Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, welcome. If there is a Division in the Chamber, although we are not expecting one, the bell will ring and we will act accordingly. Let us begin.
Local Councillors: Recruitment, Retention and Well-being
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forbes of Newcastle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increasing abuse and intimidation on the recruitment, retention and wellbeing of local councillors; and what action they intend to take in response.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have expressed a wish to speak in this debate. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my role as a non-exec director at MHCLG.
Four years ago, when I left local government, there was growing concern about the rising levels of abuse directed towards councillors and council candidates. I wish I could say that the situation has got better since then. Sadly, it is worse—much worse. My purpose in securing this debate is to continue to raise awareness of the scale of the challenge faced and to ensure that we do not simply accept it as the new norm for our democracy.
The evidence before us is stark: rapidly escalating levels of abuse and intimidation are having serious and detrimental effects on who is willing to stand for elected office, how long they wish to hold elected office and how they are being prevented from serving effectively during their term. An LGC survey last year revealed that online abuse and a lack of respect from the public are the biggest deterrents to people serving as councillors. When viewed alongside parallel evidence that women, LGBT people, Muslims and those from ethnic minority backgrounds face disproportionate abuse on social media, we should be extremely concerned at the chilling effect that this is having on the diversity and talent pool of those seeking to serve their local community.
This is not a theoretical challenge; it is happening now. One Labour councillor reports three colleagues taking time away due to abuse; one of them was
“very close to a breakdown”.
Another said:
“People are vile online … Facebook is particularly toxic”.
Women councillors report doxing, stalking and AI-manipulated images. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, president of the Local Government Association, relays multiple accounts of women facing the normalising of harassment, being photographed in public and having their locations posted online, with some now
“frightened to go to meetings”.
The LGA’s 2025 Debate Not Hate survey records many severe incidents: a councillor’s car firebombed; a parish chair’s predecessor assaulted and left with a fractured skull; death threats and slurs aimed at LGBT+ and Muslim councillors; and persistent co-ordinated misinformation and harassment on social media. Disorder and intimidation at meetings are escalating. Crowds menaced councillors, objects were thrown and serious damage was done to council buildings in Swale last December. In the same month, an effigy of council leader Councillor Alyson Barnes was burned in Rossendale.
Physical assaults on individual members are not rare outliers. In June last year, Councillor Jordan Tarrant-Short was repeatedly punched in the head in Rochdale. In September 2025, Councillor Paul Kendrick was assaulted in Norwich. In October 2025, Councillor George Finch, the leader of Warwickshire County Council, was assaulted and abused in Nuneaton town centre. Just a few months ago, during the election campaign in Kent, Councillor Thomas Mallon was attacked on a doorstep and suffered lasting nerve damage as a result.
I also wish to talk about two absolutely shocking incidents in the recent local election campaign in my home city of Newcastle upon Tyne. One late evening, a couple of weeks before polling day, Councillor Stephen Barry-Stanners had eggs thrown at his house. This was logged with the police, but it was only when he left the house the next day that he spotted, daubed in huge letters in red paint, the words “Peedos”—spelt wrongly—“live here”. Stephen said at the time that he was devastated by the incident, adding that
“the abuse has been escalating since this local election campaign started. It was initially just trolling and nasty comments, and soon I couldn’t post anything without getting the vile stuff under it, no matter what it was”.
On the Sunday, after losing her seat by just 22 votes, former cabinet member Juna Sathian’s home was pelted with eggs. She was not at home at the time, but her husband and two young sons were, and they were terrified by the experience.
Is it any wonder that a quarter of councillors tell LGC that they do not plan to re-stand, while many more are unsure? Women, younger people, minority ethnic, LGBT candidates and those with caring responsibilities are disproportionately deterred, especially when abuse mixes with deepfakes and pile-ons that never quite cross a criminal threshold but corrode well-being and mental resilience all the same.
The Government have tools to address this but, so far, consistency and pace are missing. Operation Ford created force elected-official advisers as single points of contact, yet support is patchy. The Elections Act 2022 created an offence of intimidation, but the bar is often too high to deter persistent harassment. The Online Safety Act is moving towards implementation, but risks overlooking activities that are “legal but harmful” at scale: doxing, synthetic sexualised images, targeted misinformation and co-ordinated trolling.
There are a number of steps that I would urge the Government to consider taking. The first is to make support consistent and accountable. They should establish a national councillor safety co-ordination unit, with real-time intelligence sharing and standards for forces, ending postcode lotteries in response. They should require every police force to provide a named, trained adviser for elected members, with service levels, escalation routes and Home Office oversight. They should also issue CPS and policing guidance to lower the practical threshold for action against intimidation around elections, so that swift and early intervention can prevent escalation.
