawyer was sitting around the Cabinet table of the United Kingdom, in the very room that the IRA tried to blow up when I was a child.
The men who serve our country deserve better than this Bill, better than Lord Hermer and better than this Government. I will be voting against the Bill. I hope it dies tonight.
Hilary Benn
I will do my best to respond to as many of the points that have been raised in the debate as possible. I listened very carefully to the speech from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), but I am sorry to say that he did not address the central problem, which is that the previous Government’s legislation failed and needs to be replaced. He also appeared to suggest that he knows that victims and survivors will find out nothing from the very process that that legislation put in place, which I am keeping in the form of the legacy commission—[Interruption.] Well, that is what he said. Was the hon. Gentleman arguing that judicial review should be removed from legacy cases? Is that his argument? If that is his argument, it would not have been available to challenge the Clonoe inquest—a challenge that the Government are supporting.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) shares the Government’s opposition to immunity. I must confess that I was disappointed by his party’s stance on the Bill, because if there is no Bill, we cannot get it right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba)—himself a distinguished veteran—made a powerful appeal for reason in order to try to get this right.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) was listened to in absolute silence, rightly, as he described a number of the children who were killed during the troubles. That silence was in marked contrast to some of what we heard earlier.
Notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said in most of his speech, I welcome the fact that at the end he made it clear that he is opposed to giving terrorists immunity, and that his party, which he leads, has always been clear that it did not support the immunity provisions in the previous Government’s legacy Act, which is indeed this Government’s policy.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The Secretary of State suggested in his speech that no comfort letters were ever issued by Tony Blair, but a court case collapsed specifically because of one of them, so could he clarify that? More specifically, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said that a member of staff hired by the Northern Ireland Office is having meetings about the early release of IRA dissidents. That worries the House intensely. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no such requests have been made by the Northern Ireland Office, or, if any such requests have been made, that they have been immediately denied very clearly, both in writing and verbally?
Hilary Benn
It is a matter of public record that there has been no early release of any prisoners at all, and there have been no negotiations. I have said it in the House before, and I will say it again: there have been no negotiations with dissident terrorists at all. I did not say that no letters of comfort were issued; what I said to the House was that the letters of comfort did not grant immunity from prosecution. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) refers from a seated position to Mr Downey. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is a matter of public record that he is currently facing prosecution for the murder of two individuals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) gave us a moving reminder of those whose lives have been lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) called for seriousness and respect in this debate. I say to the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) that he is wrong. This Bill does not rip up immunity.
Hilary Benn
It is no good him shaking his head. The provision was never commenced by the last Government, and it has been found to be incompatible with our legal obligations. In conclusion, we need to deal with this, and I have heard lots of arguments as to why—
Business of the House
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move,
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.
This motion is purely procedural, to allow the Bill to be carried over to the next Session and for the remaining stages to take place following the King’s Speech. The Government remain absolutely committed to delivering this Bill. As the House will be aware, it was introduced into this place on 16 September 2025, with its Commons Committee stage taking place in November and December last year. I want to thank again all the Bill Committee members from across the House for their work on this fundamentally important Bill. This motion will allow the Commons remaining stages to take place at the start of the next Session before the Bill moves on to the other place.
The Bill is a product of the decades of campaigning from families affected by state-related deaths and tragedies. We have heard from a range of campaigns, from families and from those affected, on the desperate need for change to ensure that when things go wrong, public authorities will act with candour and transparency, and in the public interest.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. There is much in the Bill to be recognised and welcomed, but does she agree that this is not just about the Hillsborough tragedy, which was awful, but about my constituents in Strangford, who, when they seek the truth from public bodies, are met with a wall of silence or, worse, a culture of circling the wagons? Does she further agree that the legal duty of candour is not just about paperwork and that it must be about restoring the fundamental bond of trust between the Government and those who govern?
Alex Davies-Jones
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is fundamentally correct that the Bill is about much more than just the duty of candour. This is about rebuilding the trust between the public and the state. It is about ensuring that there is accountability, transparency, openness and parity, and that the state remembers who it is that we are meant to serve. This is not just about the Hillsborough law, although this legislation will hopefully bear that name; it is about all those campaigns that have suffered as a result of state cover-ups and tragedies. It is really important that we recognise all those campaigning under the umbrella of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign.
At inquiries, inquests and investigations, public authorities and officials will be put under powerful obligations to help investigations to find the truth. They will all be legally required to provide information and evidence with candour, proactively and without favour to any of their own positions. Public servants will also be placed under a new professional duty of candour, which will be set out in each organisation’s mandatory code of ethics. This will ensure that individuals act with integrity and honesty at all times in their day-to-day work. The families made it clear to us that when it becomes apparent that someone has sought to evade accountability or prevent the truth from being uncovered—whether through dishonesty and deliberately withholding information, or through the perpetuation of false narratives—there must be clear accountability and appropriate sanctions.
The Bill will provide this through a new criminal offence of breaching the duty of candour and a new criminal offence of misleading the public. It will also provide non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, and place a duty on all public authorities to ensure that their use of lawyers is proportionate. It represents an important milestone in rebalancing the system, ensuring that the bereaved, grieving families are supported to participate in the inquest process where the state is represented, introducing the parity of arms that we have heard so much about. It also helps to ensure proper standards of conduct by public authorities at an inquest or inquiry.
Drawing on experiences shared with us by the families, the Bill will introduce measures placing a duty on all public authorities, and those that represent them, to act in line with statutory guidance and to support families’ participation in the process. Where there are concerns regarding the conduct of public authorities or their legal teams, the Bill grants the power to the coroner or the inquiry chair to raise those concerns with the appropriate senior individual level of public authority.
The Bill also abolishes the current common law offences of misconduct in public office following the Law Commission recommendations in its 2020 report. In its place will be two new statutory offences: the breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury, and seriously improper acts. By putting these offences on the statute book, we are making it clear what types of behaviour are covered by this offence and who exactly it applies to.
This is a landmark Bill. It will transform the way that public authorities and officials interact with official investigations and will act as a catalyst for the radical change in culture across the public sector that we so desperately need. It will deliver the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a generation and a move away from that culture of cover up and distrust in the state.
The Bill was due to return to the Commons for remaining stages in January. However, as many in this House will be aware, concerns were raised on how the duty of candour and assistance would apply to the intelligence and security services. The Government brought forward several amendments to strengthen the Bill in this area. However, it became clear from our conversations with families and stakeholders that they had concerns about how the accompanying safeguards we proposed might work in practice. We have always been clear that this is a Bill for and by the families, and where they have concerns, we will always listen.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Can the Minister give hope tonight through this Bill to the families of those who lost loved ones on 2 June 1994 on the Mull of Kintyre? Currently, documents pertaining to the tragedy of the Chinook disaster are under lock and key for 100 years. Indeed, the documents and evidence that are currently available should give this House serious concern as to what went on before that tragedy. Can she give hope today?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue regarding the Chinook disaster. I recently had the privilege of meeting the bereaved families of the Chinook disaster, and I want to pay tribute to them and their tenacious campaigning to uncover the truth of what happened to their loved ones. I am deeply pleased that the Prime Minister agreed to meet those families last week at Prime Minister’s questions, and we look forward to working with them and all the other campaigners as the Bill progresses through the House to ensure that anyone affected by a state cover-up or a tragedy where the state is represented should have the truth available to them. That is a fundamental feature of this Bill and one we wholeheartedly believe in.
It is because of those families and their lived experience that the Government took the decision to delay the Bill to allow more time to get it right—to address the issues that were raised directly with us by the families while not compromising our ability to protect national security and safeguard the national interest. In the past few months, we have been working intensively with the security services, Hillsborough Law Now and the Intelligence and Security Committee to find a way forward on this issue. But that has meant, sadly, that there was not sufficient time to complete the Bill’s passage in this Session. The Government have therefore tabled this motion to allow the Bill to continue parliamentary passage in the next Session.
I am aware that this Bill is of high interest and importance to many Members of this House, the public and, indeed, members of the other place, and many are very eager to see this Bill on the statute books. I want to stress that I share that eagerness. I want to make it clear that the Government remain resolutely committed to delivering this vital legislation. We are determined to get this right. We are continuing to work closely with campaigners and families, and if this motion is agreed this evening, we will bring the Bill back to complete Commons remaining stages, with new Government amendments, at the start of the next Session.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Let me say at the outset that the Opposition continue to support the broad aims of the Bill, as we have done throughout its passage. We recognise the importance of candour, transparency and accountability in public life and recognise the long and determined work of those campaigners, including the Hillsborough families and others who have fought for many years to ensure that where public bodies fail, evade, conceal or mislead, there are proper consequences. That principle remains an important one, and it is not a partisan principle. It is not owned by any one party or Government; it is a basic requirement of good government and of public confidence in the institutions of the state.
As has been recognised throughout the passage of the Bill, legislation on its own cannot guarantee the cultural change that is needed. We have already introduced duties of candour in parts of the public sector—for example, the NHS—and have taken steps in recent years in policing to improve accountability, as well as creating the office of the independent public advocate, but questions remain about whether the system works as it should when it really matters. The lesson from Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, the Post Office scandal and other serious institutional failures is that, yes, the legal framework matters, but so do culture and practice. For that reason, we want the Bill to progress and the areas of consensus to move forward, so we do not intend to oppose this carry-over motion. We have consistently taken part in proceedings in that matter.
What I say next is not a criticism of the approach of campaigners, or indeed of the many Labour MPs who have been sincere and consistent in their campaigning on this issue over many years, including the hon. Members for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). The Government have utterly mishandled this legislation from start to finish, which is why we are here today, six months on from Second Reading, with a Bill pulled at the last minute—and with broken promises. I do not expect Labour Members to relish joining me in that criticism.
The Minister will, I am sure, say that the Government have at least brought a Bill forward, as if that were a blank cheque for the manner in which these proceedings have been conducted. I have some sympathy for her—she has been put into difficult situations—but trust has been damaged on all sides. Even though this Bill is about trust, candour and whether the public can believe what they are told by those who exercise power on their behalf, the process by which the Government have pursued the Bill has too often fallen short of the standards that Ministers say they want to impose on others through this legislation.
The Prime Minister announced the Bill last September at party conference, and gave the clear impression that families and campaigners were content with the detail on the approach being taken. The House should remember that it had been widely reported several months earlier that a draft Bill had been rejected by campaigners. What else could we have reasonably assumed other than that those concerns had been addressed? It has since become crystal clear that campaigners were in fact not satisfied with the draft proposals, and that their support was conditional—as I understand it, they made that clear to the Government—but the Prime Minister wanted his big announcement and proceeded anyway.
The Hillsborough Law Now campaign has explained its view: the delays since January have been caused not by the families or campaigners, but by disagreements within Government and by objections from the Cabinet Office, the security services and others. All that should surely have been dealt with prior to the drafting, publication and big announcement of the Bill, and the fact that it was not is why we are debating this carry-over motion. On more than one occasion, we were presented with a version of the Bill that the Government told us was the only possible approach to the inclusion of the intelligence services—until it was not. We were told that the balance had been struck, but then the Bill was withdrawn and there were reports of further changes.
The issues relating to the security services could not be more serious. The Government cannot have it both ways; they cannot tell the House at one stage that the Bill they have published is the only responsible approach to the inclusion of the security services—and marshal the leaders of the security services to say the same thing—before moving away from that position without properly explaining what has changed, why, and whether the earlier assurances given to Members were sound.
The Opposition have always accepted that national security raises real and serious issues; there will be material that cannot be handled in the same way as ordinary departmental papers, as well as operations, sources, methods and relationships with allies that require safeguards. Any responsible Government must take that seriously. It was a Conservative Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)—who asked how those provisions might apply to elements of the armed force, and those elements were then included in the Bill very late in the day. That is another issue that should have been properly thought through before the Government reached the point of withdrawing the Bill in January, which has led us to this carry-over motion.
This is part of a broader pattern. We have seen a lack of candour from the Lord Chancellor when he has been asked about prisoner release, and tomorrow we will debate the candour and honesty of the Prime Minister. I have absolutely zero faith in this Government—zero. The Bill is literally about candour in public office, but this process has left campaigners, Members and the public unclear about the Government’s position from one month to the next.
The Government should not be surprised, then, that we will not simply accept assurances about the Bill at face value. Assurances are not enough; the test will be the text of the Bill, whether Ministers can explain clearly and consistently how the Bill will operate in relation to our security and other services, and whether the Government can show that they have balanced transparency, accountability and national security in a workable, principled and robust way.
I hugely respect the Hillsborough Law Now families and campaigners, but I am not afraid to say that they may well not be entirely satisfied by this law. A responsible Government must sometimes say that to campaigners, but this incredibly weak Prime Minister is not able to do so. The families and campaigners who have fought for this legislation deserve better than drift, confusion and mixed messages; they deserve frankness and candour. If the Government are not willing to do everything that the campaigners ask, they should just tell them so and get on with it. The public deserve legislation that is not merely well intentioned but clear, workable and effective.
As I have explained, we will not oppose the carry-over motion, but we will scrutinise what comes next with the seriousness that the subject demands and the scepticism that the Government’s handling of the Bill has regrettably earned.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I start by thanking the Minister for her hard work and dedication in trying to get this Bill right. She has worked tirelessly to ensure that the voices of the campaigners have been heard and are reflected in the final provisions, and I know that she will continue to do so when the Bill returns in the next parliamentary Session.
It is important that we are debating this motion today. We certainly did not want to find ourselves three months down the road with no discernible signs of resolution after Report stage was pulled at very short notice. But this motion is necessary to deliver on the promise. This Bill is too important to fail—too important for the families and too important for the necessary rewiring of the state. We could not have let that happen, so I am glad that we will agree this carry-over motion today. The Bill will, after all, deliver on one of the most radical commitments in our manifesto, but, most importantly, it is a promise that we have made to the Hillsborough families—a promise that needs to be honoured—and they have shown remarkable courage, dedication and tenacity to campaign for justice for their loved ones. It has taken decades to get to this point, and it must be beyond frustrating for the families to be so near yet so far from resolution.
The final details are crucial, and it is very important that we get them right so that we can deliver a law that passes the critical test: that victims are never again wrongly blamed by the state for their deaths; that never again ordinary people have to fight tooth and nail against the seemingly endless resources of the state just to get to the truth; and that we never allow public bodies to use the power of the state to obfuscate and lie in order to protect their own reputations.
Getting that balance right is absolutely critical to the Bill’s success, and it does meet most of the aims that have been set out, so it is disappointing that there are still a couple of key points of difference between campaigners and various parts of Government on matters, as we have heard, related to security services disclosures. I have been proud to support amendments tabled by my hon. Friends here today that provide what I hoped was a workable solution. I was also concerned to hear in a recent message from campaigners that officials are now attempting to reopen issues that they had thought had been resolved. So let us be clear: this House will not accept any backsliding on issues that we have already agreed and voted on.
The Bill’s progression does at times feel glacial, and although we all agree it was right for the Government to go away and strengthen the Bill and ensure that they get it right, rather than pass something that did not have the families’ support, we can all see how each and every day is testing for them. I have to say that is not helped by regular briefings to the press about the reason for the delay being this person or that person, or this Department or that Department. The Bill is too important for Westminster gossip and games.
I would therefore welcome any assurances that the Minister can give today on timescales. I would be grateful if she could indicate whether, as I hope, we can see the Report stage within a matter of weeks of the state opening of Parliament next month, because if we are not careful, we will drag on to the summer recess, and before we know it another six months will have passed. I know that she has never stopped trying to get this Bill over the line, and she has our support to try and find workable solutions, but we really do have to find a way forward sooner rather than later.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
First, I want to set out that the Liberal Democrats are supportive of the Hillsborough law. We have only ever sought to strengthen the legislation, not to undermine it, and we will be supporting the carry-over motion this evening. But it is frustrating for everyone involved that we have reached this stage of having to carry over the Bill, because this is landmark legislation that will transform the relationship between public bodies and the victims of horrendous tragedies, and, as the Minister said, we hope it will restore some of trust in the state among people across the UK that they will not be the victims of cover-ups after tragedies.
A duty of candour provides a basic but essential level of transparency and fairness, and a duty for public officials to act with openness when dealing with public investigations—vital steps that are supported by the Liberal Democrats and Members from across the House. I commend in particular the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has been campaigning for years, as well as other hon. Members in the Chamber this evening. This Government and this Prime Minister rightly committed to the full implementation of the legislation in the Labour manifesto, yet we find ourselves here today because broken promises, quiet media briefings and a lack of transparency have totally mired the process and the progress of the Bill.
Report and Third Reading were scheduled for 19 January, but the unacceptable carve-out for the security services brought that process to a halt. It is essential that the legislation includes clear, binding provisions to ensure that the security services are subject to the duty of candour. That is what the campaigners from Hillsborough Law Now expect, it is what the families of the many victims whose lives have been upended by tragedies and scandals expect, and it is what the Government promised.
The campaigners and Liberal Democrat Members will not tolerate or accept backsliding, but we are still in the dark. Yes, there have been media reports of a compromise with the security services, but we are yet to see either those amendments on the amendment paper or whether they are acceptable to the campaigners who have fought so tirelessly for the legislation. The reports also contained details of additional inclusions within the scope of the Bill, including counter-terrorism police, the National Crime Agency and national intelligence. Again, this House has yet to debate the merits of those proposed inclusions, and has only heard about them in the media.
Any outcome must be acceptable to the families. They have worked tirelessly, for too long, to see a half measure come to fruition. It is clear that the Government will not proceed without them onside anyway, so I encourage the Government, who I know are as keen to get this over the line as any of us, to come to a swift resolution. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) said, I hope that the legislation returns to the House shortly after the King’s Speech, because we will be in the summer recess before we know it, then it will be the conference recess. The families have waited far too long for the legislation. They cannot afford to be approaching another Christmas without seeing the Bill finally enacted. We all owe it to all the countless victims of Hillsborough, the Post Office scandal, infected blood, Grenfell, nuclear weapons testing, pelvic mesh, LGBT veterans and the many other scandals to finally get this done.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Ten years ago yesterday, the Hillsborough inquest jury delivered its historic verdict, concluding that 96 Liverpool fans who died at Hillsborough in 1989 were unlawfully killed. In the years since, the 96 have become 97. The families continue to campaign with dignity and determination for the Hillsborough law, to ensure a statutory duty of candour for public officials and to prevent such injustices from ever happening again. I am really disappointed that 10 years from that verdict and 580 days since the Prime Minister committed at our party conference to bring forward this legislation, it has yet to be delivered for the families and for my city.
I have been in touch with Margaret Aspinall and Charlotte Hennessy, who had loved ones who went to the match that day and did not come home. Their names are James Aspinall and Jimmy Hennessy. There are some words that they would like me to say and put on the record on their behalf today, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker.
“We would like to acknowledge the good work and progress that was initially made in relation to the Bill and welcome the roll over but we would also like to remind everyone of who this Bill is for—The Public. This is not about Hillsborough families, it is not about egos, this is about protecting others from the corrupt.
Lately it has felt like ‘Families first’ has meant ‘Families last’. We understand that there may be rare and exceptional circumstances, where immediate disclosure could create risks to ‘National security’ and we do not oppose sensible safeguards where they are truly necessary but so often that very same confidential information is leaked straight to the press by someone in government before families can even review it. That is not the actions of putting families first. It is unspeakably cruel, and unnecessary.
We were promised inclusion within this process and we would like a guarantee that the leaks to the media will stop, the delays will stop and everyone involved will refocus and remember that this is a legacy for 97 innocent victims as well as future generations and a manifesto pledge made by the prime minister.
Margaret Aspinall & Charlotte Hennessy.”
I plead with the Government: let their words be heard, and followed to the letter. The Prime Minister promised the families that the Bill would be delivered in full, and that promise needs to be fulfilled. Justice for the 97, and for all other victims of state cover-ups!
I thank the Minister with responsibility for victims for her tenacity and passion for seeing this Bill through and getting it right. I honestly love working with her, and I have complete confidence that she will deliver this. I welcome the fact that the Bill is being protected and carried over, but let us proceed with urgency, care and a shared determination to get this done in collaboration with and with respect for the families.
Let me end by again quoting Margaret Aspinall. When I last saw her, she said to me:
“The truth costs nothing, lies cost millions and destroy lives.”
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
As I set out in my question to the Leader of the House on Thursday, I welcome the Government tabling this carry-over motion for the Hillsborough law, but in truth it should never have come to this. It is wrong and difficult to accept that we find ourselves here today with no Hillsborough legislation in effect. Responsibility for this delay rests solely with a Government who, at times, have refused to push past the vested interests that were always going to oppose transparency and accountability. It was never in doubt that we would face resistance—the Minister and I have discussed that before—but political courage and determination are essential in seeking to change a culture of cover-ups that has damaged our country and undermined trust in our institutions.
Jim Shannon
It would be remiss of this House not to put on record our thanks to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for all their hard work to make this happen, and for their endurance, perseverance, determination, courage and commitment. We are all greatly moved by the efforts they have made over the years, and because of them, the Minister and this Government have brought forward a legislative change, with this carry-over motion tonight. This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is better off for their collective efforts.
Ian Byrne
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words.
The Minister and I both stood for election in 2024 on a clear manifesto commitment to deliver the Hillsborough law in full. The Prime Minister promised on multiple occasions that passing the Hillsborough law would be among the first acts of this Government, yet two anniversaries of Hillsborough and an entire parliamentary Session have passed without it being delivered. That is simply not good enough. I hear that certain Ministers oppose this legislation due to pressure from the security services and the Ministry of Defence, and that is precisely why leadership is required. The buck stops with the Prime Minister. We must push through disagreement and ensure that this Bill is delivered in its entirety.
Every delay causes real and profound distress to bereaved families, survivors and campaigners—people who have spent decades fighting for truth, justice and accountability against a state that failed them and sought to cover up those failures. Crucially, as we have always said, this law is vital for the many people who do not yet know that they will one day need it, so it is essential that this carry-over motion is not merely a procedural device to keep this Bill alive, but a clear signal of the Government’s intention to implement the Hillsborough law in full at the earliest opportunity, as has been promised. This motion must now be matched with urgency and action.
The truth is that if the political will existed, this could be resolved in a single day by the Government adopting my amendments, which would restore the Bill to the full Hillsborough law that was promised. I commend every single person who has fought for this legislation. It is my job in this place to ensure that the Government deliver a Hillsborough law worthy of the name. It is rightly described as a legacy for many, but more than that, if we get this Bill right, it will ensure that state cover-ups are far harder to carry out in future. That would be a legacy of real and lasting value to this country, for future generations, and for those whom we will never forget.
A duty of candour that applies to all and ensures that nobody is above the law is essential to groups still fighting for justice. That includes families affected by the nuclear test scandal and those impacted by the Chinook disaster, whose pursuit of truth has been obstructed for far too long. In both cases, it is understood that thousands of documents remain restricted, despite the events being decades ago. There must be no built-in escape route, whereby any state body can decide for itself what evidence it provides to an inquiry or an investigation, as exists in the Government’s current provisions; that would be carte blanche for future cover-ups. Campaigners on these causes have stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight for a Hillsborough law, and I and many other hon. Members from across the House will not abandon them now, nor should this Government. Any proposed amendments that weaken that commitment must be withdrawn.
My amendment 23, which is supported by more than 70 Members of this House, would remove the carve-out for the intelligence and security services that exempts them from the duty of candour. Since the Bill was shelved in January, no Minister has been able to explain why my amendments cannot be accepted, or why those services should not be subject to the same duty. The amendment, which is fully supported by all campaigns connected to the Hillsborough law, simply applies existing national security safeguards that are already used elsewhere to the duty of candour. This ensures that those bodies are not placed above the law, while maintaining full protection for national security. The Government’s stated concerns about national security therefore do not withstand scrutiny. My amendments would have zero adverse impact on national security, so as the parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough law, I ask again: why can those amendments not be adopted, and why can the full Hillsborough law not be passed when the House returns in the next Session?
In what has been a difficult 18 months for this Government, marked at times by damaging and totally avoidable political choices, we must not allow this to become another self-inflicted wound, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Hillsborough law is far too important. Delivered in full, it would be transformational, placing social justice at the very heart of Government and showing the public clearly and convincingly whose side we are on. I know that that is what we both want, Minister. A firm commitment without delay to delivering on this Government’s promise is the very least that those who have fought for justice for so long deserve. It must happen as soon as this House returns in May.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the families of the Hillsborough victims, and to all other families whom this law encompasses. I welcome this carry-over motion, but in all honesty, it is absolutely shameful that it is needed. In September 2024 in Liverpool, in his speech to the Labour party conference after being elected, the Prime Minister made a commitment to introducing the Hillsborough law into Parliament. He talked of the
“countless injustices over the years, suffered by working people at the hands of those who were supposed to serve them”,
and spoke of his “driving purpose” to show that
“Politics can be on the side of truth and justice.”
That is exactly why I cannot support a Bill that would provide an exemption from the duty of candour for members of the intelligence services. It would mean that the heads of the security services could decide that their operatives should not give evidence to an inquest or a public inquiry on grounds of national security.
None of the families and friends of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, the fire at Grenfell Tower, the Horizon scandal or the Manchester Arena bombing wants to endanger national security in any way. However, there are already legal provisions to safeguard national security in the case of inquests or public inquiries. In fact, MI5’s website sets out clearly what they are. Under the Inquiries Act 2005, statutory public inquiries have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence, but the Act also allows for an application to be made for a restriction notice that can limit the extent to which evidence disclosed can be made public if it could genuinely damage national security. The same Act provides for a witness to apply for public interest immunity on the grounds of national security so that they do not have to give evidence, but crucially, it is for the chair of the inquiry to decide whether that should be granted, balancing the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosure.
There is no reason why an additional exemption is needed in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—quite the contrary. The mission of our security services and the police is to keep our citizens safe, and the police failed in the case of Hillsborough; MI5 failed in not preventing the Manchester Arena bombing. They then tried to cover up that failure, which risks the failure being repeated. A duty of candour for public officials must include intelligence officers, to ensure that the truth always comes to light and lessons are learned that will make us all safer in the future.
In his report on the Manchester Arena bombing, the inquiry chair, Sir John Saunders, wrote that witnesses from the intelligence services
“who gave direct factual evidence to me during the closed hearing were able to offer real insight into their thought processes at the time. On occasion, it became apparent that the Security Service’s corporate position did not reflect what those officers did, thought or would have done at the material time. Rather, the corporate position was more by way of a retrospective justification for the actions taken or not taken.”
That damning judgment shows how important it is that heads of the intelligence services are not allowed to prevent the duty of candour from fully applying to their officers. I welcome the fact that the Bill will be carried over into the next Session and will not fall, but I am angry that it is not on the statute book already. The duty of candour must apply to all public officials, and on the Wednesday before last, the Prime Minister committed to that in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne).
The report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct on Hillsborough was published in December. It was heartbreaking to read again how people suffered on 15 April 1989, but also the details of the subsequent cover-up and the cruel attempt to blame the victims. It took until 2016 for an inquest to finally rule that they had been unlawfully killed, and there is still no accountability or justice. That cover-up caused incredible pain to people who, to this day, continue to grieve for the loved ones they lost. Again, I pay tribute to them, and to the families of my constituents Keith McGrath, who lost his life, and Andrew Devine, who was the 97th victim of the Hillsborough tragedy. I hope that when this Bill is reintroduced in the next Session, the Prime Minister will make good on the promise he made, in order to prevent anyone else having to suffer as those families have done over the past 37 years.
I say to the Minister that there has been enough obfuscation from our party and our Government. I do not know who is preventing this Bill from going forward, but it is absolutely shameful, and it must stop. The Hillsborough law must be delivered in full, and I think the Minister knows that there are many people in this Chamber, and certainly in Liverpool and Merseyside, who will accept nothing less than the Hillsborough law. Justice for the 97!
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate for their continued support for what is, as they have said, a fundamentally important landmark Bill. It is for the 97, but also for all of victims of all the tragedies who have had to suffer and endure continued pain and trauma as a result of state cover-ups and the preventing of the truth from being sought. I can answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders): the Bill will come back as soon as possible. It is a Bill for the families, and we continue to work with them daily to ensure that we get this right. The Government’s first priority is national security, and we will not compromise on that, but we are determined to get this right.
We are also committed to ensuring that there are no carve-outs, and there will be no carve-out for the security services—I make that commitment again at this Dispatch Box. They will be covered by the legally binding duty of candour and the new criminal offences in the Bill, and it is important for us to continue to work together to find the way through. As I have said, we are continuing to work with the campaigners, with the security services, with other Departments and with the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that we find a way forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) spoke powerfully the words of Charlotte Hennessy and Margaret Aspinall, and I want to put it on record that I love working with her too. As I have said, this is a Bill for the families, and earlier today I had the privilege of meeting Jenni Hicks again. I will meet her on Thursday as well, along with Debbie Matthews, and I speak regularly with Charlotte Hennessy, Margaret Aspinall and many of the other families to ensure that we are consulting them and keeping them informed and updated on the Bill’s progress. I will continue to endeavour to do that, to the best of my abilities.
I also want to place on record the Government’s disgust at the briefings, the leaking, and the way in which some of this is playing out in the media. The Government do not condone that. The Government are determined and committed to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. Whatever is being briefed to the media is not the Government’s position, and we remain resolute in working collegiately with the campaigners to find a way forward.
My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker)—those tenacious campaigners—have stated very clearly this evening that there should and will be no carve-out, and that the Bill should serve as a legacy to the 97. It is far too important for us not to keep our promise, and I can say to my hon. Friends again that I commit myself to working with them and everyone else in the House to get the Bill right. We will bring it back as soon as possible, but we will do so only once we have full agreement with the families that this is the Hillsborough law, so that it can be on the statute book, it can be that legacy, and it can be that fundamental reframing of the relationship between the state and families. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House (Today)
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
23:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 64 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I can inform the House that Lords amendment 38X engages Commons financial privilege. If the Lords amendment is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 26
Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, and proposes Amendments (a) to (j) to Commons Amendments 38J and 38K in lieu of the Lords Amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motion:
That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 105C.
Olivia Bailey
I am pleased to speak once again on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and I will start by reminding colleagues why it matters. First, and most importantly, this Bill is about keeping children safe, ensuring that no child is let down by the system, and ensuring that children in care get the support and love that they deserve. This Bill is about high standards in schools for all our children, so that every child can get on in life and succeed; it is about excellent teachers in every school following our modern, world-leading national curriculum; and it is about removing barriers to opportunity and lifting 100,000 children out of poverty through our expansion of free school meals.
There will be no more eye-watering uniform bills, and there will be free breakfast clubs in every primary school. We are already seeing the difference that this is making: children enjoying not just a healthy breakfast, but a wonderful, supportive start to the school day. That is driving improvements in attendance and behaviour, and saving parents time and money, as this Government continue to do everything we can to support people with the cost of living. The Bill ensures safety and opportunity for all children in this country, and as my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary said when she introduced it, this Bill is for them.
I am grateful to everybody who has engaged with the passage of this legislation in both Houses, and I am glad that on the issues we have most recently discussed—admissions and particularly phones in schools—we have found a way forward. I thank the noble Baroness Barran, the Opposition spokesperson in the other place, for meeting me this afternoon to discuss our shared ambition to ensure that children should not have access to mobile phones at any point in the school day. I am glad that Members of the other place have supported that position today.
Lords amendment 105C is a minor amendment to adjust the Bill’s long title, to reflect the addition of the allergies measures.
On the remaining question of access to social media, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised across both Houses about the importance of the Government acting swiftly once the consultation has concluded, and we have significantly strengthened the power. The Government have said repeatedly that it is a question of how we act, not if, but to put this beyond any doubt, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the consultation. That brings forward regulations without pre-empting the consultation’s outcomes, and does not ignore the tens of thousands of parents and children who have already engaged with us.
Let us be clear: the status quo cannot continue. We are consulting on the mechanism, which is the right thing to do, but we are clear that under any outcome we will impose some form of age or functionality for children under 16. I can also confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to that, not instead of it. As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said, we are focused on addictive features, harmful algorithmically-driven content and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy.
The Government have committed in legislation to publishing a timeline as part of the statutory progress report already set out in the Bill. Recognising the strength of feeling and our shared determination to reach the quickest possible action, we are reducing the timeline further this evening. Our statutory progress report must now be made three months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, reflecting our intention to quickly produce a response following the consultation. Following that report, we will have 12 months to lay regulations, but our firm intention is to move faster, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has been clear that we aim to do so by the end of the year.
In exceptional circumstances, the Government have the option to extend the timeline by a further six months. To be clear, we have no intention to use this six-month backstop, except for in serious and unforeseen circumstances. In that event, we would need to return to Parliament to explain why the extension was needed. In recognition of the strong concerns expressed about harmful and addictive design features, we have further specified that the Secretary of State must have due regard to such features when deciding how to exercise the power and making future regulations.
We all share the same objective: keeping children safe online. These changes give us the strongest foundation for quick and decisive action.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
You talk about swift action, but actually what you talked about—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I have not spoken about swift action. Would the hon. Member like to make another short intervention appropriately?
Victoria Collins
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister talks about swift action, but the timelines put forward in the Lords still add up to 21 months before there is action. Does the Minister believe that that is at all swift? I do not think that parents will.
Olivia Bailey
I have been clear with the hon. Member about our determination to act swiftly. These measures are a ceiling, not an ambition. We will act swiftly, reporting by the summer and then acting within 12 months.
To conclude, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have listened to concerns from all parts of the House and made meaningful changes where needed. We will continue to listen to all stakeholders as we move into implementation.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
On Friday, after Labour MPs had repeatedly blocked a social media ban for under-16s, we had a new proposal from the Government. It was not a serious response to the issue we are facing. It gave the Government three years to take unspecified action on social media, which was nowhere near good enough. Today, that has changed. We now have a commitment from the Government that they will impose an age restriction for children under 16, which will be in addition to, not instead of any curfews. That is a huge step forward in keeping children safe and in supporting parents in their fight against screens destroying children’s lives.
We should remember that at the start of the Bill’s passage 18 months ago, the Government said that a social media ban was not something they were looking at. We have moved so far, and things have only changed because of the unity of those on the Opposition Benches, because of Lord Nash’s brilliant campaign and because of the coalition behind Raise the Age. It is a victory for the teachers and health professionals who have constantly made the arguments, and it has happened because of the voices of brave bereaved parents such as Ellen, Lisa, Esther, George, Mariano and sadly far too many more who have lost their children, but who will never give up the fight for everyone else’s. They are why I have not given up this fight, and it is for them that I have been fighting. I would not be able to look those brave parents in the eye if we allowed the Government to get away with a timeline that meant they did not even have to act in this Parliament.
I welcome the Government’s constructive engagement on this issue, and we see a new proposal today that has a much more acceptable timeframe, albeit not as short as I would like. Every month of delay just leaves children more exposed to the harms of social media online. I urge the Minister to keep to her word today and ensure that action is as swift as possible.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend and Lord Nash on a hard-fought but important campaign? We now have a commitment in principle from the Government that they will ban the use of social media by under-16s, which will be welcomed across the country by concerned parents. Can she reassure me and the House that all that fighting was worth it?
Laura Trott
My right hon. Friend, as ever, is absolutely correct. As on the smartphone ban in schools, we have been fought every step of the way. I am just glad that right at the end of proceedings, we have managed to have a constructive discussion and to get to where we wanted to be right from the beginning.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I am intervening because I am a little bit concerned. One of the Ministers and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries are mouthing across the Chamber that there will be no ban. I would be grateful for clarification that there is unity on the Labour side. It is clear—I have checked with those around me, and they all agree that that is exactly what is being mouthed—so it is a bit confusing.
Laura Trott
I would be incredibly concerned if that were the case. Would the Minister like to intervene and indicate whether any PPS sitting behind her was doing that? [Interruption.] She says no. Well, that is good to know. It would be incredibly concerning if that were the case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I think every one of us would welcome the Government’s movement on mobile phones. In Northern Ireland, we had a pilot scheme to start with. We all welcome this measure on the issue of social media. It is for England and Wales, I understand, but will the shadow Secretary of State—I wanted to ask this in an intervention on the Secretary of State—consider passing on the details of the legislative change, so that we in Northern Ireland can take advantage of some of the good things coming forward? We should share those good things.
Laura Trott
As ever, the hon. Gentleman is correct. I am sure that will be picked up by the Minister in her closing remarks.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows that I have been gravely concerned about this issue. I, too, commend her on a very hard-fought fight, but I remain concerned that we had a vehicle before us, in Lord Nash’s amendment, which would have dealt with the programme now—not in five, six, 10 or 12 months’ time. I hope very much that when the Minister replies she will confirm that it will be adhered to. If it is not, then this House will regard that as a matter of bad faith. I do not propose to vote against the Government tonight if my right hon. Friend has struck that agreement.
Laura Trott
My right hon. Friend is always correct to be worried, but he will know that in Lord Nash’s amendment a 12-month delay was written in. I think it is reasonable to give the Government some time to bring the measure forward. As I said, the delay is not as short as I would like, but we have shown throughout the passage of the Bill—albeit a little too late, as I mentioned to the Minister—that we are able to compromise. I think we have shown good faith and I hope that is what the Government will now deliver on.
Politics matters. It can make a difference. We have shown tonight that when we come together we can deliver in the interests of children.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind Back-Bench colleagues who wish to contribute that their contributions must relate to the amendments in front of us.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I congratulate and thank the Minister for her brilliant leadership throughout the passage of the Bill. It is fantastic to see this Labour Government delivering for children. In Plymouth, the free breakfast clubs have made an enormous difference. The measures in the Bill, including those with amendments, will be fantastic for children going forward.
On the amendment relating to social media age restrictions, I first note that the Opposition are doing a good job of making it sound like they have campaigned for this for years and years. They were in government for 14 years. Can I reveal to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, when it became their policy? It was three months ago, in January. I congratulate them on a very hard-fought three months, when the strong zeitgeist of the entire western world has been to age-restrict social media.
I thank Science, Innovation and Technology Ministers on the Front Bench for doing the hard work. They are not in opposition, quickly jumping on a bandwagon and trying to claim easy wins; they are consulting thoroughly with residents across the country, including in the south-west. I am really grateful for that, because we have to get this right—we have to do it. There is immense support across the House and among many colleagues for increasing age restrictions. We want this to happen and the Government are listening to us, but they want to do it in a careful way and I support doing it in a way that sticks. I note that our Labour party colleagues in Australia have done it and found immense success in their public approval ratings. Why is that? It is because the public know and families know—in fact, I think I can say that children know—that further protection through increasing age restrictions is needed. That is why it is so crucial to get this right. I welcome the Government’s amendment.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman mentions his Labour colleagues in Australia and the great success they have had with their vision. Why are his Government dithering and delaying?
Fred Thomas
I politely disagree about dithering and delay. The Government are getting on as quickly as possible. The consultation was launched rapidly and is taking place right now, and the Government have committed to implementing the findings of the consultation as quickly as possible. I can assure the hon. Lady and the whole House that Back Benchers such as myself and my colleagues on the Government Benches will be holding the Government to account to ensure that they do that as quickly as possible. I have been assured that they are going to do so, and I take them at their word. It is really important that the House gets behind these measures, and I am extremely grateful to Ministers for making this happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I am dismayed that we find ourselves here yet again on this Bill. I remind the House that this is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and currently one of the biggest threats to our children’s wellbeing is online harms, not least as a result of harmful social media, alongside other online harms such as addictive gaming and chatbots.
I recognise and welcome that the Government have moved a little since we last debated amendments to the Bill last week: Ministers have finally made the commitment in legislation that the Government must take action, rather than may take action. There has also been some limited movement on the issue of addictive by design—a key principle that the Liberal Democrats have been pressing—although clearer and stronger wording on this point would be helpful, not least in view of the recent court cases in the US.
Critically, we have been pressing for a clear time-bound commitment to action. I must say that the initial timeline put forward by the Government in the other place this afternoon was, frankly, laughable. When parents and carers, young people, grandparents and teachers in their tens of thousands are demanding urgent action on teenagers’ access to harmful social media, setting out a three-year timeline for introducing regulations to this place—let alone implementing them—was ludicrous. I note that this evening the Government have shortened that period to 21 months.
Ministers have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that the current consultation is very short and sharp. I welcome the fact that they have committed to bringing forward a report in three months’ time, whereas previously they had said that it would take six months, but why do they need a further full year to lay regulations, and then a further six months’ buffer? Countries around the world are taking action right now. This Government have shown that when they want to move quickly on an issue, they have the means to do so. The compromising of children’s wellbeing and safety online every single hour of every single day is a damn good reason to move quickly and to bring forward amendments acceptable to both Houses of Parliament and, most importantly, to the people of this country.
In the debate in the other place this afternoon, we heard excellent speeches from across the party divides—Labour, Conservative, Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat—all calling for urgent action. A number backed Lord Nash’s amendment again, even though many, including the Liberal Democrats, are unhappy with his particular approach, all because we want to ensure that the Government move further and faster.
May I draw the Minister’s attention to the noble Baroness Kidron’s excellent amendment that was considered in the other place this afternoon? As the Government will know, she is widely respected on the subject of online safety. Her amendment deals with all these important issues: safety by design; a harms-based approach with variable age-gating; and allowing the Government eight months to lay regulations and up to 12 months in total to enact them. Indeed, Lord Nash’s amendment, which the Government are choosing to vote down, committed to action within eight months, instead of this three months, plus six months, plus 12 months, plus another six months, adding up to 21 months before we might see any action. My noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones set out clearly that the Liberal Democrats support the approach set out in Baroness Kidron’s amendment, and I strongly agree with him.
I would like to repeat my noble Friend Lord Mohammed’s offer: we stand ready to come together, cross-party, to act together, legislate together and protect our children from online harms and ensure that teenagers do not have access to harmful social media. The time is now. We will keep pressing through the night if necessary, until Prorogation, to ensure that our children and young people are not let down by this Government at this critical moment.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I start by saying how proud I am of the Government in bringing forth a momentous Bill. Its Committee was only the second Bill Committee that I cut my teeth on, and it is a Bill of a generation. It breaks down so many of the barriers that were built up under the inaction of the previous Government. I really welcome what this Government are doing.
I very much welcome Government amendment 38K. Last July, I asked the Prime Minister in this Chamber what action he would take to keep young people safe online and safe from social media. He promised to look at the measures needed to create a safer online experience. That has been done; we have seen that, and it is part of the consultation that is going on. He also said that we will not hesitate to take further steps. A process of three months, plus 12 months, plus six months is, by many definitions, a little hesitant. If it is the worst-case scenario, may I seek the Minister’s assurance of the shortest timeframe that she sees as possible?
By 2028-29, the childhoods of many who are already facing these harms on a daily basis will be over, at least in age. If we do not act as soon as we can—this year, not next—the childhoods of too many will be brought to a crashing end by poor mental health, addictions, cyber-bullying, and the porn and violence that we know is rife in social media content.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case for the importance of acting quickly. One of the reasons many of us want swift action is the concern that those who profit from the proliferation of addictive and negative content online may be driving some of these conversations. We have talked a lot tonight about timelines. Does he agree with me that it would be helpful to hear a cast-iron assurance from the Minister that public health activists, bereaved parents and the children themselves will be at the heart of the consultation about how this is brought forward, not the tech companies?
Darren Paffey
It would be most welcome to hear the Minister’s reassurance about who this Government are acting for. The 21-month process may not serve young people growing up in Britain, or their parents, carers or teachers who are crying out for help. Will the Minister acknowledge that any delay past that minimum timeframe for action will only serve the very companies that my hon. Friend referred to—the social media companies who even to this day deny all responsibility and make absurd claims, as they did in the Education Committee last week, that social media is not inherently addictive? It is not good enough to let them get away with making such ludicrous claims.
Will the Minister give an assurance from the Dispatch Box tonight that, regardless of whatever temper tantrum the tech companies probably will throw when this Government do take action, their policy and commitment is to act in the weeks and the months following the consultation, and to bring in laws now, in 2026, to protect children and young people?
Alicia Kearns
Social media is the biggest child protection issue of our time, whether it is sexual exploitation, grooming, bullying, radicalisation or, of course, mental health and the risk of addiction. Raising the social media age limit to 16 is the right thing to do. I welcome the Government making this decision and thank them for doing so. That is why this Chamber and that of the Lords exist: because no one can make the right policy in isolation; we come together as a House, particularly with the support of our country.
No MP in this room has not been inundated by parents and children desperately asking them to make sure that this change is brought forward. It is good news, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) on her hard work pushing the Government on it. I also thank the Lords for their work. There is no question but that their vote this evening was absolutely decisive.
Locally, I want to mention the Conversation Stamford, who are an incredible group, mainly of mothers who have come together to go around our schools and fight to have a good, honest and important conversation about what access young people should have not only to social media but to phones. They are working class by class to get parents to come together as a community, to make a decision where they all stand together on what access their children have, to protect them together. We will hold the Government to this promise; the shadow Secretary of State most certainly will, and parents will be watching. Most of all, we are doing this for parents; it is they who will hold the Government to account. This is a good day; it shows that the right thing happens when the House comes together and does what is in the national interest and the best interests of our children and our future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I thank Members from across the House for their considered contributions to the debate, at this late hour and throughout the passage of this legislation. There were some fantastic speeches just now. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) made a great speech about the importance of measures that stick, work and are implemented swiftly. I commend him for his campaigning on this issue.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) pressed me further about the timeline; I repeat to her what I said in my opening speech. We have been clear that we will act swiftly, and that we will give the House a progress report by the summer. Regulations will be laid before Parliament within 12 months. That is not a target: we are going to act more swiftly than that, and have said that we intend to have laid the regulations by the end of the year. As I said, we do not intend to use the six months at the end of that timeline. They are there purely in case of exceptional and unforeseen circumstances.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for his service on the Bill Committee, and point him to the comments I just made to the hon. Member for Twickenham.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to be clear in my own mind. Opposition Members seem to think that they have extracted from the Government a commitment that social media for under-16s will be banned as a result of the amendment. The wording does not say that—[Interruption.] Let me finish—[Interruption.] Honestly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am asking a question to the Minister, not the Opposition. Can she clarify that point, so that what I have heard from the Opposition is confirmed by the Government?
Olivia Bailey
I will repeat what I said earlier. Let us be clear that the status quo cannot continue. We are consulting on the mechanism—that is the right thing to do—but we are clear that under any outcome, we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16. I also confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to, not instead of, the provision.
Finally, I turn to the speech made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). I enjoyed the spirit of her contribution and agree that when the House works together, great things can happen. I join the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) in thanking once again the bereaved parents who have campaigned so hard and so bravely on this issue.
The Bill has been before us for nearly 18 months. Although it has been a huge privilege to argue for the transformational measures in the legislation during that time, I very much hope that this is the last time I will need to do so. It is time for free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England. It is time to cut the cost of school uniforms, to ensure that phones do not disrupt a single second of the school day, and to keep our children safe online. It is time to ensure that there are excellent teachers in excellent schools, to stop children falling through the cracks between local services, to transform child safeguarding arrangements, and to support children in care. It is time to put Benedict’s law on to the statute book, and to lift 100,000 children out of poverty with our record expansion of free school meals.
This Bill ensures safety and opportunity for every child in this country, so that every child has the best start in life. Its measures are desperately needed, and we cannot afford to wait a moment longer.
Question put.
House of Commons Commission
Petitions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
This Government have legislated to protect railcard discounts for young people, the elderly and disabled passengers, yet shamefully in the same breath voted against doing the same for our veterans and armed forces. The Government told us that we should simply trust them not to remove these railcards in the future. That is not good enough and, frankly, is another black eye for our veterans and armed forces. I thank the 225 people who signed this petition with a wet signature, and the 1,623 people who signed my separate online petition on this issue. If the principle is sound enough to enshrine in law for others, it is sound enough to enshrine in law for those who serve their nation.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Veterans and HM Forces rail travel discounts should be protected in law.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce legislation to create a statutory duty for the continued provision of the Veterans Railcard and HM Forces Railcard schemes.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003192]
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I rise to present a petition on the future of the Penzance driving test centre. The metrics used by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency assume homogenised geographic uniformity, but we are at the end of a long thin peninsula. The DVSA offers a postcode search tool, which is irrelevant to areas like mine. Distress levels are high among instructors and learners; after all, they cannot travel north, south or west to find an alternative centre. During summer daytime, a round trip from the west of my constituency to the nearest centre in Camborne can take over three hours. Penzance is open only two days a week, and I am told that the situation is getting significantly worse. With the lease expiring in 2028, many constituents, such as local instructor Mark Squire, who is pressing to restore pre-covid opening times, fear the worst for the centre. Alongside this Parliament-compliant petition is a further petition calling for the same, with another 1,121 supporters.
This petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the Penzance DVSA Test Centre is reinstated to full-time operation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of St Ives,
Declares that the Penzance DVSA Test Centre should be reinstated to full-time operation in order to provide a service which meets the driving test demand in West Cornwall; further declares that the reduction in availability has caused significant inconvenience and delays for learners and instructors in the area, with waiting times now exceeding national averages; further declares that the closure or part-time operation of the centre forces residents to travel long distances to alternative test centres, increasing costs and carbon emissions, and disproportionately affecting rural communities and those without access to private transport; and further declares that local driving instructors report a severe backlog, which is impacting on employment opportunities and road safety for new drivers.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the Penzance DVSA Test Centre is reinstated to full-time operation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003194]
Ernest Bevin
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Ernest Bevin was a Bristol barrow boy who became our Foreign Secretary. In between, he became not just a trade union leader, but the head of the largest union in the country. He then went on to play a vital role in the wartime cabinet as Minister of Labour. A titan of the labour movement, some suggest that he was Labour’s Churchill.
In this debate, to mark the 75th anniversary of his death a fortnight ago, I will examine his achievements and their relevance today. Bevin’s accomplishments are made only more impressive by his humble beginnings. Born into great poverty in a remote Somerset village, he was orphaned at eight and began working as a labourer at 11, then as a delivery lad on the streets of Bristol. In his 20s, he attended lectures at the Bristol adult school and the Workers Educational Association, beginning his lifelong commitment to education. Soon after, he would become the national organiser for the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers’ union.
That informal education, and his life experience, made Bevin a formidable political operator. In 1922, alongside 13 other unions, Bevin led the formation of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. The amalgamation conference was held in Leamington Spa.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
On the eve of International Workers’ Memorial Day, this debate is highly appropriate. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as trade unionists and parliamentarians, we should commemorate that day tomorrow?
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should commemorate that day.
At the time of that amalgamation, the membership stood at 300,000 workers, but in just 15 years, Bevin would lead it to becoming the largest union in the country, with over 650,000 members. During that time as trade union leader, Bevin accelerated the rights, conditions and pay of the working class. His achievements included the introduction of a 40-hour working week, expanding holiday pay to 11 million workers and redefining the relationship between unions, Government and industry. Bevin truly was a visionary and a moderniser of industrial relations and left his mark on the UK’s political economy long after his tenure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. My Strangford constituency has a very proud military and industrial heritage. I believe Bevin’s role in founding NATO and his unwavering support for a strategic nuclear deterrent are just as vital to his legacy. Does the hon. Member agree that Bevin’s common sense, patriotic approach is something that all of us, on both sides of this House, stand to learn from today, especially when it comes to supporting our veterans and of course our national defence?
Matt Western
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Bevin was a really significant figure and one of the most underestimated by history in terms of what he achieved for this country. He once said:
“I’m going to be at the Ministry of Labour from 1940 until 1990”,
and he would be proved right. It was not until Margaret Thatcher that certain of these rights would be removed, and as a union leader he was ambitious for change and saw the opportunity to be an MP and would prove a staunch ally to Clem Attlee.
Bevin’s abilities caught the eye, too, of Winston Churchill. In 1940, under the coalition Government and despite their previous battles, Churchill insisted on appointing Bevin to Minister of Labour, saying:
“He is the Labour man I want.”
Bevin led the full-scale mobilisation and demobilisation of industry and the country while simultaneously advancing wages, conditions and the equality of the working class. He understood that compulsory work orders should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and his experience in the unions had taught him that workers with high morale would be more willing to contribute to the war effort.