The second step is to put teeth into online protections. Ofcom should be instructed, in its implementation of the Online Safety Act, to recognise elected local politicians as at-risk users and give them priority pathways for the rapid takedown of doxing, synthetic or sexualised deepfakes and impersonation. It should impose sanctions for repeat abusers and publish turnaround targets and league tables of how online and social media companies perform. It should develop a no-cost “trusted flagger” route for councils to escalate malicious content and impersonation accounts affecting members. It should also work with local government to establish proportionate mechanisms that address persistent, targeted harassment that stays just below criminal thresholds but drives people away.
The third is to protect meetings and democratic spaces. The Government should update the guidance to enable councils to provide proportionate security at meetings and give them powers to expel and bar those who demonstrate violent or persistently abusive behaviour. They should fund basic security measures for high-risk venues and members, including incident-logging tools, training and rapid liaison when threats spike.
The fourth is to support victims and prevent burnout. The Government should commission confidential mental health and trauma support for councillors, including post-incident care and 24/7 advice helplines. They should ensure that councils have the resources and training at induction to help people to take down offensive material.
The fifth step is to track this problem and our progress. The Government should publish an annual report to Parliament on councillor safety, recruitment and retention, disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and age, with force-by-force performance of the police against service standards. That would go a long way towards tackling this problem.
We need to act now to make policing consistent, online platforms accountable, public meetings safe and support for those affected accessible. Local democracy should be a calling, not a hazard. Let us make it safe to serve.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for bringing forward this timely debate and for his powerful opening speech. The growing abuse and intimidation aimed at those who serve in public life is a fundamental threat to our democracy and the integrity of our democratic processes.
Having spent much of my 30-year career in political campaigning, I know at first hand that councillors are at the heart of our communities and, very often, our political parties. Yet, unlike many of those in national politics, they often operate with little support. They work from their homes, make themselves readily accessible to residents and balance public service with careers and families. That openness is a strength of our local government, but it leaves councillors uniquely exposed. We must consider the chilling message that this abuse sends to those considering public life. Why would talented people put themselves forward if it means exposing families to harassment and physical threats?
This challenge cannot be separated from the increasingly polarised political environment in which many councillors now operate. While people should be free to express their views on conflicts, political disagreement must never become a pretext for racial or religious hatred, including the alarming rise in antisemitism in recent years. This has been compounded by the rise in single-issue independent campaigns dominated by toxic identity politics and international issues, even when the office sought is a local one.
I urge the Government to ensure that the Defending Democracy Taskforce further examines these local threats. We also need concrete action now. We cannot simply ask for more reports, more recommendations and more delay. Will the Minister set out what further practical steps can be taken now to protect councillors from increasing abuse and intimidation? If we do not act now, I fear that fewer and fewer people will step forward to serve, and our democracy will suffer.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for bringing it forward. I declare that I am the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association and I have been a councillor for 12 years. I have literally just come from the LGA this morning where we were discussing this very topic.
I am making my remarks with immense personal sadness that we are having to have this debate at all. I will not lie: following the recent elections, there have been moments when I have shed tears about the abuse that people who I call friends have had to face in these local elections. That in 2026 we must stand here and discuss the abuse, harassment and intimidation of elected councillors is a damning indictment of where our public discourse has arrived.
Councillors are not distant figures in Whitehall. They are neighbours; they run food banks; they sit on planning committees and housing panels. They are the most accessible tier of our democracy, and that accessibility is now being weaponised against them. I have examples from councillors and candidates I know personally: cars set alight, sustained stalking campaigns, a candidate punched and knocked out recently on the doorstep. Just an hour ago I heard of a 74 year-old councillor in Plymouth being attacked in a stairwell. These are not abstractions; these are the lived realities of people who put their names forward to serve their communities.
I come here today with some solutions. Three things must change. First, our institutions must do consistently better. Operation Ford was a welcome step, but it cannot be a one-off. Returning officers and monitoring officers at local authorities must be properly equipped, trained and empowered to act when elected members face threats. The Electoral Commission must play a more active role in setting and enforcing standards of conduct around elections. The Home Office must develop a far deeper understanding of the specific nature of this threat. Without that, enforcement will always lag behind the harm. I welcome the recent government proposals and action on councillors’ addresses being public on websites.
Secondly, we cannot have this conversation without confronting social media. Misinformation spreads at scale and abuse is industrialised. Co-ordinated campaigns of harassment can be mounted in minutes or hours, targeting individuals with a ferocity that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. This is not only a safety issue but a democratic one. It puts people off standing for public office, and the evidence is clear that women are disproportionately targeted. We need robust, enforceable regulation of platforms, and the Online Safety Act was a start.
Thirdly, perhaps most uncomfortably, we must look in the mirror. Culture flows from the top. When politicians at the highest level trade in contempt, when opponents are not just wrong but become enemies and when inflammatory language is rewarded with column inches, we should not be surprised that it filters down. We have a responsibility—every one of us—to model the public discourse that we want to see. Just because we have the right to say something, it does not mean that we should. Local democracy depends on ordinary people being willing to put their names on a ballot. We are making that harder and more dangerous. We can and we must do better.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for initiating this important debate. Abuse of local councillors is not new; I am afraid it goes back a long time. I was a local councillor for over 25 years—I chaired various committees and was leader of the council for 19 years—so I will talk about a few personal examples. From the moment there was a change of control, there were demonstrations at the town hall. People ran a gauntlet of abuse and threats, and many council meetings were disrupted by order papers flying through the air from the public gallery, which was usually subdued only when demonstrators were removed by the police. For a long period, the police kept crash barriers at the town hall, as they were there so much.
For individual councillors, demonstrations outside their homes and threats through the letterbox were common. At that time I had small children, and I had to contend with being burned in effigy outside my home on many occasions. Of course, I was not there—I was at the town hall—so it was my young children and my wife who had to suffer it. One particular demonstration comes to mind: when it was finished and they had taken their photographs—this shows my influence—the people in the wheelchairs were all able to get up and push their wheelchairs away. Obviously, I had some effect: the power of a councillor.
I am using my own examples, but even today much of this is organised by people in mainstream political parties, so I slightly feel that we are also reaping a bit of what our own political parties have sowed in the past. Now it is so much worse with social media, because they do not even have to show a bit of courage by showing up outside your house and shouting at you; now they can just do it online under a fictitious name and you will never know who they are.
Public anger over policies is often driven by government policies coming down to councils to implement. For most people, the layers of government are totally opaque. Making hard decisions goes with the job of being a councillor—except, of course, when councils do not do that and we have poor councils as a result. We have all seen the result of those poor councils that do not make decisions. The police and judiciary must take seriously the threats, they must take action and they must penalise as necessary. It is not, and never can be, normal politics to abuse someone. This has to be treated with seriousness and there has to be a price for that kind of behaviour.
Finally, much of this will be much better with local government reform, greater fiscal freedoms and real transparent powers, which I believe would create clarity. If, at the same time, we get robust action by the law, this problem will decline. It will also decline because people will start to believe that councils are actually a little more relevant.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I remind noble Lords of the advisory speaking time limit. If speakers run over, that will simply reduce the amount of time the Minister has to respond, because this is a time-limited debate. I would be grateful if speakers could stick to three minutes.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I declare that I am a vice-president of the LGA. In the LGA it was a pleasure to work closely with the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, as leader of the Labour group, and subsequently with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as leader of the LGA.
When I became leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, I made a clear commitment: respect and equality would not be an option; they would come first. That commitment feels more urgent than ever, because intimidation in public life is not declining—it is evolving and getting worse. We have codes of conduct and processes, but process is not protection. People are staying silent because they feel intimidated, fear the consequences or are told that this is simply part of politics—it is not.
When abuse is dismissed as “banter” or ignored, it creates a culture that would not be tolerated in any other workplace. It does not stop at the council chamber door: it follows people home, online, anonymous and relentless. Many of us know that from personal experience. I have had paint thrown over my car and someone was arrested for threatening to kill me.
We say we want new voices in public life, but we are already losing them. Too often, it is younger councillors, particularly young women, who face the worst abuse and decide that it is simply not worth it. That is talent lost, representation lost and trust weakened. Leadership matters, culture matters and tone matters.
Zero tolerance cannot just be a slogan. It must be action in the moment—call it out, challenge it, stop it. Our systems must do more than just exist. They must be trusted to protect those who rely on them. I say to His Majesty’s Government: work with the devolved Administrations and local government to deliver stronger protections and real support. The reality is that if intimidation is tolerated, participation will fall. If participation falls, democracy is diminished. This is the test—act or allow that decline. That is a choice we cannot afford to get wrong.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I am at a slight disadvantage in this debate. I am one of the few participants who has not served as a local councillor, so I do not have the coalface experience that others do. I will talk about this issue from the point of view of my work as director of the Free Speech Union. Since I set it up six years ago, we have taken 317 cases—I checked yesterday—coded “local government” in our case database. Of those, 141 were about members of the public who had been complained about by councillors or council employees.
The pattern we encounter again and again is that when members of the public say things that councillors find disagreeable but that would nevertheless be protected speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, they are complained about, sometimes with devastating consequences, on the grounds that what they have said constitutes harassment, misinformation or hate speech, even though it is clear-cut that their comments are protected.
I have time, so I will give one or two examples of people we went to bat for. Last year, two police officers from Greater Manchester Police paid a visit to a grandmother in Stockport who had posted in a Facebook group calling for the resignation of two local Labour councillors, after the Mail on Sunday had exposed comments in a WhatsApp group in which they expressed the hope that a troublesome member of the public in their ward would die. This scandal involved Andrew Gwynne when he was a Health Minister, and he had to resign as a result. Nothing she said could possibly have been perceived as meeting the threshold for harassment, yet two police officers, having been tipped off by the partner of one of these councillors, paid a visit to her house. There are countless such cases. In another case we are dealing with at the moment, a member of the public objected at a meeting of his parish council to the imposition of a 20 mph zone in his village. Two Green councillors promoting this proposal complained that they felt his comment was harassment.