In the early years of Bevin’s tenure, there was a serious debate regarding his voluntaryism, but by 1944 a third of the civilian population was engaged in war work, including over 7 million women, who played a crucial role in the war production.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Just nine days before Mr Churchill invited Ernie Bevin to become the Minister for Labour in his Government, Mr Bevin was stood in Hanley town hall in my constituency giving a public rally address on the importance of the working class towards the war effort, and it is believed that the coverage of that speech in The Times two days later is what caught Churchill’s eye and encouraged Mr Churchill to invite him into his Government, which is a testimony to the power of oratory that sometimes we miss in today’s debates—although obviously not this one—and also that, wherever we look, there is a Stoke-on-Trent connection to most parts of our social history.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was a high-quality intervention.
Matt Western
I will try and raise my standards to the level of oratory that my hon. Friend would now expect.
The role of women in the war effort proved decisive, and the mobilisation proved decisive to the overall war effort and gave Britain an advantage over Nazi Germany. As striking was the effect of demobilisation on a peacetime economy. It was all this work that led Bevin’s Labour Ministry to be likened to Roosevelt’s new deal, a theme to which I will return.
Following Labour’s victory in the 1945 election, Bevin was appointed Foreign Secretary, a move that surprised many. Attlee’s justification was simple: he thought that affairs were going to be pretty difficult and that “a heavy tank” was going to be required “rather than a sniper.”
Bevin did not disappoint. His achievements were truly considerable. Bevin understood the threat of Stalin and his strategy sooner than any other leader, and Bevin’s intervention to secure Marshall aid in Europe, the recognition that western Europe needed political and economic unity, and his refusal to bow to Stalin’s demands must rate at the very top of all diplomatic successes.
Bevin and Attlee’s decision to allow US B-29 bombers to be stationed in the UK sent a clear message to Stalin that the UK and US were resolute in the defence of West Berlin and Europe. Although Bevin understood the importance of US support, he recognised the need to be independent and insisted on the UK securing its own atomic bomb with a
“Union Jack flying on top of it.”
However, perhaps his greatest achievement was the formation of NATO. It was largely his own initiative, as he drove forward the eventual signing of the treaty in 1949 through sheer determination.
I should take this moment to acknowledge that Bevin was a man, as well as a phenomenon, who had his faults and misjudgements: his staunch imperialism, manifesting itself in the rejection of Indian independence, his handling of Israel-Palestine or the Malayan uprising, and his antisemitic views were all wrong. I do not excuse him, but there is much to recognise in his vision of the wider world and its relevance to today. As he saw in the 1930s and in 1945, we now see order crumbling around us and certainties of the past no longer hold true.
What are the lessons to be learned from the great Bevin? He showed that Governments need to cajole, convince and collaborate, they cannot dictate and they must have dialogue with the public—let us call it a national conversation. They need to be honest about the reality of the threat, the necessity of public partnerships, both with industry and the workers, and the sacrifice that may be needed. That is why the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy has launched its inquiry into a national conversation on societal resilience that seeks to raise awareness and build a deeper understanding of a whole of society approach to our security and our resilience.
Secondly, Bevin’s approach to foreign policy was rooted in his ideals, but he understood that to be a player, not a spectator, the UK needed a grand strategy built on hard power, resources, strategic partnerships and ultimately based on the national interest. He grasped that reality in 1945 and it propelled western Europe to a stronger, more unified place. That is how important he was. He did not cling on to the dying world order—he built a new one.
All Bevin’s achievements were made possible only by his energy, ingenuity and his ability as an organiser. Take the Marshall plan: Bevin seized on a speech delivered by George Marshall on helping Europe. He would co-ordinate a joint European response by all those nations. Marshall aid was secured and western Europe got the lifeline it needed to survive. It was so significant, but without his drive, the grand strategy and the ideals would never have materialised.
To conclude, in 2024 the Prime Minister said:
“We must mobilise what Bevin called our ‘collective moral and material force’.”
He was right. As Ernest Bevin, labourer, trade unionist, Minister and world statesmen would say, we need “action this day.” Ernest Bevin was a colossus. His achievements have few parallels, and we should celebrate his life.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Minister to continue to elevate the quality of the debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for securing the debate and for his excellent speech, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions. I am happy to have the opportunity to respond. I pass on apologies from the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who, as I am sure hon. Members will recognise, would dearly have loved to have responded to the debate, but is unable to be here because of a family matter, so I am standing in.
Ernest Bevin was a man of immense stature—a giant of the Labour movement and the embodiment of social mobility. He was born into poverty as the seventh child of a single mother and orphaned at the age of eight, yet he rose to be one of my party’s towering figures, one of his country’s most consequential Foreign Secretaries and one of the founders of NATO. He is aptly described by Lord Adonis in his recent biography as
“an international leader of unique charisma and authenticity.”
His life story is a testimony to both public service and to his immense perseverance, skill and energy.
Bevin never forgot his origins, keeping a photograph of his mother on his desk throughout his career. Leaving school at 11, he worked as a farm boy before moving to Bristol to take on a series of unskilled jobs, attending adult education classes and finding his voice as a Baptist lay preacher.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Chris Ward
I certainly will. Does my hon. Friend want to intervene because I mentioned Bristol?
Kerry McCarthy
Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing the debate. We do not talk about Ernest Bevin enough, even in Bristol. There is a bust of him in the Unite building, which was the Transport and General Workers’ Union building, and there is a plaque on St Werburghs, but we could do a lot more to celebrate his achievements in Bristol. In his biography, it is said that by the age 13 he was driving a van around the streets of Bristol, which is a slightly alarming prospect, but his back story is absolutely amazing and, given his background, it goes to show what an amazing man he was to rise to be Foreign Secretary.
Chris Ward
I completely agree. I would like to see Bevin celebrated more in Bristol and across the country, particularly for his contribution to NATO and to the trade union movement.
Bevin’s journey into public service was firmly rooted in the union movement, which he saw as his true calling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said. Bevin passionately presented the dockers’ case for a pay rise in 1920, earning him the nickname the “Dockers’ KC”. He also played a major part in the founding of the Transport and General Workers’ Union—before today, I did not know that Leamington had a significant role in that, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Under Bevin’s pragmatic leadership, the TGWU brought together 14 unions to become Britain’s biggest trade union, boasting more than 650,000 members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) said, it is quite right that we remember that today—the day before International Workers’ Memorial Day.
When our nation faced its darkest hour in May 1940, Bevin became Minister of Labour and National Service in the wartime coalition, heralded by Churchill and across the House, as we heard. It was in using his incredible organisational talents that Bevin helped Britain to achieve a significantly higher level of civilian mobilisation than any other country managed in the conflict. Following Labour’s landslide victory in 1945, Attlee appointed Bevin as Foreign Secretary, a role in which he left his mark on the world. As we have heard, he was central to the European recovery, working to unlock billions in Marshall aid and securing western security through closer co-operation with the Council of Europe, NATO and the Commonwealth.
Bevin was a figure of huge achievement but no little controversy. To put it politely, he was sometimes blunt in his speech. He was unable to find a peaceful solution in Palestine, and he was clear about his views on empire. Not every decision he made was the right one or one that I would agree with, but we remember him rightly as a relentless fighter, a fierce patriot and a champion for the working-class Britain that traditional political elites too often ignored.
Bevin was central to the great achievements of the first of the post-war Labour Governments, and his legacy offers much that we can learn from today. In the time that I have, I will pick just three lessons that I think we can learn from the most. The first is his pragmatism and unwavering commitment to get things done for working people. As a trade unionist and a Minister, Bevin understood that practical delivery was what mattered, trumping rigid ideology. In a similar way, this Labour Government will modernise our economy, tackle the cost of living and improve health outcomes, and we will do that in a partnership with employees, citizens and employers.
The second lesson is the great value of democracy and the urgent and continuous need to defend it. Bevin’s insight was the need for post-war Europe to resist oppression in all its forms. From our support for Ukraine, our Gulf allies and NATO to the drive for energy security, this Labour Government keep Bevin’s spirit alive. He also believed in the enduring value of strong alliances through strengthening Europe and maintaining global security through NATO, and our Government remain committed to that. Deepening our partnership with Europe, maintaining the international rule of law and working with our international partners together—that is how the best Labour Governments have worked before, and it is how this Government will proceed too.
Finally, Bevin understood the true value of a Britain strengthened by embracing the talents of all its people. Through his 1943 White Paper, he successfully fought to democratise the diplomatic service, arguing that recruiting from a wider range of backgrounds would vastly improve our global understanding—I believe the current Prime Minister calls this smashing the class ceiling. Bevin warned that choosing staff only from privileged, narrow circles meant that the lives of ordinary people remained strange to them. Today, any Government who wish to effectively serve their citizens must accurately reflect them, drawing on the widest pool of talent.
Ernest Bevin pushed himself to the limit for the country he loved, famously insisting on being carried in a sedan chair to the 1950 Colombo conference despite his failing health. He proved that public service requires immense energy and a relentless focus on tangible results. On his 70th birthday, the staff of the Foreign Service each contributed sixpence towards a present to him. Sixty years earlier, Bevin had left school to work on a farm for that same sum—just sixpence a week. It was that journey that shaped him, and it also shaped the party I love and the Britain he helped to build. I am immensely proud today to recognise his service, and determined that the spirit of his achievement will continue in all that this Labour Government do.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Vaping Duty Stamps (Requirements, Reviews and Appeals) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Vaping Duty Stamps (Requirements, Reviews and Appeals) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The draft regulations make provision for when vaping products must and must not bear a duty stamp, and ensure that decisions made in relation to United Kingdom representatives are subject to rights of review and appeal. They do so by setting out the stamping requirements that will apply under the vaping duty stamps scheme, and by amending the Finance Act 1994 so that relevant decisions fall within the existing review and appeal framework. The draft regulations provide part of the detailed framework needed for the administration, control and enforcement of vaping products duty and the vaping duty stamps scheme.
At the 2024 Budget, the Chancellor confirmed the structure and rate of vaping products duty; the new duty will be charged at a flat rate of £2.20 per 10 ml on all vaping liquid from 1 October 2026. Vaping duty stamps are the primary compliance mechanism for the new tax, requiring every duty-paid vaping product to carry a highly secure, scannable label. These stamps provide a visible and traceable confirmation that duty has been paid, enabling His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other agencies to assess compliance, and strengthening enforcement in a market with high risks of illicit activity. They also give retailers and consumers confidence that the products they are purchasing are legitimate.
Let me summarise the three measures in the draft regulations. First, they set out when vaping products must bear a duty stamp. Under the draft regulations, vaping products produced or imported on or after 1 October 2026 must be stamped at or before the point at which they pass an excise duty point. Products produced or imported before 1 October 2026 must be stamped by 1 April 2027.
Secondly, the draft regulations set out where the duty stamp requirement does not apply. They apply exceptions for products possessed by a private individual for that individual’s own use; products to be exported from the United Kingdom; products to be shipped or carried on a ship, aircraft or train as stores; products to be used in an export shop; and products that are afforded relief from excise duty.
Thirdly, the draft regulations provide for reviews and appeals in relation to United Kingdom representatives in the vaping duty stamps scheme. They achieve this by amending the Finance Act 1994, so that decisions relating to UK representatives fall within the existing statutory review and appeal framework. This means that decisions made by HMRC in relation to such representatives—those acting on behalf of overseas businesses for duty stamps purposes—can be reviewed and, where appropriate, appealed in an independent tribunal. This is an important safeguard, as the vaping duty stamps scheme expressly provides a role for UK representatives where overseas manufacturers wish to supply to the UK market.
I hope that members of the Committee will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be talking about vape duty stamps again, Ms Vaz. We spent hours talking about these provisions during the passage of the Finance Act 2026, and the approach that the Minister has set out broadly follows the one that the previous Conservative Government had in mind. None the less, I have a few questions for him.
The first question is about the implementation timeline. HMRC opened applications from 1 April for manufacturers, importers and warehouse keepers, with the duty obligations due to go live on 1 October and a sell-through period to 1 April 2027. Are the current timelines for implementation on track, particularly in relation to the digital stamps duty system? What assurance can the Minister give legitimate businesses that apply in good time that they will be approved and able to continue trading by 1 October? Can he update us on how many have applied so far?
Having spoken to industry representatives, I know they are working hard to be ready, but the key is getting clear guidance as soon as possible. I have heard concerns about some of the timelines. Can the Minister give an assurance that the appointed supplier of duty stamps will give timely information to the industry ahead of the 1 October deadline?
I turn now to illicit trade and enforcement. In Committee stage of the 2026 Act, I raised the example of Italy, where vape sales reportedly fell by 70% after a similar duty was introduced. That was not because people stopped using vapes; it was because they shifted to black market and unregulated online sellers. Experience with alcohol duty stamps shows the problem of counterfeiting. What has His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs learned from the shortcomings and successes of the alcohol duty stamps regime? The Conservatives supported the powers in the 2026 Act for tougher enforcement to shut down premises, but have the Government considered giving trading standards further powers to seize products and issue penalties directly, rather than having to go through HMRC to do so?
The Minister did not mention the cost of this measure’s roll-out, but it is quite significant. Estimates show that HMRC will spend £140 million to deliver it: £20 million on the IT system and £120 million on staffing and compliance. Add in £10 million for UK Border Force, and the total is £150 million straightaway—a significant sum. What assurances can the Minister give that that will provide value for money?
In the spring statement, the Government revised upward the expected revenue from the vape duty from £120 million to £200 million. Will the Minister explain what underlies that estimate? Finally, can he assure us that appropriate due diligence was done before the appointment of SICPA as the provider of the track and trace software solutions, in the light of the fines previously issued by Swiss authorities in connection with acts of corruption?
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Minister knows we spoke at length about this subject in Committee stage of the 2026 Act, and I seek confirmation on a few points that we made back then.
We spoke quite a lot in the Public Bill Committee about enforcement action, which will obviously be a key element. We discussed who would face enforcement action if they were selling products that were not licensed and did not have the correct stamps on them. “The seller” was mentioned as the person responsible, against whom enforcement action would be taken. Can the Minister explain who is meant by “the seller”? Is it the shop owner? Is it the brand? Is it the potentially 18 or 19-year-old shop assistant behind the till, who is just doing the job they are told to do? What assurances can the Minister give that, in using the enforcement powers, we will not penalise young shopworkers, who are simply doing their job as directed and who have no power, if they are doing something that is later found not to be compliant because of what their managers or retailers are doing?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition spokesmen for their questions and continued scrutiny of this important new measure that the Government are introducing to support our vaping products duty.
I am satisfied that the timelines are appropriate: registration opened on 1 April, giving businesses six months to apply. As I mentioned, products imported to the UK before 1 October this year will have a longer period before they are subject to enforcement.
There is always a risk that increases in rates of taxation will change consumers’ behaviour.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)
I declare an interest: I have not smoked for more than a decade, and I vape. Does the Minister agree that we have to be careful that the language we use does not discourage people from changing from smoking to vaping? Vaping has been shown to be successful in getting many people to stop smoking. The health benefits are there. None of us wants young people to vape, but vaping is successful in getting long-term smokers to move off smoking.
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The emergence of vapes in recent years has provided people up and down the country with a route away from smoking. That is to be welcomed. At the same time, the chief medical officer is right to highlight the risks and health impacts associated with vaping, although they may be lower than the impact of smoking cigarettes.
Vicky Foxcroft
The Minister says they may be lower. I believe it is said that they are significantly lower.
Dan Tomlinson
I am not an expert on the differences in the health impacts, and I trust my hon. Friend’s expertise and experience in this space. However, the chief medical officer is clear that there are still health impacts, and he supports the changes we have made. It is worth highlighting that, although the vaping products duty will be introduced at the rate of £2.20 per 10 ml, we are increasing the duty on cigarettes so that the tax differential is maintained. I thank my hon. Friend for her interventions and the insight she has brought to today’s debate.
On enforcement, HMRC is in the process of recruiting more than 300 new compliance officers. As the shadow Exchequer Secretary mentioned, £10 million of additional funding will be made available for Border Force. We are confident that the cost of implementing this measure will be outweighed many times over by the benefits to the Exchequer of the additional revenue it brings in. Unlike the one-off set-up costs, that additional revenue is there for the long term,. The vaping products duty will bring in £565 million by 2030.
The shadow Exchequer Secretary is always right to mention the need for timely and up-to-date guidance, and I will press officials to make sure we get the guidance out as soon as we can if more clarity is required. When it comes to individual procurement decisions, I am aware of the case he mentioned. HMRC assures me that it followed robust and proper processes in that case, as it does in all procurement. The bids underwent thorough evaluation and assurance process, and we follow strict procurement rules when awarding contracts, ensuring value for money for taxpayers. As for the subject of HMRC enforcement action, we will make sure to enforce against the appropriate person or business in each relevant case.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 17 March. Since 2011, the warm home discount has supported low-income and vulnerable households by reducing energy bills during the coldest months of the year, when support is most needed. The Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022 ended on 31 March 2026; the draft regulations will extend the scheme in Scotland for a further five years until 2031, providing certainty for households, suppliers and delivery partners.
As the Committee will know, fuel poverty is a devolved matter in Scotland. Under the Energy Act 2010, as amended by the Scotland Act 2016, Scottish Ministers have powers to design their own fuel poverty scheme, subject to consultation with and agreement from the Secretary of State. To date, the Scottish Government have not made use of those devolved powers. They have instead requested that the UK Government prepare regulations to lay in this Parliament, on their behalf, to continue the warm home discount for the next scheme period. Scottish Government Ministers must consent to the making of such regulations before they are made; I have sought and received their formal consent.
Let me set out some of the background. In September, the Government consulted, with the agreement of the Scottish Government, on proposals for the next scheme period. Consultation responses relating to Scotland were shared with Scottish Ministers, who have determined the eligibility criteria for the next scheme period within the agreed spending limit, as set out in the draft regulations. That spending limit will be £92 million for this year, as well as for subsequent years. The draft regulations will continue to require energy suppliers with more than 1,000 domestic customer accounts across Great Britain to participate in the scheme. Suppliers with fewer than 1,000 domestic accounts will be able, as they are now, to participate on a voluntary basis.
The draft regulations will continue to provide for £150 rebates to be provided by scheme suppliers under the data-matched core group and the application-based broader group. Participating suppliers will continue to be obliged to provide a £150 rebate to eligible households in the core group, applied directly to their electricity bill. The draft regulations also set out new eligibility criteria for the core group in Scotland, aligning qualified benefits with those of the Scottish winter heating payment, as of December 2025, for the next scheme period. It is estimated that 345,000 households will receive a core group rebate each year, an increase of roughly 250,000 on 2025-26. The draft regulations will continue to oblige scheme suppliers to allocate the remaining balance of their Scottish spending obligation through non-core group support, delivered via the broader group, and optionally though industry initiatives.
The draft regulations will update the mandatory eligibility criteria for the application-based broader group, which suppliers must consider when providing support via the broader group. The number of rebates available within the broader group is finite and is dependent on the size of each supplier’s obligation in Scotland. Suppliers will continue to determine their own application processes and decide which eligible households receive the rebate within their obligation.
Suppliers will continue to have discretion, subject to Ofgem approval, to extend their eligibility criteria further to other households that are wholly or mainly in, or at risk of, fuel poverty. Under the core group and broader group, around 560,000 rebates are expected to be provided each winter to Scottish households for the rest of this decade, which is almost double the number supported in winter 2023-24, before the scheme was expanded by this Government for winter 2025-26. In addition, the draft regulations will introduce provisions for a late rebate to be issued where a household eligible for the core group did not receive support in the previous scheme year because of an administrative error by a supplier, Ofgem or the Secretary of State.
The draft regulations also include a new power to allow the Secretary of State to direct suppliers to communicate additional information about the scheme directly to successfully data-matched core group customers. Households that are not automatically matched by the Department for Work and Pensions will continue to be notified by the Government, and they will be directed to the warm home discount helpline to determine their eligibility for the core group rebate.
By continuing the warm home discount scheme, through the draft regulations, we are securing vital support for eligible Scottish households each winter—the coldest time of the year, when support is most needed. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. As the Minister has outlined, the draft regulations set out provision for the continuation of the warm home discount in Scotland through to 2031. The Conservatives will not oppose them: with a few changes, they will simply extend to 31 March 2031 the current scheme, which ended on 31 March 2026. However, it will have escaped no one’s attention that today is 27 April—not 31 March, which was four weeks ago. Will the Minister address that apparent delay?
The Conservatives do not want to see anyone struggling to pay their energy bills or having to choose between heating their home and going cold. That is especially important in Scotland, where it does not need saying that the winters are very long and very cold. Some of my constituents in Gordon and Buchan and others across Aberdeenshire live in areas that often record low temperatures each year. However, we have some reflections on the mechanism by which the warm home discount helps with bills. At its core, it is a taxation-funded redistribution mechanism. It does not reduce the cost of electricity; it takes money from all taxpaying bill payers, including those who are struggling themselves, and redistributes it to a defined group. It does not make electricity affordable for everyone.
There is an alternative to the warm home discount, which could be implemented immediately if the Government so chose. The Conservatives’ cheap power plan would eliminate certain costs completely from electricity bills, instead of just moving costs around. It would do so for everyone: for those currently in receipt of the warm home discount and for those who are not, including those who are marginally above the threshold for the warm home discount and are therefore effectively paying more to support others while struggling to support their families or to pay their bills.
The Government came to power promising to cut energy bills by £300, but without a plan to do so. Today, bills are £73 higher than when Labour took office. In comparison, our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20%, saving all households £200 and cutting electricity bills for businesses, without costing households a penny and without—
Harriet Cross
We can. This is an alternative to the warm home discount, Sir Desmond.
Harriet Cross
The warm home discount, as I say, moves bill payers’ and taxpayers’ money around; it does not reduce the cost, and it does not take money off bills. People are still paying it, but in a different place. People who can just manage are paying it for those who just cannot. It is an unfair mechanism that penalises those who are just above the margin. Although we recognise the importance of making sure that bills are affordable for everybody, that does not mean that those who can just pay should be penalised. That is why we brought in, and we support, the concept of a warm home discount to help make bills affordable, but there must be an alternative via the cheap power plan to ensure that we can help everyone.
I would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions. Why have the regulations only been put before us today, when the 31 March 2026 deadline has already passed? The Minister mentioned that the measure will cost £92 million. I believe that that is for the next five years.
Harriet Cross
It is per year. Does that fall completely on the Scottish Government’s budget, or is it shared between the Governments of Westminster and Holyrood? Given that there is an alternative, via the cheap power plan, that would eliminate the costs rather than moving them, and given that the Government have already addressed some of the costs by removing some of the carbon taxes, why would they not go further and implement more of the Conservatives’ cheap power plan?
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
If the Minister will allow me, I will make more of an intervention than a speech. The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the £150—thank you very much—but I suspect that that figure was worked out on the basis of the average UK energy costs of approximately £1,750. In sunny Inverclyde, where people are wandering around in their Speedos, that would be fine, but an average fuel bill in the highlands of Scotland or the outer isles is much more likely to be £3,000 than £1,750, so £150 does not cut it. The outer isles and the west highlands have the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain.
In my office in Fort William, electricity costs 27p per kilowatt-hour; in my flat in London, gas costs 6p per kilowatt-hour. In the highlands, we are paying four times as much. I can only say that the current Government will have achieved their aim when they make it the same price to heat a property in rural Britain as in the middle of London.
Martin McCluskey
I thank hon. Members for their speeches. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan asked why there had been a delay in laying the draft regulations. The delay was because of continued negotiations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. At the outset of the discussions with the Scottish Government, there was ambiguity as to what was devolved and what was reserved; that took us some time to agree with the Scottish Government. Scottish Government Ministers then took some time to determine eligibility for the scheme. The reason that we are putting the draft regulations before the Committee today, rather than having done it before the 2022 regulations came to an end, is that we had to wait for the Scottish Government to decide what the criteria for each of the groups would be.
The hon. Member asked about the cost of £92 million per year. That £92 million is set by the Secretary of State within the part of the regulations that is reserved. That is proportionate to the overall UK figure; £92 million is the amount that goes to the Scottish Government. That is where the reserve power is. There is a UK-wide figure, so UK—in this case, GB—taxpayers will bear the responsibility for the cost of those bills across the country.
The hon. Member also spoke about the Tory cheap power plan, which I have read with interest. I have to say that it is quite thin on detail, and I would argue that some of the suggestions in it would probably bring about further instability within our electricity market.
Let me talk about some things that the Government have done in just the past few months. Our £150 warm home discount is offering targeted support to the most vulnerable people. There is also universal support, in the form of the 7% price cap reduction in the current price cap period. Last week, we announced the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which provides support for industry. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero also announced last week how we will go further and faster in our mission for clean power by 2030.
It is important to emphasise to hon. Members that the way to get our energy bills down permanently is through home-grown clean power that we control and can control the price of. It is not through continued exposure to volatile fossil fuels like oil and gas that at this very moment are leaving us exposed to volatile wholesale costs, which are still the largest part of each of our energy bills.
I can guarantee the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire that I have noticed no one in Speedos in Inverclyde. Even on the sunny banks of Gourock this weekend, there were certainly no Speedos on display, despite the warm weather. The hon. Member made an important point about the impact of rising energy bills on rural homes and businesses; he will know that provision has already been put in place for additional support for those who use heating oil, with over £50 million delivered by the UK Government and now a £10 million scheme in Scotland. We have always said that we will keep that under review. To my knowledge, the Scottish scheme is nowhere near exhausted, but we will keep under review the amount that might be required for additional support.
I also point the hon. Member towards the decisions in the Budget to remove costs from energy bills, which disproportionately reduce electricity users’ bills over those who have dual fuel, because most of the discount came from the electricity part of the bill. That will have made a difference. However, we also need to close the spark gap between electricity and gas. The action that the Secretary of State took last week, alongside the Chancellor, to move electricity generation to longer-term contracts for difference will help to close that gap. However, I agree with the hon. Member that there is still room for further measures in future.
As I mentioned, fuel poverty is a devolved matter in Scotland. The draft regulations, which we are making on behalf of the Scottish Government, will help more households in Scotland who are facing financial challenges or fuel poverty to receive support each winter, the time of year when support is most needed. This Government are ensuring that lower-income households benefit the most from energy bill reductions.
I should also address the point that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan made about redistribution. This is where we will probably find an ideological difference in our approach to support for the most vulnerable. The Labour party supports redistribution. We support the fact that those with the broadest shoulders are being asked to pay a little more on their energy bills for support—
Harriet Cross
Does the Minister think it fair that someone who is £1 or £10 over the limit will have to pay for someone who is £1 or £10 under the limit? This redistribution is penalising people near the limit to such an extent that those who are just outside it will end up worse off than those who are just inside.
Martin McCluskey
That is why we need a balance of universal and targeted support. Currently, through the price cap, those on dual fuel bills will be receiving an average reduction of 7%. Alongside that, we have targeted support for the most vulnerable people in society. I think that that provides us with the right balance to ensure that widespread support is targeted at those who most need it.
We acted in last year’s Budget by taking money off energy bills to tackle the cost of living. These significant changes to how energy is priced have ensured that energy bills have fallen by 7% for an average dual fuel customer paying by direct debit. Once again, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026.
This instrument, which was laid before the House on 19 March, marks the first stage of a wider programme of reform to introduce a fairer, more consistent and more sustainable fees framework in the property chamber, supporting the significant reforms to the private rented sector implemented by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Through that Act, the Government have delivered landmark change: we will abolish section 21 no-fault evictions, strengthen the rights of tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, and enhance local authority enforcement powers. Taken together, those measures represent the biggest expansion of renters’ rights in a generation.
However, rights only matter, and are only meaningful, if people can enforce them. That depends on a tribunal system that is sufficiently resourced and is accessible for all. Currently, around 250 types of application can be brought to the property chamber, but only about half of them incur a fee. That is because they originate from various legislative provisions, some of which are not referenced in the current fees order. That has created an inconsistent system that neither reflects the cost of administering proceedings nor supports a fair and proportionate contribution from its users.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is right that the fees are not proportionate, but they also sometimes do not meet the cost of the tribunal. Does she agree that that is one of the reasons why this legislation is so important?
Sarah Sackman
I was just coming to that. The cost of delivering the service that the property tribunal provides far exceeds the fees we are talking about today, and that cost is borne by the taxpayer. We think that it is right and fair that, provided that fees are set at a level that does not impede access to justice, we recover some of the cost of providing this essential service from the users of the court.
As I say, the current system has created a patchwork, inconsistent system that neither reflects the cost of administering proceedings nor supports a fair and proportionate contribution from all its users. The new framework will consist of a £47 application fee for applications to appeal a rent increase and to challenge terms of a successor tenancy, with no hearing fees applicable; fees of £114 for applications and £227 for hearings in cases where access to justice is paramount; and a standard fee of £200 to bring an application to the tribunal and £300 for hearings. Alongside this framework, fee exemptions apply for urgent issues such as seeking a remedial order for an unsafe residential building, as well as for potential low-value claims, including cases where tenants are recovering unlawful fees charged by their landlords.
The estimated cost to the taxpayer of an average case brought to the property chamber is more than £900. Even after this framework is fully implemented, the property chamber will continue to be heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. A standard application fee of up to £200 therefore represents an important but modest contribution, and illustrates our commitment to access to justice, which has been the guiding principle in developing the framework. The property chamber deals with a wide range of cases involving users with varying financial circumstances, so it is simply not possible for a single fee to accurately reflect every type of application. Instead, the work that we undertook reviewed every type of application individually to identify the types of users and barriers they may face when seeking to bring a case to the tribunal. That led us to introduce a tiered framework that best reflects the varied work of the property tribunal. The new framework will create consistency in the charging of fees for applications that can be brought to the property chamber, increase levels of cost recovery and reduce the burden on the taxpayer, all while maintaining our commitment to ensuring that access for justice is protected for all.
This instrument will introduce fees for applications in the residential property division of the property chamber that arise from, or are amended by, the Renters’ Rights Act. It is made under the powers provided by section 42(1)(a), section 42(2) and section 49(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
First, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will extend the right to apply to the property chamber to challenge a proposed rent increase to all private rented sector tenants. Tenants will also be able to apply to the property chamber within the first six months of a tenancy to request a termination if they believe that the starting rent is above the open market rent. The Renters’ Rights Act also includes the right of tenants to challenge the validity of a notice proposing a rent increase in the tribunal. Under the instrument, those applications will attract a £47 application fee and no hearing fees will apply.
Secondly, the Renters’ Rights Act introduces a new route to the tribunal to challenge the terms of a tenancy that arises on succession from a tenancy that was previously made under the Rent Act 1977. Under the instrument, those applications will also attract a fee of £47. If the application proceeds to a hearing, no hearing fee will apply.
Thirdly, the instrument applies our proposed standard £200 application fee and £300 hearing fee to appeals against the new financial penalties that local authorities can impose on landlords under the Renters’ Rights Act. It is reasonable and proportionate for landlords who choose to appeal to contribute to the cost of that process.
Finally, the instrument brings new rent repayment order routes, created by the Renters’ Rights Act, into the existing fees regime. Applications will incur a £114 application fee and a £227 hearing fee, matching the fees that already apply to comparable applications.
Turning to the impacts of the instrument, it is important to be clear about what it will mean in practice. As many of the measures in the instrument relate to the introduction of new or amended rights implemented by the Renters’ Rights Act, some users will be required to pay fees where none have previously been payable. That reflects the move, as I have said, towards a more consistent fees framework across the property chamber. Fees have been set at varying levels below cost to balance the principles of cost recovery with the principle of access to justice. It is important to note that, in the case of rent appeals, the balance between cost recovery and access to justice is more acute.
I reassure Members that the introduction of a fee for those cases has been carefully considered and calibrated. In those cases, the consequence of being unable to bring an appeal makes an applicant potentially more vulnerable to housing instability and economic hardship, especially as tenants are often in a vulnerable financial position, given cost of living pressures. Given those considerations, a considerably lower fee of £47 has been applied. The fee is one of the lowest payable across the courts and tribunals system, and ensures that tenants will not be deterred from exercising their right to appeal a rent increase by the fee.
In addition, there are other mitigations for rent appeals that ensure that fees do not deter or disadvantage tenants. The help with fees remission scheme will remain available to eligible applicants on lower incomes or in receipt of qualifying benefits who cannot afford to pay a fee. In the last year, we remitted £91 million pounds’ worth of fee income. Furthermore, under the Renters’ Rights Act, any rent increase will ordinarily take effect from the start of the first rent period following the date of the tribunal’s decision, rather than being backdated. In cases of undue hardship, the tribunal will be able to delay the date on which the rent increase takes effect by up to two months after the date of determination. That helps to ensure that tenants feel safe to challenge excessive proposed increases without fear of incurring additional financial pressures. Finally, where tenants are successful in appealing their rent increase, they may be able to recover the tribunal fee from their landlord in the end.
Without these measures, we would not be able to keep the tribunal service running, and the taxpayer would be required to shoulder a far greater proportion of the cost of the courts and tribunals systems. Thus, this instrument provides the necessary framework for a sustainable courts and tribunals system that is there for all those who need it while ensuring that access to justice is protected. I believe that the measures are fair and necessary, and I hope that the Committee will support them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to respond on behalf of the Opposition in this Delegated Legislation Committee.
It might seem that this is a narrow measure, but, in reality, the draft order is part of a poorly implemented Act of Parliament. As the Minister explained, it introduces a £47 application fee for rent appeals, a £47 application fee for succession of assured tenancy rights and a £200 application fee, plus a £300 hearing fee, for financial penalty appeals, which are where landlords appeal civil penalties imposed by local authorities. That reflects the expanded scope of rent repayment orders under the Renters’ Rights Act, so it is clearly not an isolated change. The order is being introduced because, as the Minister described, Government legislation is creating new routes into the tribunal system, and Ministers need to introduce a fee structure to go with those routes.
There are two immediate problems. The Government have not done an impact assessment for the order because, they say, no significant impact is foreseen, but that is hard to accept. The order introduces new fees into a system that the Government are making more widely applicable, and it is doing so in a sensitive area where access to the tribunal may matter a great deal to tenants and landlords alike. It simply does not look credible to say that there is no significant impact worth assessing.
The Opposition have been clear for some time that the Government’s rental reforms will put more pressure on the courts and tribunals system before it is ready. Regardless of the changes that the Government make to the fee structure, such relatively minor, short-term changes in the income available to courts will not change that situation overnight. Our court system is simply not in a position to manage the influx that is likely to result from the Act, but Labour is pushing ahead without first showing that the wider justice system can cope. The Government are adding further operational pressures to the property chamber at a time when there are already problems across all elements of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. The Government should deal with those broader pressures first, not build new demand into the system and adjust the fee structure around it.
There is also real concern about incentives. Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, has warned that the rules under the Renters’ Rights Act could incentivise tenants to apply to the first-tier tribunal in respect of every rent increase, simply to delay its implementation. That is because even when a rent increase is upheld, it will take effect only from the date of the tribunal decision, not from the date of the notice being served, meaning that even unsuccessful challenges could delay higher rent payments for months. If that is the case, Ministers may be creating a much greater volume of tribunal work than they are willing to admit, and I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to that particular concern, which was raised by someone with significant credibility..
The broader truth is that Labour is failing to listen to those who understand the sector. No serious impact assessment has been done, there have been clear warnings about incentives and workload, and there are longstanding concerns that the wider Act will reduce supply and increase rents, yet Ministers are pressing on regardless. Our objection to the order is straightforward: it is not just a technical amendment, but part of a wider framework that places more reliance on a tribunal system that is already under strain. It comes without a proper assessment of impact, and helps to implement a wider Act that we believe will leave the rental market less, not more, stable. For those reasons, the Opposition cannot support the order.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about the broader context. The Minister rightly highlighted the broader context of the Renters’ Rights Act, the reforms it introduces and the implications they have for the sector. She also quite rightly highlighted that rights matter only where they are enforceable. Given that context, I have a few questions and points of clarification that I hope the Minister can help me with.
I will confine my remarks to the property chamber, which is one of seven chambers at first-tier tribunal level. The Minister gave the example of having a £900 cost versus a £200 fee for a case, and the significant public subsidy that goes into the system, even with the fee changes. Will she set out the overall cost per annum—the cost with regard to the resource departmental expenditure limit—of Government administration of the property chamber?
Picking up on a point highlighted by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, what assessment have the Government made of the increased demand for property chamber services in the context of the changes in the Renters’ Rights Act? How many additional staff may be needed in that chamber to avoid any lengthening of case wait times, for a listing or similar? In essence, how many additional cases annually do the Government anticipate will come forward as a result of the Act?
Again, the Minister was absolutely right that the challenge is to balance cost recovery and access to justice. What formula or process was used to calculate the numbers for these fees? She said that cases are effectively still subsidised by the taxpayer, but what was the calculation that said that £47 or £200, for example, was the right fee? What went into coming up with that, and discounting it in the way that she has?
Paragraph 5.16 of the explanatory memorandum states that
“the rent appeal right is substantially different to what existed before, and so our confidence on the effect of a fee on people’s behaviour is lower than normal.”
That is understandable, but how do the Government propose to measure—once the fees have been operating for, say, a year—the effect on people’s behaviour? What data will be collected, as a baseline, to measure whether people are using the tribunal service, and why they are or are not using it—that is, both the quantitative and qualitative data?
Finally, paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“The underlying costs of activities for which fees are charged will be reviewed on a yearly basis”.
Will that annual review of the fees come to this House, or will it be an internal process in HMCTS or the Ministry of Justice that comes to this House, with an order, only if something is identified as having diverged?
Sarah Sackman
I will endeavour to answer as many of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions as possible. Any that I do not answer—
Sarah Sackman
That was exactly what I was going to suggest: I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman. I will write to him on his first question, which was about RDEL and the exact running costs of the property chamber.
We expect an increase in the volume of receipts that the property chamber will take, and some work is being done internally as to what that might look like. As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, this is an expansion of rights, and as I have said, we have set the fees not to impede the enforcement of those rights but to enable it, while achieving a measure of cost recovery. We want to reduce conflict in our society, but we do not shy away from the fact that the thrust of the policy behind the Renters’ Rights Act is that we welcome people enforcing their rights where rents that are set far outstrip what can be considered reasonable. That is why we have deliberately empowered people by giving them rights that can be enforced.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made a point about the tribunal’s readiness. In anticipating additional pressures on the tribunal, we have been undertaking steps to increase capacity within it. Those have included the recruitment of additional administrative staff and the establishment of a centralised operating hub. We are also working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a new digital system for rent appeals in the property tribunal, to maintain the efficiency of that. The fees, along with the Ministry of Justice’s operating budgets, will support that capacity, so that those who rely on the chamber, be they tenants or landlords, can expect the capacity of the tribunal to keep up with the demand.
Dr Mullan
Let us say that a landlord proposes to put someone’s rent up by £100 a month, and that it might take two months for the case to be heard in tribunal. They are therefore going to be £150 better off, even if they pay the £48 fee, if they wait for two months and the case goes to the point of a ruling. That is the criticism made by the Master of the Rolls. What is the counter-argument to that? Why would people not simply lodge an appeal knowing that they will make that money back and be in the black on the back of it?
Sarah Sackman
I am familiar with the argument raised by the Master of the Rolls; we discussed it during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, and I have discussed it with the relevant Minister. That is the subject of a whole series of policy choices that have been made to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of tenants and landlords.
We do not expect that measure to be abused, and there are equities that go the other way. If someone backdates a payment, they will then be forced to pay arrears and additionality in one big lump sum, which can also create unfairness. That is the result of a policy choice that has been made in the Act, although it may be one that the Opposition take issue with. This is now all about ensuring that a tribunal is ready to receive any ensuing rent appeals as soon as possible after the order comes into force on 1 May—it is very exciting.
I did jot down the right hon. Gentleman’s further question, but I am now struggling to read my handwriting, because we are at that point in the day.
Sarah Sackman
Indeed. The other thing to say—this relates to both sets of questions—is that the new Renters’ Rights Act introduces a series of new rights that we want people to take advantage of. By the way, that is done not just in the purview of the tribunal system but in what some academics have called the shadow of the law.
The Act enhances people’s bargaining rights with their landlords when discussing and negotiating rent. It does not necessarily mean that a case will end up in tribunal, although it may, and the fees are not a barrier to that. That is important because when we introduce an extension of rights with such a policy, we have to wait to see precisely how it alters the behaviours and the societal relationships that we are looking to rebalance. The Act is a big extension of renters’ rights, and a greater equalisation between the rights of tenant and landlord.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that we need to see how the demand coming into the chamber looks a year from now, and how the system is operating. Of course, we will need to keep that under review to ensure that the tribunal keeps up with demand. However, with the measures that we have introduced to anticipate the need for additional capacity, we are confident that we will be able to do so successfully. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman on the outstanding points that I have not been able to respond to, because I do not have the detail to hand, and I will ensure that he gets an answer on all of them.
In short, the draft order strikes the right balance between cost recovery and access to justice. It is a necessary step that strengthens the sustainability and fairness of the property chamber. As a consequence, I urge members of the Committee to vote in favour of the draft order.
Question put.
Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 26 February, are a critical part of delivering the Government’s clean power mission. The mission is central to strengthening the UK’s energy security, reducing household energy bills, supporting long-term economic growth and tackling climate change. Offshore wind plays an increasingly important role in delivering that energy security at a time when it matters more than ever. The statutory instrument provides a vital opportunity to accelerate offshore wind deployment while delivering meaningful strategic benefits for our marine environment, reflecting the Government’s belief that climate action and nature recovery must go hand in hand.
Let me begin by outlining the challenges that the draft regulations are intended to address. Under the existing approach, developers are required to follow the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding impacts on protected sites, then minimising and mitigating impacts. Only where impacts remain unavoidable are developers required to deliver compensation, normally through measures that benefit the impacted feature. As offshore wind deployment has been expanded, it has become increasingly difficult for developers to secure compensatory measures that benefit the impacted features. That difficulty has become one of the main causes of delays in offshore wind consenting decisions.
The draft regulations address the issue by increasing the number of environmental compensatory measures available for offshore wind developments. Where measures that benefit the impacted feature are not available, or where a different measure can provide a greater ecological benefit, developers will be able to use wider compensatory measures. Those measures will deliver meaningful benefits to ecologically similar features or the UK marine protected area network more widely. For example, developers could support broader initiatives such as programmes to strengthen seabird populations.
Such innovative approaches illustrate how the Government are ensuring that environmental protection and economic growth can be pursued in parallel. The reforms are an essential part of the offshore wind environmental improvement package developed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Through the establishment of a library of strategic compensatory measures and the marine recovery fund, the package is already delivering a more strategic, co-ordinated and scalable approach for offshore wind while enhancing the marine environment.
Before I return to the details of the legislation, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the statutory instrument. The Committee’s report raised concerns about the SI being laid before the House without the accompanying draft guidance. That approach was taken because the SI is a critical component of delivering the clean power mission. Proceeding in this way has enabled parliamentary scrutiny to proceed without delay while allowing sufficient time to finalise the guidance to the highest standard and, importantly, ensuring alignment with the devolved Governments. The guidance will be published on 21 May, aligning with the SI’s coming into force. That will ensure that stakeholders have clear and comprehensive guidance from day one. The published policy note and the Government’s response to the consultation provide Parliament with a strong basis for effective scrutiny.
The SI will enable offshore wind projects to deliver a wider range of environmental compensatory measures. Without action to expand the compensatory measures available, we will limit both the growth of offshore wind and our ability to deliver meaningful strategic benefits for nature. The SI applies to offshore wind developments in UK offshore waters and English inshore waters, and to certain offshore wind functions in the inshore waters of Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that all makes sense.
The draft regulations introduce a new compensation duty specifically for offshore wind. It will enable wider compensatory measures and require that all compensatory measures must benefit the UK marine protected area network. Environmental safeguards are central to the new approach. They will ensure that the most effective compensatory measures are identified, selected and implemented to deliver the strongest possible outcomes for nature.
As part of that, the SI introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a compensation hierarchy. Developers must select compensation measures in line with that hierarchy, prioritising those that benefit the impacted feature, subject to certain circumstances. That hierarchy is a central pillar to the new approach and a key safeguard. Another is the role of the statutory nature conservation bodies, which will continue to play an important role in advising on environmental compensatory measures. Ministers will consider that expert advice alongside the environmental principles when approving wider compensatory measures.
As part of the reforms, we are exploring the development of a new public compensatory register. Our ambition is to bring together information on all compensatory measures delivered across the UK marine protected area network, improving transparency and helping us to identify where future compensatory measures could have the greatest impact.
I can also reassure hon. Members that the impacts of the SI on both offshore wind developments and the environment will be reviewed. The first report will be published by April 2031, with subsequent reviews at intervals of no more than five years, as required by the regulations. I recognise there may be some concerns about the reforms, particularly where they amend existing and established environmental protections, but let me be clear: this Government remain fully committed to delivering on both our climate and nature ambitions.
In conclusion, the SI implements necessary changes to environmental compensatory requirements to support the expansion of offshore wind deployment. We are confident that it will uphold strong environmental protections while enabling sustainable growth in offshore wind.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.
We on this side of the House recognise the challenging situation that offshore wind developers face and the need to simplify the process to make schemes deliverable. Equally, we recognise the environmental issues. As we have heard, the regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of developments is determined and delivered. Let me be clear: it is right that the Government prioritise energy security in cost-effective ways in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while also being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. However, I do have several concerns with the SI, which I hope the Minister can address.
First, the SI leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. While I can see that the Government are attempting to adopt a new approach, that is no justification for asking for approval before the full details have become apparent, such as how the new compensation scheme would work in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of the reforms, so I am unclear as to why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with the legislative process, as opposed to being published on 21 May, once the SI has come into force, as the Minister has indicated. I am keen to understand from her why the decision was made not to publish the guidance before we legislated on the reforms. I know that their lordships also made their concerns known on that point. How can we be reassured that the guidance will be of the highest quality, as the Minister has outlined, when it is published?
My second concern relates to the compensation hierarchy. The regulations mandate the publication and use of a compensation hierarchy, which sets out categories of compensation measured on the basis of how the measures would benefit the UK marine protected area network. The secondary legislation states that tier 3 will cover compensation measures that provide ecological benefits to the UK marine protected area network more widely. My concern, however, is that that could allow for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. That concern is shared by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which believes that the tier 3 approach will not deliver ecologically effective compensation for environmental impacts from offshore wind and would not maintain current levels of environmental protection.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
As I understand it, the purpose of the regulations is to take a pragmatic approach so that developers can develop inshore and offshore wind more quickly by providing a wider range of compensation. If the Government have a change of heart about the development of Rosebank and Jackdaw, does my hon. Friend expect them to take a similar approach to offshore oil and gas?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. We would absolutely expect the Government not only to open those oil fields, but to make sure that they apply exactly the same criteria when any energy project gets the go-ahead, and it feels that a one-size-fits-all approach is not being adopted in this case.
I want to expand on my concerns about the compensation hierarchy. It seems that the environmental protections are already not adequate to deliver favourable conditions for most sites or network coherence, so my second point to the Minister is to ask for reassurance that tier 3 will not become the norm or a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy. What level of assessment has been given to that issue, and will she explain why no further detail has been published to date on the tier 3 compensation hierarchy? That concern has also been raised by their lordships in the other place.
My third concern, which has not yet been touched on, relates to fisheries and the impact of offshore wind on our fishing communities. The shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently visited Peterhead fish market to discuss the issues facing fishermen in Scotland, which include a lack of workers and fuel costs.
The Scottish Government plan to install up to 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, a target that it has been warned is “far too high” and would cause irreversible damage to our marine environment while displacing the fishing fleet from grounds it has worked for generations. A report carried out for the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has shown that the surge in offshore wind farm developments will exclude the trawling fleet from approximately 50% of fishing grounds by 2050. I am sure the Minister will agree that the plans put forward by the Scottish Government show complete disregard for Scottish fishermen.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Does the shadow Minister share my astonishment that the Scottish Government refuse to talk about so-called spatial squeeze? It is a major issue for the fishing fleet, because it simply cannot trawl in between the wind turbines. The Government appear to deny the existence of the problem, but it is a massive difficulty for the fishing fleet, is it not?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It appears that the Scottish Government are not only ignoring the challenges associated with spatial squeeze—
The Chair
Order. The Scottish Government have nothing to do with this Parliament. We have to remain in scope.
Robbie Moore
I will absolutely listen to your comments, Mrs Harris. I merely wish to make the point that spatial squeeze is an issue, whether it be north of the border in Scottish waters or south of the border in English waters, where there is a similar challenge to do with offshore wind farm development. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish Government addressing the issue, I would like to understand from the Minister what they are doing to address the concerns about spatial squeeze that our fishermen have raised, and how they will address their concerns in the future.
Briefly, I would like to make a point about the establishment of marine recovery funds. I know it is hoped that marine recovery funds will enable developers to compensate for environmental impacts for multiple projects, yet they are not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. It is also important to note that marine recovery funds are voluntary schemes. Can the Minister explain what the Government anticipate the take-up of marine recovery schemes to be, and how significant a role they will play in environmental compensation?
To conclude, the central concerns that I present on behalf of the Opposition about the statutory instrument are focused on how the changes will operate in practice. The devil is always in the detail. To be clear, the Opposition support the development of affordable home-grown energy sources, which is why we are fighting so hard to oppose the Government’s ongoing ban on new oil and gas licences in the North sea.
With all subsidies, environmental schemes and regulations such as these, it is crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture. We need to prioritise our energy security in cost-effective ways to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer while being responsible and honest caretakers of our ecosystems. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various concerns I have laid out.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. The Liberal Democrats support the expansion of offshore wind and renewables as part of our commitment to achieving 95% decarbonisation of power by 2030. We are equally committed to the principle that climate and nature must be tackled together, not as competing priorities. With carefully planned development, we can achieve those goals while avoiding significant harm to nature and actively furthering its recovery. But we are concerned that these changes represent a shift away from existing safeguards that prioritise the protection of specific sites towards a more flexible framework that may not always ensure direct or equivalent restoration of affected habitats.
Without sufficient compensation measures, a surge in offshore wind could push declining sea bird populations and other species and habitats over the edge. If rushed and implemented poorly, it could result in the collapse of entire marine ecosystems and undermine the environmental and economic security of those areas. We are further concerned that key details about how this new framework will operate in practice have been left to guidance that has not yet been finalised. That limits Parliament’s ability to fully scrutinise the real-world impact of these changes, and raises questions about how consistent and robust the new framework will be once it is applied. We will therefore abstain on this statutory instrument.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am always pleased to take part in a Delegated Legislation Committee, but I am particularly pleased to speak in this one, given that it reminds us that it is imperative that we build the infrastructure we need for net zero, and ensure that it is backed up with appropriate support and mitigations for the environmental impact it may have. On a similar note, when it comes to onshore wind, I have concerns about how we best understand, avoid and mitigate the impact of building wind turbines. We should ensure that regulation that rightly protects peatlands from housing is extended to energy projects like those.
These regulations are a good example of that awareness. We must understand the impact of renewable energy on nature and act accordingly. I am really glad to see that DEFRA has committed to taking a role, and I am proud to support these regulations in the hope that it continues to do so.
Emma Hardy
I am grateful to hon. Members across the Committee for the considered points they have raised. Without these reforms, vital offshore wind projects will continue to encounter obstacles in securing appropriate environmental compensation measures, delaying progress towards clean renewable energy. This SI puts forward a balanced and pragmatic new approach to the environmental compensatory requirements for offshore wind, one that supports faster deployment of renewable energy and, crucially, unlocks new opportunities to improve the health of our marine environment.
I reassure the Committee that environmental protection sits at the heart of this policy, and our commitment to maintaining strong environmental protection remains firm. This SI makes targeted amendments to specific parts of habitats regulation in relation to compensatory measures for offshore wind. Robust environmental safeguards have been put in place to ensure that those changes will not weaken our existing protection, and to ensure continued compliance with all domestic and international environmental commitments.
In response to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, this approach is fully consistent with the Government’s wider environmental ambitions, including our commitment to 30 by 30. The UK has already designated about 38% of our seas as marine protected areas, demonstrating our determination to protect the marine environment at scale. Under the Environment Act 2021, there is a statutory target for at least 70% of marine protected area features in English waters to be in favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition. We know that some of these sites continue to face significant pressure.
Let me turn to the points on the guidance made by the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. In response to the concern that important policy details have not been included in this statutory instrument, I reassure the Committee that we have been fully transparent in the published policy note on what the statutory instrument policy intention is and on what the accompanying guidance will cover. The guidance will explain the key elements of the statutory instrument and how it should be implemented and understood. It will also provide clarity on broader elements of existing habitat regulation requirements.
As I mentioned in my opening speech, I recognise the concerns regarding the Department’s decision to lay the statutory instrument before Parliament ahead of publishing the draft guidance. However, the statutory instrument is essential in delivering the clean power mission and ensuring that progress is not delayed. Although the guidance is an important supporting document, it is a technical and operational, designed to explain to practitioners how to put the policies into action.
We have tested the draft guidance with users and held constructive discussions with key stakeholders on its content. Alongside that, we have worked closely with the Scottish Government to ensure alignment as far as possible with their respective guidance. I reassure hon. Members that that engagement has strengthened the guidance, ensuring that it will be robust and fit for purpose when published on 21 May.
Robbie Moore
Can the Minister expand on whether fishermen were included as one of the key stakeholder organisations as part of the guidance.
Emma Hardy
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point on fishermen now—let me rearrange my papers. Regarding the impact of the statutory instrument on fishers, we are actively considering how best to engage marine users, including fishers, in the development of wider compensatory measures, particularly where those measures may affect their activity. Any future compensatory measures enabled by these reforms that could impact the commercial fishing industry will be fully assessed and DEFRA will work closely with the fishing industry to discuss practicalities, ensuring that any proposals are developed and implemented in a fair and workable way.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about spatial squeeze, which is a real issue for the fishing community and one that we certainly recognise in DEFRA. We have looked at the cumulative restrictions on the fisheries from offshore wind, as well as nature protection and how that impacts the spatial squeeze, and the Crown Estate is working with the sector to get its input into the processes to refine sites for future offshore wind leasing.
In many areas, different activities can co-exist and are able to work together. Marine Management Organisation data shows that there is some level of fishing in around 80% of the English sea. Depending on the fishing gear used, fishing can overlap with other activities. For example, fishing can still take place over telecom cables or in some other areas.
Robbie Moore
The Minister is being incredibly kind in giving way, but to push her on that point: has the guidance been stress-tested on the fishermen to date? The Minister said she will work with them. Have the fishermen been involved yet?
Emma Hardy
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a list of all the people that we have engaged with. I have been reassured by the Department that the engagement has been substantive and extensive across all the different organisations. Of course, if what I have just said is found to be not correct, I will make sure that I correct it for him, but that is certainly my understanding.
How it will work with the marine recovery fund was also mentioned. That fund is exciting, and the statutory instrument works with it to support the acceleration of offshore wind development. By looking at the different types of compensatory measures available for offshore wind impacts, the statutory instrument will increase the number and range of compensatory measures that can be added to the library.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley raised an important point about moving through the hierarchy. To be fair, a number of non-governmental organisations have said that they do not want developers to go straight down, and asked how we ensure that the hierarchy is in place and a developer does not go straight down to tier 3. I welcome the opportunity to expand on that now.
What we are going to be doing—[Interruption.] I have had inspiration—it just arrived; it happens like that sometimes. The fishing industry did not engage on the wider testing on the guidance, but will be engaged on measures and met frequently on the policy and the statutory instrument. I thank my officials for that inspiration.
There are two circumstances where it is permissible to move through the hierarchy, as outlined in the proposed compensatory hierarchy, published in the policy note. The first applies to the availability of measures for a developer to move to tier 2, or in some cases tier 3, if they can demonstrate that no, or insufficient, suitable tier 1 measures are available, or they can progress to tier 3 if no suitable tier 2 measures are available.
The second circumstance allows a developer to progress through the hierarchy if they can demonstrate that doing so will enable a greater ecological benefit. Progression to tier 3 will be allowed only if a developer can demonstrate that no tier 1 or tier 2 measures are available, or where tier 3 measures would deliver a greater ecological benefit. Developers must submit clear evidence to the consenting authority who will assess proposals on a case-by-case basis, informed by advice from statutory nature conservation bodies before allowing progression to tier 3.
Where tier 3 is permitted, developers must draw from the library of strategic compensatory measures. Measures can be added to the library only once they have been approved by the relevant Minister. We have tried to put in various safeguards throughout to ensure that tier 3 measures cannot become the default or easy options.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley for the important issues he often raises—I am sure he will continue to do so. He is a passionate supporter of his constituents. I thank him for his support for the statutory instrument. I hope I answered all the questions from all hon. Members. I thank the Committee, and commend to it the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
College Fields in Madeley
Road safety in Old Woking
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
Animal Testing
(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
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 736578 relating to animal testing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, for which Animal Free Research provides the secretariat. I am a long-time campaigner in this area, as well as on many other topics relating to animal welfare. It is important to me and many others that animals are replaced in research as soon as possible.
The petition, created by Maria Iriart from Camp Beagle, is titled: “End testing on dogs and other animals for development of products for human use”. It reads:
“Many tests on dogs and other animals cause unimaginable suffering. They can translate poorly into effective treatments and cures for human diseases or provide safety and efficacy data that is not relevant to humans. Over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA, USA approval.
In 2023, 2,605,528 animals were used for the first time in scientific procedures incl. 2,477 dogs & 1,815 primates. Animals are bred & housed in bleak conditions and then used in tests that can cause immense physical and psychological suffering. We think government-led action is required to radically divert funding and evolve policy to implement the use of existing and the development of new Non-Animal Methodologies (NAMS). We believe the current testing paradigm is failing both animals and humans and is holding back medical advances.”
The petition has attracted almost 121,000 signatures—that is a great achievement, and it is good to see Maria in the Gallery today—of which 121 are from my constituency.
I know that people care deeply about this topic and I have received many emails from constituents, as well as from members of the public living in other constituencies. In the past week, many of them have referenced the exposés in The Mail on Sunday and Daily Mirror, which showed incredibly disturbing footage of what is going on in UK laboratories. In particular, there were shocking images of long-tailed macaques being force-fed new weight-loss drugs and suffering from extreme distress. It is horrible to think about the pain and torture that innocent animals have to be put through so that humans can be helped to lose weight. It is important to note that those images being circulated are from laboratory sites that are regulated and operating within the law. There are more experiments that I would like to talk about in greater detail, such as testing of anti-inflammation drugs on beagles and of skin treatments on pigs. However, the content is so distressing that I feel it is too disturbing to share during the debate.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
We are a nation of animal lovers—my very first Westminster Hall debate was on animal welfare—although, as a constituent pointed out to me, if we love animals so much, we should not need an animal welfare strategy. I welcome the Government’s animal welfare strategy and the move towards ending testing on animals, but does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that beagles are used because they are placid is utterly heartbreaking, and that any move to expedite the end of animal testing would be welcomed by many of our constituents?
Irene Campbell
I agree with both my hon. Friend’s points. It is important that this issue is dealt with sooner rather than later, and I will say more about that later.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and making her points very clearly. Like many Members, I have had hundreds of emails encouraging me to take part in the debate, and there is particular concern about the use of dogs. Does she support the calls for Herbie’s law, to stop animal testing by 2035?
Irene Campbell
I absolutely support Herbie’s law and, as I mentioned, the APPG is supported by Animal Free Research, which hopes to implement it. I agree 100% with the hon. Member.
Another extremely cruel test is the forced swim test, for which there are still three licences granted in the UK, lasting until 2028. The Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy states specifically:
“The test has limited scientific validity, particularly its translational relevance to human mental health disorders. Animal behaviour in the FST also lacks information on treatment latency and varies across strains and protocols. Therefore, we would expect the Home Office Regulator’s default position to be that the FST does not pass the harm-benefit test required under”
the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. To me and many others, it would make complete sense to cancel those licences immediately.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I commend the petition’s signatories for bringing this debate to us. I also commend my hon. Friend, with whom I have been in many debates over the past two years, for all her hard work and advocacy in this area. Does she agree that, although the Government’s strategy to phase out the use of animals in medical research is a very good thing, it is just a step in the right direction on the journey to phasing out the use of animals in medical experimentation completely? Will she also join me in encouraging Members to take forward Herbie’s law as a private Member’s Bill in the new Session, as I have done over the past two years?
Irene Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I absolutely support the implementation of Herbie’s law sooner rather than later. I welcome the strategy, and I will say more about it later.
A year ago tomorrow, I led a debate on a very similar petition entitled “Ban immediately the use of dogs in scientific and regulatory procedures”, which was also created by Maria Iriart. It is clear to me and many others that neither the public nor parliamentarians are letting this issue go.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The whole Petitions Committee, including me, is grateful to the hon. Lady, who is making a very good speech. Although we all care about this matter hugely, I have found from the emails I have received that the younger generation is increasingly unwilling to tolerate this testing at all. I welcome that and find it fascinating, and I see it as a very good shift in society. Does she agree?
Irene Campbell
I fully agree. I think it is really important that younger people take this cause forward. Earlier today, when I went out to speak to representatives from Camp Beagle, I met a young woman—she is 10—who is really keen that we get it moved forward. I thought that was great.
In the petition debate last year and in others since, I have referenced a 1927 debate on the Dogs Protection Bill, in which the surgeon Sir Lambert Ormsby was quoted as saying:
“Experiments on dogs may now be discontinued. All that can be found out by physiological experiments for application to human beings has long since been discovered, and repetitions are unnecessary and cruel.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1237.]
It is really sad that nearly 100 years later, dogs continue to be used in this cruel and outdated way.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. This is a huge issue in my constituency. Does she agree that, given the grave ethical concern that animals used in testing endure immense pain, distress and confinement, and the fact that the scientific validity of such testing is increasingly in doubt, it is time that we prioritised human alternatives and invested in advanced technology to replace animal testing?
Irene Campbell
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I agree with everything that he said. I will say a bit more about that later on.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for her passionate speech. My constituents are proud of the UK’s reputation for high animal welfare standards, but they struggle to square that with the continued scale of animal testing and the lack of pace of change—as she highlighted, it has been slow for nearly 100 years now. Does she agree that the real question is not whether we can move away from animal testing, but how quickly we are prepared to do so?
Irene Campbell
I fully agree with everything the hon. Member said. I will go on to say more about that.
The petition refers specifically to dogs, as well as other animals that are used in testing. In 2024, 2.64 million procedures in British laboratories used animals—every minute of every day, five animals are used in research in the United Kingdom—over 16,000 experiments were carried out on specially protected species, including cats, dogs, horses and monkeys, and 1,651 dogs were used in experiments.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The hon. Member is being very generous with her time. Dogs have noticeable physiological differences from humans—different enzymes, different gastric pH—which leads to the vast majority of drugs that are tested on them failing to translate to humans. Does she agree, therefore, that the Government should commit to ending the use of dogs, specifically, in testing for human use and provide greater funding for alternatives that are coming through, such as organs on chips?
Irene Campbell
I agree wholeheartedly with everything the hon. Member said. I will speak more about organ on a chip and the need to move more quickly towards phasing out animals in research, but there is an opportunity to phase out dogs almost immediately.
It is important to note that figures released in the Home Office annual reports cover only animals protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and that individual animals can be used many times in different tests. However, the statistics count only the first time an animal is used in an experiment. The real number of experiments every year is likely much higher, as that data is not captured.
UK law, in the form of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, already recognises what we all know: that animals have emotions and feelings. The suffering caused to animals subjected to testing is a clear ethical problem, and the effectiveness of the experiments also calls into question the need for the obvious suffering, torture and painful death that many of them endure. Over 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials after passing animal trials, and the failure rate increases to 99.6% for Alzheimer’s disease drugs. To quote Animal Free Research UK:
“Animals like monkeys don’t naturally develop Alzheimer’s, or live long enough to study ageing in the same way that humans experience it, so these outdated methods are simply not giving us the answers we need.”
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her great speech and her great work in this area, and I thank all the residents of my constituency who have signed the petition. I was pleased by the Government’s announcement of a long-term road map to reduce and phase out animal testing in scientific research, with key milestones for the abolition of specific tests, as my hon. Friend said, including an end to skin and eye irritation and skin sensitisation testing on animals this year. Does she agree that we should speed up the timetable as much as possible so that we can end animal testing at the earliest opportunity?
Irene Campbell
I agree with everything my hon. Friend said, and I will say more about that.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. A conflict is sometimes presented between our understandable concerns about animal welfare and good science, but, as she set out, there is no such conflict. The really heartbreaking, frustrating thing is that many of the ongoing experiments that cause animals to suffer are far less rigorous than some of the alternatives that we already know work better but are not yet regulated in the same way. Does she agree that the Government’s road map fires the starting gun to make sure we have regulated alternatives in place as quickly as possible? Will she join me in urging the Government to move as quickly as possible so we can get better, more robust science and protect animals? It is an “and”, not an “or” or an “either”.
Irene Campbell
I agree with everything my hon. Friend said. I will speak about some of this later on, but I have on occasion met the relevant Minister and we are due to have a meeting soon. At one meeting, I asked specifically that we remove dogs immediately from medical testing. I was very disappointed by the answer, but we need to keep up the momentum on these serious issues.
There are alternatives to animal research—known as new approach methodologies, or NAMs—that are constantly being researched and developed. For example, any Members here who attended last year’s Lush Cosmetics event would have seen their soaps depicting organ-on-a-chip technology; they are plastic chips that can mimic human organ and tissues for experimentation.
AI is another great and exciting opportunity for replacing animal testing. A software called AnimalGAN, developed by the US Food and Drug Administration, aims to accurately determine how rats would react to chemicals without the need to do new rat tests.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. On cosmetics, does she share my concern about the continued use of botox in the non-surgical aesthetic treatment industry? Botox occupies an unusual, but perhaps not unique position in the market: because it is used for medical purposes, it falls under the medical definition and animal testing is allowed. However, it is increasingly being used in the cosmetics sphere—a loophole that needs to be addressed. For the record, I am wholly opposed to animal testing in all its forms; I believe it should be phased out across the board to the maximum extent possible.
Irene Campbell
The hon. Member raises an important point; that is not an area that I had considered before, but I absolutely agree. Any of us in this Chamber could go on an afternoon course and tomorrow be injecting people with botox, so his point is valid.
Virtual Second Species has created an AI-powered virtual dog, trained on historical dog tests. From an economics perspective, it is worth thinking about how much we could save by transitioning from animals to AI. What is the price of our not moving to a more contemporary scientific method, which would be not only kinder, but smarter? Recent research and analysis, commissioned by Lush Cosmetics and undertaken by the Common Sense Policy Group and Northumbria University, shows how much growth potential the sector has. Between 2021 and 2024, the UK’s non-animal methods sector grew rapidly, with turnover rising to more than £1.2 billion and employment increasing year on year.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with her time; she is leading the debate excellently. Like many Members, I have been contacted by constituents raising this issue. On Friday, Karen, one of my constituents, talked to me at my coffee morning specifically about the issue of new approach methodologies and their potential to unlock a much more humane approach to testing medicines.
My hon. Friend rightly raises AI’s potential to model biological processes. Does she agree that, as the UK is a leader in both the life sciences and AI, with focus, joint Government working and funding we should be able to lead the way in new AI modelling to replace animal testing? That could potentially be a growth story for the country and something we could export internationally to address this issue and finally put an end to animal testing.
Irene Campbell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have the potential to lead the way in this field; that is something we should definitely be striving towards. Through my role as chair of the APPG on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, I have met many scientists working in the animal-free research area, including at XCellR8, the UK’s leading animal-free testing laboratory. There is an untapped market in this area that is ready to grow, and we must invest in it. With the right Government support, the sector could more than double in size by 2030, creating high-skilled jobs and positioning the UK as a global leader in producing the next generation of scientists.
Licences for animal tests are granted in advance and in bulk. Surely the whole licensing system should be reviewed. Many laboratories do only the minimum checks and balances laid out in law, despite how they might talk about meeting the highest standards. When experiments are poorly designed or mistakes are made during the process, it is a waste of life and unnecessary suffering. There are many examples of that, which I am sure will be discussed today.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this field. She, like me, is a serious animal lover who has always stood up for animals. Many constituents have contacted me about this debate; their primary reason for doing so is the unnecessary suffering caused to animals in testing, with force-feeding and injections right up to the end of their lives. Does she agree that new technologies offer a way to achieve the goal that people want to see, which is more research, while also avoiding the unnecessary suffering that causes such concern to our constituents?
Irene Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I agree with every point that has been raised.
On a positive note, it is most welcome that this Labour Government have published the “Replacing animals in science” strategy—something that we have never seen from previous Governments. The strategy brings a lot of good news, such as £75 million-worth of funding for the new UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. It also refers to using validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non-human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030, and to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetics studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030. However, I am unsure how that will be validated, as the number of non-human primates and dogs used for those studies is unknown in the first instance. That creates a statistical challenge, and I would challenge whether those statistics are correct.
While it is good news to have a road map, we are not there yet. We need to ensure that the strategy is implemented with robust timelines and a clear road map, so that we can achieve our manifesto commitment of finally phasing out cruel animal testing. On 20 April this year, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that it had achieved key first-year goals in implementing its April 2025 road map to reducing animal testing in preclinical safety studies, which includes qualifying the first AI-based drug development tool and working to reduce or eliminate animal testing of drugs, having demonstrated safety through their use in humans in other countries.
It is key that the UK continues to be a world leader in animal welfare and to build on our successes such as the new strategy. However, we cannot fall behind other countries such as the US; we should seize this exciting opportunity to utilise groundbreaking new science while saying goodbye to dated and cruel testing. I look forward to the Minister’s response today, and to hearing from other Members.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my role as an officer on the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research.
The phasing out of animal testing was an eye-catching pledge in the Government’s last manifesto. Although it has been slow in coming, the strategy, published late last year, is the first milestone towards delivering on that intent. It was a year ago that we last discussed animal testing in Parliament. As the Member of Parliament with, sadly, the most animal testing infrastructure, I welcome the Government’s commitment to achieving their pledge. In my Huntingdon constituency, there are two sites that are directly involved in pre-clinical animal testing: Labcorp and MBR Acres.
I visited Labcorp shortly after being elected as the Member of Parliament for Huntingdon. Notably, the issue of animal testing and the prevalence of the sites was never raised during the election campaign, nor during any hustings by any of the candidates; it is almost as if it is not a topic that people are keen to discuss. Following the election, I visited LabCorp to ensure that I understood the nature of the work done there and the challenges of delivering pre-clinical testing for the pharmaceutical industry. I was public about the visit and clearly communicated the experience; I stated that I do not support animal testing but, in order to understand it, I had to meet those who undertake it.
I am sure that many of those participating in the debate today or in the Public Gallery will have seen the footage reported in The Mail on Sunday a week ago. I have seen the puppies and macaques in their cages; although they are well looked after, there is an obvious, inevitable outcome, and it is very difficult to watch them—particularly the macaques, with their recognisable human mannerisms, watching Disney cartoons to keep them occupied, coming to the window to have a look at me looking at them—knowing that all those animals will be tested on and will lose their lives. That is the price we currently have to pay the pharmaceutical industry to save life or extend life. Much as we do not like to know where our food comes from, the same could be said for our medicinal drugs. For all the progress made, animal testing is still a key part of the pre-clinical testing process. Although that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, it is incumbent upon the Government to deliver their pledge as quickly as they can.
In December, we saw the Government introduce the Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025, specifically to curtail protest activity at key national infrastructure sites around the life sciences sector. In Committee, the Minister for Policing and Crime said:
“The legislation will cover infrastructure that primarily facilitates pharmaceutical research or the development or manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, or which is used in connection with activities authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That will include, for example, pharmaceutical laboratories, medicine and vaccine-manufacturing facilities, suppliers of animals for research, and academic laboratories carrying out research involving animals.” —[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17 December 2025; c. 3.]
It would be extremely naive to believe that that legislation was introduced for any reason other than to address the presence and actions of Camp Beagle. It is unusual that the Government would create a bespoke piece of legislation specifically to target a single protest site, particularly when that legislation is so poorly constructed that it is unenforceable anyway. It is worth mentioning that I voted against that legislation, as did the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy); every other Labour MP in this Chamber today voted in favour of it.
It is no secret that MBR Acres was just a few days away from closure, owing to the pressure applied by activists, predominantly via their email campaign. The regulations make sending an email to a company simply to lobby it to boycott provision of utilities a criminal offence. They also require the company being lobbied to report that individual to the police for it to be investigated. The police then have to prove the identity of the sender without knowing which force should investigate or whether that person is even in the country. It is a nonsense. Could the Minister clarify how the Government intend to criminalise people for sending emails that are not abusive or threatening and where the sender cannot even be identified?
With regards to MBC Acres itself, in response to my written parliamentary question 125326 regarding the outcome of the last announced audit of the site last November, the Government confirmed that the Animals and Science Regulation Unit
“identified no critical or major findings, and no low level concerns”,
identifying only three minor findings involving
“a small amount of rust on a surface, small areas of floor damage in a walkway, and a small portion of loose drain cover”.
Given the sheer volume of correspondence I have received on the topic of conditions at MBR Acres, it is not unreasonable to say that the two perspectives do not tally.
During the heatwave last summer, there was significant concern regarding the welfare of the dogs, owing to the temperature inside the sheds. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not have this information to hand, could he—or potentially the Security Minister, under whose brief ASRU audits sit—write to me and outline the steps implemented to mitigate those risks, given the likelihood of another hot spell in the coming months?
Last November, the Government introduced their policy paper, “Replacing animals in science: A strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods”, the long-awaited strategy created to fulfil Labour’s pledge to phase out animal testing. It took a while, but I welcome the publication of the strategy. As one of the few MPs who has actually read it, I have some questions for the Minister that I hope he will able to answer later—I hope that he can take some notes, because I have a lot of questions.
Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently confirmed to me that the Government are positioning the UK as a global leader in alternative methods via a variety of initiatives, principally including reform of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and by setting new international benchmarks for the development, assessment and adoption of non-animal methods. Could the Minister confirm what progress the Government have made in scoping multilateral and bilateral opportunities for international engagement? In particular, has his Department been successful in discussions with international regulators regarding harmonisation of standards and establishment of key priorities?
Ministers have previously informed me of the publication of a set of key performance indicators covering all elements of the strategy later this year. Is the Minister able to expand on the timeline for the publication of those KPIs and the accompanying dashboard? Likewise, Ministers have previously informed me that work is under way to identify and collate UK Research and Innovation-funded alternative methods for inclusion on the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research’s expansion of its gateway publishing platform. I know that that is due to be in place by the end of the year, but could the Minister provide an update on progress in alternative methods likely to be included?
Further to that, UKRI plans to publish areas of research interest for alternative methods and is due to start the work in the first half of the year. When in Q2 is that work due to commence, and has an approach now been agreed between the NC3Rs, the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council?
The Government have also confirmed that the first ministerial board has been convened to oversee delivery of the governance arrangements for the overall strategy. Can the Minister confirm the frequency of those meetings?
Is the investment of £75 million to accelerate the development and adoption of alternative methods separate from, or in addition to, the funding supplied for the three Rs? Is the £20 million of increased funding launched through the pre-clinical translational models hub funding call last month part of that £75 million or in addition to it? Is the £30 million allocated to support the establishment and delivery of the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods also in addition to that?
Further to that, reporting on the portfolio of investments in alternative methods is planned to commence this year. Is the Minister able to confirm when that will be published? We are already in quarter 2. The next meeting of the alternative methods strategy delivery group is scheduled for tomorrow; can the Minister share the outcome of the first meeting in February, and what is likely to be discussed in tomorrow’s meeting?
The Animals in Science Committee has now published its report, “Strengthening leading practice in the animals in science sector”. Will the Minister outline what progress has been made thus far, or he anticipates being made this year, on the 11 recommendations on strengthening leading practice or further work, particularly regarding the Animals in Science Regulation Unit? On recommendation 11, which applies to the Minister’s Department, what steps have DSIT Ministers taken to consider how funding schemes can support the implementation of leading practice across the whole framework?
I appreciate that I have addressed some very specific points, so I would welcome the Minister writing to me to address my questions if he is unable to answer them all today. I am sure his team have been furiously scribbling notes.
As I have stated, I welcome the animal welfare strategy. It is a good first step towards a future in which animals no longer play a part in pre-clinical pharmaceutical testing, but that day is still too far away. A date of 2035 sounds like wishful thinking—an expectation that there will be exponential leaps forward in progress with the advent of AI and the rapid intramonth increases we are seeing in compute power. That may be the case, but hope is not a strategy.
I hope the Government can continue to push in the right direction on this issue, deliver on the pledges outlined in their strategy, and achieve their pledge to phase animals out of testing processes.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. She is a real asset to the Petitions Committee. She has led a number of debates on animal welfare issues with great expertise. She is a real champion of animal welfare and is doing great work on the all-party parliamentary group.
An important thing about the APPG is the extent to which it is evidence based. We can all stand here and get emotional about the horrors of animal testing and some of the things we have seen—such as the undercover footage of the dogs and macaques that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) mentioned—but when we make the case it is important to be able to present the alternative as well. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has been doing that with great expertise.
I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon for his support for Camp Beagle and the campaign against MBR Acres. He is quite right that some of us voted against the effort to quell protests against the site; it seemed a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It also seems unfortunate that although, to a small extent, we had a debate in Committee, we did not have a debate on the measure on the Floor of the House. I know the Minister is not the Home Office Minister who was responsible for that delegated legislation, but there are still so many questions about what sort of protest will now be possible and to what extent the laws will be used. I hope the Minister has been briefed so that he can answer some of those questions.
Having said that, it is good to see a DSIT Minister here. I have been around almost as long as the lord my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned; it seems like I have been here talking about animal welfare issues for 100 years, but it is only 21. In the past, the split between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has the pure animal welfare brief, and the Home Office, which often responds to debates because it is responsible for licensing, has been difficult.
I remember, just before the general election, a debate in which George Eustice took part. He had been an EFRA Secretary of State and, before that, a Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, and he was one of those who joined me in calling for one Department to hold the issue of animal testing, so that we knew we would always get answers. Particularly in respect of the Home Office, animal testing is quite peripheral to the relevant Minister’s wider brief—I think she covers policing and all sorts of other issues—so it is difficult to get focus. I therefore welcome the fact that the Science Minister, even if he is in the other place and not here today, has responsibility and has brought forward the road map. I hope he is working closely on this with colleagues in DEFRA and the Home Office.
We could spend a lot of time talking about the horrors of animal testing and why we want to see it replaced, but I will also look forward and talk about the positive signals about replacing it that are now being sent. I want, though, to dwell for a moment on the forced swim test, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran talked about. As she said, it is particularly cruel and its use cannot be justified. She quoted the Government’s strategy on replacing animals in science, in which they admitted:
“The test has limited scientific validity, particularly its translational relevance to human mental health disorders.”
That was more or less what I was told when I met scientific researchers at the University of Bristol a few years ago. God knows how many times and on how many animals they had carried out that test—it must have been easily in the thousands, if not many more. They said to me, “We have not spotted anything interesting yet, but we’ll probably carry on doing it in case something interesting happens”. That seemed to me a complete exercise in futility, and a casual and callous approach to the purpose of tests.
If tests are being carried out, we want to know that they at least have a point and are essential. I accept that we are not in a position to replace all animal testing tomorrow, but we absolutely ought to be keeping it to a minimum. Scientists doing tests on mice just in case they spot something fascinating seems completely wrong. As far as I know, researchers have now paused such tests, but they have not committed to dropping them altogether and, as we heard, there are still three granted licenses that run until 2028. Although I would like to be able to trust scientists to down tools if they feel that the tests no longer have a purpose, will the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered revoking those licences? What is the purpose of allowing the licences to continue? Are they ever revoked, or do we always rely on scientists to make the call?
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a sincere and excellent speech, and just made a brilliant point. As we heard earlier, in 2023 some 2.6 million animals were still being tested on, which is a moral atrocity. Does the hon. Member agree that the move away from animal testing should lead to greater investment in testing that will drive better scientific outcomes?
Kerry McCarthy
It is important to make the case that this is not just about people being horrified by the cruelty involved. It is also about the fact that the tests have been proven in so many cases not to be effective, not to yield useful results and not to be the best way to make progress in medical discoveries. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned a couple of those points.
On the point about conflicts with commercial consideration, the reason why MBR Acres put pressure on the Government and wanted to quell protests is that it is under some pressure: my understanding is that it is struggling to find customers and homes for its beagles because of the protests and the fact that people have quite rightly been horrified that tests are continuing. Where does that commercial pressure sit against the Government’s stated desire to adopt the three Rs, and the measures to reduce the use of animals in experiments set out in the animal welfare strategy and road map? How do we make sure that the Government’s stated intentions prevail over the commercial considerations?
On a more positive note, it is encouraging to see the progress that is being made on NAMs, and the Government throwing their weight behind that with £75 million for the new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. I was particularly interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said about the potential for using AI to help to replace animal testing. She mentioned the AnimalGAN software being developed by the FDA in the US, which could be used to determine how rats would react to chemicals without having to do new tests, and the Virtual Second Species challenge to create an AI-powered virtual dog, trained on historic dog tests, which sounds fantastic.
In the strategy on replacing animals in science, the Government committed to setting up a new animal research institute that will
“bring together data, AI, cell engineering, genomic technology and cutting-edge disease modelling capabilities to generate collaborative research at scale”.
As I said, the University of Bristol was involved historically in the forced swim test. It is also at the forefront of AI innovation and research and was, as a result, chosen to host the Isambard-AI supercomputer, one of the fastest computers in the world. A very excited Secretary of State launched it in July last year; if the Minister has not yet had a chance to visit and learn about Isambard, there is an open invitation for him to do so.
We have been told that the supercomputer will spearhead scientific breakthroughs in, among other things, the discovery of new drugs. It could be used to analyse cell data, for advanced medical image modelling, for large-scale biostatistics on human data sets, for medical genetic modelling and for organ-on-a-chip simulations, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned. In saying all that, my complete ignorance of these issues probably shines through, but it all sounds like it has huge potential, and there is already a huge amount of interest from researchers who want to use Isambard. I will follow up with the University of Bristol to ask whether anyone has approached it who wants to use it to research NAMs, and if so what priority the university will give to such usage.
There is great potential to use the super-brain in the computer. One reason why there are so many tests is that there is huge duplication and replication of tests, involving a huge number of animals. If we could use AI to number-crunch some of that, we could reduce the numbers in leaps and bounds, so I hope the university will get involved in the new institute. I hope the Minister can say a little more about whether he thinks AI is the way forward to help to bring down the number of animal tests significantly.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate and for her ongoing commitment to this issue. I thank the petitioners —including 201 from Taunton and Wellington—for raising it, and other Members for their speeches, which have shown the sincerity on this issue across parties.
The petitioners are right that the current system is failing on welfare, on science and on the pace of change, but it would be wrong to make out that all the science is resolved. Although there are certainly areas where animal testing cannot yet be replaced, we could, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, be doing a lot more. Animal testing should be ended as soon as possible and this debate should spur the Government into doing a lot more.
Our country wrote the world’s first animal welfare law back in 1822. The UK has a long tradition of being ahead on animal welfare, and we should be ahead now. The Government’s strategy, published in November, sets a welcome headline target of a 35% reduction in the number of dogs and primates used in pharmacokinetic studies by 2030, but a 35% reduction five years away is not ambitious enough, and it has not been put on a statutory footing. Like the petitioners, I am concerned that none of the strategy’s targets are in statute. They are ambitions in a policy document with no binding mechanism to ensure they are met. A 35% target for 2030 could become a 25% target in 2032 or 2035. There is nothing in the strategy to prevent that from happening. If we are serious about leading, we should be willing to put our targets into law.
We should also be willing to lead on alternative methods, and to do that we need the alternative methods to be validated. Following Brexit, we lost access to European testing, and it has taken five years to establish a new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. The new centre is welcome, but it is five years overdue. We need to be ambitious from day one; naming a new centre will not be enough on its own.
Last year, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit found 146 confirmed cases of non-compliance across 45 establishments, of which 43% related to inadequate care in respect of issues such as food, water or suitable facilities. The regulator is funded by the very establishments that it is supposed to regulate. That is a structural conflict of interest that we should not accept, as my noble Friend the Lib Dem peer Lord Clement-Jones has said in the other place.
Will the Minister put the strategy’s targets on a statutory footing, with binding milestones, so that a 35% target by 2030 cannot slip into something entirely different? Secondly, will he make the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods ambitious from day one, properly funded, independent and able to validate methods at pace? Thirdly, will he arrange an independent review of the regulator, the ASRU, and address its funding conflicts of interest? The regulator should not be paid by those it regulates.
In responding to the debate, the Minister will no doubt remind us that the carefully regulated use of animals in research remains necessary for medical reasons, but that is not enough of an answer to the petition, and it does not answer the questions this debate puts before us. There is no reason why the regulator should be funded by those it regulates, there is no reason why our targets should not be on a statutory footing, and there is no reason why dogs—the obvious first candidate for replacement—should still be used in repeat dose toxicity testing up to 2030. Those are reasonable, meaningful and achievable changes that the Government could make, and they should be taking action now.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing the debate, and I thank the petitioners and campaigners who have brought the issue before Parliament. Many of them are my City of Durham constituents, and I am pleased to represent them today.
We often talk in this place about giving people a voice, but today we also provide one to other sentient beings. This debate ought to be about not just more humane treatment for animals but, importantly, better science, better regulation and better outcomes, as well as higher welfare standards. The Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy is a welcome step. It recognises that the UK should move towards phasing out animal use in all but exceptional circumstances, and it commits funding for alternatives, including through the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and a preclinical translational models hub. The question is whether that strategy is ambitious enough.
Organisations such as Camp Beagle, Animal Defenders International, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Humane Society International UK and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments are concerned that, although the strategy has good intentions, it is not yet hard enough on delivery, and lacks clear statutory targets, a firm timetable and proper accountability for whether animal use is falling. That matters, because the scale remains significant. Home Office figures show that there were around 2.6 million scientific procedures involving animals in Great Britain in 2024. That represents a negligible 1.21% decrease on 2023. Animal Defenders International and the Herbie’s law campaign report that 2,646 procedures involved dogs, overwhelmingly beagles, and that most of those procedures were for regulatory purposes. Nearly 2,000 procedures were on non-human primates, a staggering number of which will face lengthy and stressful transportation from Africa or Asia to then endure a life of experimentation. Simply put, that feels unethical.
The Government have set targets to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in some pharmacokinetic and cardiovascular safety studies by 2030. That is welcome, but it is limited. It does not amount to a clear route to ending unnecessary dog testing, and does not fully address the question of second species testing, in which dogs are still used even though campaigners and researchers argue that the added scientific value can be weak.
There is a serious scientific case for moving faster. The Thomas, Chancellor and Micklus clinical development report on success rates from 2011 to 2020 showed an overall likelihood of approval from phase 1 of only 7.9%. Campaigners rightly point to that as evidence that the current system is not delivering as well as patients, researchers and animals need it to. Crucially, animal models do not always translate reliably into human biology. Results that appear promising in animals can fail when they reach human trials, while potentially useful treatments may be delayed or lost because animal data does not accurately reflect how the human body responds. That should not make us less serious about safety. Instead, we should embrace methods that give us better evidence, better predictions and better outcomes. That is why human-relevant science matters. Alternatives in this area are developing quickly, such as organ-on-a-chip systems, human cell models, computational modelling and AI-assisted advanced imaging. Those are not fringe ideas; they are increasingly central to the future of modern biomedical research.
The Government should strengthen their strategy by setting clearer annual milestones, publishing the baseline behind their targets, giving regulators such as the MHRA a clear mandate to accept validated alternatives, and ensuring animal welfare organisations and independent scientists are involved in monitoring progress. The UK has a real opportunity to lead in humane, human-relevant science, but that will need more than warm words. It will require pace, transparency, investment and a willingness to challenge outdated regulatory habits.
When it is reported that seven out of 10 people in Britain support the introduction of a new law that would end animal experiments in medical research by 2035, it is clear that we must take this topic seriously. We owe it to our constituents and the animals that suffer for our gain. The Government have made a start; they now need to go further and faster.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and the petitioners for securing the debate. Nearly 120,000 people from up and down the country have supported this petition and many of my constituents in Waveney Valley have taken the time to write to me about the debate. Such a level of public engagement reflects a clear and growing concern that the continued use of animals in testing is not ethically or scientifically justified.
Let us be clear about the scale of the issue. In 2024, more than 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in the UK, with 2,646 using dogs; 82 using cats, 1,936 using monkeys, and 11,483 using horses. Behind those horrifying numbers are sentient beings subjected not to abstract procedures, but to confinement, physical invasion, distress and pain. Investigations by organisations such as Animals International and Animal Aid have documented those practices in stark detail. Footage emerging from UK laboratories lays bare a deeply troubling reality: animals immobilised in slings, straining against restraints or confined for months in barren cages while subjected to repeated invasive procedures. Dogs, overwhelmingly beagles, as we have heard, are routinely force-fed substances through tubes pushed down their throats or made to inhale chemicals via tightly strapped masks, while others endure surgically implanted catheters delivering infusions into the veins. Those are not short-lived interventions, but prolonged procedures, often involving twice-daily dosing for months, with consequences that can include vomiting, diarrhoea, seizures, internal bleeding, organ failure and paralysis. Yet the studies continue regardless.
Some animals are kept alive until they reach the brink of severe physiological collapse, or even heart failure, and even those that survive are invariably killed so that their organs can be dissected and examined. This is not incidental suffering. It is systemic, deliberate and embedded within the process itself.
The Green party has long been clear that we should reduce suffering for all animals, guided by the evidence. I am pleased by today’s strong cross-party support for that in welcoming what the Government have set out, but calling for the stronger ambition that we must see under Herbie’s law. The way we treat animals reflects our values as a society. We have a responsibility to recognise animals as sentient beings and reduce suffering whenever it occurs. However, this is not just an ethical question, but a scientific one. We are often told that animal testing is essential for human health, yet over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals never make it through to approval for human use. That extraordinarily high failure rate points to a system that is not only causing harm to animals, but failing to deliver for patients.
The evidence is clear: animals are not reliable proxies for human health, and differences in biology mean that results often do not translate. Substances that are harmless to us can be toxic to other species, and vice versa, meaning that outcomes can mislead in both directions. At the same time, the science is moving on. Non-animal methods, such as advanced cell models, organ-on-a-chip technologies or AI-driven approaches, are increasingly able to deliver results that are more accurate and more relevant to humans. Those are not distant possibilities; the methods are already being used and are improving quickly.
The UK should be leading on this issue. The Government have already accepted that there is no legal requirement to carry out animal testing and that regulators can approve medicines based on non-animal data, yet progress remains too slow. If we are serious about change, we need a proper plan to move away from animal testing altogether. That is why Herbie’s law matters. Named after a rescued beagle, it would set out a practical framework to phase out animal testing by 2025 while supporting researchers and industry to transition to modern alternatives. It is practical and achievable, and it already has strong support across Parliament and among the public.
The calls to suspend generic new licences, and to review existing ones, also merit serious consideration. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, experiments on animals are authorised through licences. Concerningly, those can take the form of broad five-year service licences granted to research organisations, and they can allow experiments to continue even when non-animal alternatives become available during the licence period. Furthermore, even though the law requires a harm-benefit analysis before animal use is approved, under those broad licences the specific substances to be used, and therefore the harm that the animals will face, are not always known at the point of approval. It is difficult to see how that meets a statutory duty.
This debate is not about being anti-science. Far from it: it is about recognising that better science is available. By shifting investment and policy support towards human-relevant methods, we can improve outcomes for patients while ending unnecessary suffering for animals. The petitioners are right: the system is failing both animals and humans. We have the evidence, we have the technology, and we have the public backing. What is missing is the pace of change, so I urge the Government to suspend all new generic service licences for toxicity testing immediately, to conduct a full review of every current licence held, and to deliver urgently on their promise to replace animals in science. That is the change that we and animals deserve.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I believe that the time has come to end animal testing in this country, and to do so with urgency, ambition and honesty. This debate has rightly been driven by the public. Some 152 residents across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme have joined others across the country to tell us that the status quo is no longer acceptable, and I agree. Over 2.6 million animal procedures took place in Great Britain in 2024, and behind that number are living creatures capable of pain and distress. We cannot simply look away from that anymore.
Like many Members, I am an animal lover. At home, our dog, Foggy, is part of the family—thank God he is. He is the only one still happy to see me when I get home on a Thursday night, and he is also the only one, along with my mum, that listens in to see whether my voice comes on when a debate is on the TV. If he is listening now, I want my slippers back; they were not there this morning, and he needs to dig them out for me.
My children have always struggled to understand why we treat some animals with love and protection, while others are used in ways that cause harm—frankly, so do many adults. I recognise that animal testing has historically played a role in medical advances, but the scientific landscape is now rapidly changing, and there are many other emerging options out there. Human-specific technologies, from advanced cell models to computer simulations, are already providing credible and, in some cases, more accurate alternatives.
This is not a question of whether we can move away from animal testing, but of whether we have the political will to lead that transition. The principle of replacement, reduction and refinement has taken us some of the way, but it is no longer enough. We need a fourth R: replacement at pace. We need a clear, time-bound strategy to phase out animal testing wherever alternatives exist and to drive innovation where they do not. That means scaling up investment in non-animal methods, fast-tracking their validation so that regulators can rely on them, and using the full weight of Government to remove barriers to their adoption. It also means being prepared to challenge outdated regulatory requirements that still default to animal testing even when better options are available.
This Labour Government have rightly placed growth, science and innovation at the heart of their agenda. There is a real opportunity for Britain to lead the world in ethical science, creating high-value jobs while ending practices that the public increasingly reject. Leadership requires clarity, however: we should set a clear national mission to end animal testing, with milestones, accountability and transparency built in—not warm words, but measurable progress.
The testing of cosmetic products and their ingredients on animals was banned in the UK in 1998, and the testing of completed household products was banned in 2015. Today I support Herbie’s law, a bold step towards a future where animals are no longer used in the name of science. The law would prompt a decade of change, mandating the replacement of animals in medical research in the UK with humane, effective alternatives by 2035. It is a commitment to progress, compassion and a brighter future for all. We can do that—we should do that—and now we must get on and deliver it.
It is said, “A true friend leaves pawprints on your heart”. We need to use our heads and hearts to stop testing on dogs immediately, and then move on to deliver Herbie’s law.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her passionate introduction of the topic. I also thank the 238 of my constituents who signed the petition, the many who have written to me about it, and those who I have met at constituency surgeries.
There are three key reasons why we need to do much better on animal testing and move towards ending it. First, it is unethical in many cases; it has distressing side effects and often continues the suffering of animals when completely unnecessary. Long-lasting confinement to small cages, continued lack of social interaction and intrusive experiments can all contribute to extreme emotional and physical effects.
Secondly, animal testing leads to detachment from recognising that animals are living beings. According to the National Library of Medicine, the emotional and social behaviours of dogs and cats, for example, are comparable to those of young children; I declare an interest here, because my favourite animal is a cat. It is absolutely possible to have a conversation with a cat—I appreciate that many in this room will take that as further evidence for questioning my sanity, but I have had prolonged conversations with cats, albeit admittedly on their terms and using their language. One wonderful thing about cats is their enormous diversity of personalities: they all have their own character, likes and dislikes, and that is why they are so fascinating. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has said:
“Animals in laboratories are treated like disposable laboratory equipment”,
rather than as the emotional living beings that they are. Animals being tested on can experience psychological distress, including anxiety and depression.
The third key reason is the availability of alternatives: there are several emerging human-relevant models that can replace animal testing—artificial intelligence has already been mentioned, but there is also the advanced use of human cells and tissues, which can hopefully provide more relevant results. Having mentioned cats, it is sad to see, in the 2024 statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain, that the number of experimental procedures on cats increased by 30% between 2023 and 2024. We need to be going in the other direction.
Many of my constituents have also written to me expressing their concerns about the treatment of beagles—a topic that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) covered in detail—and voicing concern about the seemingly contradictory approach that the Government are taking. Although they published their long-awaited strategy on animal testing in November 2025, since then the Government have authorised the use of more than 6.5 million animals in experiments over the coming years. Those experiments authorised by the Home Office include monkeys being subjected to invasive brain surgery, tests to do with eyes being done on rabbits, bile being collected from dogs, and many other upsetting things that other hon. Members have also described.
In conclusion, the Government are right to say that they are taking a step forward in their strategy, and I know that many campaigners will welcome that. They are also right that we need a realistic plan for how we can end all animal testing and find other ways to safely test new medicines and treatments. However, many of my constituents and many campaigners will feel that what has been proposed so far does not go fast or far enough. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on opening this important and timely debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG on cats—I was interested in the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover)’s comments about conversations with them, which many will relate to.
Fundamentally, we are a nation of animal lovers. More than 60% of UK households own a pet—or, in the case of cats, are owned by them. For millions of families across the country, our pets or other companion animals are not simply animals, but beloved members of our family. We care deeply about their welfare, and rightly so. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to act on the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority on veterinary services, which will help to reduce the costs of pet care at a time when many households are still feeling the strain of rising costs. Cost should never be a barrier to getting our beloved animals treated when they are sick.
While we rightly focus on easing pressures on pet owners—something that is as much a welfare as a cost of living issue—we must also confront the wider question of how animals are treated in our society, particularly those hidden from public view in laboratories and testing facilities. At its heart, animal testing is a moral issue and an animal welfare issue, but it is also increasingly clear that it is a scientific and economic issue. I welcome the Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy, which delivers on our manifesto commitment. That strategy is backed by £75 million of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods, including £30 million for the UK Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. The strategy includes a target that aims
“to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in dedicated pharmacokinetic studies for human medicines by at least 35% by 2030”
and
“to use validated alternative methods to reduce the use of non human primates and dogs in dedicated cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030.”
The continued use of animals in experiments is not only inhumane, but often ineffective, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran eloquently outlined earlier. For example, dogs continue to be used in scientific testing despite clear biological differences between them and humans: they absorb drugs differently, their gastric pH levels differ from ours, their metabolic enzymes function differently and they have different cardiovascular systems, with higher heart rates and distinct electrical activity regulating their heartbeat. Those are not minor differences; they are fundamental biological distinctions that can make dogs poor predictors for how treatments will behave in humans.
The consequences are plain to see. Developing a new medicine takes, on average, 14 years and costs more than £1 billion, yet more than 95% of drugs fail before reaching patients. That is not simply an inefficient system—it is evidence that elements of our drug development model are no longer fit for purpose. The continued reliance on animal testing is part of that problem. Behind the statistics is the ethical reality. Animals used in experiments are subject to invasive procedures, prolonged confinement and real distress, and are often left with lasting physical and physiological harm. The British public are fully aware of the scale of that harm, which is why they are demanding change. Indeed, more than seven in 10 Brits support a ban on animal testing, according to a YouGov poll from last year.
“Change” is the slogan this Government were elected on, and change on this issue is eminently possible. Around the world, momentum is building towards modern alternatives—human-relevant technologies, advanced cell modelling and AI-driven methods—that are often more accurate, efficient and humane than animal experimentation. I urge the Government to move forward with Herbie’s law and to set a clear national pathway to phase out animal experiments over the next decade, working closely with scientists, researchers and industry to accelerate the transition to modern alternatives.
This is not a choice between compassion and progress—we can achieve both. We can lead the world in pioneering better science; we can reduce unnecessary suffering; and we can build a future in which medical innovation is not dependent on outdated, inhumane practices. That would be a victory for science, for patients and, above all, for animals and their welfare.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate. I also recognise and thank the hundreds of Yeovil constituents who signed this petition and previous petitions on this subject.
Research now shows that the failure rate of translation of drugs from animal testing to human treatments is around 92%, and has been for the past few decades. Those failures are due either to safety concerns or to the fact that the product does not work. However, more than anything, testing on animals, including thousands of dogs and primates, is cruel. Like many of my constituents, I have a lovely dog, who is called Roo. No matter how hard our day might be, when we see that smile and waggy tail, it makes everything so much better. We love our pets like family, so when I see videos of dogs and other animals used for testing in poor conditions, I cannot help but think of my Roo.
Of course we have regulations meant to make sure that testing is ethical, but the report for 2024 by the Government’s own Animals in Science Regulation Unit shows that some establishments are still failing to provide proper care for testing animals. That is not good enough and we should stop it immediately. Given that animal testing is cruel and often not efficient, my constituents tell me that they want to see a clear pathway to phasing it out as soon as possible, and in particular an end to animal toxicity testing. We have a real shot at that, thanks to amazing developments in AI, large datasets, cell engineering, cutting-edge disease modelling and other technology and methods.
In that context, the Government’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy is a strong start, and I welcome the funding commitments that have come with it. However, I hope the Minister can answer a few questions. On standards, beyond increasing the number of inspectors, what steps are being taken to strengthen regulation and oversight of animal testing, if the Government will not commit to a clear target for phasing it out? When will we see regulation and guidance on AI-informed decision making? How will the Government keep guidance up to date, given how quickly AI is developing? Finally, while it is great that the Government are committed to international leadership and co-operation on ending testing on animals, what action has that commitment translated into so far? What is being done to push the private sector to invest more in development and using alternatives?
When we cannot be sure that it is effective, testing on animals is not science—it is just violence. My constituents want no part in it.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. She is a fantastic, tireless champion of the rights of animals and does a great job chairing the APPG on phasing out animal experiments, of which I am proud to be a member. I also thank the 211 constituents in Newport West and Islwyn who signed this petition to end animal testing. The fact that the Public Gallery is so full today is testament to how important this subject is to so many across the UK.
We have already heard that the number of procedures in 2024 was some 2.6 million, just 2% lower than the preceding year. Although 2024 marked the lowest number of scientific procedures involving living animals since 2001, the pace of reduction is far too slow. Britain, as we have already heard, is proudly badged as a nation of animal lovers and a world leader in animal welfare, but it is critical that we do not rest on our laurels. Indeed, continued leadership requires urgent commitments on further reforms to the regulatory, licensing and inspection regime governing the use of animals in science on the UK. I aim to touch on each of those areas in my speech —but I will be brief, as I can see the Chair’s eyebrows raising.
I first turn to regulation. I greatly welcome the Labour Government’s new “Replacing animals in science” strategy, and their clear ambition for phasing out basket grouping of unnecessary tests on animals in the near future. I particularly support funding for a new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods and investment in non-animal method technologies.
Although the strategy is detailed and comprehensive, I still believe that there are areas where we can go further. Embedding the targets to phase out routine tests prioritised as part of baskets 1 and 2 in law would provide absolute certainty to both the scientific community and campaigners of our commitment to end the use of animals in testing. Such a step could also bring in wider investment in UK scientific research, strengthening our position as a global leader in the development of animal-free testing methods. I therefore urge the Minister to commit to introducing Herbie’s law and enshrining the targets committed to in the recent strategy in legislation.
I turn to licensing, which I have raised previously in Westminster Hall debates. I continue to believe that the Animals in Science Regulation Unit needs urgent reform. One of the key roles of the ASRU is administering the licensing regime created by ASPA. That is critical to reducing the number of animals used in scientific testing, as the Act already requires proactive consideration of the three Rs framework: replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in such experiments. That is supposed to ensure that animals are used only as a last resort, but the embedding of the approach needs strengthening. That was a key reflection of the Rawle report, published in 2023, which voiced concerns that the welfare inspection regime risked embedding a focus on “box-ticking” rather than ensuring a culture of genuine commitment to advancing the three Rs.
I greatly welcome the Government recognition of the need to strengthen the ethical review approval process to ensure that animals are used only where there is no alternative in line with the findings of the Rawle report. I therefore ask the Minister to report on the progress being made by his Department in strengthening the application of the three Rs following the publication of the Animals in Science Committee’s January report, and in advance of its forthcoming report in September.
Of particular importance is strengthening the ASRU’s understanding of the rapid developments in non-animal methods—NAMs. That is essential to ensuring that the application of the three Rs is effective and in line with international best practice, such as that now being implemented by the US Food and Drug Administration as part of its road map. It is interesting that the US is now ahead of us in this area. I urge the Minister that we need to get back on top here.