We have to be careful in creating the various mechanisms that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, proposed in his opening speech. How do we safeguard against them being weaponised for political purposes to suppress legitimate criticism of elected officials?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, I have not been a councillor, but I was married to one and am the mother of one. We have heard all the appalling facts and stats. As chair of the Jo Cox Foundation, I am deeply concerned about the impact that abuse and intimidation are having on councillors, their families and, ultimately, our society. No one should have to risk their safety to serve in public life, yet that is exactly what is happening across the United Kingdom, with damaging consequences for our democracy.
The political atmosphere is becoming increasingly hostile. Too many elected representatives and those considering standing are avoiding engagement, limiting their visibility or stepping away altogether because of safety concerns. Too many excellent change-makers are choosing not to stand in the first place. These pressures, as we have heard, fall disproportionately on women and those already underrepresented in our democracy—the very people whose participation makes our institutions more representative and resilient.
Our local councils should reflect the communities they serve, but instead this trend risks narrowing who feels able to take part. We are moving towards a culture where abuse is dismissed as part of the job, but it is not: it is a systemic problem rooted in wider inequalities and pressures across the political ecosystem, and it is worsening across democracies globally. If we fail to act, our councils will reflect an ever-narrowing section of society, with serious implications for the decisions made and the services delivered.
We need an inclusive democracy, one in which people feel safe and confident to participate in robust but respectful debate. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but it must never be used to incite violence, spread hatred or justify harassment. We need a democracy that enables political parties to thrive. Councillors, who are the lifeblood of all political parties, are the people who are rooted in our communities.
The Jo Cox Civility Commission has made clear recommendations to address abuse, intimidation and violence, and there has been welcome progress, including Operation Ford, but more needs to be done. The Representation of the People Bill is a very positive step, and it is a great moment for us to amend that Bill where necessary. We need the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance and require returning officers to provide this to candidates as soon as possible; the Electoral Commission should have more powers for enforcement; and political parties must publish their codes of conduct and be held to them.
Finally, social media has amplified hostility. It did not create resentment towards politicians, but it provides a perilous platform to share it, with dangerous consequences. A clear code of practice under the Online Safety Act would help to provide consistent protection and give candidates the confidence to participate. I pay tribute to the LGA for all the work that it has done with councillors, but also with those who have lost their seats.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for bringing this subject before us today. I was shocked to hear many of the incidents that he relayed to us. For the first time in many years, I began to think that perhaps my decision to give up as a councillor back in 2014 was not such a bad one. It is a decision that I have regretted, really, ever since I made it. I served five terms, and I very much enjoyed them. One of the reasons I decided not to continue was that I felt it was becoming acceptable to attack elected members. I felt we were having targets painted on our backs, and it was not a situation that I was prepared to continue to be a part of.
When I left local government at Havering Council, I was invited to go abroad to help advise councillors there and see their culture—in Fiji, as it turns out. I was phoned up shortly afterwards by the organisers, who told me there was no space left in Fiji, so in fact they were sending me to Basra—and could I come into the Foreign Office for my kidnap training on Tuesday? I went and did it, and I found councillors there who were very keen on helping their community, but they all constantly accused each other of corruption and all required bodyguards. It was a culture that I really would not want to see developing here, a future culture that we do not want: there was a constant churn, a constant change of members, no learning from previous experience and very little progress for the citizens of that city, quite apart from the elected members.
In the little time left to me, I will speak in support of a comment made by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister about part of this being about the lack of power that councillors now have. People expect us to be able to achieve things and yet, very often, we are just relaying bad news to them. That is creating expectations and then letting them down, which is bound to lead to problems.
There is no excuse for bad behaviour, but I remember chairing a planning committee about expanding a sixth-form college in Havering. It was an excellent application, worth £60 million, from the Government. A mass crowd turned up and did not want it. I understood them: if I had lived next door to it, I probably would not have wanted it either. But it was a case of the greatest good for the greatest number—a really good facility, there for the future for all the young people of our borough. So we approved it, and we got a lot of abuse from the people who had come to the meeting. We got accused of corruption. When we had finally cleared the room out, gone away and signed the whole thing off, the Government came back to us just a few months later and told us they were withdrawing the money, so we could not have our sixth-form college after all. We had taken that massive reputational hit for nothing. That is something we want to avoid in future.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for my contribution, I wish to place on record a statement by Councillor Lisa Hinton, deputy leader of Cumbria—one of Cumbria’s finest councillors—on the scale of abuse that she has been receiving:
“The abuse I receive online is not abstract—it is personal, relentless, and at times shocking. I have been called ‘stupid’, ‘not intelligent’, and subjected to constant comments about my appearance—told I am ‘too fat’, mocked, dismissed, and reduced to something less than human. I have read comments blaming me for serious crimes, including statements that if ‘anyone is raped by an illegal, it will be your fault’ or ‘You are a risk to our women’.