Responsibility for driving this change sits directly with Ministers, with statutory duties to assess for the three Rs—particularly replacement, which sits with the Home Secretary. As such, Ministers must drive the necessary reform of the ASRU, ensuring that it has the expertise to effectively and independently verify whether applications have been appropriately evaluated against NAMs.
The ASRU has typically been composed of vets, who unfortunately, given the fast-moving nature of the field, do not always have up-to-date expertise in modern NAMs, including organs on chips and computational biology. Those handling applications need to be well versed in those technologies and able to engage in critical questions around scientific methodologies and data validation, rather than reliant on a replacement checklist. ASPA requires that scientifically satisfactory NAMs are used “wherever possible”. Given that, and the section 2A duties on the Home Secretary—I appreciate that is a different Department—I ask the Minister what steps they are taking to improve the training and expertise available to ASRU inspectors to allow them to effectively and independently verify application compliance with ASPA.
Of particular concern are tests taken under the so-called “generic” project licences as highlighted by Animal Aid and Animals International. Those licences are granted without knowing the substances being tested, and as such, a harm-benefit analysis cannot have been done. I therefore ask the Minister what specific steps he is taking to review “generic” project licences to avoid unnecessary harm and strengthen application of the three Rs. I appreciate that relates to a different Department, but I am sure that his Department will be working in lockstep with the Home Office, so I look forward to the response.
Turning to enforcement, adherence to ASPA within licensed premises also continues to be a site of significant concern. The latest annual report from the ASRU made extremely grim reading. The 146 reported cases of non-compliance with legal requirements of licensing conditions highlight an ongoing failure to prevent appalling animal suffering in laboratories. That includes extreme cases of animals drowning or starving to death. In total, those cases detail the suffering of more than 22,000 animals. Those numbers are significant, but unfortunately they only reflect breaches self-reported to the ASRU. My fear is that the numbers are far greater than those documented. That only underlines the importance of an effective inspection regime and promoting a proactive culture of safeguarding animal welfare.
Despite the ASRU issuing more than 15,000 licences in 2024, at the end of that year, the ASRU had only 8.2 full-time equivalent inspectors. That means that just 68 establishments were inspected in 2024, with only 10 of those inspections being unannounced. I therefore welcome commitments made by the Government to increase the number of veterinary and medical inspectors working for the ASRU, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government have been successful in recruiting to meet the previously stated target of 22 inspectors by March this year.
In closing, the continued testing on animals demands moral leadership. That requires urgent implementation of the replacing animals in science strategy, strengthening enforcement of ASPA, and using Britain’s unique position as a global leader in animal welfare and pharmaceuticals to chart a global path towards ending animal testing once and for all. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, and I urge the Minister to go faster in eradicating animal testing. The public is impatient and wants change quickly, and so do we.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on an excellent opening speech.
All life is a miracle and every living creature has an intrinsic value that we cannot measure or put a price on, so I am not in the least bit surprised that hundreds of my constituents signed this petition. We rightly expect the highest standards for animals bred in this country and should demand the same for those imported from abroad. The British people want tough penalties on cruelty. Labour’s animal welfare agenda, from tackling puppy farming to ending trail hunting, brings policy closer to the public’s values.
Those same values matter when we consider animal testing. Given the invasive, painful and often lethal nature of these experiments, the burden of justification has to be immense. It is not enough to say that the ends justify the means; the ends themselves must be clearly achievable, necessary and proportionate enough to warrant such suffering. In other words, we cannot morally justify harming animals simply because we consider ourselves a more intelligent species.
If some disagree with that statement, it is a useful thought experiment to consider whether we would accept it as morally justifiable and acceptable for a provably more intelligent species to experiment on our families and loved ones for their own purposes. Would we stand by and nod along stoically that all species can rightly be used however they wish by another that has a more developed brain? I think not.
A genuinely moral justification can be attempted only if the scale of suffering prevented by testing on living creatures provably and overwhelmingly outweighs the suffering of the test patients themselves. Too often, that case is simply not made. When we weigh the public interest in research and medical progress against the imperative to minimise harm to animals, the balance just does not stack up to scrutiny. Animal testing is often cruel and would often pass for barbaric sadism in any other context.
More profoundly still, the scientific value of animal testing is often overstated. As we have heard repeatedly today, there is growing evidence that animal models can be unreliable predictors for human outcomes, and we have an increasing range of scientific tools and models that offer a more accurate alternative. If the suffering we are inflicting on these animals is profound but the result is uncertain, can the means really be justified at all?
Herbie’s law would help to correct that balance, through a phased transition by 2035 away from animal experimentation and towards more effective alternatives, including human-specific methods backed by training and support for scientists. More than 2 million animals were used in experiments in our country in 2024 alone. That is suffering on an immense scale, affecting animals alive today and countless more yet to be bred into a system of pain. Herbie’s law offers the chance to turn a historic page and reduce suffering, improve science and move our laws closer to the values that the public already hold. That would be a profound step forward for animals living now and those spared this fate in future. I urge Ministers to adopt Herbie’s law in full as a matter of urgency.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I must be the night owl of this debate.
I have long believed that replacing the use of animals in experiments is the right thing to do. Indeed, it is the mark of a civilised society that we treat animals well. It is ethically sound, but can also be economically beneficial. Replacement technologies are a real growth opportunity for the life sciences sector. Human base models are more accurate and relevant, saving time and aiding profitability. A KPMG UK life sciences report argued that, if new technologies are employed, they have the potential to accelerate market entry for innovative products by up to two years, potentially saving up to £7.8 million. What is more, the UK is well positioned to lead. We have a really strong life sciences sector, especially across the east of England, as well as expertise and infrastructure. If we unleash our scientists alongside a Government with really clear objectives, the future is bright.
That is also what people want. Petitions like the one we are debating, poll after poll, and the number of people in the Public Gallery show that the UK public really want to see action. A statistic I find interesting is that 76% of people want to see funding diverted from animal experiments to animal-free methods. They do not want animals to suffer. We have heard so many examples of that suffering throughout the debate, like the 2,646 dogs used in experiments in 2024. That led to horrific outcomes: vomiting, diarrhoea, bleeding, organ failure and, ultimately, death.
We can do better, and I welcome the Government’s leadership on this issue. We can learn from the ban on animal testing for cosmetics, which was brought in in the UK in 1998—under a Labour Government, of course—and introduced across the EU in 2013. That cosmetic testing ban pushed science to meet the legal deadlines. It accelerated work to develop and approve new non-animal methods. The ban also stimulated big investment in non-animal methods: over €238 million in EU funding was spent on those between 2007 and 2011. Without the legal deadlines set by those bans, it is likely that many of the non-animal methods we know today would simply not exist.
Whenever I read research websites or documents, I am struck by how often many of them are at pains to point out that they stick to the letter of the law, no more, no less—perhaps more importantly, no more. That is why the law must be a key driver of change. As we have heard, science is moving at pace, with organ-on-a-chip systems, human cell-based models, computer models and AI, which we hear about in all kinds of debates but can particularly take heart from here. When the astronauts went off to the moon recently, I saw that they took some of those organs on chips with them. That is progress. We used to take monkeys, dogs and mice and blast them into space, and now we are taking an organ on a chip instead.
Back down on Earth, this is clearly an area where Britain can lead, but it also involves a truly international approach. Back in 2018, I went to the United Nations alongside Cruelty Free International. We handed over a petition with 8 million signatures from across the world, calling for a global ban on animal testing for cosmetics. I was struck by a couple of things. First, it was hard to find where in the UN the responsibility for that sat; it spans different Departments in the UK, and that is an issue across the world too.
Secondly, we have not yet even managed a global ban on cosmetics testing on animals—only around 45 countries have secured that to date—so we need British leadership on that, as well as on testing for medical procedures. This matters because many of the testing procedures carried out in the UK are done to meet overseas requirements for pharmaceuticals, so it is not something that we can tackle alone. I would be very grateful if the Minister could outline how we are working with our international partners to achieve harmonisation, more international co-operation, consistent frameworks and transparent data exchange.
[Graham Stuart In the Chair]
It is also important that we are positive about our scientists. We abhor it when we see researchers carrying out experiments that we do not think should be done on animals, but we must never be anti-scientist, because it is the scientists who will make sure we have these brand-new methods. We need them, so we have to be relentlessly pro-scientist. I have no doubt that our amazing scientists can rise to this challenge, especially when the Government set out really clear expectations. Together, we can ensure that the UK is at the forefront of innovation and meets the expectations of the public that we serve.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for securing the debate and for her tireless championing of animal welfare in Parliament. This is not the first debate to be secured on animal welfare issues, and it really is making a difference. We rarely have the Gallery full, but the fact that it is today shows how many people support animal welfare and care about Herbie’s law and ending animal testing.
Like other Members, I have been contacted by many constituents about this subject. I will not repeat everyone’s arguments, because they were all expressed very eloquently and put very well, but I will reiterate that an animal’s intelligence has no relation to its capacity to suffer. A sentient animal will experience pain, emotions, suffering and mental distress in the same way that we do. All the research that has been done has shown that animals have the same range and even depth of emotions as humans. They may get excited or scared about different things, but their lived experience is as real to them as ours is to us.
Many people mentioned their pets. We have a labrador called Moose. When he hears the fridge door open, he comes flying into the kitchen in excitement, and if he is caught on the sofa when he is not meant to be there, he clearly feels guilt. As a vet, having seen a variety of animal species—horses, cattle, dogs, cats, chickens—in states of distress, injury or sickness, I know that the emotion and suffering they feel is as strong as any person’s.
I served for years on the British Veterinary Association’s policy committee, and it very much supported the reduce, refine and replace model. That was several years ago, but we are now in a very exciting time, because it feels as though we finally have the technology that means that we really could move away from animal testing in a meaningful way and very quickly. Members have talked about computer modelling, organs on a chip and AI—the way it can model protein folding, and test various treatments and pharmaceuticals without having to use animals, potentially with even more valuable results. It is a really exciting time.
We as a country, and the Government, must ensure that we are supporting our life sciences industry to do that. Life sciences are coming forward with some of the most exciting breakthroughs in medicine to help solve a whole load of diseases that we never thought could be treated, including cancers and rare diseases. They are also vital to growing the economy. As we do all we can to support the life sciences industry, both in developing new technologies and in moving away from testing on animals, can the Minister say whether any work is being done to make sure that we do not inadvertently offshore animal testing? As upsetting as it is to have animal testing in the UK, standards are higher here than anywhere else in the world. What I would hate to see happen—I am sure that everyone is united on this—is for us to ban animal testing and move away from it here, and for it simply to be offshored to somewhere with less regulation and even more suffering to be caused as a consequence.
I also want to bring up the licensing of drugs that have already been tested. Currently, drugs are tested on animals; if they pass animal testing, they go on to humans; and if they pass human testing, they get a licence. The drugs have been proven to work in animals, yet they do not have a licence for the animals and cannot be used in them. It seems to me that if something has passed safety tests and been proven to work in animals, there should be automatic licensing, or what we call dual licensing, to ensure that the animals on which there has been testing have the benefit of the drug. Currently, that is not the case.
We also have situations in which drugs pass animal tests but fail human tests and then cannot be used on the animals, even though they passed those tests. Although we want to move away from animal testing, it seems wrong that animals cannot mutually benefit, from a legal perspective, from the testing that has already been done. I hosted an event last week for the Humanimal Trust, which is calling for dual licensing. Its academics are from the vet school at the University of Surrey. I would be very keen for the Minister, if he is interested, to meet that team, because they have done a lot of work on this issue as well.
We are looking at updating the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. There is currently a cascade for the prescription of drugs for animals, and sometimes pharmaceutical companies can get a retrospective licence. For example, there might be a human drug that is used in animals and is working really well. The drug company will then do the research and get a licence for that specific drug, and then no one else can use it and it becomes very expensive. We would like to look at how the Act, and the cascade for prescribing for animals, can mean that drugs that have been proven to work in humans and animals are more easily prescribed.
This is a really good example that many people will have encountered: they go to the vet, who prescribes paracetamol that costs a lot of money, but then they discover that paracetamol is 16p in a shop. As vets, we are not allowed to prescribe that paracetamol for a dog. We are not trying to fleece people; it is not legal, and a vet prescribing it would be struck off. That is how the law works at the moment. I am really keen that, along with the desperately needed update to the Veterinary Surgeons Act, we look at prescribing rules and licensing as a big, holistic piece of work.
I am very proud that the Liberal Democrats, in coalition, managed to bring forward the work to stop the testing of household products on animals. I am very proud to be an honorary senior lecturer at Bristol University vet school in the area of One Health. For anyone who does not know, that is the recognition that human health, animal health and environmental health are all completely interlinked. There are many diseases and things like antimicrobial resistance that affect humans and animals. We know that 75% of new and emerging infectious diseases that could potentially cause a pandemic are of animal origin. They are often related to farming practices as well. It is impossible to improve human health, environmental health or animal health without seeing the three as completely linked and addressing them all. Moving away from animal testing but having more accurate testing, and the right licensing and regulation, to ensure that animals and humans can mutually benefit from scientific advances is not only an opportunity but the morally right thing to do.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition. This is my first time responding to a petition debate and I am happy to do so under your chairmanship, Sir. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on most ably leading the debate, and I thank the more than 100,000 people who have taken the time to sign the petition.
The previous Conservative Government had a strong record on improving animal welfare standards across the board with measures such as the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export from Great Britain of live animals, including cattle, sheep and pigs, for slaughter and fattening; the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognised vertebrate animals as sentient beings for the first time; the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022, which created new financial penalties for those who commit offences across animal health and welfare against farm animals, zoo animals and pets; and the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022, which banned the use of glue traps in England in all but the most exceptional circumstances.
The testing of products and medicines on animals has always been an emotive topic, and one on which many people hold extremely strong views, so it is absolutely right that animal testing is heavily regulated. It is clear that there is a national consensus that animals ought to be treated with dignity and respect, and I am pleased that the Government have continued to take the welfare of animals as seriously as the previous Government did.
The use of protected animals for any experimental or other scientific procedure that causes
“pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm”
to the animal is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Scientific procedures covered by the Act are controlled using a triple licensing system enforced by the Home Office. That requires a personal licence for the scientific investigator, a licence for the establishment where the procedure is to take place, and a project licence, which contains details of the animals to be used and the procedures to be performed.
The Act requires a cost-benefit analysis to be performed, weighing the likely adverse effects on the animals against the scientific learning arising from the procedure. The UK has a policy to limit the number of animals used in science through replacement, reduction and refinement of research design—the three Rs. That requires licence applicants to demonstrate that they have considered using non-animal alternatives as far as possible. Moreover, under existing legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Put simply, animals can be used in research only when no alternative methods are available.
In 2024, 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in Great Britain. Of the animals used in those procedures, 73% were mice. That figure seems huge, but it must be recognised that it is 37% lower than the recent peak of 4.1 million in 2015. That is a welcome development, but more work definitely needs to be done.
It has been hugely valuable to hear the range of views of those who have taken part in this very constructive debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. There were lots of passionate interventions —in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) gave us particular food for thought on the testing of botox—but let me focus on the substantive contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) did his job as a local MP and visited a lab to give us an understanding of the scenario. It is difficult for us to think about what goes on in there, and we thank him for setting that out for us. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about the pragmatic approach to testing, but also about an aggressive and urgent push to move to alternative processes as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) stressed that, especially in an area as important as this one, ambition is not enough, and that a strategy needs to be implemented urgently. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) spoke about the ethics involved and showed that, while animals may not have a voice, hon. Members can provide one for them—and she did so extraordinarily well.
The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) talked about the possibility of using AI to replace experimentation, and about not being anti-science, but using better science. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) reminded us of the deep relationships that we can have with animals. I do hope that his slippers are returned very soon. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) developed the theme of our relationship with animals and told us of his conversations with cats. Nobody has ever won a debate with a cat, and we could use some of that feline tenacity in pushing this issue through. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) again stressed the need to move to modern alternatives, and that was also highlighted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance).
The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) raised important questions about licensing and enforcement, and the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) raised important questions about morality. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about how the mark of a civilised society is treating animals well—I concur.
Let me stress that the Conservatives are keen to support any work that aims to accelerate the point at which animal research and testing is no longer necessary, having been fully replaced by effective alternatives whenever possible. I welcome that the Government have published a road map for phasing out animal testing. While we support its broad aims, there are concerns, such as that life sciences’ research and investment could move overseas to countries that test on animals to far lower standards. At this point, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Concern arises because regulators have set out that certain products still require animal testing. Medicines, drugs and vaccines are manufactured for sale around the world, and companies can move their operations to places where the ethical and clinical regulations around animal testing are much laxer. I ask the Minister to address that point.
On the timeline for the Government’s road map, will the Minister set out how the 2030 target for a 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates is backed up by alternative methods? Is that actually achievable? How do the Government plan to report to the House on whether the milestones are being met, and what happens if alternative methods are not validated in time?
The goal of seeing no animal suffer needlessly in a laboratory is one that we all share, but that vision is not enough on its own. If we move too slowly, we betray the millions of people who rightly find the continued use of animals in laboratories morally unacceptable, but moving too fast, without validated alternatives, risks both patient safety and the very sector that funds the research on which we all depend. We will continue to ask those questions of the Government and hold them accountable for their actions.
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
It is a great pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, in this important debate. I thank Members for their contributions. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for being a doughty campaigner for not just her constituents, but all their pets and animals. She has done that since she came into this place in 2024, and she deserves a great deal of respect and admiration for it. I also thank each and every one of the many people who took the time to sign the e-petition and those who are in the Public Gallery today.
I look forward to the day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing and the use of dogs in scientific research. Unfortunately, that day is not quite yet with us. Our direction of travel is very clear: we want to replace animals in science wherever possible, which was why our 2024 manifesto committed us to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. Our approach to achieve that is set out in last November’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy, which many Members mentioned.
The strategy is groundbreaking. It brings together funding, infrastructure and regulatory partners so that validated alternatives can move from the lab into routine use safely and at pace. Many Members have talked about pace, which is the key issue here. However, for now, the carefully regulated use of animals, including dogs, in scientific research unfortunately remains.
First, I will expand on the ambition to phase out animal research. Secondly, although we are not yet fully ready to end testing on dogs and other animals, given the current position of science, I will set out the plan that we will put in place to do so. The petition asked the Government to accelerate the move to human-relevant alternative methodologies, and that is exactly the purpose of the strategy. It is about speeding up development and validation, increasing uptake in practice, and working with regulators so that when alternatives are proven, they are accepted and used.
The strategy is not just words; it is backed by £75 million of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods. I will break that down shortly, given that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked about it. We are already delivering at pace by working with regulators and partners to streamline routes for validated alternatives to be accepted, backing researchers with new funding through UK Research and Innovation, and supporting the NC3Rs, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies, ensuring that advances are reflected in policy and practice, and that regulations on animal research are seen through.
Nearly £16 million of new investment has been announced through the Medical Research Council, Wellcome and Innovate UK, working in partnership with NC3Rs to accelerate the development of human disease models. The MRC has also launched a £20 million funding competition to establish a pre-clinical translational human in vitro models hub, and Innovate UK has committed a further £2 million for non-animal methods that have the potential to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in assessing the pre-clinical pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular safety of new medicines.
We are building the collaboration and infrastructure needed to scale up alternatives into everyday research and development and safety assessments where it is safe and effective to do so. We are also working to increase regulatory confidence so that, when alternatives are proven, they are accepted and used consistently, and at pace, in practice.
We are consistently pushing change. In 2024, the use of dogs in experimental procedures decreased by 29% compared with 2023, as many Members said, and the broader trend is towards reducing animal use as alternatives continue to improve, but we are not complacent, and we should not be complacent. We want to get that figure as close to zero as possible.
As the strategy sets out, we are working towards a world in which the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but very exceptional circumstances. That will be achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods whenever possible, but does not prevent necessary research and safety testing when no alternative is available. By streamlining the process for bringing alternatives forward, the Government will accelerate our transition away from animal use while continuing to support crucial research and innovation. As the science advances, we will use every opportunity to phase out the use of animals whenever we can.
I will run through some of the issues around the strategy and also address the comments that hon. Members made. Lord Vallance is responsible for this area in the House of Lords—I am the responsible Minister in the House of Commons—and he has probably the most advanced scientific brain that I have ever come across in government. He said something that I think is worth emphasising about this strategy:
“This Government is proud to lead a new era in advancing innovative and effective approaches to scientific research and development. We are committed to delivering on our manifesto pledge to ‘partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing’”—
I have reflected on some of that already. He also said:
“we aim to establish the UK as a world leader in developing and adopting alternatives to animal testing”.
We will align with international standards and we will say more about that at the end of this year. He continued:
“Our vision is for a world where the use of animals in research and development is eliminated…Enabling the properly regulated use of animals, while we move away from animal testing, is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals”.
Nobody in our country of animal lovers—we have many animal lovers here, including me—wants to see animals suffering. Our plan will support work to end animal testing and to roll out alternatives as soon as it is safe and effective to do so. That road map that will ensure that the Government, businesses and animal-welfare groups can work together to find those alternatives to animal testing faster and more effectively.
There are 26 actions in the strategy. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Stuart, that I will not run through them all, but many hon. Members will know the document.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the Minister for setting out the progress that the Government are making but, from what I have seen of the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, its targets focus on reducing or eliminating experiments on certain types of animals. Does he agree that we actually need to be ending experiments on all animals, as has been expressed by Members from all parties today? Will he therefore engage with campaigners arguing for Herbie’s law, who have suggested a more ambitious strategy that would achieve exactly that?
Ian Murray
We do not disagree with the principle of Herbie’s law; indeed, that is what the strategy is trying to achieve. The challenge for the Government, of course, is to balance that against what is achievable and what can be validated, not just in the UK but across the international community. We want this country to be a world leader in eliminating animal research, and it is pretty clear, on the front page of the strategy, that we wish to take those 26 actions on.
Let me continue as that will help to answer the hon. Member’s question. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) challenged us to say what the strategy has delivered so far. We have moved from commitments towards trying to deliver. With the actions under way across discovery, research, validation, regulatory decision making and governance, and indeed the money to support some of that, delivery is being supported through co-ordinated action across the Office for Life Sciences, NC3Rs, UKRI bodies and regulators. The MRC has launched the £20 million fund to which I referred, and Innovate UK and NC3Rs continue to work in partnership to advance development. In March 2026, the MHRA published new guidance setting out how applications for medicines that use non-animal methods will be assessed and fast-tracked. A lot of the strategy has therefore already been put in place, but the strategy cannot be just words; it needs action as well.
Let me run through some of the challenges and questions raised by hon. Members in what has been a tremendously good debate for examining the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran chairs the relevant all-party parliamentary group, the aims of which are:
“To build cross-party support for replacing animal experiments in medical research with human-specific methods, working closely with the scientific community to identify opportunities, barriers and put forward constructive recommendations to government.”
Those are almost the same aims as what the Government are trying to achieve through the strategy. We and the APPG are aligned in the outcome we want. We look forward to continuing to work with her and the other APPG members to get it delivered.
I want to say something for clarity, because my hon. Friend raised this in some of what she said—we heard it from many hon. Members—and there has been a little confusion not just in this debate, but in previous debates. The testing of cosmetics was banned in 1998 and the testing of household products was banned in 2015. Progress has been slower than we would have wanted, but we hope that the new strategy will speed things up and give certainty to industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned botox, as did the hon. Member for Huntingdon and, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). Botox is not a cosmetic, so it is not covered by existing regulations on cosmetics, as we heard, but the strategy sets an aim to apply only validated alternative methods for testing the potency of botox by the end of 2027. The MHRA now accepts an alternative for most common strengths of botox, so we hope to see the practice phased out within the next 18 months or so.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon gave us a whole list of questions, some of which are the responsibility of the Home Office, so if I do not cover them all, I will ensure that he gets a detailed analysis from that Department. We will provide an update later this year about the international perspectives, because at the moment we are working out and scoping what those perspectives look like. He asked about funding. Out of the £75 million, £20 million is for the translational hub and £30 million is for the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. It does not cover NC3R’s funding.
Tomorrow, we are discussing KPIs at an official level—the hon. Gentleman challenged us about what tomorrow’s meeting will do. The matter will then go to a ministerial meeting, which happens every quarter, with the next one due on 8 July. He also talked about criminalisation. I will get the Home Office to detail a response to him in writing, but while the law criminalises interfering or planning to interfere with key national infrastructure, it does not cover the email situation he talked about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked if any consideration was given to the reviewing, reworking and revoking of licences. Again, that is a Home Office responsibility, so I will get a full response about how it monitors licences. She also challenged us on the use of AI, and we need to look at that. Many advances in medical research are happening with AI enhancement at the moment, including on motor neurone disease and how the brain operates, as I know from my constituency. AI and advances in technology will be a key part of how we phase out the use of animal testing.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) asked if the regulatory body should be paid for by the industry, but that is not the case. The regulatory body charges for its licensing; it is not paid for directly. That does not amount to the industry funding the regulator. It is standard practice for people to buy the regulatory services that are required.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) challenged us to say more than warm words. That is what I think the strategy is about and why we are advancing it rather quickly. The dates by which we need to achieve many of the issues are in the strategy.
I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for his comments. I appreciate the fact that he welcomes the strategy, although I know he wants us to go quicker, faster and with more pace, as many Members have said. He raised the issue of Herbie’s law by 2035, but we have to ensure that replacements put in place for that to happen in an orderly fashion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked us for a fourth R—“replace”. That is what investment in the strategy is all about, and it is why the money is available.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talks to his cats—interesting—although I do not know whether he ever gets a response. I hope he is not opening up a debate in Westminster Hall about whether someone is a dog person or a cat person, because that could take us to—I am extending the pun even further—a rabbit hole that we might not want to go down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) certainly is a cat lover. I believe she has a cat called Clement Catlee, and another called Chairman Meow—is that right?
Ian Murray
Who has the cat called Chairman Meow, then? It must be somebody else. My hon. Friend was right to mention the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into vet costs. We want to achieve our manifesto commitment on that issue; it was a very clear part of our manifesto and we all want to see the same outcomes from that. The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned AI and asked us about the action so far, which I have run through.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), we agree with the principle of Herbie’s law. We cannot set arbitrary timelines for things that we may not be able to achieve, but we have set some strong ones already, including the 35% reduction by 2030. If we can go faster and further, of course we will; it will depend on whether we can get validated scientific research in place. We will write to her on the finer details about whether we have those 22 inspectors in place.
Let me go into why we would not put Herbie’s law on a statutory footing. In line with international practice, we are using the three baskets approach to group animal tests and prioritise their replacements—this is mainly about dogs. Basket one covers areas where there is a mature replacement tech: for example, the strategy aims by the end of 2026—this year—to use only alternative methods for skin irritation testing. Basket two covers areas where there are medium-term replacements: we aim to replace the use of fish acute toxicity tests for chemicals regulated by REACH, the regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, by the end of 2028. The strategy does therefore have defined end points, where they can be defined. Basket three covers complex end points and long-term aims. By the end of 2035, we aim to include alternative methods and regulations for endocrine disruption tests—I do not know what that means, but maybe one of the vets in the Chamber can tell us. Those aims are not on a statutory footing, but they are Government commitments. They are gateways that we want to go through with the three baskets approach.
Ruth Jones
I understand the timetable that the Minister is outlining, which is great, but there are still millions of tests being undertaken every year unnecessarily. We know about the forced swim and LD50 tests. Could the Minister outline a bit more the review of the generic project licences? How can we issue a licence for a generic project when we do not know about it? How can we evaluate and assess the risks there?
Ian Murray
We will write to my hon. Friend with the details on those individual projects—the regulations are run by the Home Office, so I will write to her on those three specific issues and make sure that everyone in the Chamber has a copy.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) said that the scale of the suffering prevented should overwhelmingly outweigh the suffering involved in testing. I think we would all agree with that. That is exactly the proportionate way in which we need to look at the issue. It is undeniable that huge pharmaceutical and medical progress has been made on the back of animal testing—the covid vaccine was a good example of alleviating suffering—but he is right to challenge us on that moral issue. That is why the strategy is in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) is right that replacing animals in testing is the right thing to do and that the public want to see action. We agree; that is why we are taking action. The strategy should seed that innovation. It is not just about the Government saying, “This is what we want to achieve.” Hopefully, the industry and innovation will seed that through. We have seen that with other advancements, such as the ban on cosmetics testing that my hon. Friend talked about. Hopefully, that will seed industry to move forward and find innovative ways through, backed by the Government strategy.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), listed the advances in life science innovation; that is tremendous progress, but we need to go further and faster to move away from animal testing. He posed that challenge and we agree with him. He also made the important point that we have a strict regulatory environment for animal testing in this country. I will come on to that in my conclusion, but it is one of strictest in the world, and rightly so.
The hon. Member rightly challenged us by pointing out the danger that if we were to cut animal testing off now, it would go overseas, and in that case we would see a whole raft of additional animals suffering in places that do not have the same standards. That is not to diminish the issue. While we have testing in this country and regulate it to those standards, we should be making sure that the standards are met, notwithstanding all the issues that have been raised by Members today. However, there is a real danger that if we were to cut that off now, without alternatives in place, it would go overseas—an issue that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), also raised.
We will have to come back to the hon. Member for Winchester on dual licensing for veterinary use. There is an issue with the way in which animal testing works with regard to the licensing arrangements that he set out. Animal testing is also used for the veterinary side of medicines and advancements in technology, and we must be cognisant of that.
I appreciate the tone in which the shadow Minister spoke. There has been a lot done in this area; many Members have mentioned the word “pace”, and that is what we want to see, but the previous Government took a number of actions. Is a 35% reduction by 2030 achievable? We think it is. Many would say that that is not ambitious enough and some would say that it is too ambitious, but we do want to achieve it. That is why the strategy is in place, and why money is a key part of it.
Using animals in science requires us to adhere continually to the highest possible standards of animal welfare. That is reflected in the UK’s world-leading, robust regulation of the use of animals in science through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That Act specifies that animals can only be used in science for specific, limited purposes where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to the absolute minimum. Those requirements are known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement, as we have discussed.
Dogs are a specifically protected species under ASPA. Projects must justify why animals are needed, why dogs specifically are needed, and why the numbers and procedures are necessary. Projects are only authorised where that justification is robust. The e-petition rightly mentions the conditions in which dogs are kept, and I want to address those claims—not to dismiss them, but to show that the regulatory system in the UK works. The UK has some of the most stringent regulations in the world governing how animals are bred, housed and cared for, with legally enforceable standards, regular announced and unannounced inspections, and a clear requirement to minimise pain, suffering and distress.
The use of animals in science is highly regulated. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons, with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body that reviews any proposals for the use of animals and promotes the three Rs of animal use. The reality is that the technology is not yet advanced enough for alternative methods to replace the use of animals completely. For now, animal testing and research plays an important role in supporting the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for humans and animals—for example, the development of the covid-19 vaccine.
Many Members have mentioned failure rates. Animals are used to assess how potential new medicines affect biological systems, ensuring that drugs are safe and effective before human trials. The petition points out that 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA approval. However, to say that 92% of drugs fail in human trials despite being tested on animals is to ignore all those candidate drugs that are tested on animals and found not to be suitable to progress to human trials. That is the issue that we are trying to resolve. Animal studies are only one part of a layered system that screens out unsafe or ineffective substances before they ever reach volunteers and patients.
Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the MHRA; that is another international issue we have to resolve. Although the MHRA does not require all medicines to be tested on two species, safety testing in a second species is required for most drugs, with dogs being one of the species that can be used. The key proposal in the petition calls for the end of testing on dogs and other animals for the development of products for human use.
None of us wants dogs to be used in research, despite how carefully animal welfare is regulated in this country. However, an immediate prohibition would undermine the UK’s ability to test and regulate new medicines and vaccines for humans and, indeed, for the animals themselves. We would be unable to meet our international regulatory requirements for drug safety testing, which would prevent virtually all first-in-human trials in the UK from happening, compromise our capacity to respond rapidly to future health threats, result in slower access to new treatments for UK patients and slow the innovation required to remove animal testing altogether. That is the key challenge that we are seeking to achieve with the strategy.
We want a future where animals are used only in very exceptional circumstances and we are acting as fast as we can to get there through the “Replacing animals in science” strategy and its delivery. We will keep driving the shift to validated alternative methods wherever possible, while maintaining the robust protections that keep people, animals and the environment safe in the meantime. I thank Members once again for their insightful contributions to the debate; I am sure we will have many more in the future, and I look forward to working together as the strategy progresses.
Irene Campbell
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the Minister for his response, although I am sure he is not surprised that I disagree with quite a bit of it. I hope the responsible Minister will consider implementing at pace—I use that word again, as many others have—the replacement methods we have heard so much about in this debate. I urge the responsible Minister to rescind the forced swim test licences immediately and to prioritise a review of the whole licensing system, because there are problems with that whole system.
We must also have more robust enforcement of what is going on in laboratories. I accept that statements have been made that there is enforcement and that animals are being looked after in the way they should be, but we have heard examples today where that often is not the case. There is so much self-reporting, which begs the question: what is not reported?
The petition addresses an issue I care deeply about, and it is clear from the attendance and excellent speeches today that it is important to many. It is a privilege to present such debates in Parliament. The United Kingdom is often referred to as a nation of animal lovers, and petitions such as this show how deeply the public care about animal welfare and the treatment of animals in laboratories.
I thank Jarrod Bailey and Maria Iriart for meeting me on behalf of Camp Beagle, which launched this petition, and the many individuals, charities and organisations that I work with on this issue. I will name a few: Animal Aid, Animal Free Research UK, Cruelty Free International, PETA, Lush Cosmetics, the Labour Animal Welfare Society and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Everyone is working so hard to end animal testing. As ever, I thank Petitions Committee staff for all their help in organising this debate and meetings. I will end with the words of Camp Beagle:
“Animal testing is outdated, unreliable and cruel.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 736578 relating to animal testing.
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Health and Social Care
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson
The Minister talked about less-than-full-time training, which has obviously had an impact on the number of doctors we need. The Secretary of State said before the general election that if Labour was elected, it would double the number of medical school places. Is that still the Government’s intention?
Stephen Kinnock
Yes, that is the Government’s intention. Obviously, we have had some challenges in April around our hope that we could create 1,000 additional places. We have not been able to do that, unfortunately, because of the reckless decision of the BMA to go back out on strike. The absorption of huge capacity, as well as operational issues, has meant that we have not been able to do that.
[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 133WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock):
Stephen Kinnock
This Government have never committed to doubling medical school places. Obviously, we have had some challenges in April around our hope that we could create 1,000 additional places. We have not been able to do that, unfortunately, because of the reckless decision of the BMA to go back out on strike. The absorption of huge capacity, as well as operational issues, has meant that we have not been able to do that.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I believe that it relates to postgraduate training places. I was asking whether it is still the intention to double the number of medical school places?
Stephen Kinnock
Sorry; I misunderstood the question. Yes, it is still our intention to double the number of medical school places.
[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 134WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock):
Stephen Kinnock
Sorry; I misunderstood the question. This Government have never committed to doubling medical school places.
Maternity Care
The following extract is from Health and Social Care questions on 14 April 2026.
Mike Kane
The nation should be grateful for this Secretary of State and for what he is doing for maternal services, yet at Wythenshawe hospital in my constituency, the most recent Care Quality Commission report rated maternity services inadequate for safety. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that the improvements that he has outlined will be felt by mums locally?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to present those issues and to be honest about the challenges that have been raised in his local trust. I assure him that following an inspection by the CQC, NHS trusts take action to address the recommendations cited in the report. Already, £40 million in funding has been allocated to Wythenshawe hospital to ensure that safety issues are addressed, with work scheduled for completion by 2028.
[Official Report, 14 April 2026; Vol. 783, c. 674.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting):
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to present those issues and to be honest about the challenges that have been raised in his local trust. I assure him that following an inspection by the CQC, NHS trusts take action to address the recommendations cited in the report. Already, £21.25 million in funding has been allocated to Wythenshawe hospital between 2023-24 to 2025-26 to ensure that safety issues due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete are addressed, with work scheduled for completion by 2028.
Transport
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon
First of all, I thank the Minister for those suggestions and for the direct help from Government. I know that this is not in the Minister’s remit, but I ask her to ringfence the moneys being sent to Northern Ireland in Barnett consequentials, because if they are ringfenced, they go to where they should be.
Lilian Greenwood
I note the hon. Member’s question, and I understand that support is provided to mountain rescue services within Northern Ireland, but that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
[Official Report, 22 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 167WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood):
Lilian Greenwood
I note the hon. Member’s question, and I understand that support is provided to voluntary search and rescue services within Northern Ireland, but that is a matter for the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
Education
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh MacAlister
The Secretary of State has made a written statement to the House this morning confirming the timing of the commencement of the higher education free speech complaints scheme and the regulatory conditions. The complaints scheme will be commenced from 1 September this year, and the regulatory powers of the Office for Students from 1 April 2027.
Harriet Cross
I thank the Minister for that update. The scheme is long overdue, but of course it does not go far enough. Let us take, for example, the case of Brodie Mitchell, who was suspended from Royal Holloway for a spat at a freshers fair. Under the new guidelines, he would not be able to complain directly to the Office for Students. Why is that?
Josh MacAlister
The OfS system in place at the moment allows for students to complain about breaches of freedom of speech. The written statement laid this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is all about expanding that coverage to staff, visiting lecturers and other speakers, as well as ensuring we have a system under which the OfS can go back to institutions and hold them to account.
[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 16.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister):
Josh MacAlister
The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education system in place at the moment allows for students to complain about breaches of freedom of speech. The written statement laid this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is all about introducing a new scheme for staff, visiting lecturers and other speakers, as well as ensuring we have a system under which the OfS can go back to institutions and hold them to account.
Jack Rankin
…Why can academics and visiting speakers complain under this proposal, but not students? It is called the Office for Students, or is the Minister planning to rename it “the office for everybody on campus except students”?
Josh MacAlister
As I have said, at the moment students have a route of redress through the Office for Students. The Government have been focused on pulling together an enforceable regime, and it is welcome that both Labour and Conservative Members, across the House, are supportive of action to protect freedom of speech at our universities.
[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 17.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education:
Josh MacAlister
As I have said, at the moment students have a route of redress through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The Government have been focused on pulling together an enforceable regime, and it is welcome that both Labour and Conservative Members, across the House, are supportive of action to protect freedom of speech at our universities.
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
On the question of reviewing the protection of public spaces, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review.
[Official Report, 21 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 265.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh):
Miatta Fahnbulleh
On the question of reviewing the legislative protections of public recreational space, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review.
Written Statement
Telecommunications, Radio Spectrum Management and Postal Services: Strategic Priorities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital Economy, Baroness Lloyd of Effra.
I have today designated the Government’s statement of strategic priorities for
telecommunications, the management of radio spectrum, and postal services for the purposes of section 2A of the Communications Act 2003.
This statement outlines the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes across a number of areas, including: fixed and mobile telecoms, digital inclusion through empowered and confident consumers, telecoms modernisation, the management of radio spectrum, telecoms security and resilience, and the postal services.
The draft statement was laid before Parliament on 11 February 2026 and the statutory period required under section 2C of the Act has now ended.
As the independent regulator, Ofcom must have regard to the priorities set out within the statement when exercising its functions. Within 40 days of the designation of the statement, Ofcom must report on what it proposes to do in consequence of the statement. Ofcom must then publish subsequent annual reports setting out what action it has taken in consequence of the statement.
We are committed to working with Ofcom and industry to drive forward progress against the priorities set out in the statement to build a UK that will have the connectivity it needs, whatever the future holds.
[HCWS1542]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Grand Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the Grand Committee do consider the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 20206
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument introduces fees for applications in the residential property division of the Property Chamber that arise from, or are amended by, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. It is made under the powers provided by Section 42(1)(a) and 42(2) and Section 49(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It marks the first stage of a wider programme of reform which will introduce a fairer and more sustainable fees framework in the Property Chamber, supporting the significant reforms to the private rented sector brought by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Through that Act, the Government have delivered landmark changes which represent the biggest expansion of rights for renters in a generation. But rights matter only if people can enforce them, and this depends on a sufficiently resourced tribunal that is accessible for all. At present, only half of the application types brought to the Property Chamber incur a fee. This has created an unfair system that neither reflects the cost of proceedings nor supports a proportionate contribution from users, and it has resulted in inconsistencies whereby some users have to pay to access the service where others do not. The Government are therefore introducing a new tiered fees framework.
In summary, once introduced, it will consist of three levels. The first is a standard fee of £200 for applications to the tribunal, together with a hearing fee of £300. Secondly, where there are concerns about access to justice issues, there will be a lower level—an application fee of £114 and a fee of £227 for hearings. There is a final third tier for those cases with the most acute need to preserve access to justice, such as applications to appeal a rent increase. In these cases, there will be a modest application fee of £47, but there will be no hearing fee. Exemptions will continue to apply for urgent building safety issues and low-value claims.
The average cost to the taxpayer of a case brought to the Property Chamber is more than £900. Therefore, the fees in this framework represent a modest contribution to running costs and illustrate a commitment to maintaining access to justice. I will now describe in a little more detail how the regime will work.
First, the Renters’ Rights Act will extend the right to apply to the Property Chamber to request a determination of rent to all private rented sector tenants. Tenants can make such a request upon notice of an annual rent increase, or within the first six months of a tenancy, if they believe that the proposed rent is above the open market rent. The Act includes the tenants’ rights to challenge the validity of a notice proposing a rent increase. As I have just said, under the new regime these applications will attract a £47 application fee but will be exempt from hearing fees.
Secondly, the Renters’ Rights Act introduces a new route to the tribunal to challenge the terms of a tenancy that arises on succession from a tenancy that was previously made under the Rent Act 1977. Under this new regime, these applications will cost £47 but will be exempt from a hearing fee.
Thirdly, this instrument applies the proposed new standard £200 application fee and £300 hearing fee to appeals against the new financial penalties that local authorities can impose on landlords under the Renters’ Rights Act.
Finally, this instrument brings new rent repayment order routes created by the Renters’ Rights Act into the existing fees structure and applies a £114 application fee and £227 hearing fee, to match comparable applications.
I shall briefly outline the impact of this instrument and what it will mean in practice. As many of the measures in this instrument stem from new or amended rights introduced by the Act, some users will be required to pay fees where none have previously been payable. This reflects the move towards a fees framework that more consistently reflects the cost of proceedings and asks for a proportionate contribution from users.
In the case of rent appeals, as I have already said, the need to protect access to justice is more acute. I wish to reassure your Lordships that the introduction of a fee for these cases has been carefully considered. In such cases, the consequences of being unable to bring an appeal makes an applicant more vulnerable to housing instability and economic hardship, and therefore a considerably lower fee of £47 has been applied. In addition, there are mitigations that further ensure that fees do not deter tenants seeking to challenge a rent increase. The Help with Fees remissions scheme will remain available to eligible applicants who cannot afford to pay a fee.
Under the Act, any rent increase will take effect from the first rent period following the tribunal’s decision to approve any increase and will not be backdated. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent above the level proposed by the landlord. In cases of undue hardship, the tribunal will be able to delay the rent increase by up to two months. These measures ensure that tenants feel safe to challenge proposed increases without fear of additional financial pressures.
Finally, where tenants are successful in appealing their rent increase, they may be able to recover the tribunal fee from their landlord. Without these measures, the taxpayer would be required to shoulder a greater proportion of the costs of the system. This instrument provides the necessary framework for a sustainable courts and tribunals system that is fair and accessible for all those who need it. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, for the first time we start to consider some of the practical effects of this controversial Act. I will make no comments on its merits; the Act has been passed, as was the will of Parliament, and now we have to deal with the consequences.
The schedule of fees here provides for the cost of enforcement of the judicial tribunal framework for the provision. We see a large expansion, consequent to the Act, of the number of things that can spawn a complaint. I am thinking particularly about the appeal for a rent increase. The lowest level, at £47, provides no disincentive to bringing a claim. In fact, a single month’s delay can pay for itself. I understand that it is important that we have open justice, but this is creating a perverse fiscal incentive to have a go, especially, as we heard just a few moments ago, as any rent increase that might happen following the appeal would not be backdated to the point at which the appeal was made.
Landlords are already waiting a year to gain possession, for example, in the case of non-payment of rent. It occurred to me to wonder whether the Government have made an assessment. What assessment has been made of the likely consequential number of cases and any additional timescale and further delay as a result of these fees passing into the regulations? Will we see an avalanche of claims that will gum up the tribunal system and give further incentives for claims to be made which provide an asymmetry between the rights of the landlord and the rights of the tenant?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order. It forms part of a wider programme of reform to the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal following the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We recognise the Government’s objective: to move towards a more sustainable system of cost recovery while maintaining access to justice. Where fees do not fully reflect the cost of the service provided, there must be a legitimate discussion as to how that gap should be addressed.
This instrument would introduce fees for new categories of cases, including financial penalty appeals and rent appeals. The decision to set the fee for rent increase appeals at £47, with no associated hearing fee, reflects concerns raised by stakeholders about affordability. While it is right that the Government have listened to those concerns and adjusted their approach accordingly, there must remain important questions about the broader context in which these changes are being made, not least the valid concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller.
These reforms sit alongside significant changes to the private rented sector, including the abolition of Section 21. As has been raised previously from these Benches, there is a risk that reforms to tenants’ rights proceed ahead of necessary improvements to the capacity and efficiency of the courts and the tribunal system. There is a balance to be struck. While fees must not become a barrier to justice for tenants seeking to challenge rent increases or enforcement decisions, we on these Benches are concerned that the structure of the system could create unintended incentives; we have heard that from my noble friend Lord Fuller. For example, where an appeal delays the implementation of a rent increase, even where that appeal is ultimately unsuccessful, that may create uncertainty for landlords and have an adverse impact on the functioning of the market.
Further, while the Help with Fees scheme will remain in place, the Government have not produced a full impact assessment of these changes. Given that this is the first stage of a wider reform programme, the Committee would benefit from greater clarity on the cumulative impact of these measures, particularly on access to justice for lower-income applicants and how that is to be balanced.
We do not oppose the principle of these changes. A fair and sustainable tribunal system is in the interests of all parties. However, it is essential that, as the Government proceed with the later stages of reform, they do so in a way that carefully balances cost recovery with genuine access to justice and does not build in unreasonable deterrents for landlords. The Government must ensure that the system is properly resourced to deal with the demands being placed upon it. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these points.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Fuller, for their helpful and constructive contributions. A point that they both made, with which I agree, is that this is always a balancing exercise. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there is no question of trying to recoup the entirety of the cost of running the system. This is merely about seeking a contribution because it is right to do so.
The setting of the lowest level of fee, particularly in relation to rent increases, was not intended to try to dampen demand; rather, it is a small contribution designed to be fixed at a level that does not hamper access to justice. I remind noble Lords that some of those who are subject to rent increases are some of our most vulnerable citizens. While £47 may seem a modest amount to us, to some people it can seem an almost insuperable burden, which is why I have sought to reassure that there is help there for those who cannot afford it at all.
In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about the amount of demand, I hope to be able to reassure him by saying that we are ready for Friday. Friday is when all of this will begin. We have a centralised operational hub and have recruited extra staff, which is why we are bringing in all these reforms in tranches, to ensure that the system is not overwhelmed.
This draft instrument is a necessary step that strengthens the sustainability and fairness of the Property Chamber. It delivers, as I said, the first phase of the new fees framework. It is one that strengthens fairness and consistency, supports greater levels of cost recovery and protects access to justice. Our reforms ensure that users of the Property Chamber contribute to its cost where they can afford to do so, while ensuring that vulnerable renters are able to benefit from the protections contained in the Renters’ Rights Act.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I would like to press the Minister just a little harder. While I know she is ready for 1 May, which is in five days’ time, is she able to give us an assessment of what she thinks is the best estimate, either by percentage or the number of cases, of what might be spawned as a result of the fees and charges that are laid out before us? I am asking for a number, so at least we can benchmark success in the months and years to come and see whether we are better or worse than intended. That would help us scope what the resources of the tribunal system may need to be in future.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, no full impact assessment was done in relation to this because it does not reach the required threshold for one. However, some assessments have been made, including looking at 250 types of applications to see whereabouts to fix the fees to try to make the greatest contribution while balancing it with access to justice. The best I can do is offer to write to the noble Lord and provide such figures as we have.
Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, port state control is the system used by the United Kingdom and other countries to inspect foreign-registered visiting ships to ensure that they meet the necessary international safety and pollution prevention standards. These regulations apply not to British ships but only to foreign-registered ones, to ensure that they meet the expected standards to operate safely in our waters.
The United Kingdom is a party to the Paris memorandum of understanding, the well-established collaborative regional agreement to co-ordinate this activity, with the aim of ensuring that international standards that reduce the risks to health, safety and the environment are met. It allows us to information-share and work with our neighbours to ensure the effective targeting of vessels to identify those that are substandard. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to replace and update the existing 2011 United Kingdom regulations on this subject and to reaffirm our commitment to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements by giving effect to them in UK law.
A four-week public consultation was carried out, during which responders expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency published a consultation report, including responses to comments received. Before the regulations were laid in draft, they were sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for informal pre-laying scrutiny. The JCSI provided drafting comments on the regulations at that stage and then formally considered them after they were laid and noted them without further comment. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn this instrument to the attention of the House.
The background to this statutory instrument is the Paris memorandum of understanding, which I understand dates from 1978 and is one of a number of collaborative regional agreements setting out a framework for carrying out port state control inspections globally. It is not a European Union agreement, although some parties are EU member states.
At the time when the 2011 regulations were made, the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union and the regulations were required to implement the relevant EU directive on port state control in accordance with the UK’s obligations as a member state. However, the UK remains a party to the Paris MoU and continues to maintain its commitments under the agreement as a non-EU member. The proposed regulations give effect to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements in UK law and update the list of conventions against which inspections are undertaken to include those to which the UK has become a party since the 2011 regulations were written, and which the UK will now also enforce against foreign ships visiting the UK.
These regulations also remove references to EU legislation, instead referencing the Paris MoU directly. This has had the effect of making the regulations longer than the 2011 regulations, but the relevant legislation is now contained just in a UK instrument. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, the proposed regulations also remove reliance on this power. While Merchant Shipping Act powers are also used to the fullest extent possible, it has been necessary to use the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers to fill some gaps before those powers expire next month.
I have set out the purpose and scope of these regulations: to update merchant shipping legislation and ensure it reflects the UK’s commitment to the Paris MoU. These regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards, not only for UK-registered ships but for all ships using UK ports, while tailoring the legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU exit context. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures and I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for their helpful briefing last week. As we have heard, this instrument revokes and replaces the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which implemented the UK’s commitment under the Paris memorandum of understanding and the associated EU directive. As I learned from last week’s briefing, the Paris MoU obligates the UK to operate a regime of port state control for the monitoring, inspection and control of foreign-flagged ships calling at UK ports, to reduce the risks that such ships may pose to health, safety or the environment by ensuring that they meet relevant international standards. We have been part of the Paris MoU and its predecessor since the 1970s.
The MCA has around 100 inspectors and inspects around 1,300 ships a year. This instrument will mean that new maritime conventions are properly referenced and reports will be written in the international context, which will improve shipping safety. However, this SI shows just how much work there still is to amend legislation a decade after Brexit. Does the Minister agree that the time and effort that have to go into technical tweaks and amendments such as this distract from tackling other important issues and take up resource?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am very sorry to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that making laws for our own country, through our own processes, is somehow a distraction from what we should be doing, and that it would be better, presumably, if we were to hand this responsibility over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I cannot say how much I would want to distance myself from such a position.
Since I have very little to say about the instrument, I shall add a little local colour. I did on one occasion seize an unseaworthy ship. When I was the third secretary in the British embassy in South Africa, I was the duty officer one weekend. In those days without mobile phones, that meant I had to stay home all weekend, very close to the telephone. Nothing ever happened but to my astonishment, I got a telephone call from the harbourmaster at Durban, saying that there was a British-registered vessel—or, rather, I think it was registered in some territory, dominion or whatever in the Caribbean that none the less fell under the Crown—in his port. It was so unseaworthy that he intended to seize and immobilise it but, apparently, he needed the permission of Her Majesty’s consul-general. I knew nothing about consular services, but there we were: I was the representative, for that weekend, of Her Majesty’s consul-general in South Africa. After a moment’s thought, I reached the conclusion that, on the whole, it was probably safer all round for me to say, “Yes, you have my authority to seize this vessel”, than to say no or prevaricate in any way—so that is what I did.
It has not happened since, but I am therefore not wholly unfamiliar with the idea that there is a degree of port inspection going on and that vessels not meeting appropriate standards are appropriately dealt with. This instrument affects no change whatever in current arrangements. It advertises itself as achieving no change in current arrangements, and that is absolutely fine. I have no objection to this instrument.
However, I will raise the same point that I raised when we discussed a statutory instrument—I think on aviation safety—a week or two ago. This instrument is made—the Minister said “in part”—using powers under the retained EU law Act. By common agreement, that Act expires in June. From that date onwards, we have no capacity to amend regulations of this sort, which are crucial in the world of transport. Statutory instruments are the normal means by which these regulations are made in the field of transport, but this spreads across the whole of Whitehall and many other departments as well. I say that we have no power to change them—we have no power to do so other than by primary legislation and Act of Parliament; we cannot use statutory instruments.
This failure of foresight on the part of the Government seems a massive dereliction of duty. Even if the Minister was able to assure us today that there will be legislation in the King’s Speech to correct this oversight—I fully appreciate it is unlikely that he can tell us today what will be in the King’s Speech—it is most unlikely that it will possible to pass it in both Houses and enact it by the end of June, when it will be necessary. As I say, I regard this as a massive dereliction of responsibility on the part of the Government, and I expect there to be serious potential consequences unless something is done.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their consideration of these draft regulations. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest that they have shown in ensuring that the UK’s port state control regime remains relevant and compliant.
The noble Baroness invited me to comment on whether this and other changes distracted the Government and officials from more pressing matters. She would not expect me to do other than make an official reply, which is that the development of the new regulations has been a lengthy process, due to the complexity of the existing legislative regime. There have been a number of changes as a consequence of leaving the EU; my understanding is that this is one of the last. It has been left until late because the Paris memorandum of understanding is behind all this. As the noble Baroness said, we were a signatory when that started in the 1970s, and therefore this could be left until quite late.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has one on me: he has seized a ship. I was thinking of withdrawing the whole lot and changing the regulations so that, in the future, he had to seize all the ships. He would be very busy doing that, or might at least be very busy attending ships. However, on reflection, it is better if we leave the arrangements just as they are in the way that this statutory instrument is drafted. The noble Lord certainly has some experience there that I have never had, and I doubt that I ever will.
The noble Lord makes a more serious point about the remaining EU legislation. My information on the maritime sector is that this is one of the last things because the Paris MoU is there and we can revert to it. I will not comment on what might be in the King’s Speech; the noble Lord and I, and everybody else, will have to wait for it.
Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 19 March 2026. They reflect the Government’s commitment to securing strong outcomes for nature recovery while supporting sustainable economic growth, as outlined in the Corry review. The regulations are a practical example of that approach in action.
The UK’s wildlife trade regulations give effect to our international obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES exists to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants is legal and sustainable and does not threaten the survival of species. The United Kingdom has long played a leading international role in strengthening the convention and combating illegal wildlife trade, and we continue to do so.
Domestically, CITES controls are implemented through a strict licensing framework administered by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Every year, approximately 60,000 permits are issued to businesses and organisations engaged in legal and sustainable trade—ranging from the pet trade to horticulture, cosmetics, zoos, museums and orchestras. While modest in overall scale, this activity supports diverse livelihoods and interests across the UK.
However, parts of the current system are complex, duplicative and rooted in processes designed for trade within the EU. These regulations therefore modernise this framework. They retain strong protections for endangered species while removing unnecessary administrative burdens where risk is low, improving efficiency for businesses and regulators and strengthening enforcement where needed. The instrument amends four pieces of assimilated EU law and revokes one that is no longer required. Taken together, the amendments strengthen conservation protections while allowing the digitisation and modernisation of administrative processes.
The reforms reflect a precautionary, risk-based approach and have been informed by consultation with environmental non-governmental organisations, industry representatives, enforcement bodies and the UK’s scientific authorities. This ensures that protections for species at risk of overexploitation not only remain firmly in place but are enhanced where the evidence supports doing so.
Let me now outline some of the key changes. First, for some low-risk species, the current system goes further than it needs to. Export permits issued by the exporting country confirm sustainability. Import permits issued by the UK authorities add a further layer of due diligence. For the most threatened species, that extra layer of scrutiny is absolutely right and will remain. However, for lower-risk species, these regulations will allow a lighter-touch import notification instead, meaning that we will keep oversight and traceability while cutting out unnecessary duplication and delay for legitimate businesses. Low-risk species will be identified based on the best available scientific evidence; examples of this could include some species of artificially propagated plants from highly compliant destinations. These will also be kept under close review if risks or trade patterns change.
Secondly, the regulations streamline our Article 10 certificate system, which supports how we control domestic trade in the most vulnerable species. Many UK businesses legally breed CITES-listed species or produce derived goods for export. At present, that can mean the need for an Article 10 certificate and a separate export permit. In clearly defined cases, to be outlined in guidance, these regulations will allow an export or re-export permit to serve as an Article 10 certificate for a limited six-month period; this will reduce duplication while, at the same time, keeping any necessary safeguards in place.
In addition, the regulations will introduce a targeted exemption from Article 10 controls for three low-risk Mediterranean tortoise species when traded domestically. These species are widely and legally captive bred and are not found in the wild in the UK. The existing controls were designed to protect wild populations elsewhere in Europe but, in a Great Britain-only context, they now deliver limited additional conservation benefits. Importantly, all import and export controls will remain fully in place, ensuring continued protection against illegal or unsustainable trade.
Thirdly, the regulations will deliver practical improvements for touring orchestras and travelling exhibitions. By recognising certificates issued by other countries and allowing agents to apply on behalf of performers, they will remove unnecessary duplication and support cultural exchange without weakening important conservation controls.
Fourthly, the regulations set out clear criteria for the temporary designation of ports of entry for CITES specimens—for example, to support urgent conservation or animal welfare cases. These provisions cannot be used for commercial trade and apply only where the necessary expertise and safeguards for effective checks are in place.
We estimate that these changes, as well as the other proposed amendments in the regulations, will reduce the number of permits issued by up to 30% each year; that is in the region of 20,000 fewer permits being issued every year. This will generate significant savings for businesses and the regulator, contributing to the Prime Minister’s target to reduce the administrative costs of regulation by 25%.
The regulations will also strengthen enforcement for cases of non-compliance by extending the use of civil sanctions. We will apply civil sanctions to six additional existing offences under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species Regulations and the Customs and Excise Management Act. These offences include using, obtaining, trading or transporting CITES specimens without valid permits or using false, altered or misused documentation. This fills a gap between issuing a warning letter and a criminal prosecution, allowing regulators to respond proportionately while maintaining a strong deterrent. Criminal sanctions will continue to be used where they are deemed proportionate to the infraction. Statutory guidance will be published prior to the civil sanctions being brought into force, ensuring that their application is both consistent and fair.
In conclusion, these regulations will strengthen our implementation of international obligations, uphold high standards of species protection and animal welfare, and ensure that regulation is targeted where it is most needed. The Government will continue to work closely with stakeholders to support effective implementation and ongoing compliance. Taken together, they strike the right balance between rigorous protection and practical delivery, safeguarding nature while allowing legitimate and responsible activity to proceed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument with her usual clarity and purpose as we race towards the end of this Session. Everyone should be able to enjoy our natural environment. We have a duty to ensure that future generations inherit a world defined by biodiversity, not decline. It is important, therefore, that we look beyond administrative modernisation to its practical impact on the protection of endangered species. The United Kingdom has the potential to demonstrate great leadership in conservation, but that leadership depends on maintaining our strong, credible and enforceable standards. We on these Benches have consistently argued for a fair deal for the environment, including a commitment that trade and imports should not undercut our very high standards of animal welfare and environmental protections.
Against that backdrop, I have some concerns about the direction taken in these regulations. First, there is a shift towards ministerial discretion. The regulations provide for additional measures and restrictions to be set out through guidance, rather than being clearly defined in legislation. Although flexibility may have its place, the use of guidance in areas of environmental protection raises issues around transparency, consistency and accountability. Clear, statutory rules provide certainty for enforcement bodies, businesses and the public. If greater reliance is to be placed on this guidance, we must have reassurance that it will not weaken oversight or reduce clarity in practice.
Secondly, on the simplification of permit and certificate requirements, efficient systems are important—no one would wish to impose unnecessary administrative burdens, and we welcome the progress on that—but simplification cannot create unintended opportunities for exploitation. Changes affecting so-called low-risk movements, including for certain Annex B specimens, for example, require careful scrutiny. Even limited relaxations in documentation can, if not properly designed and monitored, create openings for the illegal wildlife trade, whether in exotic pets, hunting trophies or wildlife-derived products such as fur.
Thirdly, the regulations do not address a long-standing concern raised by conservation organisations: the absence of a clear domestic offence covering the trade in wildlife that has been illegally sourced in its country of origin. Without such a provision, there remains a risk that the UK could be used, however unintentionally, as a market for products that have contributed to environmental harm elsewhere. If the Government are serious about tackling biodiversity loss globally, this is an issue that needs attention.
More broadly, it is important that any changes to this framework do not result in the UK falling behind comparable international standards. Our approach should be to maintain and, where possible, strengthen protections. In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, how will the Government ensure that the increased use of guidance provides the same level of transparency and legal certainty as provisions set out in legislation? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the risk that simplified permit requirements for Annex B specimens, as I explained earlier, could be exploited; and what safeguards will be in place to prevent abuse? Thirdly, will the Government either reconsider the case for introducing a domestic offence, covering the trade in wildlife illegally sourced aboard, or commit to reviewing this issue within a defined timeframe? These are not small, technical matters—they go to the heart of whether this framework will operate as an effective tool for conservation.
Finally, although I recognise the intention to streamline the system, I look forward to us being reassured that these changes will maintain robust protection, support enforcement and uphold the UK’s reputation as a responsible actor in global wildlife conservation.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this SI forward. This is a complex and wide-ranging area. It is about protecting our country’s health as much as it is about animal welfare. It involves scientific authorities, Border Force and police inspections, and compliance checks.
Let me begin by saying that we support efforts to reduce administrative burdens and costs, as well as attempts to simplify the system without undermining it. CITES was designed with membership of the EU in mind. We now have the freedom to amend it to our own needs and tailor the framework to meet specific challenges, using our own expertise at Kew Gardens and the JNCC. I note that the Government consulted on these changes with both conservation groups and businesses, all of which deserve a fair hearing.
I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to a few specific changes on which I would appreciate some assurance from the Minister. This SI enables the Secretary of State to determine which specimens require an import notification, rather than an import permit, for those deemed “low-risk”. We welcome the shift to risk-based controls, but can the Minister outline what criteria will be used and how often the risk categories will be reviewed? Does the import notification still give authorities the same oversight and ability to trace specimens? That could be particularly useful if a specimen is deemed to be a higher health risk at a later stage.
Travelling exhibition certificates from other countries will now be recognised as a result of this legislation. It is absolutely right that we prevent unnecessary duplication, but can the Minister provide further detail on which countries will benefit and how their certification processes differ from ours?
I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the enforcement approach and fully addressing my questions in that area, but it is currently not a criminal offence in the UK—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pointed out—to possess or trade wildlife that was illegally sourced in its country of origin. So what steps are the Government taking to track down the original perpetrators of these crimes, as well as to support buyers in identifying and reporting illegal wildlife trading? Can the Minister indicate whether the SPS agreement and other related negotiations with Europe are likely to have any impact on the implementation of these regulations—or, indeed, to overrule any of them?
Finally, we have previously debated the impact of invasive non-native species on our own ecosystem, including the pernicious effect of grey squirrels on successful tree-planting and red squirrel populations. It is critical that no additional burden is created. It would be helpful to have an assurance that, in the extremely unlikely event that an endangered species were to escape into the wild in the UK and breed successfully, aggressive control of that species would be possible in order to prevent it becoming invasive.
I appreciate that this is a complex framework. We agree with the aim to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. It is clear that an appropriate balance must be found, so I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on the points that have been made.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords both for making some important points about the legislation before us and for contributing to the debate.
As I set out earlier, these regulations are designed to modernise an important regulatory framework so that it works effectively for the UK, supports legitimate trade, and keeps protections firmly focused on the species and risks that matter most. The idea is for them to deliver practical improvements but noble Lords clearly have some concerns, so let me cover some of the issues that have been asked about.
Questions were asked about the new powers, including those for the Secretary of State. The idea is that the regulations will allow the UK to improve its implementation of CITES and the environmental protections it holds.
The new powers are to require the Secretary of State to publish formal lists where import suspensions or additional measures are in place. In some cases, these are already being applied in practice for endangered species: examples are strict controls on rhinos, tigers and bear bile. The powers are tightly defined and will be used only for purposes that are consistent with the CITES convention and the wildlife trade regulations. Any changes to this have to be informed by scientific advice from the UK CITES scientific authorities and are limited to the application of import suspensions or additional measures where there is a clear conservation or welfare justification. I hope that helps with some of the transparency around the Secretary of State’s role.
This is not going to reduce parliamentary scrutiny because the circumstances and conditions under which changes can occur are clearly set out in the legislation, and that legislation is subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. Publishing lists will provide transparency and legal clarity without requiring new regulations each time it is updated. That will enable Parliament and stakeholders to see very clearly what applies at any given time while also allowing the system to respond more quickly to any urgent conservation risks. We recognise the interest in updating wider wildlife legislation, but I make clear that this statutory instrument is specifically focused on the implementation of the UK’s obligations on trade in endangered species.
The issue of environmental and animal welfare protections was raised, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. The crucial and necessary core protections for endangered species and trade will remain unchanged. That includes requirements for higher-risk trade, scientific non-detriment findings and enforcement checks at the border. The proposed reforms are deliberately targeted and evidence led. They have been informed by the consultation that the noble Lord referred to, and by advice from UK scientific authorities. They will focus regulatory effort where conservation risk is highest while removing the duplication of administrative requirements where there is little evidence of conservation benefit. The idea behind a risk-based approach is that it allows us to respond more effectively to changing trade patterns and scientific evidence without lowering those standards or protections. Again, no changes are being made to the welfare assessments that are required as part of the CITES applications.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about risks opening up. I will say why the Government have taken this approach, particularly around annex B import permits. We have not removed the import permit framework because it plays an important role in controlling high-risk trade and preventing laundering, but we intend to simplify requirements in limited low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit or just duplicate paperwork. These changes do not weaken protections because import permits will remain firmly in place for high-risk species and activities. Core compliance checks, including Border Force inspections, will continue to apply. A low-risk list will be developed but it will also be kept under review, based on the most up-to-date scientific and enforcement evidence, and all annex B imports will still require a valid CITES export permit, while the use of import notifications will ensure that we maintain oversight in order that we can respond quickly to any changes in risk.
On enforcement capacity, Border Force applies strong enforcement of CITES controls at the UK border and the police enforce CITES controls inland. The amendments in this statutory instrument will support their efforts by bringing in civil sanctions and other changes. The idea is to provide a much larger range of tools that can be used so that efforts can be far more targeted to tackle any illegal wildlife trade.
Domestic wildlife crime was mentioned. Birds of prey prosecution is a national wildlife crime priority, and there are strong penalties in place for offences committed against not just birds of prey but other wildlife. Through Defra, we fund the National Wildlife Crime Unit, which helps to prevent and detect wildlife crime by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis that highlights local or national threats and directly assisting law enforcement in its investigations. Defra funding for the NWCU for the financial year 2026-27 is £530,000. In addition to that, we are providing funding to Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture to develop DNA forensic analysis for the police and other organisations.
On illegal wildlife trade, we are fully committed to global efforts to address the drivers of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, including environmental crimes such as illegal wildlife crime. We have an annual allocation in Defra of £150 million a year, which will run from 2026-27 to 2028-29. A significant portion of that will be used to continue to support the biodiversity challenge funds.
I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on the SPS agreement, but I hope that it is moving forward and we will be able to give more clarity on that later in the spring or in early summer.
On invasive species controls, I work very hard with the invasive species team—we had a meeting last week. We are determined to increase Defra’s ability to tackle invasive species. In particular, we have a target to stop new invasive species coming in and taking hold in this country. We are working very hard on that.
I hope I have addressed all the issues that were raised and that noble Lords will approve the instrument. I thank noble Lords for their support.
Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 17 March 2026.
Since 2011, the warm home discount has supported low-income and vulnerable households by reducing energy bills during the coldest months of the year, when support is most needed. The Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022 ended on 31 March 2026. These regulations will extend the scheme in Scotland for a further five years, until 2030-31, providing certainty for households, suppliers and delivery partners.
Fuel poverty is a devolved matter in Scotland. Under the Energy Act 2010, as amended by the Scotland Act 2016, Scottish Ministers have powers to design their own fuel poverty scheme, subject to consultation with and agreement from the Secretary of State. To date, Scottish Ministers have chosen not to exercise those powers and have instead consented to the UK Government laying regulations on their behalf. That remains the position for the next scheme period. Under devolution arrangements, the Scottish Government have provided their formal consent for these regulations to be made.
In September, the Government consulted, with the agreement of the Scottish Government, on proposals for the next scheme period. Consultation responses relating to Scotland were shared with Scottish Ministers, who have determined the eligibility criteria for the next scheme period within the agreed spending limit, as set out in these regulations.
The regulations will continue to require energy suppliers with more than 1,000 domestic customer accounts across Great Britain to participate in the scheme. Suppliers with fewer than 1,000 domestic accounts will, as now, be able to participate in the scheme on a purely voluntary basis.
These regulations will continue to provide for £150 rebates to be provided by scheme suppliers under the data-matched core group and the application-based broader group, a different division of groups than is the case with the English scheme. Participating suppliers will continue to be obliged to provide a £150 rebate to eligible households in the core group, applied directly to their electricity bill. These regulations set out new eligibility criteria for the core group in Scotland, aligning qualifying benefits with those of the Scottish winter heating payment as of December 2025 for the next scheme period. It is estimated that the number of households that receive a core group rebate will increase by roughly 250,000 to 345,000 households per year compared with 2025-26.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly the warm home discount SI before us today. How confident are the Government that this scheme will both reach the right people in Scotland and, probably more importantly, will spend the full envelope that Parliament is authorising? The Government and my noble friend’s department should be commended for the doubling. I know we are just touching on Scotland here, but across the whole of the warm homes discount, if we get it out to the right families, we are looking at moving from just about 2.7 million households across the UK to nearly 6 million, which is something to be commended.
Turning back to the SI, Scottish Ministers have taken a different approach to eligibility with changes to the core group. Can the Minister set out which additional types of low-income and fuel-poor households in Scotland will now be brought into the scheme? He touched on how many households that represents, which is appreciated, but what estimates have been made of those who will still fall outside the new core group, particularly those in rural, off-gas and high cost of heating homes?
On spending, as the Minister outlined, there is a fixed annual Scottish spending limit running until 2031. What specific mechanisms are in place to avoid underspend in any year? If suppliers are falling short of their Scottish obligations, will there be in-year monitoring and automatic reallocation or flexing of criteria, so that every pound intended for those Scottish households is delivered to Scottish families and not allocated to drift back to suppliers’ margins?
This is a GB-wide framework but, as the Minister said, in practice the Scottish scheme is shaped by the decisions of Scottish Ministers. That makes transparency and joint accountability all the more important. Can the Minister tell the Grand Committee what level of detail we will see in the published data for Scotland, from both the department and Ofgem? For example, will we be able to see take-up broken down by local authority, tenure type, disability status and the main heating fuel, so that this Parliament and the Scottish Government can judge whether the support is reaching those at most risk of fuel poverty?
Finally, given that these regulations run through to 2031, will the Minister commit to a formal mid-period review so that if the evidence shows that the scheme is not fully spending its allocation or is missing key groups, the regulations can be adjusted rather than simply left on autopilot for the rest of the decade? The doubling of the warm home discount is a great Labour Government initiative, but I am sure that all noble Lords will want to ensure that it is spent—and is seen to be spent—wisely
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI and explaining it in such detail, especially given the fact that we have already debated this at some length, when my colleague from the Liberal Democrat Benches also participated in certain aspects of it.
The focus on Scotland allows us to look at some specific aspects relevant there and to consider why the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 are so important for Scottish households—needed as they are, I might add, because of the high cost of energy and electricity in not only Scotland but the rest of the United Kingdom, because of the doubling down on the policy of building intermittent wind farms far from the grid and energy costs that are sky high relative to international comparisons. With those wind farms operating at some 31% to 40% of their maximum potential capacity, we are required to continue to import gas and to pay for gas-fired CCGTs all year long for the sole purpose of being available when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. For that reason, it is all the more important that this draft warm home discount provision is available—because of the high prices of electricity and the need to protect those most in need in Scotland.
We understand how important this is, since the warm home discount is being immediately offset for so many by rising energy prices, driven by the Government’s own policy choices. It is important to note that suppliers are not funding this support; it is paid for by households through an additional levy. The Government are increasing taxes on working people to fund handouts to others, rather than fixing the problem at source by addressing the issue of making electricity cheap.
In addition, the administration costs will continue to rise. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the administration costs alone are estimated to be about £20 million per annum. It is time the Government addressed the need to cut electricity bills. We hope that during the brief coming recess, DESNZ will have the opportunity to see whether it can axe the carbon tax, scrap renewable subsidies and overturn the North Sea licensing ban. That will provide the greatest benefit to people on low incomes, not least vulnerable Scottish customers.
As the Minister has said, the WHD scheme supports those on low incomes, vulnerable to cold-related illness, or living wholly or mainly in fuel poverty. That is of course right—it is a policy that has been supported by both sides of the Committee. We need to target fuel-poor households, with the highest estimated energy costs identified through data matching, which we covered when we last discussed this important measure in the context of the rest of the United Kingdom.
I welcome the recognition of the Secretary of State being able
“to direct energy suppliers to communicate with ‘matched’ customers identified through automated data matching, and … requiring suppliers to provide information on eligibility, the use of automated decision-making, and where to find the Scheme’s privacy notice”.
We already agreed to that in a previous debate on the application of the WHD extension elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we should also consider Professor Dieter Helm’s concern that, in not considering the WHD orders in the context of the wider energy policy being pursued by the Government, we are, to use his words, simply “moving the deck chairs”. The most important issue is that the warm homes discount scheme must be judged in the context of the fundamental issue of energy costs, and, most importantly, the high energy costs that make us so lacking in competition, particularly in the UK industrial sector but also in terms of very high domestic costs.
For many of the people concerned, fuel is perhaps the most important and noticeable change in energy prices for low-income households. Only recently, industry chiefs have warned that British electricity costs mean that domestic refineries are struggling to compete, and therefore that Britain will be increasingly reliant, as will Scotland, on imported fuel. Average petrol prices, at 157.62p a litre, are currently 25p higher than at the start of the war, and diesel has risen twice that to 188.9p a litre. Does the Minister recognise that, as the war has proven, it is important for a major economy to be focused on increasing its reliance on domestically generated fuel and not on imported fuel? This issue of security of supply is one I hope that we will return to and that the Minister can also address today.
We still import 60% of our gas, which is around 20% of our national energy demand. I hope that, during the brief Recess, the Secretary of State will reconsider his refusal to allow production at remaining North Sea gas fields, particularly Rosebank and Jackdaw, and that, at least recognising that there may be political motivation behind his decision, he will return to this subject shortly after the 7 May elections. As we know, when we look at Rosebank and Jackdaw, the emissions intensity is substantially lower than imported LNG from the United States. Therefore, on any environmental grounds, it makes great sense to develop our own gas reserves, not to mention the benefit to the Treasury of the revenues that are generated.
In the context of Scotland, we are losing nearly 1,000 jobs a month in Aberdeen—1,000 valuable jobs that are highly regarded around the world. It is so important to recognise that, from Aberdeen to Ardersier, we need to make sure that we protect jobs in Scotland and that this policy of being completely opposed to new licences, and not adjusting the commercial and fiscal terms that would encourage the extension of current production in reservoirs and tie-backs, is very damaging to the economy, puts up prices and, in turn, means that, in future, more people may have to avail themselves of the regulations we are discussing today.
We are approaching a brief break, which is an opportunity to test how popular the Government’s energy policies are in Scotland. I hope that this will allow DESNZ to undertake a comprehensive review of its doubling down on an energy policy that is high-cost—one of the highest in the world—and regrettably more polluting than it needs to be. I gave the example of LNG imports from the US against our own production from, for example, Rosebank and Jackdaw.
We are increasingly highly reliant—I know that the Minister will always expect me to say this—on Chinese solar imports from Uyghur slave labour and coal-fired factories. We are also highly dependent on ever-enlarging warm home discount schemes, which, we both agree, are a fundamental responsibility of parties in government. However, those schemes, which should be welcome because they ease some of the consequences of these policies, do not deter us from the most important issues: addressing the policies and reducing the cost of energy. Ultimately, if we can do those things, such policies will be less necessary because we will have addressed the facts that we need to be more competitive, that energy needs to be more affordable and that we need to protect jobs—not least in Scotland—which are absolutely vital to our economy and our energy mix.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate; I will attempt to address them in the best way I can.
I have got to know the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, well during my time as a Minister in this House. I say to him, with respect, that, although he is unfailingly constructive and courteous and makes important points, I fear that he has today given us a tour d’horizon of all the things we have been discussing over the past few months, wrapped within the carapace of the SI before us, which relates only to the specific Scottish circumstances of the warm home discount scheme. I hope he will forgive me if I do not give a detailed reply to some of his points because they have been discussed on other occasions; perhaps we could, over a drink at the end of the Session, tease out some of these issues between ourselves as we prepare for the proroguing of Parliament.
On the contributions concerning this specific SI, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for his contribution. His concerns relate to the enormous increase in coverage that has been achieved by these new arrangements. Because the Scottish Government asked the UK Government to set up an SI for a scheme similar, but not identical, to that in the rest of the UK, the benefits of the substantial increase in coverage now relate to Scotland and England just the same. However, there are of course questions relating to the fact that there are, and have been since 2011, considerable differences between some of the detail of the Scottish scheme and the English one. That is partly because of the identification of virtually everybody who is taking part in the expanded scheme in England, but it is not quite so as far as the Scottish scheme is concerned.
In the Scottish scheme, there is a core group and there is a broader group. The broader group is subject to identification by application and is then put into the assistance system by the energy suppliers, but there is a question about whether those energy suppliers are going to do that properly. How will it be ensured that they do, and, if they fall short, how can that be rectified by things such as making sure that industry initiatives are brought up so that the broader group does not suffer in the way that it might otherwise do? It is down to the Scottish Government and Ofgem to make sure it happens, but it is clearly something that we need to keep a close eye on as the scheme develops.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Government are taking action on energy prices and bearing down on them. As he will know, we have the energy price cap, which has made sure that prices go down by about 7% over the next few months. We have had the transfer of renewables obligation levies and the ending of eco-levy costs to reduce bills. We have an ambition to take considerably more off energy bills in the future using those sorts of devices.
The noble Lord talked about domestically produced fuel. We completely agree on the need to have domestically sourced power in the UK. That is exactly what the Government are doing with increased offshore wind and solar. I have already talked to the noble Lord about how we can increase the amount of domestically produced onshore gas by increasing the biomethane that is injected into the grid—a completely domestic source of gas. The Government are acting on these things.
The noble Lord quoted Dieter Helm, saying that we are only moving the deckchairs. Sometimes moving deckchairs is a good thing, particularly if the deckchairs were previously in the shade and you can bring them out into the sun by the things you are doing. For example, one of the things that we are doing here is to move the effect of the funding from standing charges to individual markers related to the amount of power that is being consumed by particular customers. Instead of that money being taken for these warm home discount schemes from standing charges, they will be a combination of matters now, which will save people something like £39 on standing charges. So yes, we can move the deckchairs. I am conscious that we need to move further and faster—to move more deckchairs more rapidly—and transcending that. If this measure is about moving deckchairs, the deckchairs have been moved very efficiently and we have a good scheme as a result.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I listened careful to all the deckchairs moving around, but the Minister’s analogy is incomplete, because the deckchairs that are referred to in the famous aphorism relate to the deckchairs on a sinking ship. That is the pointlessness of some of the things we are looking at. It is important that, rather than rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship, where everybody goes down with the vessel, we look at keeping energy prices as low as we can. The high energy prices that this nation is labouring under are de-industrialising our nation, killing our chemical industry and giving everybody the highest energy costs in the industrialised world. That is something we need to bear down upon.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As I was just saying to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, moving the deckchairs depends on the fact that the ship is not sinking. Of course, this ship is not sinking. That is why we have been able to double the eligibility for people to take part in the scheme and are further doubling down on energy price reductions through the devices that I set out and the further development of clean, domestically produced power to make sure those prices stay low for the future. We are doing other measures, such as de-linking the arrangements between gas-based electricity and renewables-based electricity. The purpose of a number of things might seem to be moving the deckchairs, but certainly not on a sinking ship. The ship has all its deckchairs in the sun now and is steaming forward to a bright energy future.
Motion agreed.
House of Lords
Online Challenger Banks
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ranger of Northwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how online challenger banks assess and process new applications for accounts.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the decision to provide banking services is largely a commercial one. Banks have strict obligations to ensure the legitimacy of a new customer and to protect against financial crime, and all new customers opening an account must be subject to due diligence under the money laundering regulations. The regulations are not prescriptive about how this should be done. The FCA expects banks to treat customers fairly and to take a proportionate approach commensurate with their assessment of the risk.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the support and the need for regulation of new challenger banks—and all banks—but, in my career of delivering public services with innovation, I have noticed the need to balance innovation with fairness. From personal experience, and more from what I have heard from a great many members of the public, this balance does not seem to be right at the moment in a sector that I really feel we want to champion: fintechs and challenger banks. So does the Minister feel that the balance between the innovation and the growth we are looking to see is right, when we see services providing no explanation or opportunity for engagement when making decisions such as offering banking services, especially as we are now looking at an era of digital assets and agentic banking, where we would like to see fairer digital services for all?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and for our brief conversation last week about some of the issues he has experienced. He will be aware that many of the issues he raises are ultimately commercial decisions for individual financial institutions, and how they choose to communicate with their customers and potential customers are largely decisions for themselves. He will know that, where a bank decides not to allow an account, it can disclose why it has made that decision, but it is not generally required to do so or to provide detailed reasons. In some cases, banks are legally constrained in what they can or are able to say. I think the noble Lord is interested in the use of AI in some of these decisions. The FCA is clear that automation does not remove a firm’s responsibility; it must retain effective oversight of automated decisions and ensure that decisions are fair and made in accordance with regulatory requirements. But, as I say, the decision about how and whether to communicate that is largely a commercial one for the individual financial institution.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister seen reports that members of defence companies are being refused accounts with challenger banks? The whole issue of de-banking, the difficulty that defence companies are having in finding suitable accommodation to rent, and the removal, with the assistance of the Edinburgh Council, of Leonardo’s recruiting advertisements from the city’s trams are all surely indications that ESG concerns are being used for overtly political purposes. Is this not yet another baleful consequence of the Government’s failure to lead a national conversation on defence, which they themselves admitted was so badly required?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thought I was going to be able to agree with everything the noble and gallant Lord said—right up until the last sentence. I agree with 99% of his question, and I absolutely agree that access to finance for defence firms is incredibly important. The instances that he cites are troubling, and I share his concerns about them. Access to finance is a significant issue for defence firms, particularly SMEs. No company should ever be denied access to financial services solely on the basis that it works in the defence sector, and the banking sector should never take a blanket approach to any one sector. The Government are actively engaging with banks to ensure that they understand the importance of the defence sector and the FCA’s work to understand why banks might close or reject accounts. Where it has found areas in which firms need to improve customer outcomes, the Government expect firms to consider the FCA’s findings.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister find, as I have done, in conversations perhaps not dissimilar to those with the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, that the challenger banks and fintechs are largely serving the same group—although perhaps more efficiently—that is served by the high street banks? Therefore, will he look much more seriously at the potential not just of banking hubs but of community development financial institutions and a way to combine them, so that small businesses can finally get access to the loans and services they need and that individuals who remain excluded finally have access to the banking sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree in large part with what the noble Baroness says. As she will know, as part of the small business strategy, the Government have introduced a range of measures to remove barriers to accessing finance for SMEs. She will know, too, that access to banking services is vital for businesses across the UK. While provision of financial services to companies is largely a commercial matter, the Government of course believe that all customers should be treated fairly.
On access to banking for consumers and banking hubs, we have set out an ambition to have 350 banking hubs. Cash Access UK will deploy a banking hub wherever the industry co-ordinating body responsible suggests that one is appropriate.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, during my time as a trade envoy to Rwanda and Uganda, I noticed first hand that UK businesses could open a bank account in those countries in less than five minutes, but it will take three months, if they are lucky, to open a bank account here. The Minister mentioned that it is a commercial decision, but is heavily legislated for through the Bribery Act, the money laundering Act and many others. Can the Minister please look into this, particularly for SMEs that are starting new businesses and are having real difficulty opening a bank account?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that the money laundering regulations rightly mean that, for new customers opening an account, banks are required to take due diligence measures to verify the customers’ identity, assess the intended purpose of the account and flag any suspicious transactions to law enforcement. The regulations are not prescriptive in setting out specific steps that banks should undertake to satisfy customer due diligence, but instead require them to take a proportionate approach, which I think is what the noble Lord is asking for. Each bank will therefore have its own policies and procedures, and those policies should be informed by each bank’s own assessment of the risk faced by its services and customers, based on sources such as the national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, this year has seen a massive increase in offshore unregulated betting. Are these challenger banks following the same procedures and checks as the normal high street banks?
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, the anti-money laundering regulations are imposed on people who are politically exposed without any nuance whatever, and not in accordance with the legislation or regulations, which require banks to assess people on a case-by-case basis—nor are customers told why they are being refused. There appears to be no mechanism for any kind of appeal or redress. Will the Minister talk with the FCA and the numerous ombudsmen who appear to work on this area and at least allow customers to talk to a human being rather than a computer that is programmed to say no in all circumstances?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I fully recognise and understand many of the things the noble Lord says. I understand that being a politically exposed person means enhanced scrutiny and administrative burdens and has impacted many noble Lords. Banks and other regulated firms must apply additional checks to customers who meet the definition of a politically exposed person, as well as to their relatives and close associates. That is to mitigate the increased risk that they are targeted for bribery and corruption attempts. While those checks are important, it is essential that they are proportionate to the risks posed; checks should account for the nature of the proposed business relationship and the potential for the product to be misused.
The noble Lord will know that changes to the money laundering regulations now require banks to treat domestic politically exposed persons as inherently lower risk and, in the absence of any other high-risk factors, banks should apply due diligence measures proportionately. In July 2024, the FCA also published its review of the treatment of politically exposed persons, which identified a range of required improvements by the firms that it assessed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I think we all recognise that there is a balance to be found between protecting the consumer and encouraging enterprise and growth in this area. But my observation, the observation of many Peers and my own experience of trying to open a new account with Metro Bank is that there is a vast bureaucracy around the FCA and money laundering rules and that that is disadvantaging our challenger banks. Does the Minister agree that the current system tends to favour incumbents, which obviously harms growth and consumers? What practical steps can the Government take to help challenger banks meet the standards efficiently and compete on a level playing field, which we need for innovation?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think I agree with the noble Baroness on the question she asked about disadvantaging challenger banks. As I have said already, the regulations are not prescriptive in setting out specific steps that banks should undertake to satisfy customer due diligence; instead, they require them to take a proportionate approach. Each bank therefore has its own policies and procedures, which should be informed by each bank’s own assessment of the risks faced by its services and customers.
Student Visas
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the adequacy of training and quality-assurance processes for student visa caseworkers, and (2) decision-making in the student visa route.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The UK Visas and Immigration service has a comprehensive training programme kept under regular review to support consistently high standards of decisions. This is supported by a quality assurance framework that draws on feedback from the study sector and incorporates evidence from the independent administrative review process, ensuring that lessons are learned and systematically embedded into operational practice.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. The universities agree that the changes to thresholds in the compliance assessment metrics should help to further reduce the scope for abuse and non-compliance, but I understand that some real problems have arisen. These relate to the red/amber/green methodology, the lack of real-time data sharing with UKVI, visa processing delays and the lack of clarity about the reasons for a sudden upsurge in visa refusals. Given the massive impact of decisions on international student recruitment on the finances of universities, will the Minister agree to meet me and Universities UK to try to help to resolve some of these concerns?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very happy to meet my noble friend and representatives from the university sector. It is extremely important that we make this work properly for both sectors as a whole, and I know that officials in the department are in constant touch with the sector to look at how we can improve performance. In 2025, 448,241 entry clearance applications were received and only 18,434 were refused, which is about 4%.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Government are about to introduce a new independent appeals body for asylum cases. Would it not be better to focus on raising the quality of initial decisions, improving efficiency in the current tribunal system and funding legal aid adequately?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will know, it is important that we get the first decision right, because it is important for the person who is applying and for the process and the cost, as she mentioned. Student visa decisions are made by trained caseworkers, who apply the Immigration Rules and are supported by clear guidance, quality assurance and oversight. Original performance decisions are kept under continual review. I hope that we can, over time, improve the decision-making process.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, 90% of Pakistanis who claim asylum enter the United Kingdom on a student, work or visit visa, as well as 87% of Bangladeshi nationals and 71% of Indian nationals. This is clearly a major abuse of the system. How will the Government get a grip on this problem and clamp down on the abuse of the visa system?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord will know, we have already put a brake on Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan for the very reason that there were high levels of asylum claims from them—470% of their 2021 levels. That is a temporary halt. We keep all options under review and it is important that the student route is not seen as a precursor to an asylum claim.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, this is a real case where artificial intelligence would enormously improve the speed and quality of decision-making. When my noble friend the Minister meets the universities, will he point out to them, as the Home Office has had to do for many years—as well as to the Department for Education—that there is still considerable fraud in entry to colleges and universities being used as a basis for working in the regular or the black economy in the UK, irrespective of any claims for asylum? That is to the disadvantage of many existing workforces.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend has been a constant advocate of tackling fraud in the system, and I pay tribute to his work on that. We keep this under review at all times. It is in nobody’s interest to have fraudulent applications or for individuals to use a different route and subsequently to apply on a fraudulent basis. That is why we have taken the steps we have with the asylum student brake on the four countries I mentioned and why we have a rigorous process for assessing claims.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that a further problem is that only one in six failed asylum seekers is then returned to their country of origin. What are the Government doing to address this serious problem?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will know that the Government are taking extremely serious action on the removal of people who do not have the right to be here. That involves several mechanisms. First, we have to speed up the results of asylum claims in the first place. Then, when individuals have failed, we need to ensure that there is an appeal process, if required, that is speedy and efficient. Then, if people’s claims have not been accepted, we need speedy removals. I do not have the figures to date in my head, but there has certainly been an improvement. If the noble Lord will allow, I will write to him with the figures on removals that we have made in the past two years.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the real problems in these areas is criminal gangs that operate by setting out false promises to very vulnerable people, especially in areas such as Bangladesh? Is there more we can do at the international level to tackle these criminal gangs through the use of intelligence and cross-border working?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend is right that there is a criminal network involved in trying to secure entry to the United Kingdom through a range of illegal ways—small boats, the illegal use of asylum claims or illegal applications for student visas. We are cognisant of that and the Government are trying to ensure, through intelligence-led policing, the use of Border Force and work that we are undertaking, that we deter those gangs, hold them to justice and, where possible, take assets from them. There is a strong level of government activity in this area; we have debated it on a number of occasions and I will continue to make sure that we press against those areas of abuse.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, some time ago when I was Immigration Minister, we had problems, which I think exist today, in getting countries—many of which we have strong, close relationships with, both fiscal and otherwise—to take back people who had no reason to remain in this country because they had failed to meet the criteria for refugee status. Will the Minister update us on this? Is there nothing more that the Foreign Office and others can do to deal with this matter in relation to countries that appear reluctant to take back these people, for no good reason whatever, bearing in mind the relationships between them and us?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important that the Government take a whole-government approach to this issue. I know that my colleagues in both the Foreign Office and the Home Office, and in some cases in the Ministry of Justice, are very focused on ensuring that we have a whole-government approach on the removal of individuals who have no right to be here. I will supply the noble Lord with figures on the removals, which have increased. It is important that we focus on continuing to remove people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, is it really not possible for the Government to have a more targeted approach—similar to what my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested—by increasing the workforce to assist asylum applications? Rather than the blunderbuss of removing the right of nationals from certain countries to apply for visas, can the Government not home in on the individual abuse of the system? The blanket approach risks being unfair.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The brake on the four countries is a temporary brake while we assess the reasons for the rise in numbers that took place. The Government are trying to speed up the asylum processes along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned. We have put additional staff in to approve the processing, because we want to get to a stage where individuals know quickly whether they have a genuine asylum claim, whether they have been accepted—and, if they have been rejected, that they have the right to appeal—and whether we have to remove them. That is self-evidently part of the Government’s approach to this issue.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, when the ISC did its study on China last year, we were very concerned to find a large number of Chinese students blocking or filling up courses on quantum, AI and the like. When we analysed further, we found that quite a large number of those students were members of the People’s Liberation Army. What has been done to put a check on this or to spot exactly what is happening?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have to make sure that individuals have a proper and right method of applying for student entry into the United Kingdom. That is why we have accepted over 448,000 people, but it also why we have rejected 18,000 applications to date. There is a very strict check on what the reasons are, how people are coming and whether they have a right to enter the United Kingdom. I do not want to comment on individual cases or countries, apart from the four we have put the brake on, but we keep this under review at all times. The 18,000 rejections are for reasons linked to the country they are from, the application or the motivation behind the application.
National Museums and Galleries
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to retain universal free entry to the UK’s national museums and galleries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that our national museums are truly exceptional. I can confirm that we are not considering any changes to free entry for UK nationals and residents. In response to the independent review of the Arts Council by my noble friend Lady Hodge, DCMS is working with the museum sector to explore potential opportunities for charging international visitors at national museums and galleries. This is a highly complex issue that requires detailed work with the sector before any evidence-based decisions are taken.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, it is disappointing that the Government are even considering this. They do not seem to realise what a precious, globally recognised brand universal free entry is. Apart from the negative logistical and financial implications of applying a selective charge, including the lack of universal ID, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, has pointed out, would the Government not rather restore the grant in aid to its real-terms 2010 level? The 18% drop in money since then represents frankly peanuts in the overall economy, yet that funding is vital for the success of our national museums.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are committed to supporting our national museums and to ensuring that art and culture are accessible, representative and shared across the country. Our £1.5 billion Arts Everywhere package ensures everyone has access to world-class culture. There are no current plans to reduce grant in aid, although I will say that we cannot prejudge spending reviews. We want to enable new income generation for our national museums, and we are going to be working with the museums to explore ideas for how this income could be used.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, as the co-chair of the Arts and Heritage All-Party Parliamentary Group, I will say that several institutions have expressed to me their many and varied concerns about how the introduction of the charging of international visitors might negatively affect not just them but the wider tourism and hospitality economy. I ask the Minister, what assessment are the Government going to make—or have they made any assessment—to allay the concerns about the wider economic consequences that this might have?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are making sure that we work with the museums on this, not in isolation from them. Last week, for example, officials at DCMS sat down with representatives from all the national museums to talk through how the process might work, in terms of having a working group with the national museums. We are clear that it is a complex matter. It is not, “It’s right to, or it’s wrong to, or we should do this as a point of principle”: we just want to work through the issues with the museums. At the moment, we have been working through the terms of reference for what that working group would be looking at, and we are not planning to come to any conclusions before the autumn.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, the much-anticipated return of the Bayeux Tapestry to the UK, to be exhibited at the British Museum, reminds us of the value of sponsorship, philanthropy, cultural diplomacy, soft power and, on a more practical level, the need for conservation skills, and indeed curatorial ones. How do the Government intend to support such skills going forward? We welcome their curriculum review, but when are we going to see actual action that reverses the years of arts education and these skills being marginalised?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am delighted, as I know the noble Baroness is, that the UK has been able to agree the loan with France of the Bayeux Tapestry. The noble Baroness correctly identified that skills are at the heart of any future policy. Every single conversation I have at every single institution I visit focuses on skills, and I have done a number of round tables around this. This particular area of curatorial skills is one that I know the museums are keen to explore. Getting our young children into museums is the first step in them stepping off on the journey of a career in the sector.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, HMRC’s own definition of free admission requires that the public can enter without pre-booking. Has the department taken legal advice on whether any charging scheme, even a partial one for foreigners, would disqualify museums from Section 33A of VAT relief entirely?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his really constructive engagement with me over the months I have been the Minister for this area. In terms of Section 33A, we are working across government and with the museums to understand the impacts. We will look to find solutions to any operational issues as the discussions take place over the coming weeks and months, and my officials are working with their counterparts in the Treasury.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend would agree with me that the introduction of the free entry scheme by the Labour Government in 1997 was one of the glories of that Government’s achievements. It would be an enormous pity if that were to be diluted at this stage—although, of course, we all understand that the income streams museums are able to draw on are diminishing, and that the real-terms value of what they get in public funding has diminished since 2010. Can she expand a little on what other ways of increasing income streams she and her department are discussing with the museum sector to avoid having to put charging back on the agenda?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree that it has been an iconic policy. We are just at the very early stages of exploring this. However, we are clear that we should be looking at ways to increase access for all young people from underrepresented groups from the UK. Unfortunately, the most recent DCMS participation survey demonstrated that there are still geographical and economic disparities in terms of who visits our museums.
In terms of other income streams, we had a very interesting debate last week on philanthropy and I think we are going to see some major developments at the National Gallery as a result of that. Most museums are diversifying their economic and events work, and they are all exploring a whole range of ways. The Government have invested considerable amounts of money through our Arts Everywhere funding and schemes such as the museum renewal fund, which we delivered last year and was specifically around bringing resilience to some of our regional and civic museums.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think we all know that money is very tight and getting tighter. I am trying to understand why the very distinguished trustees, who are charged with governing these great institutions, cannot be trusted to decide themselves on the charging or non-charging policy.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This has been a national scheme, so we are working with the museums. Most museums would charge for special exhibitions. We are working with the museums to identify how this might work in practice. Clearly, one of the ways would be for museums to take a decision through their trustees.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I note my interest as a steward of a modestly successful but long-standing private heritage enterprise in Devon. We compete with three national museums and galleries, as well as with well-heeled charities such as the National Trust, for tourists’ visits, both domestic and foreign. Do His Majesty’s Government agree that those institutions should not fear fair competition with privately owned heritage, which is a globally recognised strength of our national culture and identity?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure that there is fear baked into their concerns, but I recognise that there are a large number of museums out there that do charge. Where museums charge, they tend to be quite modestly priced. The issues that we are exploring are broader than that. We will look at the whole range of things and could look at whether there is an issue around competition with other institutions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to hear that this is a policy under active consideration in Whitehall. As the Minister said, it is a complex matter. As the Government look at this, will she ensure that they look at all the implications and practicalities, such as how we actually identify the nationality of people in a nation without ID cards and the impact on British people of ethnic minority backgrounds and, of course, on the many generous donors and benefactors who have given money, grants and gifts to museums and galleries down the ages on the understanding that they would remain free for everybody, as was the policy that the last Labour Government brought in?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely: we will be looking at all those things. Indeed, when I spoke to the national museums directly, these were some of the issues that came up.
For Women Scotland Case
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to implement the Supreme Court judgement in the For Women Scotland case within Government departments to ensure full compliance with the law.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Supreme Court ruling brings clarity for women and service providers. We expect all duty bearers to follow the law and seek legal advice where necessary, and this includes government departments. Departments have been updating policies following the Supreme Court ruling. Internal Civil Service guidance is also currently under review. We will ensure that any guidance is consistent with the code of practice for services, public functions and associations.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. A quarter of all women have experienced male violence at least once in their lives. That is one reason why biological males are excluded from women’s safe spaces—except, that is, in government. For more than a year, the Government have failed women by not restoring their single-sex spaces. The Empire State Building was built in a year and 45 days, but that does not seem to be enough time for the Government to sort out some toilets. Either the Government do not really care about the safety of women and girls or they are just incompetent. Which is it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think I have said before that this is a complex issue. It has also been a debate—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Can I just say this? It has been a debate that has been rather toxic. What we need is a bit of understanding and compassion. There has been no delay. We have been looking at this very carefully and we have been clear that the Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. There is no doubt about that. We have not been delaying anything. We have been clear from the beginning that the Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. If people have any doubt about it, they can seek legal advice. There are complex issues in relation to policies and procedures, not least that we have clear legal obligations to ensure that there is equality and fair treatment for all in every sector of our employment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister a practical question relating to the place that we all work in? The Government have responsibilities not only for the Whitehall department but for the Palace of Westminster, which is, as noble Lords know, a grade 1 listed historic building, presenting a particular architectural challenge. Can my noble friend say whether guidance on implementing the judgment will include practical advice on accommodating third spaces in buildings where structural adaptation is constrained and whether we are going to receive that notice and advice in time to act on it? Indeed, will it be incorporated into the R&R proposals?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend will understand that I must declare an interest: I am on the programme board for R&R. The original legislation made it clear that accessibility and equality are key parts of the R&R programme. That is the most important thing. It is not simply about access to toilets; people cannot even get around this building, and that is an issue that we need to address. I am afraid I cannot be tempted to comment on the code. As my noble friend knows, that is now subject to purdah, but I can say that we have asked the EHRC to provide information on costs so that Ministers can make a fully informed decision. That is part of the process. We have asked the EHRC to provide a de minimis proportionate cost assessment so that Ministers can have sight of the cost implications that the guidance will incur when taking their decision.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, it is becoming a little repetitive for the House to hear for over a year that the Government must comply with the law of the land. We understand that the Minister’s role is to represent the Government, so I wonder why he cannot explain why he is not complying with the law. He has mentioned the pre-election sensitivity period now, which is the latest reason given by the Government for not laying the EHRC code of practice. I have looked it up and more than 60 statutory instruments have been laid during this period. That pre-election guidance, published by his Government on 2 March, applies only to primary legislation. Will the Minister tell the House whether he has consulted the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office and/or the legislative secretariat of the Cabinet Office to find out whether he can lay the code? If he has not done so, why not? Will he also lay that advice in the Library for all to see?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, but I do not accept for one moment that there has been a deliberate delay in implementing this code. I have been very clear. These are complex issues and they need proper consideration. The purdah arrangements are clear. We have received advice from the Cabinet Secretary. I have been very clear that we cannot comment on the code. The Government have made a commitment that the code will be laid as soon as possible after the election. That means in May—not in spring, not in six months, in May. We are being very clear. Cat Little, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, wrote to the Women and Equalities Select Committee’s chair to explain the background to the Minister’s Statement on 14 April. That letter is in the Library of the House of Commons. It clarifies restrictions during pre-election periods as set out in the guidance to civil servants. It is absolutely clear. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are following proper process in relation to this code.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, on 16 April, the one-year anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court judgment confirming that sex in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, the Conservative Party announced that Conservative-run councils will publish clear, legally compliant policies on single-sex spaces and services. I also confirm that Conservative-run councils will publish their own single-sex policies and ensure that they are operational. Conservative-run councils will also act to ensure that funding and contracts will be withdrawn from third-party providers that do not comply with the law. Will the Government act now to ensure that Labour-run councils—indeed, all councils—understand that they must comply with the law?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not understand why I need to repeat myself so often. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear. The Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. It is the law. Whether or not the Conservative Party needs to explain to the electorate, “We will comply with the law”, there is no doubt about it: we will ensure that the law is complied with. However, there are implications for policies that need to be properly examined, which is why we have the code and why it needs to be considered as a whole. It is disingenuous to constantly say, “Conservative councils will comply with the law” when every council has an obligation to comply with it.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, may I state the obvious? Trans people pose a threat to no one; lawbreakers pose the threat. Having said that, given that trans people represent approximately 0.55% of the population in England according to the 2021 census, can my noble friend the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the cost to the public purse of adapting facilities across central government departments to comply with the judgment and whether that assessment has been shared with the Treasury?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. There has been constant reference to the Government’s position on the protection of women, and we are absolutely committed to ensure that we can absolutely say that violence against women and girls is a thing of the past. We are absolutely determined to end that. Violence against women and girls is not about toilets. But we have been very clear on single-sex spaces, and the Supreme Court judgment is clear. To answer the specific question from my noble friend, we have asked the EHRC to consider costs so that we can have a full consideration of the implications of those costs before a decision is made. However, I will not be tempted into commenting on the contents of the code because of the purdah arrangements that are in place.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thought it would be useful to update noble Lords on the plan for business today and tomorrow. Today, after the brief business in the name of the Senior Deputy Speaker, the House will consider the messages from the House of Commons on the Crime and Policing Bill and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Noble Lords will then debate some regulations and an associated Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, before we take questions on a Statement made in the House of Commons on recent antisemitic attacks.