Now people are feeling braver and the abuse is to my face. I have sat in council meetings and heard people shout at me ‘traitor’, ‘you are on warning’ and ‘you have blood on your hands’. I’ve started to fear going. It has been getting worse over the last 6 months; we see the questions coming in mainly framed around immigration. The response from Council is more police, more security at the meeting—but no pastoral support for us. No thought to the wider implications on us as councillors and our mental health, because after hearing fifty people shouting, you still have to go home, put tea on, help with homework, and be a mum. But it stays with you. It hurts.
If this is what public service looks like, fewer people will choose it. Why would you? I could write thousands of words with examples of the hatred I’ve received over the last few years, abuse towards councillors needs to be tackled and stopped before anyone is seriously hurt”.
These are the words of Councillor Lisa Hinton. Lisa is calling for more support. I want more than that: I want action against the bully boys. No councillor should have to put up with this bullying and abuse. I rest my case.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Forbes for ensuring that we have this very important debate, at a time when so many councillors are seriously at risk. I am sorry to say that not many police forces really understand what is happening, particularly to women.
I will address a subject that both speaks directly to my own political beginnings and represents the core of our democracy. In the 1970s, I began my own public career in local government, as the youngest woman elected for the London Borough of Brent. During my years on the council, we worked to advance the important campaign for a housing aid centre and a law centre, and we founded a housing association for the borough. That opportunity changed the course of my career and my life and taught me that local councils are not the places to administer, as they are often perceived to be, but where we learn how to serve our communities and improve the daily lives of the families in them. As it was for many other women and me, as well as other people generally underrepresented in public life, the local council was the first door to go to.
At that time, local councillors were respected. That is no longer the case today. This has been brought about by awful people who hide away behind social media, letters and so on. It is a disgrace. That is why this issue matters so deeply and why everyone in government, no matter their party affiliation, has an interest in ensuring that becoming a councillor remains an appealing and possible career choice for capable, diverse and public-oriented people. If abuse and intimidation make that career path seem unsafe, we will lose good councillors before they even consider standing for election. We know that through various networks, as my noble friend Lady Royall said.
The Local Government Association’s 2025 survey found that almost three-quarters of councillors—73%—reported feeling personally at risk in the previous 12 months. A quarter had experienced a threat of violence or death against themselves or someone close to them. These are not the minor discomforts of public life; they are serious and harmful, affecting well-being, family life and the capacity of elected representatives to do their jobs.
I particularly want to address the impact on women. The same survey found that 84% of women councillors reported being personally at risk, compared to 73% overall. Women are most likely to report abuse and intimidation, and the figure of 78% should concern every part of the Chamber. If women are driven away from local politics, local government, the vehicle through which we carry on many fundamental services, becomes less representative.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Forbes of Newcastle for bringing forward this important debate. It is a subject that matters deeply to me, not only as a politician but as someone from a ethnic minority background who has experienced these issues personally. This is not simply a political matter; it goes to the very heart of our democracy.
I speak not only from my principles but from my personal experience. I have been in politics for more than 30 years, with 22 years as a serving local councillor. I have witnessed at first hand the ugly reality of racial hatred in public life. At an election count, a returning officer would sometimes refuse to show me the spoiled ballot papers because they contained racial abuse directed at me. When I stood for Parliament some years ago, I received numerous racist email messages, and I quote just one of them. It said: “I’m not voting for that rag head”, referring to my turban and my Sikh faith. On another occasion, during an election campaign, a party stake board outside in my garden was vandalised with deeply offensive racial language scrawled all over it.
Despite everything I have experienced, I still firmly believe that politics is a noble profession. Serving the public and my community is the greatest honour of my life. Our democracy depends on ordinary people coming forward to represent their community. We should be encouraging more people from every background to stand for public office, not fewer. But that will only happen if they feel safe, respected and properly protected. Therefore, I ask the Government what steps they will take to strengthen the protection for councillors and candidates to tackle racial abuse, online harassment and intimidation, to ensure that those responsible for such behaviours are properly held to account. We cannot allow hatred and intimidation to become accepted as a part of political life. Our democracy deserves better.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is 53 years ago to the month that I was elected to my local authority in Torfaen. I fought four elections and I can honestly say that I had no abuse during the whole time I was a local councillor. There was a time I can recall knocking on the door and a factory worker was woken up because he had been on shift overnight. On another occasion, a German resident asked me why there was not a Conservative candidate. I was obviously the Labour candidate and I said that it was not my job to put up a Conservative. But that was it. Fast forward all those years later to a few weeks ago, at the elections that we have had, in our case in Wales for the Senedd, and for councils in England, and the world has changed.