I expect that we will also receive messages today from the Commons on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill. These will also be considered today, after debates on the Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations and the Oral Statement. Once the messages have arrived and are available in the Printed Paper Office, noble Lords will have one hour to table any Motions. The precise deadlines for tabling will be advertised on the annunciator and via the usual channels, once they are known. However, I strongly encourage any noble Lord considering tabling to discuss this in advance with the Public Bill Office.
I expect that when the questions on the Statement conclude, we will be ready to consider the message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by the message on the Pension Schemes Bill. If that needs to change, I will update the House via the annunciator and make further announcements in the Chamber as necessary. This may include adjourning during pleasure while we await debate on the messages.
Tomorrow, noble Lords will have an opportunity to further scrutinise messages from the House of Commons on all Bills left in play after today’s debates. If we send either the Crime and Policing Bill or the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill back to the other place today, I expect that it will consider those Bills and return them to our House later today. The deadlines for tabling Motions on both Bills will therefore be 11 am tomorrow and they will be considered after Oral Questions. If further consideration on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill is needed tomorrow, I will update noble Lords on the plan after Oral Questions tomorrow.
City of London (Markets) Bill
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That this House do agree with the order made by the Commons set out in their message of 23 April; that the promoter of the City of London (Markets) Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in this Session 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 188A (Suspension of bills).
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2H to Commons Amendment 2F and its Amendment 2J to Commons Amendment 2G, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2K to Commons Amendment 2F and Amendment 2L to Commons Amendment 2G in lieu.
“(d) after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must comply with the duty in subsection (A1)(a) and (b) within 6 months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed.””
“(c) after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must comply with the duty in subsection (A1) within 6 months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed.””
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motion B. We have had just over 18 months in both Houses on this Bill. I very much hope that we are now debating the Crime and Policing Bill for the very last time. Your Lordships’ House has quite properly discharged its role as a revising Chamber on a number of occasions. We have now asked the Commons to consider and reconsider the two outstanding issues before us today not once, not twice but on three occasions. The Commons, as is its right, made its views perfectly clear on 14 April, 20 April and 22 April. On each occasion it has rejected the Lords amendments by majorities exceeding 100. I suggest, respectfully, to your Lordships’ House that the time has come to heed the clearly and repeatedly expressed views of the elected House.
I know the issue of fixed penalty notices has been one of importance, and I have listened very carefully to the well-made arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Indeed, we have acknowledged some of the concerns he has raised about the actions of some contractors. We have now enshrined in the Bill a requirement to issue statutory guidance about the use of fixed penalty notices to enforce public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. We are also committed, thanks again to pressure from the noble Lord and others, to issuing such guidance within six months of Royal Assent, and I have already said I will share the guidance with the noble Lord before it is issued.
I know the noble Lord is disappointed we have not gone further, but we have concerns that his amendments would, effectively, terminate the legitimate use of private contractors to enforce anti-social behaviour civil orders, to the detriment of the safety and security of local communities who want to see effective action to tackle anti-social behaviour. I also welcome the fact that, when the Bill was again debated in the Commons last Wednesday, Max Wilkinson, speaking for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, indicated that he would not press the issue further. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will do today, but I hope he would similarly now agree to be content and agree Motion A.
Turning to proscription of the IRGC, we have had several opportunities to discuss the stall on this matter, and there is little more to be said. I have been very clear that Amendment 439 is not one the Government can accept, but I have also been very clear that this Government have and will continue to take strong action to hold the Iranian regime to account by sanctioning Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC, as well as placing Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Indeed, the Prime Minister reiterated last week that we are also committed to introduce legislation to provide for a proscription-like power to address the threat of hostile activity posed by the state and state-linked bodies. Work on this legislation is well under way and, without pre-empting the King’s Speech, your Lordships can expect to see more soon.
The Commons has now endorsed the Government’s position in voting to reject the Lords amendment on three separate occasions over the past two weeks. There can be no doubt about where the elected House stands on this issue, and I respectfully submit that there is nothing to be gained from sending the amendment back to the Commons. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the whole House will agree to Motion B and, in doing so, I also hope that he will recognise that the Government have a strong view on the situation in Iran and the Iranian regime, which I have outlined. With those comments, I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to respond to the Government’s Motion A regarding the issuing of fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour. I thank the Minister for all his efforts. Throughout this process, he has demonstrated good will but, without making any great classical allusions, this has felt very much like pushing a boulder uphill. At each stage of the Bill’s passage, we have had to push the Government incredibly hard to recognise the sheer scale of the problem regarding the cowboy enforcement economy that has been preying on the public. However, I am pleased to say that this persistence has finally paid off, and genuine progress has been made.
By accepting the Government’s latest amendment today, we are securing the necessary safeguards, through statutory guidance which must be delivered within six months of Royal Assent, to make sure that local authorities cannot incentivise private contractors to fine for the breach of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. For far too long, the system has allowed a revenue collection industry to masquerade as justice, with private companies retaining the vast majority of fine income and aggressively targeting people for anodyne actions. With this amendment now in place, our citizens will be much better protected against the cowboys who have sought to abuse these enforcement powers for their own financial gain.
While the journey to get here has required relentless pressure from these Benches and across the House—and I sincerely thank the Conservative Benches for their solid support throughout—the outcome is a significant victory for fairness and proportionality in our justice system, and I am content, therefore, to accept the Government’s latest amendment.
I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government will share the draft statutory guidance before it is issued. We know roughly what wording the Home Office has in mind—that of the Defra guidance on litter—but the consultation process on the new guidance will be important. I hope that the Minister can doubly assure us that the Home Office will consult not only with local government but with those who have been instrumental in raising this fining-for-profit issue during the passage of the Bill, such as myself and the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life, formerly the Manifesto Club.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, despite everything that the Minister has said on proscription of the IRGC, we are now in something of an Alice in Wonderland world. The Prime Minister has told the media in recent days that the Government propose to introduce further legislation to address state threats. Such legislation has been reported by the BBC, among others, as enabling the Government to ban state-related organisations such as the IRGC. The Prime Minister has said that the King’s Speech next month will commit to such legislation. Yet the Terrorism Act already permits such a ban: Section 1(4) states that terrorist action includes action outside the UK; the public affected includes the public of a country outside the UK; and the Government affected means the Government of another country as well as the Government of the UK. Therefore, terrorism is specifically international. Section 3, as we know, permits the proscription of terrorist organisations without limiting them to UK organisations or UK terrorism.
The Government know this. As we heard last week, the Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, and the present Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper—herself a former Home Secretary—specifically called for proscription of the IRGC while in opposition, just as we on these Benches have consistently called for it. Nobody but nobody has said that there has been no power to proscribe the IRGC because it is state-related.
The EU, led by France and Italy, as well as Australia, the United States, Canada and several of the Gulf states, have all proscribed the IRGC. Yet the Government, despite previous Labour policy, have promised Parliament only an anodyne statement about
“the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers under Section 3”.
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, called that patronising. It is worse than that. Despite their previous policy, the Government rely only on the repeated mantra that they will not give a running commentary on decisions on proscription.
The IRGC is connected, on very substantial evidence, not only to the appalling oppression and murder of protesters in Iran in December and January, but to multiple acts of terrorism in the UK and abroad. There are clear links with antisemitic attacks here and elsewhere in Europe and the world, including on synagogues. The UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre, responsible for monitoring and assisting international shipping, has reported on large numbers of attacks on cargo ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz, which are carried out by the IRGC or connected entities.
We recognise, of course, that the Government have a strong view on the Iranian regime, as the Minister rightly said, yet they have said to Parliament that we are not entitled to an explanation of why the IRGC is not to be proscribed but must wait for further legislation targeted at state-related organisations for such proscription. Yet, if indeed the new legislation is to involve the implementation of the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, in his recent report updated in January, that was aimed at improving legislation on state threats under the National Security Act and the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act. For the proscription of the IRGC under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act, such new legislation is unnecessary and a red herring.
We should continue to demand a proper and timely explanation of what the Government intend to do and when, subject, we agree of course, to the provision of confidential information being restricted to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We support the Conservative Motion B1, and if the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will vote for his Motion.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the House should take account of two factors. My understanding of the advice from the much-respected Jonathan Hall, the Government’s adviser on terrorism legislation, is that specific new legislation is required to ensure that malign state actors can be proscribed and dealt with.
Secondly, the House should take account of the fact that, on a visit to Kenton synagogue last Thursday—one of the synagogues that has been subjected to a disgraceful firebomb attack—the Prime Minister gave what I understand to be a very clear commitment:
“We go into a new session in a few weeks’ time, and we’ll bring that legislation forward”.
It is true that the Prime Minister has not specifically committed to proscribe the IRGC, but my understanding is that that is because the Government never give advance notice of who they are going to proscribe. If the Government do not carry out these commitments, do not bring forward legislation and do not implement it very speedily, I would regard that as a very serious breach of faith and this House will no doubt have much to say about it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we return to this highly important matter once again. I know that the Government will not appreciate this, but it is our duty in this House to hold them to account for their promises.
When in opposition, the Labour Party committed to proscribing the IRGC; it has now voted against this six times. On Wednesday, the Minister for Policing and Crime, Sarah Jones, said that
“we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords’ amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/26; col. 398.]
I take particular exception to this. It is wrong and entirely incorrect to claim that this House is somehow acting inappropriately. There is nothing out of the ordinary for this House to insist on an issue as important as this. I remind the Minister how many rounds of ping-pong we had on the safety of Rwanda Bill: this House sent the Bill back to the Commons five times. That is not a criticism but a fact: it is this House’s right to do so. It is not acceptable to have Ministers in this Government seeking to delegitimise the important work of this House. I hope the Government will reflect on that.
There has been a consistent thread of criticism of this amendment from the Government, which I would like to address. Last week, the Minister said
“the Government do not provide a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription”,—[Official Report, 22/4/26; col. 692.]
but this completely misunderstands the argument. I am not asking the Minister to give a “running commentary” on proscription nor am I asking the Government to air sensitive information in public. All I am asking is for the Government to get on with it and proscribe the IRGC. The Minister does not need to provide a running commentary; he just needs to agree the amendment.
I note that there has been some progress now. The Prime Minister said on Friday that the Government will move to proscribe the IRGC in the new Session, so it seems that he is now willing to give us a running commentary on organisations being considered for proscription. That is good news—providing he remains in post, of course.
I welcome that the Government have finally remembered the promises they made in opposition. It is testament to the determined campaigning on this matter from organisations around the country and opposition parties in this Parliament. However, why has it taken the Government so long? It is an incomprehensible position. They have had ample opportunity, during the passage of the Bill, simply to say what the Prime Minister said on Friday. This is disappointing. Regardless of that, the Government have said that they will now move to proscribe the IRGC, and all that remains is to press the Minister on timelines. This cannot wait for months and months; we are all united in our support for this.
I have sought assurance on when the Government will bring forward the legislation. Unfortunately, they have refused to tell us when. This is completely unacceptable at a time when we need strong and decisive leadership in the national interest. We have a Government and a Prime Minister who take months to make a decision and, once they have made that decision, then cannot commit to even a basic deadline. We have seen this time and time again with the Government: refusal to give Parliament even the most basic of assurances on when they will do things that they have promised to do. It is time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and get on with the promises they made. It is with some trepidation that I accept what the Minister said, but he should be sure that we will hold the Government to account.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord intends to press his Motion or not.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is very gracious. I will keep an eye out for it.
I am pleased that we have made some progress. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his pragmatic approach. I know that he would have liked the Government to go further on the issue of fixed penalty notices. I know he will be holding me to account on the question of statutory guidance and monitoring. But we have achieved some form of settlement and I am grateful to him for agreeing that today.
On the question of proscription, as I said, I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord intends to press his Motion, but I say to him that the elected House has made its views known by significant majorities on a number of occasions now. It has made its views known, supporting the argument that I have deployed in this House: that we do not give a running commentary on proscription. I point to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said: the Prime Minister said last week that the Government understand the need for action, the second Session starts very shortly, and we will be looking to bring forward this legislation as soon as we can. By “this legislation” he does not mean a running commentary on proscription under the powers in the 2000 Act; he means legislation on the potential for a revised state threats proscription-like regime, as recommended by Jonathan Fisher KC—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I got my Fishers and Halls mixed up. It was recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in his recent report to the Government.
We cannot anticipate what the King’s Speech will say, but I repeat to the noble Lord, for clarity, that the Prime Minister said the Government understand the need for action, the second Session starts very shortly and we are looking to bring legislation forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, made a strong case for proscription. But I put to him that the Government have made their view clear. They will share information on state threats with the ISC in due course, but I will not comment on what the Government will do on proscription according to a random deadline set by a Motion in this House without the full facts being examined in a public way.
In the past, on organisations proposed for proscription, we have tabled Motions in both Houses of Parliament and argued why we wanted to table those Motions. We have done that without giving prior knowledge to the organisations we are seeking to proscribe. We have done that under the 2000 Act.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said what he said on the visit to the synagogue last week. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will give the Government the opportunity to fulfil that, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we will be held to account on an article of faith in relation to what the Prime Minister said. But I cannot today, in this House, give either an agreement to proscribe the IRGC within the timescale that the noble Lord has put in his Motion, nor can I pre-empt the King’s Speech later next month, because that is what the King’s Speech is for. So I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will not press his Motion.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 439E and 439F and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Davies of Gower
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 439E and 439F and do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the opposition parties for their support, particularly the Liberal Democrats for their unswerving support and appreciation of the seriousness of the issue. I would have preferred to have something more positive from the Minister, and we will hold the Government to account, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, as we are still awaiting the Minister for the next business—we moved a little faster than we were expecting—we will adjourn during pleasure for five minutes, until the Minister arrives.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:12 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 165 - Motion A1 agreed.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do propose Amendments 38Z1 to 38Z9 to Commons Amendments 38J and 38K in lieu of Amendments 38V to 38X—
(a) the different ways in which an internet service of a particular kind is used, including functionalities or other features of the service that affect how much children use the service, and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children, and
(b) the fact that children of different ages may be affected by an internet service, or a functionality or other feature of an internet service, in different ways.”
“(8A) The Secretary of State—
(a) must exercise the power under subsection (1) so as to make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate following the conclusion of the consultation entitled “Growing up in the online world: a national consultation” launched on 2 March 2026 (command paper numbered CP 1528), and
(b) must, in exercising that power, have regard to the responses to the consultation.”
“(1A) The timeline must provide for the first regulations to be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the statement is laid under subsection (1).”
“(3) If the first regulations have not been laid before Parliament before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1A)—
(a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, and
(b) before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the statement under paragraph (a) is laid, the Secretary of State must lay the first regulations before Parliament.
(4) References in this section to the laying before Parliament of the first regulations are to the laying before Parliament of a draft of a statutory instrument containing the first regulations.”
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions A1, A2, B, C and C1. With this group, we are debating amendments made in this House and the other place relating to a social media ban for under-16s, mobile phones in schools, and school admissions. Before getting into the details of the Motions and amendments before us, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with us, ministerial colleagues and departmental officials throughout the Bill’s passage, and particularly during this rather fast-paced bit of ping-pong that we are now engaged in.
We are, hopefully, at the very end of this parliamentary Session and today brings us to the third round of ping-pong on this important Bill. That is beyond the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord True, has generally seen as the juncture at which the unelected House should give way to the House of Commons. Noble Lords will be familiar with my history as a Member of and ministerial officeholder in the other place. That House has now spoken clearly on the matters before us on multiple occasions, endorsing the Government’s alternative proposals. I recognise, however, now that I am a Member of this place, that perhaps one advantage of noble Lords is their ability to scrutinise in detail and to push successfully for revision of government proposals. We have seen that throughout the course of consideration of this Bill. For example, for each of the issues that we are debating again this afternoon, the Government have recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place, and we have responded on each one.
I will set out the important package of amendments that the Government have tabled to better protect children online. Once again, I am grateful for the constructive debate and committed engagement of noble Lords on this. In light of these discussions, we have strengthened our position, responding directly to your Lordships’ concerns about urgency, scope and parliamentary scrutiny. To put beyond any doubt that this Government will act in a way that responds to the concerns of your Lordships’ House, we have now gone further still. Under my Motion, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the consultation. This removes any question of whether action will follow, while rightly allowing the detail of that action to be shaped by the evidence and by those most affected: the parents and children who have already responded to the consultation in their thousands.
The Government have now also committed to a timeline in the Bill. I am aware that there has been some commentary on this proposed timeline over the weekend, and I will therefore set out our position clearly to inform this debate. This Government are committed to moving as quickly as possible on this important issue. The timeline set out in our power is a ceiling, not a target. I recognise that there are particular concerns regarding the inclusion of an option for the Secretary of State to further extend the timeline. To be clear, this extension would be deployed only in exceptional unforeseen circumstances that prevent the Government meeting the original deadline. This is not a means of delaying regulation but a measure of last resort, to be used only if absolutely necessary. Noble Lords should therefore think of the implementation timescale as 24 months at the outside, rather than any longer, and remain mindful of my earlier remarks about this being a ceiling, not a target.
We have also listened carefully to concerns about harmful and potentially addictive design features. As noble Lords will know, the consultation seeks views on restrictions to addictive features and functionalities, and we have therefore tabled a further amendment specifically requiring the Secretary of State to have due regard to such features when deciding how to exercise the power, ensuring that these risks are properly addressed in the legislation.
I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these changes demonstrate the Government’s determination to proceed with this work and to do so in a manner that meets the concerns raised across both Houses. They provide certainty of action, a clear timetable and stronger recognition of harmful and addictive design. This is a balanced, evidence-led approach that protects children now and remains fit for the digital challenges ahead. I hope noble Lords will recognise this as a credible and responsible landing point, and support the Government’s amendment to deliver strong, effective and decisive action.
Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, insists on the same amendment that was brought to the House last week and would amend government Amendment 38J. It would require the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations. I thank the noble Lord and his supporters again for their sustained focus on these vital issues. Protecting children online is not a point of difference between us; it is a shared priority that this Government are determined to deliver on. I welcome the progress already made and the constructive way in which the noble Lord’s amendment now reflects the Government’s approach. However, the government consultation and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment are the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes for children that will last.
The noble Lord’s amendment also specifies the age of 16 for restrictions. We cannot place an under-16 age limit in the Bill; doing so would require the Government to act before the evidence-gathering process is complete and would pre-empt the consultation. The consultation has already received more than 55,000 responses, demonstrating the public’s desire to shape the Government’s approach—and it is right that we listen to them. We recognise that many restrictions may be appropriate for age 16; there may also be specific interventions better suited for those over 16. Many Members of this House have rightly recognised that children of different ages interact with these services differently, which is why the government power now specifically acknowledges this.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, I must inform the House that, if Motion A1 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Motion A2 by reason of pre-emption.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Nash
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J.”
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion A1 and my amendment on social media. Discussions have taken place with the Government and I thank them for their engagement, but we have not yet reached an agreement and I will put this matter to a vote today.
I note the change from “may” to “must”, but it is not a “must” to do anything very specific. However, based on statements that the Prime Minister has made, I believe we are at one on the features of social media that should not be available to children. He said the
“algorithms, clearly to my mind, shouldn’t be permitted”
and that “they must go”. He has said:
“Things can’t go on like this, they must change because right now social media is putting our children at risk”; “I don’t think the next generation would forgive us if we didn’t act now”; “My government will not leave parents to face this battle alone”; “There’s an overwhelming case and that’s why we have to act”; “We’ve taken the powers to make sure we can act within months, not years”.
However, the Government’s new amendment gives them 36 months to lay the first regulations. I understand that Ministers are arguing in the other place that they need three years to lay the first regulations because they fear the possibility of a judicial review, though they have not explained by whom or why. The reality is that a judicial review would not be brought until the Government have announced their plans and published draft regulations. There is always a risk of judicial review when making regulations, but if the Government specify in the Bill in clear terms what they intend to do, there would be a much-reduced risk of JR. If an Act of Parliament requires the Government to act in a particular way, the courts cannot and will not intervene. Parliament is sovereign. Were they to accept my proposals, which would put greater detail in the Bill about matters on which we appear to agree—how and when Ministers must raise the age of access to certain social media features—they would substantially reduce the chance of judicial review. Insisting on their vague discretionary powers would only increase the risk for Ministers.
I will share some evidence that I have come across from recent social media cases. Meta staff discussed how Instagram, a Meta platform, is a drug and said: “We’re basically pushers”. Meta’s own testing found that its algorithms were recommending nearly four times as many children to suspected groomers as to ordinary adults—close to 2 million minors in three months, with 22% of those recommendations resulting in a follow-up request. A Meta safety manager put the number of child victims of inappropriate interactions at 500,000 per day in English-speaking markets alone. One can now buy online an AI agent which enables a male adult to pretend to be a girl, contact a young boy through social media, persuade him to send nude images of himself and then blackmail him. This is sextortion, which has resulted in a number of suicides by young boys. One social media site is particularly well known as the medium for this.
Concerning the Government’s proposals on “must”, not “may”, curfews or time limits cannot be used to tackle harmful, precision-engineered algorithms and addictive features. If they are harmful, they are harmful. As the Prime Minister said, you cannot expect parents to deal with this on their own. If they focus on parental controls, it will only exacerbate the conflicts that we know already take place every night in households across the country.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Motion A2. Before I do, however, I wish to say that if the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, decides to divide the House on Motion C1, I will support her. I hope, though, that some other accommodation has been made.
Motion A2 is deliberately drafted so that a successful vote for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, will automatically pre-empt it. That is intentional, and I wish to be clear at the outset that I will vote for Motion A1 alongside the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Indeed, we can be seen as a bit of a double act, with the noble Lord’s Motion capturing the urgent need for action, and my Motion providing a more comprehensive outline of what action should look like.
We are at something of an endgame this week. I have in front of me a chart that compares Motions A, A1 and A2; I would be very happy to send it to any noble Lord who wishes to see it. It shows clearly that government Motion A fails to address key risks identified by Ofcom’s register of risks and does not totally tackle additional risks identified by the companies themselves. It shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the fundamental issue of enforcement, without which none of this really matters, because Ofcom will get more duties without having the power to enforce them.
The chart shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the need for parents to have somewhere to go when their child is at imminent risk of harm. I was very disappointed to hear the Minister talking in her opening remarks about parents going to the police when I explained at such great length, when the Government overturned the chatbot amendments, that when a family goes to the police, the police say there is no perpetrator and that they cannot deal with chatbots. It also shows clearly and quite astonishingly that the Government have no sense of urgency. The government Motion gives them three years to introduce measures. If that was not so egregious, it would be quite funny: they have given themselves their entire term of office to bring forward duties that we then do not believe are possible to properly enforce, and all with no role for Parliament.
As I said to the House last week, the online world is more dangerous for children than it was two years ago, yet the Government have refused to engage with the substance of my concerns. Motion A2 offers a guide for what they should be doing. It is bound by the scope of the Bill, but it would be a phenomenal start. The Motion builds on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which will rightly pass again today. Every aspect of the noble Lord’s Motion is also covered in Motion A2. Equally, there is nothing in it that precludes the Government using what they learn from their consultation. In effect, Motion A2 offers the Government something meaningful to offer in lieu of what I hope and believe will be the triumph of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, today.
The Government say that they need the timeline to perfect the details and get this right, but this is a double standard. They have no such concerns for the detail when rolling out data centres, AI in classrooms, giving away creators’ copyright, and putting valuable datasets and government services straight into the pockets of US companies. But when it comes to children, they are overwhelmed by caution and deaf to the cries of pain from parents and teachers, and the demand of children themselves for action. The Minister said in her opening statement that these are matters on which the Government’s amendments would make changes now. Which now? Which change? They have given themselves 30 months to make those changes.
Motion A2 is not aspirational; it sets out the provisions we need for children to be safe online. It requires action within eight months; the prevention of sycophantic, manipulative and exploitative features; compliance with Ofcom’s and the ICO’s children’s codes; that all risks identified by Ofcom’s register of risks or additional risks identified by its services are mitigated; that there is no safe harbour; and mandatory data access for researchers and education for under-16s. It would allow 17 year-olds—a particularly vulnerable group as they go out into their adult life—to have some consideration from Parliament, Ofcom and government as to their safety, and it would bring in executive liability for senior individuals within companies, injunctive relief so that parents have somewhere to go when their child is at immediate risk of harm, individual redress, and a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers, including its business disruption powers, within six months.
Again, I say to the Minister: if the review is within scope, bring it forward and make it happen. There has been a single fine, of £50,000, paid under the OSA. Please do not tell the House that enforcement is going to work as it does now.
If we are not here to protect children, why are we here? Whose moral compass are we following? Whose interests are we serving? What outcome are we all working towards? I am a Cross-Bench Peer who, on this issue, sadly, does not enjoy the support of the Official Opposition in the other place nor of the Government in power. Both those facts are a source of immense disappointment. But it is not me but children who are going to pay this price.
I said to the House during the debate on chatbots that if we failed to protect children, we would see more children die. We have failed. Today, I put this on the record so that each one of us understands the price of our inaction.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I speak in strong support of Motion A2 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. As I said the last time we debated the Bill, we are united in this House in our objective to protect children online, yet we still differ on how to achieve it. The noble Baroness’s amendment represents the precise, workable and robust framework that our children so desperately need.
We on these Benches welcome recent concessions—and I thank the Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Lloyd of Effra, for their engagement—such as the “must” rather than “may” duty, but the Government’s core approach remains flawed. The Government continue to cling to sweeping Henry VIII powers that will allow them to amend primary legislation via secondary regulations, bypassing full parliamentary debate. We need a sunset clause to ensure that this power is not abused in the future. The current proposal of up to three years, possibly, to implement regulations is simply unacceptable. We on these Benches believe that the timeline is the critical issue. Our aspiration is a six plus six model—six months for a progress statement and six months for regulations—rather than the protracted window currently offered.
The Government are focusing on regulating user access, rather than addressing the toxic nature of the platforms themselves. We recognise the new references to “features or functionalities” in the Government’s amendments, but they avoid referring to addiction and do not include a list of prohibited features, nor manipulative features such as penalties for non-engagement or interaction with AI companions. Finally, we are concerned about the enforcement of the Online Safety Act and whether these provisions would be robustly enforceable. Will the Government promise a review?
The last time the Bill was in the House, I expressed our considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his campaign. However, his central mechanism is a near-blanket ban for under-16s. We on these Benches favour a more proportionate approach. A total ban of this sort would risk creating a dangerous cliff edge—where children are suddenly exposed to an unfiltered internet at 16, without having developed digital resilience—and accidentally blocking essential and safe services, such as educational platforms or Wikipedia.
Motion A2 offers the safety by design alternative, which we on these Benches strongly endorse. These amendments would require tech companies to fundamentally rewrite their code to remove harmful features. The key strengths of Amendment 38Z10 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, include specific prohibitions, explicitly targeting addictive design features that hijack a child’s attention, including infinite scrolling, autoplay, AI companions, and push notifications during the school day or at night. It moves beyond assessing risks to explicitly identifying and banning the architectural hooks of social media. It introduces a private right of action, as the noble Baroness explained, allowing children who suffer harm to seek court orders against non-compliant providers. It mandates a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers to ensure that it is fit for purpose in protecting children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment C1, but I will start with Amendments A1 and A2. The House may be relieved to hear that I am pretty much lost for words in responding to the Government’s position. In the face of overwhelming evidence of a need for urgency to act, most recently from court cases in the US, the Government have chosen the following route. First is to act within three years, which in practice could mean never, given the timing of a general election within that timeframe and another Government taking a different view. Secondly is to avoid putting, as my noble friend Lord Nash stressed, a clear age limit in the Bill in relation to accessing harmful social media. This is essential and entirely possible in relation to gambling and pornography, so I am unclear why the Minister says it is impossible in this case. Thirdly and finally is to omit reference to highly effective age assurance, which we know is the key element for effective implementation and is already working in relation to pornography and gambling.
Our confidence is also rattled because, as I said in an earlier round of ping-pong, the Government almost always quote the one notable charity in this area which has not signed up to the joint statement of principles for online safety signed by more than 40 other charities, and they rarely quote the evidence of health professionals, police and law enforcement bodies, and parents—including, sadly, the growing number of bereaved parents. The Minister talked again about the importance of the consultation and the fact that we have divided views on this issue, but we have divided views on just about every important issue and it is crucial that the Government take a lead on this, so I urge the House to follow the lead of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and give my noble friend’s amendment the support that it deserves.
Turning to Motion B, I recognise again that the Government really have moved in relation to this issue. The vital issues of quality of education and parental preference are now clearly set out.
On my Motion C1 on smartphones in schools, I am genuinely sorry that we are still in a position where we felt it was necessary to table another amendment to clarify the Government’s position. We welcome the progress that has been made in putting the guidance on a statutory footing and the refinement of the case studies included alongside the guidance.
As the Minister referred to, I am very grateful for the meeting I had earlier today with the honourable Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire, the Minister responsible for this policy area, who met me and my noble friend Lord Agnew earlier. I took away from that her undoubted personal commitment to see an end to the disruption and distraction caused particularly by smartphones in schools. She stated clearly in our meeting that she did not want children distracted by a smartphone vibrating in their pocket or in their book bag, and we agree with her entirely.
We welcome the comments that the Minister made just now on enforcement and the Government’s commitment to improve the guidance if it becomes apparent that the enforcement is not working. Although I would like to see it sooner—and I hope that when the Minister closes she can give us some timeframe in which the Government would commit to review that—I think the timing of the next behaviour survey would be a good moment to review it. Just to be clear, the 2024-25 behaviour survey showed that 17% of school leaders in secondaries believed that their mobile phone policies were rarely or never followed, and 34% of pupils in the same schools thought they were rarely or never followed. Or, putting it the other way around, 82% of school leaders in secondaries thought that their mobile phone policies were followed all or most of the time, compared with 38% of pupils in the same schools. Sadly, we know who is right in that regard.
Based on the Minister’s reassurance, particularly if she can give us some idea on timing, I will not test the opinion of the House today. I think the message from the Government is clear: they do not want to see “not seen, not heard” policies, particularly in relation to smartphones. To take one quote from a teenage witness in the judicial review of Montgomery and others against the Secretary of State for Education: “‘Not seen, not heard’ didn’t stop us using our smartphones at school, it just made us more discreet”. That was at an outstanding school where enforcement was claimed to be strong.
I appreciate that many noble Lords may feel that we are dancing on the head of one of the smallest pins ever manufactured, but we think this is so important because these policies outsource enforcement to chance; if a smartphone is not seen, effectively it does not exist. It creates huge amounts of work for school staff, with constant low-level boundary testing—pockets, toilets, corridors, under the desk and so forth. It is just not where we want our teachers spending their time, and we do not want children being exposed to harmful or upsetting content through the school day. Over a quarter said they were photographed against their wishes, and almost a third said they thought they would have got higher GCSE grades if they had not had smartphones in school. Educational psychologists are absolutely clear that for neurodivergent children the distraction is even more pronounced. Having a smartphone in their bag makes learning harder because it takes extra mental effort to ignore it, which can make it tougher to focus and push through when work becomes challenging.
We owe it to pupils and teachers to close the loophole in the Government’s position. I hope very much and trust that both Ministers involved will continue to push to do so. If it does not work, I hope that in short order we will see one or two sentences added to the guidance to, in the words of the Government, make it crystal-clear.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend the Minister but have the greatest difficulty in understanding why you need a consultation period when dealing with those aged 16 and under. The restraint that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, seeks is to prevent them having access to pornography, which I have described in this House as vile pornography. He is proposing that from the moment the Bill comes into force, there will be a ban for under-16s. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can understand that I speak as a matter of conscience. It is why I support the noble Lord’s Motion.
I speak as a departing hereditary Peer. Regrettably, no time has been allocated for hereditary Peers to say farewell to this House. I am very sad about that, but that is the position. Would your Lordships be kind enough to listen to me, a departing hereditary Peer, saying a brief goodbye to this House?
I first entered this House 54 years ago, in 1972. The House then was very different. There were very few Peeresses—fewer than 10%—and those who were in the House nearly all wore hats. I had the very scary experience, when I was giving my maiden speech, of being attacked by the hatted Baroness Summerskill, who wrongfully attacked my maiden speech. It took me a long time to recover from that attack by the hatted Peeress.
The House in those days was much less proactive. I give a comparison. If you wanted to table an Oral Question, you would go to the Table Office and say, “Have you got a space for me on Thursday of next week?” The answer might be “No, but we can give you a space in 10 days’ time”.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
Can my noble friend come to a close? This is not an appropriate moment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I insist on continuing to speak and am very glad to have support from the Benches over there.
I was comparing the House with the less proactive House 54 years ago and saying how you would go to the Table Office and quickly get an opportunity to table your Question. Look at it now. There is a ballot held almost daily. I do not know the number of Questions in the ballot, but it is probably 30 or 40. This is a great difference.
It has been a great honour to serve this House for over 30 years. I will miss the House and your Lordships very much indeed, but I most sincerely wish your Lordships well. In the new constitution for the House, I do hope that there is a large elected element. That is needed to get a proper constitutional balance between us and the other House.
About 40 years ago, Lord Hailsham—Quintin Hailsham—gave a lecture about the “elected dictatorship”. That is prevailing even more seriously now than it was 40 years ago, with incoming Governments with large majorities completely taking over the legislature—not only in the other House but in this House. We are seeing that during the ping-pong period that we are in now. I leave your Lordships to the ping-ponging that has to be done in the next few days and say farewell, as a hereditary Peer.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I am sure many noble Lords will have the same sentiment as I do in thanking him for his extraordinary service to his country.
I would like to associate myself with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said, and particularly add my support to Motion A2 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will not repeat those arguments, but I want to make two particular points. It is of great sadness to me that, on this topic, we appear no longer to be working as a collaborative group. Those of us who worked on the Online Safety Act, across all sides of this House and the other place, spent quite a lot of time together discussing how to find common ground. That seems to have been absent in the last couple of weeks. Although I really recognise the effort that both Ministers on the Front Bench today have put into this personally, we have really missed out on trying to find that common ground that I think all of us here want to find to protect children.
As a result, I find myself again supporting my noble friend Lord Nash on an amendment that I really do not like in order to try to get to the amendment that I really do like in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I think that is because we have lost the ability to collaborate on this topic, which is a great shame and something that none of us should feel very proud of. I think there is a path; it is about time, as everyone has been saying. I am afraid I do not believe that “a ceiling, not a target” works. That is not what has happened with the Online Safety Act at any stage. Every ceiling has definitely been a target and some of them have been missed. I am afraid the same is true for the DMCC Act; in this digital world, ceilings definitely become targets.
The Minister says that there is the power to review the enforcement of Ofcom. When are the Government going to use that power? A commitment to use it, to shorten the time and to work collaboratively throughout the consultation would move quite a few of us.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, the Government are arguing that they need much more time to consider the evidence because of the given challenges of enforcement. But the bereaved parents who have lost their children through online harms do not agree. They want action now, not some time in the future.
Last week, I met again the bereaved parents who have written a letter to the Prime Minister. They desperately wanted to meet the Prime Minister personally to show their strength of feeling for having a social media ban for under-16s. To hear their harrowing, heartbreaking stories would make any morally minded person weep. The Prime Minister has met the tech companies: why not also with those who have suffered the tragic losses of their children? The bereaved parents felt so hurt by that. They are seeking change so that other families do not have to go through what they had to endure and still do every day since their loss.
Right now, as we debate at this moment, a child is being affected negatively by social media harms. How many more children will be harmed every day by the dangerous, addictive effects of social media before something is done to stop it as soon as possible? I urge the Prime Minister to meet the bereaved parents to give them hope and security; for the Government to accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for the sake of our children’s future happiness and mental well-being; and to give the nation’s thanks to all the bereaved parents who are fighting and campaigning for change. Let us not let them down. Let us act now. Remember, as I keep saying, childhood lasts a lifetime.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am sure that it will be source of huge disappointment to all noble Lords that I do not intend to give a valedictory speech.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Indeed.
I thank the Minister for responding to the points I raised on educational technology at the last round of ping-pong. It has an awful lot of consultation in it, rather than action, which is emblematic of the situation we find ourselves in.
We went through only one round of ping-pong on the Online Safety Act, the reason being, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, that there was a degree of cross-party accord, which went to the nub of the problems, along with genuine interaction between the key parties and a willingness to listen to one another. I am sorry that we do not seem to be in quite the same place today.
I support Motion A1, from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and particularly Motion A2, in the name of my noble friend Lady Kidron, for exactly the same reasons as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I am not sure that a social media ban is the perfect solution—I am not sure there is one—but the intent is to concentrate the Government’s mind.
If noble Lords want to see what leadership in this area looks like, I draw attention to a column in the Financial Times of 17 April by no less a person than the Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez. He is doing two things simultaneously: he is standing up to our occasional friend across the Atlantic, who is currently probably testing His Majesty’s patience somewhat, but I am sure will be fuelling his sense of humour, probably unintentionally. Secondly, what the Prime Minister of Spain wrote was clear and unequivocal: on protecting under-16 year-olds on social media, consultation and talking about it are not enough: what is required is action.
His Majesty’s Government really must do better on this account. They are telling us, at least if we believe the press, that we are thinking about trying to get closer to our erstwhile colleagues in the European Union. Within Europe, France, Norway and Spain have all said quite unequivocally that they will move to protect from social media children under the age of 16 and, in one case, 15. By working together, all of us who might take this as a course of action will come across the same problems. Australia is coming up with ingenious ways to get around it and the ways in which the companies are reacting. Talking to each other to find a joint approach, to find out where the loopholes are and to close them together, is surely an intelligent way to respond to this, rather than trying to go it alone.
On Motion A2, His Majesty’s Government really do not need a consultation. All they need to do is shut themselves in a room with my noble friend Lady Kidron, who would be able to tell them, with her eyes closed, exactly what they need to do to get action and results.
The Minister mentioned that she was very grateful for her interaction with a variety of people across the House on this subject. One person who has largely not been included in those discussions is my noble friend Lady Kidron. If there are any meetings, guess who is usually the last to be met? That is a compliment to the noble Baroness: they know she will ask some extremely awkward questions and will almost certainly know a great deal more than the Ministers, who are not experts, but also than the so-called experts who are advising them. But that is not the intelligent way to go about this.
As a backdrop, the columnist Gideon Rachman has written a piece in the Financial Times entitled, “Are Europe and America headed for divorce?” I suggest to the Government that looking over their shoulder, which they have done since they took office, and worrying about what the United States might or might not do or think, is getting us nowhere. If it comes to a choice between looking after our children and protecting them as quickly as possible, and worrying about what the US might do to react and whether that could hurt us economically, surely that is not a proper choice. Children, obviously, come first, and I implore the Government to follow that route.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, it is a source of great regret to me that I will be following the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Nash, into the Lobbies, because I think the Government are making a mistake here. We should have been much more courageous in addressing these problems.
I am mindful of the fact that the United States of America is making life rather difficult for us at the moment, because taking any kind of independent stance seems to be a reason to be roundly scorned by the United States President, but there has to be a moment when we take a stand. We have done it with the war in Iran and it would be right to do it here, for the very reasons that have been expounded by others already, which is that this is about protecting our children. We are making a grievous mistake by not listening to those voices about the need for us to work in coalition on this and not to make it something that we worry about.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, just said, we have to be prepared to stand up to the technology oligarchs who basically do not want any regulation at all. We have to be brave and courageous, in this area, in empowering Ofcom to do its job properly and in protecting those whose lives are made so difficult in trying to restrain their children from using these phones in the ways that we have heard about. I really regret it, because I do not want to disagree with the Government at the moment, but we should see that there are principles that must be adhered to here. I hope that other colleagues on these Benches see this as too important for us to put off for three long years.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for all the service that he has given over many years. It was an absolute pleasure to join him at the dining table before this debate to exchange views about his long history here and his guidance to me as one of the younger Members of your Lordships’ House. We will miss him dearly.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I was intending basically to agree with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I therefore had not intended to speak on issues around social media. However, I have to say that I agree with not only my noble friend but the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. This is a plea to the Government Ministers—both the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Lloyd, have engaged with all of us and we thank them for the time that they have taken to speak to us—that we are not that far apart.
As your Lordships can clearly tell from opinions right across the Chamber, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, whom I also thank for her contributions, we all want the same thing. Here is a radical plan: why do we not all get together once, in a single room, to see if we can thrash something out, because we know that the clock is ticking. As my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, there are people out there awaiting our actions, so we clearly need to move at pace. I hope that, when the Minister gets up, she reflects on what has been said.
I will concentrate on smartphones in schools and share the comments of Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. He said:
“School leaders are as concerned as everyone about the impact of social media and phones on children and young people. NAHT has supported calls for a ban on pupils using smartphones during the school day”.
These Benches agree with that important point. He went on to say:
“Statutory guidance will give school leaders the clarity they need to implement a ban, and will remove any ambiguity or differences between how schools approach smartphone policies. Schools will only then need to decide how to implement and enforce a ban across their school community and the government must provide any support they require to do so”.
I hope the Minister will comment on that, when she gets up.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, in starting, I too recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hacking. But I have to say, as a former Chief Whip in the other place, I am not quite of the same view that rebelling against your party is a sign of conscience. Nevertheless, I thank him for his service and comradeship to me since I have been in this House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord will remain busy even if he is not here. I look forward to hearing his views from afar, as I have heard them from behind me over recent years.
I turn now to Lords Amendments 38V and 38X. This Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses and acted decisively to directly address them. I understand from today’s debate that there is a view among noble Lords that the Government may not yet have gone far enough. But it is of course important to remember that it is the passing of this Bill that will ensure that the progress that has been made will be on the statute book.
We are absolutely committed to protecting children online and doing it the right way. Throughout the whole Bill, that has involved discussion, consultation and engagement, including, earlier in its passage, with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on a range of issues, which we then looked at in detail in Committee.
Noble Lords have told us that the progress we need to make on this cannot be optional. We agree—that is why we have now put in the Bill the statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the outcomes of the consultation. Please be reassured that, due to that change, action will follow. It must follow.
Your Lordships’ House also told us that this must happen at pace. That is why we have committed in legislation to a clear timeline. The six-month progress report must set out when regulations will be made. I will come back to that timing point in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, reiterated his demand that the age of 16 is included on the face of the legislation. Again, I know there is not necessarily a consensus on whether this is the right thing to do, even among those who are not satisfied with how far the Government have gone already. I think the reason is that it pre-empts the outcome of our consultation, which seeks views on what restrictions on what features and at what age would be best.
We want to be confident that what we introduce works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why we are not waiting; we are testing options now, taking evidence from families, and, as I have said, we are putting the legislative powers in place to act quickly once the consultation closes. Our amendment allows for this outcome, but it also allows for a range of other outcomes, including, as I suggested earlier, for example, restricting some of the most harmful functionalities for children older than 16.
We rightly heard noble Lords’ concerns around the harmful and potentially addictive nature of many services. That is exactly why this is explicitly addressed in the consultation. However, in legislation, we have to be a little bit careful about the terms we use. Addiction, for example, is a medical term. A specific diagnosis of social media addiction has not been medically recognised and is a contested concept. If we are not careful, using this term in the legislation is likely to create a high bar for the exercise of the power to tackle the problem of addictive design as it is colloquially understood. Our drafting is intended to specifically capture features which might cause children to overuse services in a risky or harmful way. The Secretary of State must have due regard to these features in exercising the power.
We have gone even further, with a legislative commitment that the Secretary of State must now have regard to how services and features could impact children’s usage of services, and the potential harms excessive use might cause. Collectively, these changes represent a significant strengthening of the Government’s position. They provide certainty of action, urgency and stronger safeguards for children. I urge noble Lords to recognise how far we have gone and to support the government amendments.
We particularly recognise the concerns that have been voiced during this debate and more widely regarding the Government’s intended timescales. I repeat that the power to extend is designed to cover exceptional circumstances only, rather than being a means of delay. Nevertheless, we have heard the arguments this afternoon and I am sure that my colleagues in the Commons will have more to say on timings when the Bill returns to the other place this evening. I am sure everybody will have noted the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to continue with his constructive engagement with Ministers on that and other issues.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for recognising the progress that we have made on admissions and the published admissions numbers. I hope and believe that we can now be confident that these changes will help to ensure that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. That is the objective that we share.
On Amendment 106 in relation to mobile phones, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for recognising the progress that we have made on this, the clarity of the Government’s position that pupils should not have access to their mobile phones during the school day and the recognition of the assurances that my honourable friend Minister Bailey was able to give around the strengthening of the guidance and the enforcement support that we will now put in place.
I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness about the behaviour survey being a good way to measure the impact of the changes the Government have already made. For that reason, I am able to say to the noble Baroness that we can commit to looking at the behaviour survey, seeing the impacts and using that to make any necessary revisions to the guidance by September 2027.
With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the Government given the considerable movement that I think we have made in a range of areas.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who really does know what she is talking about. I remember that, during the debates on the now Online Safety Act, it was she who first drew the attention of your Lordships’ House to the dangers of the algorithm, and here we are, so many years later. However, it is the algorithm that must go—the Prime Minister has said it—for children. All that I am asking today is that we focus on that and on stranger contact, which has led to so much child abuse and deaths. That is all.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, including the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, whom I wish well in the future, the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Russell of Liverpool. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his comments about other countries; I would add Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in the world, Brazil, the seventh most populous, and many others. Frankly, at the rate we are going, 50% of the world population will have acted on social media before we do anything, which will put our children at a massive economic disadvantage.
The Minister said that my proposals pre-empt the outcome of the consultation but, with the way that I have outlined them today, I do not believe that that is the case. They would allow the experts, including the Chief Medical Officer and the medical royal colleges, to consider the outcome of the consultation in relation to the very limited and focused proposals that I have suggested today. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but, on the basis of what she has said here on the Floor of the House today, I do not sense much movement yet. I must therefore ask the House to agree to Motion A1, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, I should remind the House that, if Motion A1 is agreed, it will pre-empt Motion A2.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102J to 102M.
“(4A) In making a determination under subsection (3) or (4), the adjudicator must take into account the potential impact of the determination on—
(a) the quality of education provided at—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area, and
(b) the ability to give effect to parental preference for—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area.
(4B) Before determining an admission number under subsection (3) or (4) that is lower than the admission number specified in the admission arrangements to which the objection or reference relates, the adjudicator must consult and have regard to the views of the following persons about alternatives to lowering the admission number—
(a) the local authority for each school within the relevant area,
(b) the admission authority for the school in question, if different from the local authority for the school, and
(c) the Secretary of State.”
“(za) specifying persons whom the adjudicator must consult before making a determination under subsection (3) or (4);”
““relevant area”, in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in section 88F (see subsection (4) of that section).”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106G to 106J.
“Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) In Part 10 of the Education Act 1996, after Chapter 2 insert—
“CHAPTER 2A
GUIDANCE ON MOBILE PHONES ETC: SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND
550C Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) The appropriate person for a school in England must have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions in relation to the conduct of the school.
(2) The guidance referred to in subsection (1) is guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State about registered pupils at schools having mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices with them, and using them—
(a) during school hours, and
(b) on school premises.
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply for the purposes of this section.
(4) “Appropriate person” means—
(a) for the following kinds of school, the head teacher—
(i) a community, foundation or voluntary school;
(ii) a community or foundation special school;
(iii) a maintained nursery school;
(iv) a pupil referral unit;
(v) a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 (approval of non-maintained special schools);
(b) for any other kind of school, the proprietor.
(5) “School hours”, in relation to a school, means any time between the start of the first school session on a school day and the end of the last school session on the same day.
(6) References to mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices do not include references to devices provided by or on behalf of the appropriate person for a school for use by registered pupils.”
(2) In section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (determination by head teacher of behaviour policy), after subsection (6) insert—
“(7) If a notification or guidance given under section 88(2)(b) to the head teacher of a relevant school in England is inconsistent with guidance to which head teachers of relevant schools in England are required to have regard by section 550C of EA 1996 (guidance on use of mobile phones etc), the duty under subsection (2)(b) does not apply to the extent of the inconsistency.””
“(ca) section (Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England);”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 not moved.
Motion C agreed.
Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I will come to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in a moment, but first, let me introduce the regulations. The measures in this instrument form an important part of the Government’s programme to ensure that Great Britain’s post-EU exit chemical supply regime is robust, proportionate and fit for the long term.
The regulations amend three pieces of assimilated EU chemicals legislation, rectifying issues that could not be addressed at the point of EU exit due to the limited powers available under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They reflect the Government’s commitment to maintaining high standards of protection for human health and the environment, while ensuring that regulatory systems work efficiently for businesses and support sustainable economic growth.
In combination with the commitment from the Health and Safety Executive—HSE—to remain aligned with EU regulatory decisions other than in exceptional circumstances, the regulations create a framework by which EU chemical hazard classifications can be adopted more quickly in Great Britain. This supports the objective shared across chemical stakeholder groups to remain as aligned as possible with the EU to facilitate trade and to ensure that we maintain the high standards of protection we inherited from our closest trading partners.
The measures strike an important balance. They will introduce more certainty, flexibility and proportionality for suppliers of chemicals and the regulator while upholding a system that protects our natural environment from the risk of chemical pollution; protect those who use and work with hazardous chemical substances; and ensure that society can continue to benefit from the use of important biocides, such as those used to provide clean drinking water across Great Britain.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February, as they grant the Health and Safety Executive powers to selectively adopt hazard classifications from foreign jurisdictions with limited accountability; fail to incorporate new European Union hazard classifications in line with government commitments on Northern Ireland; regress from environmental and public health protections retained in law post Brexit, thus extending the approval of harmful biocides; and make it easier for UK exporters of harmful chemicals to bypass controls.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction; I think at least one piece of new information was presented to us. As the Minister said, this is a fatal amendment because I continue to have very grave concerns about this SI.
I declare my interests to show noble Lords where I am coming from. My Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill, on which a large number of noble Lords contributed positively at Second Reading, will lapse at the end of this Session, but I remain committed to its principles in the interest of protecting our own microbiomes, our existence as halobionts and those of other creatures, the health of the environment and the prevention of even more out of control antimicrobial resistance. Associated to that, I declare my position on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antimicrobial Resistance and the support I receive from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, as declared on the register.
I note that this may be the last such debate conducted before the new trial of restrictive rules on the time length of SI debates comes into force, so I hope we can enjoy the chance to debate fully what our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee described as being “politically or legally important” and giving rise to
“issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.
I was asked by a fellow Member what place this debate has in the midst of multiple bouts of ping-pong; I suggested that maybe it was a gymnasium wall on which a thin coat of paint is being hastily splashed, which cannot mask the uneven and failing surface underneath, while 1970s ceiling panels hang above it—the type to make a builder suck her teeth and worry about asbestos. For, as our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlights, and as the Minister herself mentioned, these draft regulations reflect the fact that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers expire in June this year, and they are the only ones available to cover the three assimilated chemical regimes using secondary legislation. The HSE has indicated that it considers that more general powers are required. I am interested that the Minister said she expects new legislation in 2027; I would like a further confirmation of that, because it is new information as far as I am aware.
All this is in the face of fast-changing knowledge of the risk we face from the chemical cocktail to which our bodies and the environment are being subjected. For context, I note the scathing report last week which had a call for urgent restrictions on the use of PFAS in consumer goods, including school uniforms, cookware and food packaging, from the Commons Environmental Audit Committee. I hope the Minister will be having a chat with her education colleague about that issue. At all main stages of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we heard support from around your Lordships’ House for a ban on PFAS in school uniforms. Given the action your Lordships’ House has just taken in ping-pong, the Government have a last-minute chance to take clear and decisive action on a cause of great health concern to many parents whose children are being forced to wear, by official rules, uniforms impregnated with these chemicals.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is making some very serious points. However, in respect of the responsibilities of the HSE, surely she recognises that it is not just restricted to workplace activities? Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act explicitly mandates the HSE to take account of any harm produced by workplace activities to the public.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising what is essentially my next point. Yes, the HSE has these responsibilities included, but its whole raison d’être is workplace safety. There have been many concerns that it does not have the regulatory or conceptual framework to truly consider environmental safety either for humans exposed through consumption, for example, or for the natural world.
This Government have added a growth duty for the HSE. Janet Newsham, a trustee of the Workers Policy Project, has noted how this compromises the independence of the HSE. If it has a duty to economic growth—that great God—it has got to balance that against health and environmental risks. Will the Government reconsider the growth duty, given that it is clearly hampering the HSE’s work?
Returning to the detail of the SI, I note that the environmental charity Fidra concluded that the draft regulations were
“not fit for purpose due to lack of specificity and lack of statutory timelines which could result in inaction or slow progress on critical chemical regulatory controls”.
On other recent concerning official pronouncements, I will start with the CLP elements of the SI. The Minister in the other place supported aligning with the UN’s Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, known as GHS, rather than aligning with the six new hazard classes introduced by the EU.
The Minister in the other place repeated the claim from the HSE that there is a question around what the EU will do if these classes are not adopted globally. That prompted the European Commission to formally put on the record that it had not expressed any such commitment. Can the Minister confirm that the Government understand that the EU’s position on the CLP, as it is so clearly stated, is not to change to the UN model but to keep to its own, reflecting its better understanding of the growing risks?
I turn to the detail of the SI, to which the Minister also referred, and the powers about foreign jurisdictions. I note what she said, that the EU is the only regime that fits within the Government’s classification. I welcome that assurance, but I wonder whether the Minister will consider what might happen if we had in future a different Government who might interpret those regulations in a different way.
I rather suspected we would have some more Northern Ireland people here. I am running out of time, but I raise the issue of what problems this raises for Northern Ireland.
The final element of my concern is around making it easier for UK exporters of some of the most harmful chemicals to bypass controls. These are the products we have decided are too dangerous to use in the UK. Can the Minister assure me that removing the need for a special reference identification number from the HSE is in line with our commitments under the Rotterdam convention on prior informed consent? Is this not just a reflection of an ideological attachment to this idea of cutting red tape, which has done so much damage across so many areas of our safety?
I note that, as campaigners often highlight with UK exports, last year we exported 8,500 tonnes of pesticides that are banned on British farms because of the dangers they pose to human health and nature. Some 98% of these are produced by the Swiss-headquartered, Chinese-owned agrochemical giant, Syngenta, and include huge quantities of diquat, which is reported to have caused symptoms in Brazilian farmers including tremors, temporary paralysis and permanent eye damage.
There has been enough exported of the notorious bee-killing insecticide thiamethoxam, banned here in the UK, to spray an area bigger than England. This is going to countries including Côte d’Ivoire and Morocco. A broader question than this SI is: are the Government planning to act on this clearly morally untenable and environmentally dangerous situation, which is a risk to people around the world? Ultimately, it is about the health of everybody: no one is safe until everyone is safe, and there may well be products coming back to the UK from those countries on which those products have been used.
I have one further specific question that I was asked to put to the Minister, because there is considerable concern about this. We have seen disbanded a regular Defra event, the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum, which had offered media, NGOs and other stakeholders some degree of access to chemical updates from the HSE. Are the Government planning to restore or replace that forum so that the public are able to scrutinise our chemical regulations?
I am aware that I have said a lot of very technical stuff and a lot of very large words, but this is stuff to which your Lordships’ House really needs to pay attention. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has a very long report with many expressions of concern in it. I have not yet decided whether to put this to the vote—I am well aware of the situation with fatal amendments—but there is real concern across many different NGOs and people concerned with public health, and it is really important that we have a full debate on these issues. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I do not have sympathy with the amendment, and the Minister is right to set out two main aims for her planned statutory instrument. It is right that we should allow certain products to continue which are necessary for wider health and safety issues while alternatives are found, or while we further research the known risks of these products. It is also right that the United Kingdom can have an independent strong body of health and safety and other chemical regulation which is also a bit more business-friendly and timely than that which the European Union produces.
I note that the Minister tells us that the system she is proposing for England, Wales and Scotland will be a little more flexible, and more helpful to innovation and to the products we currently have than the Northern Ireland system, which will be dynamically aligned with, or entirely dependent upon, the growing volume of regulation coming in Northern Ireland. So I have a lot of sympathy with her high-level aims. It would probably help the House if, when she comes to wind up the debate, we could have a little more information about whether Northern Ireland is going to be badly disadvantaged by losing access to the products that are currently used for important health and safety and chemical industry purposes, in a way that will not apply in England, Wales and Scotland.
That also poses the issue that when the Government get into even more detail in their SPS and other regulatory discussions with the European Union, they should dig in to avoid having to dynamically align with a known system of chemical regulation that the Government are quite rightly saying is less than perfect and which we need to differentiate the English, Welsh and Scottish system from to be more successful. The British chemical industry is in free fall at the moment, mainly because of the high costs of energy and the big retreat from petrochemicals. We have seen massive closures in the last year or so—it is really struggling. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to listen carefully to what it says about regulation.
I, like the Minister—and I am sure every noble Lord present in this place—would regard health and safety as the urgent priority. You do not compromise on safety. But we are talking here about being able to produce, make and sell—and then use—what are often intrinsically dangerous things, for a good purpose. You cannot ban them because they are in and of themselves dangerous, because they are not dangerous when they are used for a good purpose, as with a strong disinfectant killing germs—but, obviously, people must not drink it. We need rules, which the industry imposes, on handling and disposal, because there are obvious risks if people do not handle dangerous chemicals well or if they are not disposed of safely under controlled conditions. That requires a different kind of regulation.
I just hope that when we consider this, we can have a little more information about whether Northern Ireland is being disadvantaged, and whether there will be immediate problems either for its chemical industry or for the users of its chemicals, given that more things will be banned in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether we can have a little more reassurance that we will not sell out to an EU regulatory system that we think is far from perfect, when we could get some greater advantage out of better regulation but rather less of it. It would be good to set this into the broader context, that our chemical industry is in free fall. It is really struggling. We are losing factories and capacity, and it would be very important not to do anything in these regulations which made that more likely to occur.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is worth saying that the chemical industry—under pressure, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said—is still a very important manufacturing sector in this country. It pays good wages, has high employment and, perhaps more importantly, is particularly centred in the north-east, the north-west and central Scotland, so it adds to regional policy in this country.
It suffers from high energy costs. It has also suffered from regulatory affairs, particularly immediately post Brexit, when the then Government were completely clueless about the cost and timing of setting up UK REACH. The estimates of the industry at the time were that it would cost some £10 billion to change from EU REACH to UK REACH within the timescales that were talked about. Thankfully, some degree of sanity then came along in terms of those dates. I note that the transitional compliance deadlines, which were originally supposed to take place in 2021, will finally take place in 2031, 10 years after originally expected.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on these regulations. I thank the Minister for explaining and setting out the statutory instrument with clarity and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling an amendment to ensure that we have a detailed debate here in the Chamber on what is a particularly important issue. My thanks also go to the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefings on this issue.
These regulations address matters of real significance: the protection of public health, the integrity of our environmental standards and the effectiveness of chemical regulatory systems, on which both businesses and consumers rely. I think we can all agree that it is not a narrow technical adjustment but a set of changes that have wide-ranging implications.
No one in this House would dispute the need to keep such frameworks under review. Science evolves, risks change and regulation must be fit for purpose. The Government argue that these measures will resolve practical issues arising from the EU exit, streamline processes and reduce burdens on business. In particular, the extension of expiry dates for a substantial number of biocidal active substances is intended to avoid disruption and ensure continuity. These are legitimate objectives.
However, the question is whether the balance between efficiency, scrutiny and scientific rigour has been correctly struck. One concern relates to the increased flexibility given to the Health and Safety Executive, as mentioned by others, alongside the removal of certain statutory timeframes. Time limits are not mere administrative detail; they provide discipline, transparency and accountability. If they are to be relaxed, the Government need to explain how timely and robust scientific decision-making will be maintained.
A more fundamental concern is that these regulations appear to fall behind developments in the European Union system. In particular, the failure to incorporate six new hazard classes—covering, for example, endocrine disruptors and persistent, mobile and toxic substances—raises questions about whether this framework represents progress or, in practice, a step backwards in protections.
That concern is closely linked to the broader issue of alignment, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teverson. The European system remains highly relevant for trade, regulatory coherence and the operation of supply chains. Evidence to consultation on this suggested strong support for continued alignment. Where the UK chooses to diverge, that should be done deliberately, transparently and with clear rationale, not by omission or delay.
The position of Northern Ireland—I note that colleagues are absent; they have really missed out this evening, and we are all very grateful—adds a further layer of complexity. Because these regulations do not apply under the Windsor Framework, divergence is not theoretical but immediate. For example, it is entirely conceivable that a substance such as bisphenol A could be restricted in products such as toys in Belfast under EU rules, while remaining permissible in Great Britain. That kind of divergence risks confusion for consumers and real challenges for businesses operating throughout the United Kingdom.
It is also important to recognise the context in which these changes are being brought forward. The impending June 2026 sunset of powers under the retained EU law framework appears to be a significant driver of the timetable. That, in turn, raises legitimate questions as to whether this is the product of a fully considered, long-term strategy or a more hurried response to an approaching legislative deadline.
As we have heard in this debate, chemical regulation is not abstract; it affects the safety of products, the protection of workers and the quality of our environment. From these Benches, we support close and constructive co-operation with the European Union—it will not come as a shock to anyone to hear that—especially where it promotes trade and stability. But we will always insist on robust environmental protections, high scientific standards and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore approach these regulations with caution. I recognise the case for a more workable system but need a bit more convincing that the mechanisms proposed provide sufficient clarity or confidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has taken us on quite a useful tour of the statutory instrument. I am not sure she nailed the rationale for a fatal amendment.
In that spirit, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three specific questions. First, why have the Government chosen not to incorporate the six new EU hazard classes at this stage, and what timetable exists for considering their adoption? Secondly, what criteria will be used to determine when Great Britain aligns with or diverges from EU classifications, and how will those decisions be transparently reported to Parliament? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the real-world impact of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including specific cases such as bisphenol A, as I mentioned earlier, and how do the Government intend to minimise resulting complexity for businesses and consumers? I am conscious of time. I am conscious that we are in ping-pong. I am very happy to be written to on any of those questions.
The answers to these questions will be central to determining whether these regulations deliver an effective and credible framework. Without that clarity, there is a risk that increased flexibility may come at the expense of certainty, coherence and, ultimately, public confidence.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the Opposition do not oppose this instrument. We broadly welcome the intent behind it. The chemicals regulatory framework is one of the more technically demanding legacies of our departure from the European Union, and the Government are right to bring it up to date to make it work for businesses in Great Britain and to reduce unnecessary burdens on those who must navigate it daily. That is a legitimate and sensible aim.
The amendments to the Great Britain biocidal products regulation are simply common sense, and the changes proposed to the classification, labelling and packaging regulation are a step in the right direction. They reduce the time taken for the HSE to make clarification decisions and streamline the process. Equally, the introduction of a fast-track route for classification proposals drawn from the trusted international systems, such as the EU and comparable UN GHS jurisdictions, is a pragmatic reform. Where international consensus already exists, it makes no sense to duplicate the work at domestic level.
However, welcoming the intent is not the same as passing this instrument without scrutiny. The Government are making changes to a framework that exists ultimately to protect human health and the environment. We have a duty to satisfy ourselves that these simplifications do not come at the cost of safety and that the new structures will function in practice as they are designed to in theory. On that basis, I have several questions for the Minister.
First, on safety, the instrument shifts significant decision-making power to domestic institutions, to the HSE and to the Secretary of State, and removes procedural safeguards that, whatever their origins in EU law, provided a degree of independent check. Can the Minister explain what safety assessment of these changes has been carried out? Has the HSE conducted a formal review of its capacity to absorb the new responsibilities placed on it under the revised Article 37 process? Can she confirm that the removal of the notification database has been assessed not simply as an administrative saving but for any downstream impact on the completeness of information available to regulators?
Secondly, on how this has been tested, any significant change to a regulatory process should be road-tested before it is placed on a statutory footing. Can the Minister tell the House whether the new unified classification procedure, in particular the fast-track route, has been piloted or modelled in any way? Has the HSE trialled processing proposals under the new framework and, if so, with what results? Has industry been consulted, not only on the policy design but on the operational workability of the new system? We would be concerned if this instrument is in effect the first real test of whether these procedures function as intended.
Connected with this, I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns that removing the six-month deadline for technical reports could slow down decision-making in practice, particularly if the HSE is considering proposals from multiple international jurisdictions. Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that the new system delivers genuine efficiencies rather than simply shifting delay to an earlier stage of the process?
Finally, on the transitional provisions, the saving provision in this instrument preserves the old classification procedures for proposals already in train and opinions already issued by relevant bodies before commencement. That is sensible in principle, but in practice the boundary between the old system and the new one will require careful management. Can the Minister set out how that boundary will be communicated to industry, to applicants and to the HSE itself? What guidance will be published and when? What happens in cases where a proposal is at an intermediate stage and some steps have been taken under the old framework but the process is not yet complete? We would be grateful for clarity on how those edge cases will be handled and whether any guidance has already been shared with stakeholders. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, if the Minister would find it more helpful to write, we would be happy with that.
We do not seek to obstruct this instrument. The direction of travel is right. A GB-led, streamlined chemicals framework that reduces unnecessary burdens while maintaining robust protections is something we support. But streamlining and safeguarding are not in tension; they should go together. We hope the Minister can give the reassurances we need. We look forward to her response and to any letters she might send.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Although we are having this debate in the Chamber rather than in Grand Committee, it is always good to have the opportunity to scrutinise things. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made an important point. These things should not go through without any consideration. They are too important for that, and the chance to have the conversation is welcome.
The regulations introduce necessary changes to a highly technical set of regulatory regimes, but the changes preserve the high standards of protection we inherited from our time in the EU and ensure we can continue to recognise decisions made by the European Chemicals Agency, which remains highly respected. I will try to go through the points raised. I will not get to them all and I will have to write, for which I apologise. I will start with the list from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as she tabled the amendment.
First, the noble Baroness asked about adding the EU’s SVHCs to our list. The Government intend to make secondary legislation by June 2027, providing for the incorporation of the six EU hazard classes in GB CLP. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also asked about that. The work on developing that is already under way, and the HSE is currently engaging with stakeholders to understand the potential impacts of aligning with the EU on CLP measures, including its hazard classes. It has issued a stakeholder impact survey for exactly that purpose.
The work has been progressed separately from the SI, as I explained, due to constraints in the REUL Act that prevent an overall increase in regulatory burdens. The Government have made it clear that reaching a negotiated SPS agreement with the EU is a key priority. Negotiations are ongoing but we are committed to reaching an agreement by the end of this year. Broadly, it is expected that the areas in scope will dynamically align with the relevant EU legislation. I hope that reassures noble Lords on that front.
To be clear, we will continue engaging with the EU and other international partners at the UN GHS to consider the scientific basis for the six EU hazard classes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, knows, discussions at the UN GHS have not yet concluded, so the outcomes of those discussions have not been determined. The UK will take into account the EU’s intended action in response to the outcomes of the UN GHS work when formulating our own position on the conclusions of the UN GHS consideration. I underscore that we intend to make legislation by June 2027 that provides for the incorporation of the six EU hazard classes in GB CLP, and that is being done separately for reasons I have just explained.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Bennett, raised questions about the resourcing of the HSE and its size. The HSE’s funding and its priorities and progress are monitored by the Government. DWP is the sponsor department for the HSE, and a delight it is. It is important work, much of which is at the centre of what we do. To be clear, the fundamental scientific judgments are not changing as part of our changing the regime here. The HSE’s business plan for this year confirms its continued commitment to concentrating on the most serious risks and to targeting industries with the greatest hazards and sectors with the worst risk management record.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, I note that the HSE significantly increased its resources to deal with the extra workload after leaving the EU. For example, on 1 January 2021 there were 262 technical staff in the HSE’s chemicals regulation division, working across the six chemical supply and use regimes. Today that division has approximately 440 staff—so where it is necessary to respond, additional resource is put into those areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of the regulatory approach and the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, pulled it from the opposite direction. The HSE’s regulatory approach is aligned with the requirements of the growth duty, but its job is to achieve the right regulatory balance between supporting safe business practice and protecting workers and the public. Proportionate health and safety regulations facilitate economic growth, but the key is that they have to be proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, is quite right. This is not about taking risks or cutting corners on safety; it is about making appropriate, proportionate decisions. There is no point in leaving regulatory requirements in place if they serve no purpose and do nothing to make anybody safer but simply make things more difficult for business.
I should make a correction. Apparently, when I was talking about how biocides actually have a useful role in controlling harmful organisms, I said, “harmful organisations”. If I did, I was not dissing anyone’s organisation, just the organisms, so apologies for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about the jurisdiction question. We can already consider a jurisdiction from anywhere—this is about speeding it up—but I reassure the noble Baroness that qualification for the fast-track evaluation process has to be subject to the criteria set out in the SI. The only jurisdiction that meets them now is the EU; no other jurisdiction adopts GHS in the same way as the UK, apart from the EU, and no other jurisdiction apart from the EU has an open and transparent classification system based on public consultation, as we do. Other jurisdictions can submit proposals, but they will be part of the normal-track evaluation process, and any proposals to add jurisdictions which are considered to meet the criteria will be included in the HSE work plan, subject to consultation as part of the work plan, and decisions are taken by Ministers. However, the bottom line is that they have to meet the criteria—that is the safety net.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about removing the special reference identification number. She mentioned cutting red tape. Cutting red tape can sometimes be good. Special reference identification numbers are not a requirement of the Rotterdam convention. They were introduced for use in an EU IT system to which we no longer have any access, so they serve no useful purpose. Therefore, removing the requirement of the companies to obtain a special reference identification number for small quantities of chemicals being exported solely for research or analysis removes a completely unnecessary burden on businesses and on the HSE as the PIC-designated authority. They simply do not have a function.
The noble Baroness asked about the disbanding of the Defra stakeholder event. Regular stakeholder engagement is really important in this area, as in others, but it can take many forms. I am advised that Defra will continue to engage closely with a range of stakeholders to gather their input, harness their expertise and share Defra’s thinking. It does not plan to organise any further CSF meetings but its engagement remains strong through its monthly chemicals NGO forum and the industry chemicals policy communication forum, as well as through relevant events. With regard to any HSE materials that were discussed in that context, I want to say really clearly that the HSE is happy to engage and consult with stakeholders at any time. If there are concerns about the HSE, I encourage the noble Baroness to get in touch with me and we can take that forward from there.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the exceptional circumstances. Just to be clear, these reforms do not allow exceptional circumstances to be used to weaken protections. Divergence will occur only in exceptional circumstances and only on scientific and technical grounds, not on economic grounds. Government priorities explicitly emphasise maintaining high standards of health and environmental protection, and leaning into alignment with EU decisions unless scientifically justified otherwise. That could, for example, be the fact that more information may have come to light after an EU opinion had been issued, but it is scientific.
I am assured that the HSE’s commitment to align with EU discussions has been welcomed across all chemical stakeholder groups—although, I acknowledge, possibly not by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. That reflects a strong commitment across a number of priorities, including reducing trade barriers that arise from divergent standards, which will support trading goods with our biggest trading partner, and protecting the UK internal market by ensuring that different regulatory requirements do not apply in Northern Ireland, significantly reducing the risk of supplies of chemical products no longer supporting the market in Northern Ireland.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that this process is not about banning other products in Northern Ireland. One of the things that closely aligning where possible does is to protect Northern Ireland’s supply chain by making sure that the company will still be able to supply and will want to supply. The extent of agreement or divergence with EU classification proposals or decisions will be identified and reported in the HSE work plan. I hope that answers the question he asked about that.
I think somebody asked whether extending expiry dates would reduce risk protection. Just to be clear, these are substances that have previously been evaluated under the GB BPR, meaning that the risks are understood and they have already been approved for use. Postponing the expiry dates allows the HSE’s regulatory resources to be focused on higher priority evaluations, including first-time approvals where the risk is less well understood, and a limited number of high hazard renewals. I hope that makes a difference. It will mean that critical biocides remain on the GP market that in themselves would cause issues if they were not available. Nothing in the regulations allows new biocidal products which are not already on the market—rather, the purpose is continuity to ensure that essential products, such as those critical for aviation safety and safe drinking water, are not lost.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, raised the GB CLP notification database. In the absence of that, GB CLP suppliers can use other resources, such as the European Chemicals Agency’s analogous database, which may encourage agreement between EU and GB suppliers on hazard classifications of their chemicals, otherwise known as self-classifications. Duty holders also still have a legal obligation to self-classify. Substances that pose higher risks are already regulated under frameworks such as REACH, the GB BPR and the GB Plant Protection Products Regulations, or other downstream legislation such as the UK cosmetics regulation or the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. This ensures ongoing oversight of relevant hazards and associated risks.
I may be running out of things I can usefully say. I hope I have answered the things that are critical to today’s vote. I can assure the House that I will look carefully at Hansard and write to noble Lords with questions that I have not been able to answer.
Although I am grateful for the scrutiny, I stand by the case I have set out for these regulations. This instrument is practical, proportionate and urgent. It keeps essential biocides available, safeguarding public health and critical infrastructure, while preserving the ability to respond quickly to emerging risks. It speeds up our regulatory decision-making so that it is more transparent and better targeted to GB needs, enabling us to align more quickly with EU classification decisions and prioritise chemical hazard evaluations of greatest importance to the GB market, and it simplifies export requirements under GB PIC while ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations. These are measured improvements to ensure that the system works for Great Britain as intended, supports our chemicals industry, protects people and the environment, and allows the HSE to regulate where it delivers the greatest value.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has been reassured and will not push her amendment to decline these regulations. If she does, I urge the House not to vote for it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this quite short but important debate—perhaps shorter than we expected due to the absence of our Northern Ireland colleagues.
I particularly thank the Minister for a comprehensive, careful and clear response. I think there will be significant reassurance in what she said to the campaigners with whom I have been working. For all noble Lords who might be thinking about their dinner, I give advance notice that I am not intending to put this to a vote, having heard the debate.
However, I will say a couple of things. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for a very clear explanation of the importance of this debate and for the important point that relaxing time limits is not a mere detail but potentially a matter of great safety and health concerns.
In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, I have to say first that he spoke with some glee about strong disinfectants killing germs. I would love to have a chat with him about antimicrobial resistance and where that interacts with what he said. I also think he suggested that this is some kind of Brexit freedom. I point to the fact that, on substances of very high concern, zero for us and 44 for the EU is not some kind of freedom—I do not think anyone could reasonably call it that.
I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—indeed, from the Tory Front Bench—about the concerns about HSE capacity. The Minister pointed out that additional resources were being put into chemical regulation. Of course, unless the overall resources increase, that means that resources are being taken away from other places. I note in passing silicosis, which I have done a lot of work on and which is associated with machine worktops, and the issues around that.
I may have misunderstood the Minister’s introduction, which is undoubtedly my fault. I was pleased to hear about the EU’s six classes and that the Government intend to lay a statutory instrument on that by June 2027. I think I misunderstood that, thinking that that was talking about primary legislation in 2027. I therefore ask the Minister to write to me about what the Government’s framework is for primary legislation, because both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the HSE itself say that primary legislation is absolutely necessary to enable us to keep up to date with the secondary legislation.
I will conclude with one final thought on what kind of chemicals we are talking about here. There is a class of chemicals known as second generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Many Members of your Lordships’ House and of the other place have been asking the Government questions about this, including my honourable friend Ellie Chowns. She was told that the Government were considering monitoring residues of these very dangerous chemicals in red kites, buzzards, sparrowhawks, peregrine falcons, red foxes, otters and hedgehogs. That gives a sense of the way in which we are contaminating our environment, our natural world, with some very dangerous substances. That is something I urge your Lordships’ House to keep a very close eye on. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I now expect that we will receive the messages from the House of Commons on the Pension Schemes and English devolution Bills later than originally thought. To ensure that the House can make productive use of time, after the Statement we will move straight on to the agricultural regulations and the regret amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. We will then consider the messages on those two Bills after the debate on the regulations.
Antisemitic Attacks
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I know that the Minister takes this matter very seriously and he knows that I have the highest personal regard for him. However, the problem with taking questions on a Commons Statement entitled “Recent Antisemitic Attacks” a week later is that, since the Statement was made, there have been further attacks and further threats. Indeed, we are approaching a position where one of those electronic counters that measured days since the last antisemitic attack in the UK would struggle to register double figures.
On the same day that the Statement was made in the House of Commons—and at almost the same time—a Jewish man working in Slough was subject to appalling antisemitic abuse and threatening behaviour. That incident, unlike most incidents, was caught on video. The perpetrator has now admitted racially aggravated assault and is awaiting sentence, so I will say nothing more about that specific case, except that, according to newspaper reports, the victim of that attack has now decided to stop wearing his kippah, his religious head covering, in public. No further comment is necessary.
As I have said before, while the Jewish community is grateful to this Government and previous Governments—this ought not to be a party-political issue—for increased funding for security, and especially to the Community Security Trust, the response to the current spate of anti-Jewish violence has to move beyond building ever-higher walls and buying more stab vests for yet more security guards and on to the root causes of the problem.
When asked a very specific question by my honourable friend Matt Vickers in the other place about the link between Islamist extremism and these antisemitic attacks, the Security Minister said:
“The honourable Gentleman also made an entirely reasonable and important point about extremism. As I said in my previous remarks, the Government are doing a lot of work led by the Secretary of State … There is also a lot of work co-ordinated across Government to target the threats we face from extremists”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/26; col. 68.]
I find that reply odd. The Security Minister responded by talking only about general extremism. If the Government cannot bring themselves to use the phrase “Islamist extremism” and to recognise that the problem that we currently have is with Islamism, how can we have faith that they grasp the enormity of the challenge?
You cannot solve a problem if you cannot even identify what the problem is. It is clear what the problem is. It is demonstrated on the near-weekly marches where attendees still praise Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are proscribed organisations. It is the chants of “Globalize the Intifada”. We all now know what “globalising the intifada” looks like in practice. The Metropolitan Police have belatedly said that they will intervene if such chants are made—but why did it take blood on our streets for that change of position, which some of us have been demanding for months?
Last night, I and my daughter were dining at a kosher restaurant on the Golders Green Road. Half way through our dinner, two uniformed police officers popped into the restaurant. They explained that they were “just doing their rounds” and wanted to check that everything was okay. I am sincerely grateful to the rank-and-file police officers for all the work they do. However, I would like to live in a country where I do not have uniformed police officers securing my synagogue, guarding my community’s schools and now, it seems, patrolling kosher restaurants too. I used to live in that country; I would like to live in it again.
The late Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks reminded us that antisemitism is a mutating virus. When I was growing up, most Jew-hatred came from the far right. Today, that has changed. Can the Minister demonstrate that the Government do recognise that Islamist extremism is now the root cause of the majority of rising antisemitism and set out the steps that the Government are taking to address this? We know that a number of groups operating within the United Kingdom are actively stoking antisemitic hatred. I hope that the recent promise to ban the IRGC will be enacted speedily in the next Session, but the Muslim Brotherhood and Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya—the group that has claimed responsibility for the recent attacks—have not been banned and are active.
The United Arab Emirates has warned its citizens not to study at British universities for fear of radicalisation on our campuses. Yesterday, the United States Embassy in London issued an extraordinary security warning instructing American citizens in Britain and elsewhere in Europe to “exercise extreme caution” in the vicinity of Jewish institutions in Britain. Perhaps the most worrying development is the likely influence of the Iranian state in all this. If Iran is found to have co-ordinated these recent attacks, will the Government move to expel Iranian diplomats and step up sanctions against Iran?
There is so much more that needs to be done to stamp out antisemitism in Britain. Walls, guards and stab vests are the equivalent of palliative care. They are not a cure. We need to focus on the cure and, as we all know, the first step to any cure is correctly identifying the disease.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for his views. As a member of the Jewish community, I am grateful for all the speeches of sympathy that have been and are being extended to the Jewish community. I am personally grateful that between the First and Second World Wars my late mother was able to move to Britain from Szreńsk in north central Poland. Sadly, her mother and other family members were never heard of again after 1945. Many came to this country to escape antisemitism and were welcomed and made able to make good lives for themselves and their children. This makes it even more horrifying that we have seen recently an upsurge in violence, hate speeches and demonstrations against the Jewish population.
Antisemitism is not new, as explained by the noble Lord, but it is now made more obvious by the attacks on Jewish sites in the UK and elsewhere. I could not previously have imagined a world where many British Jews are feeling very vulnerable and even doubting their long-term security in Britain. As has been mentioned, a pro-Iranian group, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin, has claimed responsibility, although I believe that other groups and individuals are involved.
It should influence this debate to list recent attacks. In March there were attacks in Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands and France. Then, nearer to home, there was the arson attack on Hatzola ambulances in my local Jewish community. On 15 April there was an arson attack at Finchley Reform Synagogue, again local to me. Also in April there was an arson attack in Park Royal, a drone attack on the Israeli embassy, an arson attack on a Jewish charity and an arson attack on Kenton shul—that is just in April. We must not forget the October 2025 attack on Heaton Park shul in Manchester, which killed two people. We must ask ourselves whether this can be tolerated.
We in the UK are grateful for all this country has done to enable the Jewish community to thrive here and are horrified by the increase in antisemitism and attacks on Jewish premises, synagogues and charities. The answer we hear seems to be an increase in security, as noted by the noble Lord about his trip to the restaurant, and the community is grateful for the efforts of the police and the CST, including extra funds for this purpose. However, no other community needs to have its kids’ schools, places of worship and community behind security-guarded walls—a world where our kids and teens are afraid to show their Jewish identity and are not safe to wear a Magen David or a yarmulke head covering, as has been stated.
I spoke to Rabbi Ben Kurzer, my local community rabbi, who said:
“Whilst the Jewish community is strong and resilient and continues to flourish, this situation is unacceptable for us as a nation. As with antisemitism throughout the ages, this is not a Jewish problem, it is a societal one. The hate that begins with the Jews will not end with the Jews. Jewish tradition teaches that Moses, in ancient Egypt, looked round and realised that there was no one to stand up against the aggressors and that was why he took the lead—to paraphrase our Sages, ‘In a place where there is no person stepping forward, try to be that person’’.
I say we need to go to the source of and incitement to this violence. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about what they intend to do about what some call hate marches—I think they are; some people do not—and demonstrations that fuel this antisemitism. I keep waiting for it, but when is that dreadful organisation, the IRGC, actually going to be banned as a terrorist organisation? It has been on the cards for such a long time.
Can the Minister say that the Government will seek to explain what Zionism means? It is a desire for a homeland for the Jews in Israel. Surely the rise in UK antisemitism makes the need for Zionism an absolute must for many in the community. The word “anti-Zionism” is being increasingly used as an acceptable excuse for antisemitic sentiments. There needs to be a line between objecting to events outside the UK and terrorising a section of the UK of which I am part. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their comments, and for their general support for the action the Government are taking.
I begin by condemning antisemitic actions by those who are undertaking them. There is no place for antisemitism in our society. There is no place for individuals not being able to enjoy and share and work with their religion and show that visibly. The Government will take action to ensure that we protect those rights for the Jewish community.
I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that while the Statement was arranged by the usual channels for today, I am happy to do it at any time; I could have done it last week. The Statement made clear that there were 26 arrests following the activities last week; there have been eight charges and one conviction to date. It is important that we, as both noble Lords have said, tackle not just the protective elements of this—I do not want to have a situation whereby individuals have to have that protective security around them in the long term—but those root causes as a whole. I say to both noble Lords that the £28.4 million given to the Community Security Trust is a useful resource to help protect society from antisemitism, and we have recently added £5 million to that.
To go to the heart of the points that have been made about tackling the long-term root causes, the social cohesion strategy called Protecting What Matters that the Government have recently announced has allocated £800 million, but it is also looking at a whole range of what I would call proactive measures that I think the noble Lord will welcome. These include preventing hate preachers entering the United Kingdom; expanding the global visa taskforce; publishing an annual state of extremism report; embedding the 2024 definition of extremism across government; and looking to work with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Dame Penny Mordaunt on the commission with the Board of Deputies of British Jews on the question of antisemitism as a whole.
We also have to—this goes to the long-term issues that the noble Lord mentioned—look at combating antisemitism across all elements of society, including reviewing the public order and hate legislation, which is being undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and looking at universities, schools and colleges, where we have committed some £7 million of resource to help clamp down on antisemitic extremism. We also had the review of Prevent in 2023, which made a number of recommendations that we have brought into power.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, that we have looked at the issue of hate marches. This very day we have completed the Crime and Policing Bill, which is now going for potential Royal Assent very shortly. In that there are definitive powers to redirect marches, to redirect persistently aggressive marches and to give police additional powers to do that. It is also important that we take on board a point that both noble Lords have mentioned: the question of how we deal with this in the longer term. It is important that the police have intelligence-led policing, looking at where there are organisations and groups that are causing potential antisemitism. We have the arrests that have been made to date. With regard to the organisations that have claimed responsibility for these attacks, I want to take that at face value for the moment. The police have a job to do. The police have a job to see whether those organisations are responsible, or whether they are proxies for potential state actors that are responsible. We will receive reports from the police. I hope that we can allow the police to do their job and to investigate and report back. If action is required, we will consider taking it in due course.
We have had significant discussion around Iran, and I know the sensitivities and concerns surrounding that. As I said, we have placed the entire Iranian Government on the foreign influence registration scheme, which means that individuals who undertake activity in the UK on behalf of the Iranian Government face a choice between registering that activity and having the threat of a criminal offence with a five-year prison sentence. We have introduced that in the last 12 months; we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals and entities. We have put in place a robust package of measures to tackle threats from the Iranian regime. We have already sanctioned the IRGC financier Ali Ansari, freezing over £100 million of his UK property.
We now have powers to proscribe, as discussed earlier. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has recommended that we take further action against state actors, and state proscription, and has recommended legislation for that. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when visiting a synagogue last week, mentioned that we want to bring that forward as a matter of urgency as soon as practicable.
Noble Lords will know that the King’s Speech is not too far away. I cannot anticipate today what will be in it, but I hope that noble Lords can understand the direction of travel at the earliest opportunity to take that legislation forward.
This is an issue that the Government take seriously. People of the Jewish community have the right to live their lives free from intimidation, free from threat and free from attack. The job of the Government is to ensure that through protective security and legislation and, where possible, by tracking down perpetrators of action and those who seek to perpetrate action, and we will not rest until antisemitism is eradicated. It is a difficult, challenging task. We have a range of potential operators in the UK and beyond; there is hate legislation in place; there is a range of measures we are bringing forward in the Crime and Policing Bill and there are measures we will be considering at the earliest opportunity when legislation is brought forward. It is important that all of us in this Chamber unite in support for the Jewish community, in condemnation of these attacks and in ensuring that extremism has no place in our society in the 21st century.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, the thrust of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was specifically with respect to what he described as “Islamist extremism”. However, I notice that the Minister made no reference to that expression, and I would be interested to know, as I am sure the House would, the Government’s view about Islamist extremism sitting at the root of this evil.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I condemn those people who have a perverted view of the faith of Islam and undertake this action against the Jewish community. I grew up in the 1970s, when the National Front and the British National Party, right-wing organisations, had a hatred of the Jewish community and undertook activities against it as well. It is important that we tackle antisemitism from whichever source it comes. There will be people today relishing antisemitism who are not from the Islamic community and are not extremists, while others will take that forward in a way that is unacceptable. Our job is to make sure that we tackle that extremism from wherever it comes, and that is why we will take action against right-wing extremism as well as Islamist extremists. People have a right to follow their religion and live their lives as they wish, free of intimidation, and it is the job of government to offer that protection.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the strong Statement and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wolfson. He made the important point that we must attack and tackle all forms of extremism. As someone who has served in government, in the Foreign Office and at the Home Office as the Minister for countering extremism, I know that there are people who hijack the faith of Islam that I—and millions, indeed billions, around the world—follow. The distinction between Islamists and Islam must be made very clearly. May I suggest dealing with the sources and looking at the philosophy that drives these extremists? The al-Banna philosophy and the Maududi philosophy embed these forms of extremist actions. While I welcome those who are involved and engaged in fighting this, we need a whole-country approach, a whole-faith approach and a whole-community approach to ensure that voices from the British Muslim community are included. In that way, we fight this at source. I am sure that the Government would find support by banning, first and foremost, preachers of hate who come to our shores and use our liberal laws to instil fear and carry out the attacks that we have seen on our streets, particularly against the Jewish community.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord’s comments. The vast majority of people who follow the religion of Islam want to live in a cohesive, co-ordinated society where everybody accepts, understands and tolerates each individual’s religion. That social cohesion is vital and the strategy that the Government are bringing forward, backed by £800 million of taxpayers’ resource, specifically identifies the threat of Islamist extremism but tries to put it into a context of supporting the vast majority of people of the Muslim faith to ensure that they are part of a socially cohesive society.
We will look at the evidence of who has been committing these offences and/or who has been behind them. We have banned some hate preachers and are looking at how we can build a global alliance against them. We will take action when we know who ultimately has organised this once the police have carried out their investigations. That needs to be done more slowly.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, given that we are seeing what appears to be a co-ordinated effort to target Jewish sites, will my noble friend the Minister outline what the Government are doing to prevent further incidents, including disrupting the networks and methods being used to organise these distressing, frightening and dangerous attacks?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, whose point goes to the heart of intelligence-led policing. We need to look, through intelligence and the security services, who do a great job, at who is behind motivating these attacks, the actors who are undertaking them and whether they are being supported or directed by other state organisations, and we need to take action accordingly. The security services, the police and the Home Office are constantly on that ball, trying to ensure that we find out who are the perpetrators and stopping attacks as well as dealing with the consequences.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My noble friend Lord Palmer quoted his local rabbi as saying that this is unacceptable for us as a nation. That is what I would like to emphasise. The Minister has given us an account of a lot of the good work that the Government have done, but I cannot help thinking that we are not really getting down to the roots. Even the title of the Statement is “Antisemitic Attacks”, which is a bit precise. Antisemitism is a virus, as has been said, that ideally we want to cure, but first we have to look at all the root causes and the way in which it is changing and mutating. We need something bigger and bolder to get across to the nation what is happening to the Jewish community, such as the Prime Minister going on television, if that is not a daft idea. We need to sock it to our fellow Brits just what the Jewish community is experiencing at the moment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The title of the Statement is what it is because my honourable friend the Security Minister wanted to make a Statement to the House of Commons straight after the events just over a week ago. He went to the House of Commons last week and we are discussing that Statement today. He also visited the synagogues, as did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Friday last week.
It is absolutely vital that politicians of all parties stand with the Jewish community and look at the very issues that the noble Baroness mentioned, which are the root causes. We have an antisemitism commissioner, my noble friend Lord Mann, reports coming through about what we need to do in the long term and the social cohesion strategy, which is funded by £800 million of taxpayers’ resource and is trying to bring together actions to make sure that we have the social cohesion that we want. We will also continue using intelligence-led policing to track down those who are undertaking this type of activity.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the statement by the late Sir Charles Farr and Sir John Jenkins in the last Muslim Brotherhood review undertaken by a UK Government, back in 2015, that the Muslim Brotherhood remains one of the largest drivers of antisemitism in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Self-evidently, at times, the Muslim Brotherhood undertakes activity that directs antisemitism. That is not acceptable. I was not a Minister when the report was received from Sir Charles Farr, whom I knew well when I was previously a Minister in the Home Office. We will look at that judgment and examine again what the noble Lord raised today.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister rightly said that it is vital for politicians of all parties to stand up against antisemitism. Does the Minister share my disgust at the comments of the leader of the Green Party, Mr Zack Polanski, who suggested that the problem was a “perception of unsafety” and antisemitism for the Jewish community? He suggested that antisemitism had been “weaponised” against Jeremy Corbyn as the former leader of the Labour Party. Does the Minister share my concern that the Green Party is now providing a home for antisemites?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Antisemitism is not a perception. People have died in Manchester as a result of antisemitism. It is not a perception; it is something that we have to tackle. The leader of the Green Party and the Greens can speak for themselves. I speak for the Labour Party, the Government and, I hope, the whole House when I say that antisemitism has no place in our society, we have to root it out and those who apologise for it are not fit to hold public office.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, I had the privilege of attending Kenton synagogue’s Friday night service last week. It happens to be my local synagogue, no more than two minutes from where I live. I heard huge concern among congregants not only about the recent attack at the synagogue but about their general feeling of insecurity as Jews, which is something that we urgently need to address. It is not acceptable that a community feels and is facing that fear.
The rabbi also spoke of the support and solidarity that they receive from the wider community. Can my noble friend the Minister give us more detail about how the Government, with other agencies, intend to promote positive interaction between communities as part of a long-term and sustainable future solution, so that the Jewish community is safe in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and I am also grateful for her work in supporting the Jewish community locally. It is vital that all of us in society, from whichever faith or none, support action against antisemitism and show solidarity with the Jewish community.
I refer my noble friend again to the social cohesion strategy that we have put in place. It looks at funding £800 million-worth of activity. Importantly, it has highlighted 40 key neighbourhoods where we need to work on social cohesion much more effectively and it is putting in resources to do that. I know that my noble friend will want to monitor the performance of that strategy, but I think it is a very good start. We continue to look at the challenges and will continue to learn lessons from how social cohesion operates at local level to look at how we can extend that to help support other communities where that social cohesion may not be as strong.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his support of the Jewish community and his keen understanding of what the Jewish community in this country is going through at the moment. There is no possibility of underestimating the complexity of this problem; we are all struggling with it. I offer the Minister one small, practical suggestion. There are venues and institutions—some public and some private—that are refusing Jewish performers and exhibitions. Anything remotely connected to Jewishness is being refused entry or permission to appear at these institutions, some of which are publicly funded and some licensed by local authorities.
They hide behind the issue of security, which is a real concern. Nevertheless, we are very proud in this country that we have always said—and we have been sorely tested—that we do not succumb to terrorism. This is very much an issue of these little institutions around the country succumbing to terrorists’ views and hiding behind the security issue. That is not right. It is something that the Government could address. It is also prevalent in our educational institutions, with speakers being cancelled and so on. That would be a small, practical step, but a signal that the Government are able to take action.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It would be difficult, under the Equality Act, for individuals to undertake the type of potential refusal that the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hear from a sedentary position the comment, “They are”. I recognise that individuals are, but hope that one of the things we could do is encourage that action not occurring. It is important, as part of this solidarity, that we allow people from various faiths—the Jewish faith and others—to celebrate their activities, actions and performances as part of our multicultural, socially cohesive society. I stand with the noble Lord and will reflect with colleagues and Ministers on how we can give practical action to that objective.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I will pick up on the notion that Islamic extremism lies behind this. This means—I hope the Minister agrees—that the Charity Commission should be investigating charities that support extremism and funnel money towards it. But behind that Islamic extremism lies the religion: religious teaching has brought us to this point. Let us not forget that all the Jews in the Middle East were thrown out of countries such as Yemen and Syria before Israel was established. Just as many Jews were expelled from the Middle East as Arab Palestinians left Palestine, on religious grounds. Jews were always second-class citizens in those countries, because that is what the religion prescribes.
That means that the Government must not stop inspecting and registering religious schools. I believe that there has been a movement to exempt them, but that would be absolutely wrong. If there are schools where children spend the whole day studying religion, they must be inspected. We must make sure that children get secular education and that they are not taught to hate. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Penny Mordaunt pointed that out in their report on antisemitism, and they asked the Church of England to make sure that children were not taught hostility.
I also hope that the Minister will condemn the possible motion of the Green Party, which was not put in the end, that Zionism is racism and that Israel should not exist. To have in this country a party that takes that attitude, presumably to attract the worst in society, is simply unacceptable. I look to this Government to condemn it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the noble Baroness’s first point, the Charity Commission is looking at a number of charities to ensure that they meet charitable objectives and are not fostering unacceptable activity.
The noble Baroness also mentioned inspecting schools. I will take that point away because, although I have responsibility for some issues, I do not have direct responsibility for that. I will report it to my colleague, the Minister responsible in the Department for Education.
On the noble Baroness’s last point, I will allow the Green Party to speak for itself. The Labour Party fought a long battle to try to rid itself of some aspects of antisemitism within its membership, and it succeeded in doing that. Some of those people are now turning up in other political parties. This is not acceptable. It should not be there and I hope that those responsible for political discourse will make sure that they take action within their party, as we did within ours.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend the Minister said. The virulence and violence of these attacks on our Jewish citizens is completely unacceptable, and the Government need to use all their agencies and power to clamp down on them. Does he agree that what is particularly dangerous about this current wave of antisemitic attacks is that it is joined by Islamophobic attacks and attacks on our Black citizens as well? We have had over the centuries antisemitism, pogroms and the persecution of Jewish communities, including in this country—not just in the Middle East but in Europe, Russia and right across the world. In more recent decades, we have also had attacks on our Black citizens. More recently, we have had attacks on our Muslim citizens. What is particularly dangerous is these three forms of attacks on parts of our community all coming together, and the Government need to try to confront them.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important to remember that. I may be a simple soul, but I want to have a society where people respect each other, are tolerant of each other’s lifestyles, share the same spaces, understand where people are coming from and their different religious perspectives, different colours and everything else, and live tolerant, productive lives in which we help to grow our economy, spend money from our resources and make sure that we have a cohesive, socially inclusive society. That is an objective.
The Government have a social cohesion plan, backed by £800 million, targeting 40 community areas. They want to do more to meet the very objectives that my noble friend mentioned. People from the Islamic faith should be able to celebrate their faith and to worship. People who are Black should be able to walk down the street free from attacks, as should members of our Jewish society. This Statement follows what happened in north London on a particular day last month, but the points made by my noble friend are valid for every section of society.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too am grateful for the funding provided by the Government. I declare my interest as a British Jew.
The Minister says there is no place in British life for antisemitism, but there clearly is. Jews are under attack. Antisemitism has been embedded in British discourse and in some areas of politics, emboldened by propaganda that has twisted perceptions. My family described exactly this happening in Germany in the 1930s as people vilified Jews who lived there, and had previously been their friends, on the basis of false perception. British students and young people now feel pressured to shun Jewish friends or colleagues. If they try to support Jews or do not denounce Israel, they are accused of supporting genocide or being baby killers. What violence or threats are British Jews guilty of? What unrest or anti-social behaviour have British Jews engaged in?
Will the Minister now recognise that the hate marches have led to such dangerous consequences? Will he ban them from now on? Will he also look into the reports of Jewish actors, singers or entertainers being banned from certain venues just because they are Jewish?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the first point that the noble Baroness mentioned, the question of hate marches, as I said in my earlier contribution, the Government have passed the Crime and Policing Bill, which is now heading for Royal Assent. It includes additional powers for the police to both ban and reroute marches. It is for the police to take those actions, not politicians. Where those actions lead to persistent hate marches, the police now have additional powers under what will be the Crime and Policing Act to take action on that.
As I said in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Grade, I will look at the issue of banning people from activities because of their religion. As the time for this Statement has now finished, I leave the House by saying that the Government strongly condemn antisemitism and will take whatever action they can to root it out and to support the Jewish community. I hope that we can work towards a cohesive society where people’s religion, colour or background does not cause violence against them or intimidation directed towards their behaviour or the way in which they choose to live their life. Everybody is individual and should be allowed to live their life to their full potential.
Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 March be approved.
Relevant document: 56th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I am in receipt of delinked payments. This instrument sets the reductions that will apply to delinked payments in England for the years 2026 and 2027. In doing so, it delivers our commitment to phase out these subsidies by the end of the seven-year agricultural transition period, as we redirect funding to our other schemes for farmers; 2027 will be the last year of delinked payments.
A regret amendment has been tabled expressing concern about the impact on farmers. The Government are committed to supporting our farmers and the vital role that they play. We will continue to invest in our farmers and land managers to make their businesses, food production and our country more sustainable and resilient for the years ahead. Reducing delinked payments is essential so that we can fund our other schemes which help us to achieve this.
Delinked payments do not address the underlying challenges affecting farm profitability. They do not support the healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water that is needed to produce good food. They do not promote innovation and do not provide good value for money.
The reductions to delinked payments will complete the move away from the previous scheme, which rewarded land ownership, with 50% of payments going to the largest 10% of farms. We are applying the reductions fairly, with higher reductions to amounts in the higher payment band. We announced the reductions last June to help farmers to plan.
The money released from delinked payments is being reinvested in the sector. Farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year over the period 2026-27 to 2028-29 through the farming and countryside programme, and up to £400 million from additional nature schemes, including those for tree planting and peatlands. This includes increasing annual funding for the environmental land management schemes, from £1.8 billion in 2025-26 to more than £2 billion by 2028-29. This means that we are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history to support them to help restore nature and boost farm productivity. Some 50,000 farm businesses and half of all farmed land are now managed under our environmental land management schemes.
Earlier this year, we announced plans for our new sustainable farming incentive offer, which will ensure that more farmers can access funding. A range of improvements will be introduced to make SFI26 simpler, more streamlined and easier to navigate. The new offer will continue to support sustainable farming by strengthening the environmental foundations of farm profitability and our long-term food security.
Last September, the new Countryside Stewardship higher tier opened for applications to those who have been invited to apply, have received pre-application advice and have completed any preparatory work. Landscape recovery projects that were awarded development funding in rounds 1 and 2 are continuing to progress towards the delivery phase. Plans for a third round will be confirmed in due course.
The latest round of the environmental land management capital grant offer will open in July this year, backed by £225 million in funding. That is 50% more than was available in 2025. We have also announced plans for £120 million in innovation and productivity grants for 2026-27. Such grants can help the sector access cutting-edge technology and techniques, such as robotic weeders, which reduce chemical use in our countryside and help farmers grow more food. This funding forms part of the Government’s commitment to invest at least £200 million in agricultural innovation by 2030 to improve productivity and trial new technology as part of the UK’s modern industrial strategy.
We will be spending up to £30 million over three years on a new approach to farm collaboration and advice. We are working with Dr Hilary Cottam to develop a place-based approach for upland communities. We have also extended the farming and protected landscapes programme for another three years, until March 2029. We want to continue to work in partnership with the sector. We have established a farming and food partnership board, which brings together voices from farming, food, retail and finance to drive profitability, building on the recommendations in the Farming Profitability Review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters.
We have also been engaging with farmers and stakeholders on a 25-year farming road map, which will set up the Government’s long-term vision for farming, giving farmers the clarity they need to plan ahead. This Government want farm businesses that are productive, profitable and resilient, while contributing to food security and nature recovery. The reductions to delinked payments are essential to enable us to make the planned investments in the future of farming and the countryside.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Roborough
At end insert “, but this House regrets that the draft Regulations will likely result in further financial difficulties for farmers, who have not had enough time to plan for them in advance; and that it remains unclear how the savings from the reductions to delinked payments will be reallocated to support farmers.”
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I first draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer and landowner who is also in receipt of delinked and other government payments. I am very grateful to the Government Chief Whip for moving this debate to a civilised time this evening; I think that is much appreciated by all noble Lords. I thank the Minister for outlining this SI, although we regret its introduction. Indeed, it is now at the end of this Session that we are about to lose significant agricultural expertise from this House, which keenly understands the impact of legislation such as this on the ground and in our close-knit communities.