I thought I would have been used to abuse, having served as Northern Ireland Secretary, but it came as a terrible shock a couple of weeks ago when I heard the stories of people who had knocked on the doors in the weeks before the election. There were stories of terrible, personal abuse on the doorstep and of online abuse on social media and the internet—neither of which was present 53 years ago. Politics has become so polarised that it is reduced to soundbites and, therefore, people do not read newspapers any more. I have never seen this vulgarity and ugliness in politics in my political life. We have to do something about it.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Forbes for raising this issue today and I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister what solutions the Government have on this issue, particularly with regard to the Representation of the People Bill but also other measures, which need to be replicated in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Abuse does not stop at the border. I look forward to what she has to say, but I repeat what many of your Lordships have said: democracy itself is imperilled if we cannot find candidates to stand as a consequence of the level of abuse that they now have to put up with. It is a cheapening of politics and it is extremely sad.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for bringing this important topic to our attention and putting it on the agenda today. We have heard many powerful and moving contributions from all parts of the Room, which reflects how this is a genuine cross-party issue that should concern us all.
The Local Government Association survey of councillors, although not UK-wide, provides a helpful benchmark. It is shocking that just under 70% of councillors who took part in the last set of elections reported receiving abuse or intimidation. As we have heard from several speakers, not only is it a shocking figure in totality but it tends to affect particular portions of our society, which hugely hinders what should be a common desire for us all to have democratically elected politicians who represent all corners of society. Shockingly, according to the LGA survey, more than one in five councillors have had to report one or more issues to the police. To bring that number to life: that would be the equivalent of 174 Peers among us in the House of Lords having to report something to the police. That is a shocking number.
It is fair to say that, so far, we have not always seen a brilliant set of responses to these problems. Operation Ford has a rather mixed reputation among those who have sadly had recourse to it. Indeed, in the LGA survey, under half of councillors who have reported an issue to the police say that their response has helped either greatly or even just moderately. But there is also a need for action from the Government, including on the legislative front. We have already heard today that there is a wide mix of solutions available out there to pick from. That includes, for example, from the Speaker’s Conference; although it focuses predominantly on MPs, it obviously has wider applicability. There is also the Government’s own previous consultation on a new standards framework for English local government, for example. The LGA itself has made recommendations, and we have heard other proposals such as those put forward by the Jo Cox Foundation.
I worry that this issue will once again be caught up in that perpetual pirouette of prevarication that we sometimes have in Whitehall. We have promises of action, consultations, recommendations and promises of legislation, but then an absence from a King’s Speech, a ministerial reshuffle, an election and maybe even a change of Prime Minister. Round and round we go in that cycle, while the misery for councillors continues and the action fails to happen. I know the Minister has a strong commitment on these issues, and I hope we will hear from her a clear timetable for the action the Government will take so that we do not simply go round and round yet again.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. This is an issue that I have spoken about many times with many people in this Room, particularly at the LGA. The terrible thing is that I cannot say it has got any better; it has actually got worse. I will not repeat all the terrible things that people have already mentioned, because I think we have all faced them. The one that has not been mentioned is the abuse of family members, particularly children. It is not just abuse of the councillor themselves; it goes beyond that. This is entirely and totally unacceptable.
When I first became a councillor—not 53 years ago but in 2009—most councillors were just good local people who wanted to help serve their communities. They wanted to get the bins emptied, fix the potholes, maybe build a new leisure centre and improve their town centre. They were not particularly political or politically motivated. They were motivated by their locale. I think we can all agree that most of those things are the sorts of things we should be doing. They are not very political issues; they are just desirable.
What has changed is that the whole firmament has become much more political with the advent of social media. It is a snowball effect. It is an echo chamber where anonymous or pseudonymous comment can spiral out of control. We are seeing national and even international issues being brought into local politics. This should not happen. The world has changed. Twenty-odd years ago, someone had to write a vitriolic letter. No one else would see it. You would get slightly upset, and you would throw it in the bin. Now, it is on social media, it is viral and it goes everywhere. A well-meaning councillor who is just trying to do the right thing will often, because of spurious or false information, be subject to huge abuse, which then spirals into the real world with physical threats, firebombing of cars and so forth. It is just not right.
Why would you become a councillor? You need real strength of character and motivation, and people are going off to do something else—very meritorious stuff. We need good councillors and we need to keep good councillors, so we need to protect them. The LGA did a lot of good work and I think the previous Government moved quite a long way, but it is not enough. My key question today for the Government is: what will we do to go further? What will we do to make it safe to be a councillor so that it becomes an attractive job where you feel safe, can serve your community and do those things—fixing the town centre, getting a new school built or whatever—without feeling that you and your family will be intimidated?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I am very grateful to my friend and my noble friend Lord Forbes for securing the debate and to all noble Lords for some very powerful contributions this afternoon.