When in government, we replaced the basic payment scheme with delinked payments based on historic BPS claims. We intended this to be gradually phased out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods, as outlined by the Minister. The reductions we put in place put these delinked payments on a gradual glide path to zero in 2028. This Government dramatically accelerated that decline last year and have continued at a similar rate this year. This, in effect, ends the seven-year transition well before the 2028 deadline that farmers had been led to expect, undermining their budgeting.
We support the long-term transition, but not at this accelerated pace. Conflict in the Middle East has caused uncertainty over fuel prices and fertiliser and a shortage of industrial CO2. Grain prices remain at low levels, undermining profitability for our arable farmers. However, it is not just external factors that are adding pressure to farmers. Deliberate choices made by this Government have left farmers more vulnerable. The early closure of the SFI application window last year, the family farm and business tax, increased employer national insurance, and the Government’s refusal to consider our cheap power plan to lower energy costs all have a cumulative impact.
I note that the Government are set to spend £100 million to reopen the Ensus bioethanol plant in Teesside to mitigate CO2 disruptions. But this might not have been necessary had the Prime Minister not, in effect, sold out the UK’s bioethanol industry at the last minute in the UK-US trade deal. These plants provided a valuable source of demand for our farmers producing wheat. Closing them down to benefit American ethanol producers means that we are now supporting American maize or corn farmers at the expense of our own farmers. The deal reduced British tariffs on a quota of 1.4 billion litres of US ethanol, when the total market size for bioethanol in the UK was coincidentally 1.4 billion litres. These are not events outside the UK’s control; these are government choices. This SI reduces the direct financial support farmers receive at a time they need it most.
Ultimately, this SI does not help farmers precisely at a time when global events and this Government’s choices threaten their viability—let alone profitability. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend and challenge the Government on how they are going to spend the money they are going to allocate. While I can understand the wish to have a transition, it is right that it has to be done at a sensible pace. The really big disappointment of the farming community is that the alternative schemes the Government are bringing in are not the kind of schemes that are particularly attractive to many farmers or that promote the production of more domestic food.
I would hope that the Government will have a rethink now. Do the Government not understand there is currently a crisis in world trade and the supply of food in the months ahead because of the difficulties of getting fertiliser out of the Gulf area, the damage being done to chemical and fertiliser plants by more than one war and by the very acute trade disruption with no immediate signs of being resolved? Those I have heard from in the farming industry tell me that not only are fertiliser prices extremely high but there is no visibility as to when they will be able to buy serious quantities of fertiliser again at sensible prices. As we know, without proper fertiliser applications, yields will plunge and there will be a further shortage in food provision.
It is a tragedy that this century there has been a big decline in the amount of home-produced food that farms have been able to make because of the grant choices of the EU and successive United Kingdom Governments. I would have thought that now is a wonderful opportunity for a rethink to place at the very centre of agricultural subsidy policy, in line with many other countries around the world, the need for more domestic, reliable supply and production.
The Minister reminded us that some small pots are available for those important topics of innovation and new technology. I agree that there can be a new agrarian revolution; it was this country that launched the original one. There is now huge scope for mechanisation with robotics and drones and all the other things that can come in. However, the amount of money being offered in these small grant schemes is very small and unambitious. We have some great farms and some great farmers. Many of them would like to have access to serious money for that big investment and that pioneering technology that could start to make the difference.
I urge the Government to think again: put food production as the central issue that we need to deal with; understand the urgency of the collapse both in British farming and in the wider world market because of the interruptions to fertiliser and other chemicals; and do something to make available the money they are saving by the rundown of the existing ground system in a more intelligent and purposeful way, so that farmers can get decent money to rebuild their ability to feed us.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, my maiden speech in 2019 was on the impact of Brexit on food and agricultural produce, with a focus consistent with my interests as a Devon farmer on the Devon cream tea. It is fitting that my final words are on matters agricultural and the delinked payments regulations—the final decoupling of our agricultural subsidy regime from the common agricultural policy.
When I joined the House, one of the silver linings of the Brexit storm clouds was the promise of autonomy over agricultural policy, which we sought to deliver through the Agriculture Act—scrutinised largely online during those dark days of the pandemic. The birth of environmental land management and the sustainable farming incentive promised a brave new world of public money for public goods, under which the blunt instrument of CAP area payments would be replaced by the agile deployment of Defra’s budget to allow British farming to increase productivity and sustainability in equal measure.
During the passage of that Bill, this House reiterated multiple times the long-term nature of agricultural business and the need for certainty and continuity in government policy to enable farmers to adjust their business models at an appropriate pace, consistent with the annual harvest cycle, their very narrow margins and their necessarily long-term investment strategies. Despite the hard work of many at Defra and the Rural Payments Agency, that continuity has not materialised. Farm and food businesses have been battered not only by the pandemic and by wars in Ukraine and Iran, but by extreme climatic events, drought, flooding and government policy that has become even less clement than the weather.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who lives in Devon, I look forward to a long period of the cream teas of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for which he will regrettably have more time to produce as a result of the delinking of the hereditary peerage and the legislative process of this country.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement, and several things strike me. The first is that this assault on the rural community and the farming community is not a perception but a reality. We have seen farm incomes shrinking year on year, rapid increases in costs—not least, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Redwood, the problems we now confront with fertiliser, which are very serious indeed—as well as the tremendous growth in bureaucracy, the chopping and changing of government policies, and the bringing forward of this latest government policy, which creates huge amounts of paperwork for farmers who should be out there farming.
The missed opportunity presented by this rethink on farming in this country concerns me. At a time when we should be looking long term at food security and food production, we seem to be thinking in the short term. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to encourage younger people to come into the industry just at a time when we are seeing it getting older, with more and more people giving up—or wanting to give up—their farms? What hope can she hold out to a younger generation that there is a career and a life in farming for them as well? What more can she do to encourage the land-based colleges up and down the country, which have often suffered from very poor financial support, to get younger people into the industry? Only in that way will we preserve the landscape in the way that she envisages.
We can divert every kind of subsidy into all these initiatives—I have no problem with some of those at all—but, at the end of the day, it is a manmade landscape that we enjoy. It is made and preserved by the land managers and the farmers. Without them, it will not continue to exist, and nor will the food on which we have come to depend.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Devon, this is my final speech in the Chamber, so it is a rather poignant moment. It feels rather odd speaking on this topic today—as if, after 24 years, I have come full circle. I found this rather interesting report when I cleared my desk last week, which was written by a chap called Curry in 2002. Let me read a sentence from page 23:
“The guiding principle must be that public money should be used to pay for public goods that the public wants and needs: remaining price supports and associated production controls must go; direct payments should be phased out as quickly as possible”.
Here we are, 24 years later, completing that process.
The journey to this point has been anything but straightforward. I must say that, 10 years after leaving the European Union and 10 Secretaries of State in Defra later, successive Governments have failed to provide the leadership that the farming industry deserves. We had a unique opportunity, whether or not one agreed with Brexit, to write a new script and to design a plan to deliver all the public goods that
“the public wants and needs”,
to use the phrase in the report. What we have had is 10 years of dithering, indecision and procrastination. Of course we had Covid to disrupt the process, but here we are, still with no plan, vision or clarity on our future ambitions for this crucial industry of ours. To give the current Government some credit, we now have a land-use framework after five years of gestation, and the promise of a farming road map, which the Minister mentioned. Meanwhile, farmers are left in limbo, unclear of what is expected of them. The transition journey is ending with this debate, but the train does not have a destination.
What, therefore, are the public goods that the public need and want, which farmers and land managers can deliver? We have wrestled with this definition of public goods, and with which public goods require government intervention because there is no functioning market for them. Carbon markets are still immature, and natural capital is still a great idea, but most environmental outcomes still require government intervention: restoring and maintaining habitats, cleaning up and managing water, carbon sequestration and so on. We need clean air, clean water and healthy soils. One outcome that farmers can deliver, and are delivering, successfully is renewable energy. We certainly do not need any further financial inducements to deliver that, particularly solar. I hope that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has read the land-use framework document and begins to think about it before completely ignoring local opinion when he blindly signs off every large solar application to cross his desk.
The $64,000 question is about food, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, has stated. If, as the Government have recognised, food security is national security, what does this mean? Food is the outcome from the management of the countryside that most farmers want to deliver; it is why they came into farming. So if it is a public good—I think the Government now accept that it is—is there a functioning market that supports the production of food at a price that provides farmers with an adequate return without government intervention? This, it seems to me, is the fundamental question, and it was of course the challenge given to the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. We wait with keen interest for the Government’s response to her important report.
Two factors are important. For the market to function well, it requires fair competition, so there is a need for an adjudicator to oversee a market dominated by powerful players. I welcome the move of the GSCOP adjudicator to Defra. I hope this will lead to much stronger links to the sectoral adjudicators and a more forensic monitoring of market behaviour. The wider scheme also ought to include the processing sector, which it does not at present.
The second factor is that a well-functioning market requires a level playing field, with imports being produced to the same or equivalent standards as we have here. Despite regular reassurances that the new trade deals are robust, I am still concerned about this. The only way to be satisfied is to carry out a thorough and regular audit of supply chains in countries of origin, which requires resources and audit not only of food safety standards but of environmental measures and animal welfare standards so that trade can compete fairly.
Having satisfied ourselves on supply chain relationships and achieved a level playing field on imports, is it possible to produce food profitably without subsidisation? The most efficient farmers can—at least some of the time. Skills, training and technical knowledge are important. TIAH has been established to help with skills. Access to scientific knowledge is important, as are benchmarking, having excellent business skills, adding value wherever possible, applying risk management tools, and so on. Producing what the market wants is critical, particularly having access to local markets and the public sector. All these need to be in place, and the Government need to help.
Do we need to reconsider our attitude to subsidies? I do not think we should go back to direct subsidisation of food production. It distorts markets, distorts behaviour and puts developing countries at a serious disadvantage. However, there is much more we could do to assist farmers in their commitment to produce food, which is also in the nation’s interest. I have been struck recently, when rummaging through old documents, by how influential the development grant schemes were that I and most farmers took advantage of in the 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s to improve our facilities and build fences, buildings, equipment, et cetera.
To extend the SFI application process to embrace and include productivity support, rather than a separate productivity grant scheme—to help improve business efficiency, alongside environmental management and environmental protection measures—would deliver multiple outcomes from a multifunctional landscape through a combined scheme. With today’s online technology, it would not cost much more to administer than the current complex mix of schemes we have. Every farm business should have the opportunity to participate, either individually or through a combined collaborative scheme. This should include tax allowances appropriate for investments. The Treasury should recognise the critical importance of this industry of ours and the importance of producing food.
After introducing the entry-level scheme following this report, we achieved over 70% participation in stewardship schemes. We have regressed since then. The current uncertainty and stop-start processes with the SFI will not deliver the landscape improvements in environmental management, including the species improvement and restoration that we need. Whole catchments need to be included and every farm needs to engage. All the agencies need to work together—all of them—to agree plans for the Wye Valley, the Tees Valley, the chalk streams and, importantly, the Tyne Valley. The list goes on.
We need to be bold in developing a new vision for farming and the management of the countryside that is agreed in partnership with the sector—I hope the Minister will confirm that the new partnership board will be given the authority it needs to develop that—not imposed upon it by government, so that it has ownership and buy-in: a vision that gives every farmer the opportunity to deliver the vital outcomes that the countryside is capable of, including wholesome and healthy food. In fact, most of it is in this report.
I add my thanks, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, did, to the whole team here in the House of Lords: the doorkeepers, the clerks, the staff and the restaurant staff—everybody who has made my life very easy. It has been a pleasure to work with them and to have their support, and a great honour to be a Member of this House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I would like to pay a personal tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. Along with my sponsor, the late Lord Plumb, of Coleshill, he has long stood out as being so knowledgeable about farming and the countryside. He has given immense and dedicated service to this House over so many years, and he is a local lad who has done his county proud. We shall all miss him greatly, and we thank him for his great service.
I also pay tribute to the outgoing hereditary Peers and their knowledge, which passes through generations, as we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am probably the first and last member of my family who will enter Parliament or politics, so I am in awe of those who have served with such longevity. They have all made a massive contribution and will be greatly missed.
I echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, on the impact that the clean energy proposals will have on farming and the countryside, taking probably about 10% of land each year out of food production. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Redwood, farming is essential. We are only 60% self-sufficient in this country, and in certain fruit and vegetable cases we are only 55% self-sufficient, so it is a diminishing asset if we lose the land to clean energy proposals.
Last week the Minister responded to a Question from me on the SFI and whether farmers would benefit. I am not entirely convinced that she grasped the point—just made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle—about recognising this as a public good and rewarding farmers for temporarily storing floodwater on farmland. We cannot expect them to do it; they are not operating as a charity. They are trying to make money in very difficult circumstances—we are potentially facing another drought this year, given the rainfall this month—so we need to have a defined understanding of how their contribution will be recognised through the SFI.
I have particular concerns about these regulations, and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Roborough brought the amendment for debate. I am concerned about two aspects in particular. First, before 1 January 2025, approximately 83,000 farm holdings were receiving the basic payment scheme before the change to delinked payments in England came into effect. After 1 January 2025, there were 32,200 active SFI agreements, with a growing number of businesses having more than one agreement due to how the scheme is administered by the RPA. That immediately demonstrates that there are probably fewer farmers with SFI agreements than even that number suggests. My second concern is about the lack of clarity we can expect when SFI 2027 comes into effect. The Minister is very aware of rural issues, given her previous constituency representation. There will be real hardship, as my noble friend Lord Roborough indicated, and I will address that.
I represented quite a large upland area for the last five years I was in the other place, and I am currently patron of Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services. I make a plea to the Minister to be as absolutely clear as the Government can be as to how the schemes will apply for common land, to upland farmers and to tenant farmers. In north Yorkshire in particular, about 48% of the farms are tenanted and, when a solar panel scheme takes a big chunk of the tenanted farm out of production, that leaves them with very little area on which they can claim. I hope that the Minister, in summing up, will look carefully at the gap between the existing schemes remaining in force, and the fact that if you are in an existing scheme, you are probably unable to apply: you are locked out of an environmental scheme until early 2028 at the earliest.
The pace at which basic farm payments are declining and the rate at which the new schemes are coming into effect will pose very real issues of hardship for farmers. I hope that that is an aspect that the Minister will address when she sums up the debate on these regulations.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I cannot compete with the noble Earl, Lord Devon. First of all, I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, and my receipt of delinked payments.
The first Lord Carrington, the third Lord Carrington and the sixth Lord Carrington were all Ministers of agriculture. The most famous of them was the third Lord Carrington, a Liberal, who introduced a policy of smallholdings for farmers during the Boer War and the First World War. That policy seems to be the guiding light for what the Government are currently doing on the SFI payments—concentrating on the small farmers with 50 hectares or less, rather than the larger farmers, who will be capped, if they get money at all, at £100,000.
I am speaking very much as a working, hands-on farmer, and I must say that I have never seen anything quite like it in all the 50 or more years that I have been involved in farming. I want to just bring to the attention of the House some of the real horror stories that are going on, even as we speak. They are based on what we are doing on our farm. We have decided for the first time ever not to plant spring crops, because we cannot risk the weather remaining as dry as it is, and therefore the crops not germinating. We are having tremendous trouble not so much in getting fertiliser, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, mentioned, but in getting red diesel. The price of red diesel is the real crucifier of most farmers in this country at the moment. Then, of course, we have the prices for the commodities that we are producing, all of which make leaving the land fallow the best option for us.
In East Anglia, in Norfolk, I gather, crops of wheat are currently being irrigated. That is a very expensive exercise for a crop that is not going to produce a great deal of money. We grow potatoes, and we have reduced our potato acreage considerably due to prices. We had a very good harvest last year, but prices worldwide are terrible. Now we have the potential problem of the SPS agreement. Under the SPS agreement, certain chemicals are going to be banned. If you buy a packet of crisps, that crisp will actually have been taken from a potato three years ago, and the chemicals that will have been used will be banned under the new SPS agreement, unless the Government get a waiver. That means, of course, that those potatoes will go straight into an anaerobic digester, if they cannot be sold.
A similar problem exists for sugar beet. Sugar beet is very susceptible, as everyone knows, to virus yellows; it is estimated that 60% of all sugar beet grown in this country is affected by virus yellows. There are very few other profitable break crops, which means that the following year you will not be able to get the yields you want out of wheats, and so on and so forth. So it is a pretty drastic situation out there.
I am a very lucky farmer, as we are fortunate to live in the murder capital of England. We have filming for “Midsomer Murders” going on even as we speak, and that is much more profitable than a crop of wheat. I am also in a part of the country where we can grow houses. I am lucky, but others are not so fortunately placed in the farming world.
All this, of course, makes the Government’s byline, “Food security is national security”, almost worthless. I am therefore going to ask just one question of the Minister. It is driven by the fact that farmers need to plan, and what we are getting at the moment is not nearly sufficient to enable us to plan for the future. Can the Minister reassure the House on how Ministers and the department are supporting farmers to business plan now by providing forward plans of the SFI and countryside stewardship higher-tier schemes, as they are offered in both 2027 and 2028? Only with that information can we make sense of our farming.
Like everybody else, I thank noble Lords very much for all the support they have given us hereditaries. I will still be here, but sitting on the steps of the Throne rather than in the Chamber.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to declare my interest as a member of a farming company and also involved in the fertiliser industry, which was mentioned a little earlier. Fertilisers and fuel are farmers’ most expensive costs, and we see unprecedented increases ahead of them, on top of three bad harvests in a row.
I want to dwell for a moment on the SFI and the capped payments. What capped payments do is reward inefficiency; they militate against investment, efficiency, productivity, progress and scale. All the things that farming over many generations has contributed to this nation are at risk of being thrown away carelessly by the capped payments that these regulations will impose.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, mentioned the land use framework. It is going to be a disaster for farming and terrible for food security. It contemplates in table 1 that fully 1.7 million hectares of productive land will be removed from agriculture, out of a total of 9.6 million hectares. That is about a fifth—and, at £2,000 per hectare gross income, which is what, on average, a mixed farm would hope to gain, it represents a £3.4 billion hit to the rural economy. We cannot afford this in terms of food security and we cannot afford it economically. That £3.4 billion loss is out of a £13.9 billion total gross value added from agriculture. It is between one-fifth and one-quarter of the entire economic output of agriculture in our islands, in all its forms: arable, livestock, fruit, veg, grains and so forth. It is a fantasy to think that somehow, magically—it is magical thinking—we are going to have a 20% efficiency improvement. This adds to further insults with the APR/BPR issue, and the fact that farmers can have their land compulsorily purchased from under them, under the NSIP regime for solar, destroying the credibility and capacity of farms already under pressure: pressures aggravated by the cash flow problems from SFI.
It is hard to get fertiliser as it is in this nation—it is my trade; I know how difficult it is to secure the cargoes, fighting off the rest of the world—yet this Government, by choice, are going to make it even harder to get fertiliser delivered to this nation to support our farmers and underpin our food security with the introduction of insane carbon taxes that will add rocket boosters to the food price inflation that is already barrelling down the tracks.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, listening to this debate, it becomes apparent just how diverse our nation’s agriculture is. For every remark by one speaker, there is probably someone who knows about agriculture in a different part of the country, in a different sector, where it is not directly relevant. But the message that comes across—and I declare my interests in agriculture in Cumbria, which the Minister knows about—has the same effect: what ought to be a profitable activity, providing public goods, which is not merely food but a whole range of other things, becomes unsustainable quite simply because it does not pay. It does not matter how you look at this; at the end of the year, if income and expenditure do not balance, then that enterprise cannot survive for all that long.
I think that government has an important role to play in every advanced western society. The Government provide a framework around which farming, agriculture and land use functions, not least because the consequences of what is done are so important in widely varying ways to other parts of the economy. What worries me about the debates on agriculture in this country is that, if agriculture is not sustainable and if the businesses, be they big or small, become unsustainable and cannot survive on their own commercial terms, either because they cannot generate enough revenue from husbandry or other land use activities that they carry out, or, equally important, because of the incidence of tax that they will have to pay—it is no good thinking that an inheritance tax is a kind of one-off thing; the reality is that you have to put aside money year on year in order to build up a reserve or, alternatively, borrow money which then has to be paid off over a long period to pay off the debt that is owed to the state—we will continue in a world where many of those who are operating in a smaller way in the agricultural sector are on standards of living below those promised to the employed sector by the minimum wage.
That is not the basis for a long-term, sustainable, rural, agricultural food sector. I believe that we will end up, if we are not careful, in those kinds of circumstances, because the analysis that is necessary behind working out what the policy needs to be is not the kind of thing that is simply learned in an economics course or an agricultural economics course at a university. It depends on an understanding of the realities of what carrying out this business entails. My concern about the context of the debate this evening is that policy is not being made with sufficient understanding and recognition of the realities of what is underlying this whole part of the economy. If you do that, it will not work. Already in agriculture, the rate of return that people expect is probably 2% or 3%. Who in the commercial world—I have chaired some commercial companies—will invest getting the rates of return that you get from agriculture?
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It was fine; they are good words. But good words are not enough here. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who normally sits across the Chamber, said on a number of occasions, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. The litmus test for agricultural policy, like every other policy, is: is it engendering a sector of the economy that is working in the public interest? I am deeply concerned that the way in which it is being approached by the present Administration is not going to bring that about.
Finally, as somebody who is also about to leave, I would like to add my sentiments to what a number of others have said about the way in which the whole infrastructure of the House has supported my work here. I make a particular reference to the nurse, whose name I never knew, who identified that I got sepsis and sent me straightaway to hospital.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Sorry, I was so fascinated—I was pondering the thought.
I thank the Minister for setting out with such clarity this statutory instrument and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for bringing forward his regret amendment, which has created an opportunity for a much broader-ranging and, I think we can agree, interesting debate. It has been an absolute privilege to be here for the last speeches by, for instance, the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Inglewood. I had the great privilege of working with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on various issues—sometimes we did not agree on one or two of them, it must be said—and with my colleague on the Conduct Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which is a fairly typical in-the-background public service to protect the reputation of this place, for which he should be thanked and we should be enormously grateful. It is fitting that we have heard from so many experts, particularly on this area.
On the regulations before us, the Liberal Democrats have long accepted the case for moving away from the basic payment scheme, a system based largely on land ownership, which was never the right long-term foundation in our view for supporting agriculture. We support the principle of transition towards a system that rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods, restoring nature, improving soil health and strengthening resilience in the face of the climate emergency. However, support for reform cannot mean a blank cheque for the way that it is implemented. In a way, the question before us tonight is not whether the change is needed but whether this stage of the transition is being managed in a way that is fair, predictable and sustainable for those most affected; we have heard evidence that it is not.
The first concern is the pace and scale of the reductions. Delinked payments were intended to provide a degree of stability during a period of significant change, yet many farmers, as we have heard from this debate, now face a position in which support is being reduced more quickly than they are able to plan for and than viable alternatives are becoming available. For businesses operating on tight margins, that creates enormous pressure on cash flow and on long-term planning. A transition, as we know, that is too abrupt, risks undermining the very resilience it is expected and hoped to build.
Secondly, there is the question of where the money is going. I appreciate that the Minister set out some of this in her opening remarks, but the NFU—I thank it for its briefing—has made clear that there are some concerns about where the money is being allocated from these changes. It says that there remains a lack of clarity, and in some cases confidence, about whether funding is reaching farmers in practice at the scale and pace required.
Thirdly, there is the impact on different types of farm. Smaller and family-run farms are often less able to absorb sudden changes in income or navigate complex new schemes. If this transition is not carefully managed, there is a risk that support will become unevenly distributed, with some farms better placed than others to adapt. We have heard already about the economic consequences of that.
There is the wider point about the link between agricultural support and environmental outcomes. We believe the shift away from direct payment is justified in part by the promise of a more sustainable and environmentally focused system, but that promise depends on delivery. If funding gaps, uncertainty or administrative complexity prevent farmers participating fully in new schemes, we risk weakening farm viability and environmental progress at the same time. The position of these Benches is therefore balanced; we support the direction of travel towards a more sustainable and environmentally grounded system of agricultural support, but we share the concerns of this Chamber that the current approach risks getting the transition wrong.
I have three brief questions but, as we are nearly at the end of the Session, if the Minister wishes to answer in writing, I would be more than happy to receive that. First, what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of these reductions on farm incomes over the next two years? What safeguards are in place to prevent otherwise viable farms being pushed into financial difficulty? Secondly, can the Minister provide a clear and transparent account of how savings from reduced delinked payments are being reallocated, including how much has reached farmers through environmental schemes to date? Thirdly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that smaller farmers are not disproportionately disadvantaged in this transition? I particularly refer the Minister to paragraph 78 of the 56th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that we ask her
“about the financial impact of the transition to the new support schemes, especially on small farmers”.
These are very practical questions.
In closing, I return to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. It has been an absolute honour working with him on opposite Benches. We had a bit of a reminisce about a mean old fatal Motion that I chucked his way about a year ago on exactly this issue—I reminisced more fondly than he did. Having these kinds of amendments and ensuring that this kind of discussion takes place is critical for the issues we have heard about this evening, so I thank him for raising this.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to this debate. A number of broad concerns have been raised that I will do my best to address now. For any outstanding specific questions, we will look at Hansard and ensure that we write to noble Lords with more detailed responses.
The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way to support our farmers, protect food security or restore nature. We should continue to invest in the environmental land management schemes and the range of grants and other support for farmers which deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity.
Concerns were raised about farm profitability and the impacts on farmers of the phasing out of direct payments. I will go over some of this. We recently published our 2025 farming and countryside programme evaluation report, which sets out an assessment of the impacts of the first three years of phasing out direct payments. It includes a detailed look at the key transition channels for the sector, which include rents, diversification income, income from agri-environment schemes and productivity improvements.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to hear the final contributions of departing noble Lords who have been such stalwart supporters of the rural economy. It is a huge loss both to the House and to the rural economy, which will have a much-diminished voice in debates in this place, when there is limited representation in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has had a most distinguished record in this House since 2011 and outside it. The Curry commission report in 2002 was remarkable in that the Government accepted 101 of the 105 recommendations, and it marked the beginning of the shift towards environmental stewardship and sustainable farming. I am also personally grateful to the noble Lord for following my maiden speech and making kind comments without any preparation or indeed ever having met me before, after my listed follower failed to make it to the Chamber in time.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will also be much missed for his contributions to rural economy debates in this House. Within my own brief tenure, among many other things, he won an important amendment to the Renters’ Rights Act, ensuring that farm businesses are able to continue offering accommodation. It is also a great shame that we are losing the Lord Great Chamberlain from full membership of this House.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, took his place only shortly before I took mine. I have enjoyed his erudite contributions to debate, displaying not just his keen interest in the rural economy but his formidable legal brain, which was on display again today. The noble Earl’s family is one of the longest serving in Parliament and has been a consistent and powerful voice for my native Devon.
It has been evident to me in my brief tenure that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has been a similar voice for Cumbria. Of course, the Minister remains a stalwart Cumbrian resident and spokesperson.
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. It has been a wide-ranging debate about the rural economy. Her reply demonstrated her sympathy and empathy with the issues in the rural economy, and I think that we are all much heartened by the fact that she is in her place, within a Government who perhaps do not have all those sympathies themselves.
I make just one point in closing. The long-term road maps are all very well, but the farming industry, and particularly the arable sector, is in crisis at the moment. The figures that were quoted for the two fiscal years ending 2023 and 2024 were generally quite good years for the industry, and 2025 and 2026, particularly for the arable sector, will look very different.
I am grateful to all who have contributed to this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, next we are due to consider the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which has come from the other place. The window for tabling amendments will be open until 9.10 pm. We will adjourn during pleasure until a point announced on the annunciator.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:22 - Division on Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 145 - Motion B1 agreed.
22:34 - Division on Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 145 - Motion C1 agreed.
22:46 - Division on Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E) - Ayes: 58 / Noes: 138 - Motion E1 disagreed.
22:57 - Division on Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F) - Ayes: 199 / Noes: 144 - Motion F1 agreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2C.
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, B1, C, C1, D, E, E1, F and F1. 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 again thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments that remain in scope for ping-pong.
On Motion A, relating to Amendment 2, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke so clearly on the importance of rural affairs during our last debate. In particular, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for her contributions. As your Lordships will know, the Government’s position has been that these matters are already captured within the existing areas of competence. Nevertheless, we have heard the concerns put forward by noble Lords that rural affairs may be marginalised or ignored. We recognise that, as devolution is extended beyond the predominantly urban areas of England, it will be necessary for strategic authorities to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wider range of geographies, including rural and coastal areas. The Government have therefore accepted the addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the areas of competence. I hope that, on this basis, your Lordships will feel that their concerns have been addressed and that we can proceed in a spirit of consensus on this matter.
On Motions F and F1, relating to the amendments regarding the ministerial powers of direction, the Government have been clear that we will work with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local areas. To that end, we have already committed not to commence powers to direct the establishment of a combined authority or a combined county authority for a period of two years following Royal Assent. This will provide sufficient time for areas that do not currently have devolution agreements to develop workable proposals based on sensible geographies.
At the same time, we have listened and responded to concerns from noble Lords in this House about the scope of backstop powers set out in Schedule 1. We recognise that it will be important that non-mayoral authorities will have the opportunity to build capacity, capability and effective partnership working before taking on the deepest powers and funding at mayoral level. For this reason, the Government are removing the power for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent. I hope that noble Lords can see that the Government have listened to concerns.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion E1, as an amendment to Motion E. I have listened very carefully to what the Minister, who I hold in the highest regard, has said this evening. But I am disappointed that the other place continues to disagree with our amendment—in its view, because it is not necessary to make provision in primary legislation about the agent of change principle.
It would be helpful at the outset to understand what the agent of change principle is. For example, say the Minister operates a successful business, possibly a nightclub or a music venue, then I come along, as a developer of a block of flats or a housing project. I am then the agent of change. At the time that I seek planning permission, I should ensure at that point that any mitigation measures required are considered at that stage and that the costs be absorbed into the cost of the development.
Most mitigation measures relate to noise, but there could be other forms of nuisance too. The previous amendment reflected the situation that currently exists in that regard in England and broadened the concept of nuisance. Amendments 94F and 94G narrow this down to noise. In each case, this represents the position in Scotland, where a statutory provision came into force seven years ago and is seen to be working well. It gives a clear legal basis in statute for planning authorities and businesses to follow. All we seek to do is to put English law on the agent of change on the same statutory footing as exists successfully in Scotland.
The current situation is policy based on the National Policy Planning Framework, and guidance has no legal effect, delays planning decisions on houses and flats, which are so dear to the Government’s agenda, and causes a barrier to the Government’s growth strategy. The Government propose to review the NPPF and guidance and add a letter for local authorities to refer to—how nice. This will lead to a downward trajectory of business closures, predominantly but not exclusively music venues, to continue unabated.
Unless the Minister is able to give us a clear undertaking for a review of the current position in one year, with a commitment to introducing a statutory provision, I am minded to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I support the more focused amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the agent of change that deal only with the noise issue, primarily as it might and does affect grass-roots music venues.
A number of amendments to Bills that have been going through ping-pong recently have had guidance as their theme and the concern that guidance is or will not be enough. The amendment is perhaps a little unusual in that there are two sets of evidence: one that shows that, over a period of years, the existing guidance has not worked; and the other that shows that, over a period of seven years, a statutory solution—the Scottish solution—as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, set out, does work. Taken together, that is a powerful body of evidence as a whole.
I want to quote what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, who is in his place, said last week. He said that
“putting the agent of change principle around music venues in the Bill and making it a statutory provision will ultimately need to happen”.—[Official Report, 23/4/26; col. 792.]
Of course, the noble Lord led the fan-led review of live and electronic music for the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This amendment is so important for our music venues and the music industry, which in turn is such an important part of the industrial growth strategy. I will certainly support this amendment if the noble Baroness takes it to a vote.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion E1. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has explained the agent of change principle with characteristic clarity. I would have preferred the broader amendment that we passed on Report, which reflected the full range of ways in which new development can harm existing businesses, but I accept that the narrow amendment before us, focused on noise and closely modelled on Scotland’s statutory provision, is, as has been argued, the right next step.
As we have heard, the Government’s answer is a strengthened NPPF, updated guidance and a letter to local authorities. A letter has no legal effect, nor does guidance, and the result of years of policy without statute is plain to see: hundreds of Music Venue Trust interventions every year and a continuing downward trajectory of venue closures that show no signs of abating.
Scotland legislated seven years ago. In her previous speech the Minister pointed to a handful of ministerial call-ins as evidence that disputes persist. But a small number of orderly, legally grounded call-ins over seven years is not a system failing; it is a system working. Compare that with England, where hundreds of interventions are needed annually, simply to make guidance bite. The Music Venue Trust, the fan-led review, and people such as my colleague have reached the same conclusion. Scotland’s statute has brought clarity, compliance and fewer disputes. That is not a cautionary tale, it is a model.
Whatever the outcome today, I urge the Minister not to let this issue fade. If the interventions and the closures continue, please will she review this? When she does, will she take the statutory route seriously? In the meantime, should the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, wish to test the opinion of the House, I will support her.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I respect the views that have already been expressed. I also respect the views of the elected House on this matter, which have been expressed to us quite clearly on a number of occasions. This is an improved amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has put before us this evening.
I will simply say this. At some point it will become necessary to put this on a statutory basis, even if the Government do not seem ready to do so at this point. As part of the fan-led review, which I was commissioned to lead by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons, I visited every corner of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. One of the places where we held a round table was the Sub Club in Glasgow, which has benefited from the statutory provision of the agent of change principle in that residential flats have been built nearby in recent years and without any question the developers had to provide the mitigating measures that were necessary if they were going to be opening up residential properties next to an existing music venue with the existing noise—not noise nuisance but existing noise that was already generated by that valuable cultural institution in Glasgow.
As I have expressed clearly before, I think the right way forward would be to put this on a statutory basis. If the Government are not ready to do that and if this amendment is not successful—I appreciate that my report was published only last week and the Government will have to respond to it when the committee submits it to them for response—at the very least I hope that they will undertake a review of how these systems operate in Scotland, look at the recommendations in my report, and report back in due course to Parliament on their conclusions as to how the system is working in England in comparison with Scotland. It is my view that any dispassionate examination of that will find that putting these provisions on a statutory basis would be a better way forward.
However, I appreciate that the Government have accepted that the current system under guidance has not worked in an ideal way and want the opportunity to strengthen it and to prove that it can work in that way. If they undertake to review that and report back in due course, that would be an important step forward. On that basis, I very much welcome the comments from noble Lords and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, there have been four very powerful speeches on the agent of change principle. I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. If she decides to test the opinion of the House, she will have the support of these Benches.
Not a lot has changed as a result of the votes that we made last week; there has been some amelioration, but our views have not changed on brownfield land priority or on strengthening parish governance. I welcome any improvement to those that the Government are able to come up with and have come up with, but I think we have some movement yet to achieve.
I say thank you to the Minister on the question of rural affairs being a competence. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and to her colleagues in the other place for agreeing to our amendment on rural areas to be added as a competence of the Bill, and I am sure that those who live, work and enjoy rural areas for their recreation will find that this amendment will make a difference to the way in which the Bill affects their service delivery and environment.
I place on record too our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her support and that of her team on this particular issue. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington, from the Cross Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in particular has been a vociferous advocate for the consideration of rural areas over many years. I hope that he, like us, will feel a sense of achievement in at last getting rural affairs to be fully part of the Bill.
I have Motion C1, which relates to the governance structures of local authorities and in particular who decides what the governance structure should be. It is a disappointment to me that the House of Commons has not agreed with the amendment that I moved and which was agreed by your Lordships’ House last week. The central issue remains. The Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, so I ask the Government again: why cannot a community decide for themselves their own model of local governance for their local council?
The Minister in the other place said that the Government wanted to create
“strong local authorities that can deliver for their people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 265.]
It is the case that councils with committee systems do deliver for their people, and surely it is for local people to decide their governance structures. A committee system is more transparent and democratically accountable than a cabinet system, and it will involve more people—more elected councillors.
Since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the committee system has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together, because a committee structure engages all councillors with the decision-making processes of a local authority. The scrutiny system has not been that effective in local government because it tends to take place after a decision has been made. A committee will assess policy proposals before and as they are agreed.
In conclusion, this is a very simple issue. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it Ministers in Whitehall or local people? I submit that it is for local people to decide what they feel is best for their area. When we get to Motion C1, I will beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I agree with all the House’s alternative amendments, but I am going to speak just on Motion C1. I have spoken at every stage of the Bill on this issue.
Rather than repeat what I have said before, I will reflect on what the Minister said to us in putting the Government’s argument. She said that the Government retain a strong preference for the cabinet executive model and want a consistent model of governance all around the country. Well, I do not mind what the Government prefer. I do not mind what the Government’s view is. I just do not want the Government imposing that on communities up and down the land. Democracy, not dictatorship, is what this amendment is about. I urge everyone to back Motion C1.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to see that the Government have conceded, first, to add rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of competences for mayors. I extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for pressing ahead with this issue and for getting what she quite rightly argued for. It is crucial that our rural and coastal communities are not left behind or treated as merely secondary. They should be just as empowered as other communities throughout the Bill.
Turning to Motion B1 on brownfield land, our amendment in lieu sought to address the Government’s concerns about placing a clear prioritisation of brownfield development in legislation. I say it again: prioritising brownfield land is not simply a matter of preference. It is essential. We are a small island with finite land. The choices that we make about development are therefore not abstract. They go directly to how we protect our countryside, our agricultural capacity and, ultimately, our food security. Every acre of greenfield land lost to development is an acre no longer available for food production. In an increasingly uncertain world, where supply chains are fragile and global pressures on food are growing, it is short-sighted not to recognise the strategic importance of safeguarding that land.
This is not only about protection. It is also about opportunity. A “brownfield first” approach supports the renewal of our towns and cities, encourages sustainable city living and makes better use of the infrastructure that we already have. It is about bringing life back into urban areas rather than continually expanding outwards. It is therefore disappointing that the Government have not been willing to match their stated ambitions with action. Last week, the Minister said that spatial development strategies were only high-level documents. But let us be clear: they are the strategies that will inform local plans.
Furthermore, the Minister said that we should not judge the effectiveness of the brownfield policy prematurely by enshrining this principle into law. However, we believe that we should entrench the “brownfield first” approach from the start rather than look back, potentially years from now—years when more developments on greenfield land have taken place—to conclude that the Government should have done more to protect our greenfield land. For those reasons, I remain firmly of the view that a “brownfield first” approach should be embedded from the outset. Therefore, I intend to insist on our amendment and test the opinion of the House on Motion B1.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling Motion C1 on governance models again. It invites the House to consider the balance between consistency and local choice in local governance. We believe the Bill, as its title suggests, should tip the balance in favour of local choice. We support Motion C1 to leave out Clause 59. Removing the requirement for a leader and cabinet model would allow local authorities to adopt arrangements that reflect their communities and their circumstances. Local government is most effective when it can respond to the needs of its communities, and a single, prescribed model risks overlooking that diversity. Allowing councils to determine their own structures respects both their mandate and their judgment.
The same principle of local discretion brings me to town and parish council governance. I am very grateful to the Minister for her amendments and for the commitments made from the Dispatch Box. The requirement to engage with parish councils is a welcome and constructive step forward and we recognise the progress that has been made on this issue. However, engagement now must be meaningful and timely. Parish councils are a vital part of our local democratic fabric, and it is important that this duty translates into genuine involvement in practice. In that spirit, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to take this forward? Specifically, what plans are in place to begin engagement with sector bodies representing town and parish councils, and how will that engagement help shape implementation? If we get those assurances, we will support the Government’s way forward.
I move on to Motion E1 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I have spoken before on the merits of her original amendments, and I am grateful for her dedication to this issue. That said, we have listened carefully to the reasons outlined by the Minister. We hope that more work can be done on this issue to ensure that new developments integrate well with existing communities and with businesses, but by narrowing this amendment to just noise, and particularly to music, we have great concern that the other issues—such as smell, light from existing businesses, et cetera—that were originally in the amendments will be negatively impacted, because the agent of change would relate only to noise. We have concerns around that and think that more work should be done on this issue. Therefore, as the Motion stands, we cannot support it.
Finally, I move on to Motion F1. I also note that the Government have tabled amendments in lieu to remove the powers in Schedule 1 for the Secretary of State to directly provide for a mayor for an existing authority without local consent. This is welcome, and I thank the Minister that we are making progress on this issue. However, we will insist on our amendments to challenge the further powers of the Secretary of State that are in Schedule 1. This is fundamental to protecting successful devolution and ensuring that local consent is at the heart of the Bill. We believe that the Secretary of State should not have the power to override the will of local people. The Government are not moving fast enough on this. We are minded, therefore, to test the opinion of the House on Motion F1 when it comes to a vote.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard and addressed concerns over the role and importance of rural affairs within our devolution framework for England. I already thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, but I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron, for their thoughtful interventions on this subject.
As my colleague the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities set out in the other place, mayors of strategic authorities should be in no doubt that they have the ability to convene meetings with local partners and to collaborate with neighbouring mayors on matters relating to rural affairs and coastal communities. Nor should there be any doubt that the Government have the power to provide additional functions for strategic authorities in relation to these matters where doing so will support them to deliver against their areas of competence. That is why the Government are proposing the addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the areas of competence. I thank noble Lords for their support for that change.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 89B and 89C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 89D and 89E.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 89B and 89C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 89D and 89E.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 155A to 155F and 155H to the words restored to the Bill by that non-insistence on Amendment 155.
“(2A) Before moving to a leader and cabinet executive in accordance with subsection (2), the local authority must—
(a) secure that copies of a document setting out the provisions of the arrangements for its leader and cabinet executive are available at its principal office for inspection by members of the public, and
(b) publish in one or more newspapers circulating in its area a notice which—
(i) states that the authority will be moving to a leader and cabinet executive,
(ii) states the date on which the change is to have effect,
(iii) describes the main features of the change,
(iv) states that copies of a document setting out the provisions of the arrangements for its leader and cabinet executive are available at the authority's principal office for inspection by members of the public, and
(v) specifies the address of the authority's principal office.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C and I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Shipley
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 and 155H.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 37 and 91 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 91C to 91E in lieu.
“(1A) In making appropriate arrangements in relation to a neighbourhood area in which there are one or more parish councils, the local authority must engage with the parish council or councils about parish representation under those arrangements.”
“(3A) Regulations under this section about the membership of specified organisational structures may, in particular, make provision for the membership to include parish representation.”
““parish representation” means representation of any parish council or councils within a neighbourhood area;”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D, and I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 94B and 94C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 94D and 94E.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E, and I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 94F and 94G in lieu—
“Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions 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 on noise emissions resulting from new developments
(1) A development that is the subject of an application for planning permission is an “noise-sensitive development” if residents or occupiers of the development are likely to be affected by significant impact from existing noise 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 a noise-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 noise 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 a noise-sensitive development, impose on existing cultural venues or facilities additional costs relating to design measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effects of that noise.””
“(z1) section (Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions resulting from new developments) (protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions resulting from new developments);””
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have listened very attentively to what the Minister had to say, but I would like to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu.
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 Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Pension Schemes Bill
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
23:23 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 129 - Motion A1 agreed.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 88A, 88C, 88E to 88P and 88R to 88W to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.
“(ba) must require—
(i) an application to include a statement explaining why the applicant considers that meeting the asset allocation requirement would be likely to cause material financial detriment to members of the scheme;
(ii) the Authority to have due regard to such a statement in determining an application;”
“(ca) must require the Authority to provide reasons for any determination not to approve an application;”
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the other place has once again considered this House’s amendments and has once again disagreed with them, tabling further amendments in lieu. I will set out in a moment what those amendments contain, but I want first to say something about where we now find ourselves.
The elected House has now voted on the reserve power three times. On each occasion it has supported the Government’s position, by large majorities. This House has every right to scrutinise what is before it, and the quality of that scrutiny has improved the Bill. But we need to be clear about the context in which we are operating: these exchanges have gone on for some time, and the Government have moved a considerable distance.
Let me trace that distance briefly. In the first round, the Government wrote the Mansion House Accord targets into primary legislation—the 10% and 5% caps—and introduced the asset class neutrality requirement. In the second round, we went further: the sunset was brought forward to 2032; the power was restricted to a single use; the application was limited to main default funds; and we provided for the full repeal of the entire asset allocation framework at the end of 2035. This was not just the enabling power, but every associated provision—the approval requirements, the penalty regime, the review obligation, and any requirements that had been brought into force—removed from the statute book entirely.
Today, the other place agreed a third set of amendments. These address the savers’ interest test—the mechanism at Section 28G by which schemes can apply for an exemption from any asset allocation requirement. I know that the operation of this test has been a source of concern in this House, touching as it does on issues around trustees’ fiduciary responsibilities to savers. The Government have listened carefully to what has been said, while explaining the reason for their own position, which is, in essence, that these fiduciary duties have not to date been sufficient to overcome the distortion of asset allocation decisions by commercial pressures.
When we debated things last Wednesday, the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, described our position as believing a market failure to exist, and that is a fair characterisation. The Opposition argue that decisive government action to correct this market failure is not justified. We simply disagree. We believe that it is the Government’s duty to take the steps needed to further savers’ interests.
Our first new amendment, Amendment 88U, lowers the threshold for an exemption. The Bill, as drafted, would have allowed regulations to require a scheme to demonstrate that compliance would cause material financial detriment. That language attracted close scrutiny in this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, among others, questioned whether it set the bar too high, requiring proof of certainty. The threshold is now would “be likely to” cause. A scheme will need to show that detriment is the probable consequence of compliance, not that it is certain.
The second amendment, Amendment 88T, confirms in the Bill that where the threshold is met, the regulator must grant the exemption. The Government always intended the test to work that way. The Bill now states it clearly.
The third amendment, Amendment 88V, expressly requires the regulator to have due regard to the scheme’s own assessment of why compliance will be likely to cause material financial detriment. Schemes applying for an exemption must set out their reasoning, and the regulator will be under a statutory obligation to engage with it properly.
Noble Lords have argued that trustees and scheme managers are best placed to understand the circumstances of their members and that the regulator should give proper weight to their analysis. “Due regard” is established statutory language. It carries real legal weight, and it means the regulator cannot receive a scheme’s assessment and pass over it without proper consideration. I am aware that this type of language finds favour in a number of places in the House. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the Government have engaged with the substance of what has been asked for.
The fourth amendment, Amendment 88W, requires the regulator to provide reasons for any decision to refuse an application. The Bill already provides for a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal. This ensures that schemes have what they need to exercise that right—a right that is meaningful only if applicants know why they were turned down.
Let me set out what the reserve power now looks like, taken as a whole. It is capped at the accord targets. Regulations cannot concentrate requirements in a single asset class. The power applies only to main default funds. The percentage can be set only once. The power lapses if not used by the end of 2032. Even if used, the whole framework is repealed at the end of 2035. It remains subject to the affirmative procedure and to statutory reporting requirements before and after any use. The savers’ interest test now provides a lower threshold, certainty that an exemption will be granted where it is met, a statutory requirement for the regulator to give due regard to the scheme’s own reasoning and transparency about decisions if the application fails.
I understand the position of noble Lords who believe that this power should not exist at all. I have listened to those arguments with care throughout the passage of the Bill, but the Government’s view remains that the risk of inaction, of allowing the collective action problem to persist while pension savers bear the cost, is the greater risk. The Government have now brought forward three successive rounds of concessions, each responding to arguments made in this House, each written into primary legislation. The power that is now before noble Lords bears the imprint of this House’s scrutiny at every turn. Given all that, I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments and to agree the amendments proposed by the other place in lieu. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, do insist on its disagreement to Commons Amendments 88A, 88C and 88E to 88P and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 88R to 88W to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, including for our meeting on Friday. For the record, we suggested a “have regard” framework, requiring trustees to consider private market investment in alignment with the Mansion House Accord and to report to the regulator. That approach would meet the Government’s stated policy aims without overriding fiduciary duty or distorting the market. It was rejected, apparently because it lacked a sufficiently heavy sanction threat. So we continue and, unfortunately, mandation remains.
At the second round of ping-pong, I dealt with the technical and market concerns, and all those concerns remain. Today, I turn to the constitutional issues. First, fiduciary duty is a foundational principle in our common law. Trustees must act solely in the beneficiary’s interests, yet this clause directs them towards particular asset classes without any statutory defence or immunity. Trustees are left in a double bind: comply and risk personal liability or refuse and face deauthorisation.
Secondly, the process has been procedurally defective. There was no consultation on mandation, discrimination between investment vehicles or the sanction. The Commons amendments this time merely add procedural language around the savers’ interest test, due regard and reasons, which public law already requires. Further, there is the coercive effect of the so-called reserve power, which is already being deployed to pressure schemes and trustees into compliance without the consultation, assessment or regulatory discipline that regulations would require. That is constitutionally improper. Policy is being pursued by threat, not by law.
Thirdly, the savers’ interest test itself is unchanged in substance. The insertion of “likely to” is trivial. The test still reverses the logic of fiduciary duty, savers have not consented to the additional risks, and the penalty of deauthorisation remains draconian and disproportionate.
Fourthly, pension savings are members’ property. A coercive statutory scheme backed by deauthorisation is an interference with property rights that requires clear justification and careful design. Neither is present.
For these constitutional, procedural, proportionality and rights-based reasons, the clause remains defective and the Government’s amendments do not cure it. This is legislation that relies on threat rather than clarity and coercion rather than properly framed substance. I therefore will ask the House to insist on our deletion and to disagree with the Government’s amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I point out to the Minister that the Mansion House Accord had two parts. The second part had government obligations, on the basis of which the industry voluntarily agreed to invest in the private assets that the Government favour. None of the Government’s obligations is enshrined in the Bill; they are hoped for. The Minister assumes that private assets will definitely outperform and that if savers do not invest in them they will be losing out somehow. There is no underpin for the losses and even if the investment experts decide that they disagree and would not normally want to buy them, they will still be forced to. This is not the way to get pension funds to invest successfully or to trust the Government in the future. I hope that the Government will think again.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh, whose sister company Mercer is a pension consultancy, master trust provider and, importantly, a signatory to the Mansion House Accord. Firms that signed the Mansion House Accord last year in good faith, believing that fiduciary duty and trustee oversight would be preserved in order to ensure value for money for the individual pensioners whose funds they are responsible for investing, now face the prospect—or, dare I say, the threat—of mandation. This simply cannot be right, and we certainly do not think so.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I have little to add to the compelling case set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and indeed by us all throughout the passage of the Bill. Our position remains unchanged: mandation has no place in the Bill and, if the Government are serious about securing its passage, they should remove it.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my speech says, “I would like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate”—but that will not take long.
I will not hold us here for a long time, tempting though it is to go over the arguments in considerable detail, but I will say a couple of things. We need to remember that the whole purpose of the Pension Schemes Bill is to improve outcomes for savers. Where are savers in all of this? It is their interests that are there. The reason the Government are doing this is that the evidence is clear internationally that pension funds which have a small holding in private assets as part of a diversified portfolio bring better returns.
If there were a situation where that would not be in the interests of a particular scheme, that is the point of the savers’ interest test. This does not cut across fiduciary duty because, in fact, nothing in the Bill overrides that core principle of fiduciary duty. If trustees believe it not to be in their interests, not only can they make an application for an exemption under the savers’ interest test but we would expect their fiduciary duty to guide them to make that application. That really is the beginning and end of it.
I will simply say this. The whole point of the Bill is to make pensions better. This whole Bill will transform our pensions landscape. Pensions are the promise we make to millions of people that years of hard work will be rewarded with security and dignity in retirement. Bigger, better pension schemes will drive better returns, as well as tackling inefficiencies. We need to find a way to get the Bill agreed. Industry wants to get on with implementing the reforms and our pensioners want to start benefiting. The other place has expressed its view clearly, repeatedly and by substantial margins. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on whether it is right to ask the elected House to vote for a fourth time on a question to which it has given the same answer on every occasion. I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments and to agree the amendments proposed in lieu in the other place.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, the arguments have been well rehearsed. I am not convinced that this coercion is as innocent as has been made out and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.