First, let me be absolutely clear that abuse and intimidation of local councillors, whether online or in person, are totally unacceptable. I am going to briefly outline some of my own experiences, because they are relevant. Throughout my time as a councillor, particularly as leader of the council, I experienced constant abuse on social media, as many other council leaders do. I had fictional accounts of meetings with me published online, which were very difficult to deal with, and online misinformation about members of my family, which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to. While I will put up with a lot myself, I do not think families should have to put up with this kind of treatment.
Lastly, I was a victim of a terrible incident that resulted in a court case. I have mentioned that simply because this is not just about the standards system or the policing system; it is also about the criminal justice system. If you feel victimised again when you get into the criminal justice system, that system is not working properly. So be assured that this Government will crack down on abuse in whatever form it takes—whether directed at an elected representative, a candidate or a campaigner.
Examples of abhorrent behaviour that councillors have been subjected to were given powerfully by my noble friend Lord Forbes, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sahota, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Shah and Lady Wilcox. The particularly excruciating examples of racism given by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, really strike home. The tales of terrible abuse on doorsteps given by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, are blood-curdling and chilling. All the cases that have recently been picked up by the media are so disturbing. We have some very brave people in local government who continue in their roles, in spite of what we hear about.
The Minister for Security, Dan Jarvis, in his March statement on the Defending Democracy Taskforce, has already put on record the Government’s view that
“we must challenge at every turn, the notion that abuse, threats and intimidation are now an inevitability for those working in politics and public life”.
Nor should we tolerate incitement to violence or normalise it as part of our political discourse. These actions, and those who choose to perpetrate them, fundamentally undermine our democracy, and we should not tolerate it. We have a clear responsibility to protect and strengthen our democracy. Local government is the grass roots of this democracy and will thrive if conditions are right for talented people to feel confident to come forward and stand for public office.
Of the 136 councils that held elections in May, 79 changed control. Many newly elected councillors have likely got their first taste of the cut and thrust of front-line political life—I hope it has not been a painful one for them. A robust exchange of views is one thing—democracy thrives on lively debate—but, given the evidence that online and in-person abuse is on the increase, we must ensure that the expression of strongly held views does not sink into divisive and toxic conflict, personal abuse, threats and intimidation. We stand shoulder to shoulder with local government on this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, we must not allow this toxic discourse to become normalised. As the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, outlined, these actions can have a fundamental and dangerous impact on decision-making, with people not wanting to take the decisions they know are right for fear of reprisals.
Let me move on to what the Government have done and will be doing in relation to my noble friend’s Question for Short Debate. I will try to address as many of the points that have been raised in the debate as time allows.
First, Operation Ford and the Defending Democracy Taskforce were discussed by my noble friend Lord Forbes, the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, the noble Lord, Lord Mott, and others. We have committed funding as part of the Defending Democracy Policing Protocol to Operation Ford. This places a dedicated elected official adviser in every police force to provide security briefings and work with local authorities to co-ordinate appropriate security support where a heightened risk is identified. We must make sure there is a consistent and reliable response. I will take this back and find out what measures are being taken to ensure that this is not a patchwork across the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, both raised different issues about how we ensure that we have free speech. Freedom of expression and the right to protest are fundamental parts of a healthy democracy, and they are protected under law. The measures we are pursuing apply only to criminal intimidation or harassment, not to legitimate disagreement, protest or campaigning. It is important that we make that distinction. We are determined to ensure that people are not put off from campaigning and standing for public office, and we will continue to safeguard the strong legal protections on freedom of speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Pack, and others referred to the LGA survey, from which there was a very worrying and concerning set of outputs. I am pleased that, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, we have now put beyond doubt that a councillor’s home address should not be published by default. In practice, this means home addresses are not published unless the member requests it. This small but vital legislative change will help ensure that local councillors and their families can at least feel more secure in their homes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and others raised the issue of electoral reform. We are taking decisive action to tackle the harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners. We are changing the law so that those convicted of intimidating or abusing electoral staff can be disqualified from seeking or holding elected office. This will bring electoral staff under the same protection already given to candidates, campaigners and elected representatives under the Elections Act 2022. The Representation of the People Bill will allow tougher sentences for those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff. In addition, we will remove the requirement for election agents, including candidates acting as their own agents, to have home addresses published on the notice of election agents.
Local government standards reform is a key issue, which was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Forbes and the noble Baronesses, Lady Shah and Lady Wilcox. The Government will reform the local government standards and conduct framework. In my brief I have the civil servant phrase, “as soon as parliamentary time allows”, but please be assured, colleagues, that I understand the importance of this and will be championing it to get it as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, clearly illustrated the need for that in his very powerful contribution.
We consulted last year on a suite of proposals and published the response in November. The overarching aim of the reforms is to strengthen ethical standards in every type and tier of local government. We will also make sure that authorities have the right levers to deal with misconduct swiftly, fairly and transparently. I have very much taken on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, about the devolved Administrations. We will liaise with our colleagues on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, gave us the illustration of an experience in Basra; we need to act now to stop the slide into instability. I was with a group of planning officers this morning. If ever a group of council officers suffer this kind of harassment, it is our planning officers. That has to stop. They need to be able to do their job and their consultations without risking harassment and intimidation and be able to make decisions according to law and their professional expertise without fear of harassment.
In conclusion, I reassure the Committee that I and this Government are committed to doing all we can to prevent abusive, intimidatory and threatening behaviours. For democracy to thrive, we need to make sure that we attract the widest range of people to seek to serve their communities. They should be able to do so without fear of intimidation or abuse. This is a shared responsibility that we must all embrace. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said that serving as a councillor is the gateway to serving our community. I completely agree. As the Security Minister set out to the House on 12 March, we must draw a clear line together; by leading with respect, calling out unacceptable behaviour and working collectively, we can ensure that our politics remains open, resilient and worthy of public trust. I thank all noble Lords across the Committee for their contributions to this important debate. I look forward to working with them all as we move this forward.
National Arts Bank
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord John of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to establishing a national arts bank to act as a guarantor lender for those theatres, performance venues, galleries and arts teaching colleges which require capital funding in order to operate.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of the president’s circle at the Central School of Ballet and a trustee at the Old Vic Theatre. I want to talk today about a proposition for a national arts bank, which comes from my experience as leader of Southwark Council and the financial support that we were able to give to three cultural and educational organisations, which, frankly, made the difference to them being able to progress with significant capital projects. I should say that the Table Office somewhat edited the end of my Question so that its full meaning may have been lost, because my debate is essentially about capital funding.
Let me talk about those three organisations which were helped in Southwark. The Mountview Academy of Theatre Arts had been based in Wood Green, Haringey, since its inception in 1945. A leading producer of West End stars and actors in musical theatre working around the world, it had been looking for a new home in Wood Green for many years when it began a conversation with Southwark. In short order, we identified a site for it in the heart of Peckham which was suitable for a brand-new and purpose-built theatre school. We recognised that it was going to be a significant addition to the cultural offer in that part of our borough. The problem was that Mountview had some way to go on its fundraising campaign to deliver a new building. Based on a business case put forward by the academy, Southwark agreed to lend that final part of the funding that it needed, but the secured loan facility that we offered was flexible as to the repayment of interest and capital over the lifetime of the loan and was made at or below Public Works Loan Board rates. As a result, Mountview was able to proceed with planning and entered into building contracts so that the new building was opened within three years of the initial conversation—an amazing result.
The Central School of Ballet, one of the handful of classical ballet schools in the country, had identified a new home in Blackfriars, moving from its home of many years on the edge of the City of London. Central had a fundraising target of £9 million for its fit-out, but it was short by several million pounds. Again, that meant that it could not enter into contracts to progress that fit-out and move to its new home. Once again, Southwark—under inspired leadership—stepped forward and agreed to act as the lender for that final element, again on terms that provided flexibility as to the repayment of interest and capital. Again, that commitment meant that final contracts could be entered into and works completed, and the new school opened in 2020.
Finally, the Old Vic Theatre opened its new Backstage building last October. Straddling the boundary of Southwark and Lambeth, it had already demonstrated an outstanding commitment to the community over many years through its outreach work with schools and residents of all ages. Having set an ambitious fundraising target before it could start work on the new building, it was about 25% to 30% away from that target when it approached Southwark Council and Lambeth Council and sought a loan for that final element, so that it, too, could proceed to enter into contracts and get work started. The boroughs agreed to jointly lend up to £7.5 million, again at or below Public Works Loan Board rates and with flexibility as to the repayment of interest and capital over 20 years. In the event, the Old Vic did not need to draw down all the loan facility, and it is or will shortly be in a position to repay, in full, the money lent. But the fact of that facility means that, today, we can enjoy the educational facilities provided by the Backstage building, rather than waiting two or three years with ever increasing construction cost inflation.
In all three of these examples, the loans were supported by robust business plans and cases, and the organisations were already on the road to reaching their fundraising targets. But they also represented the local authority recognising the massive benefit that these important cultural organisations were bringing to the borough by investing in them. In all three cases, the terms of the loan agreement included service level agreements for ongoing and increased community and schools work. For the Central School of Ballet, that means that, each evening and on Saturdays, the school is filled with local children and residents finding out about the world of dance; and the Old Vic has redoubled its work programmes with schools in Southwark and Lambeth. So successful has the Southwark model been that I am working with another important classical music venue to help it to reach a similar deal with its local authority.
As I reflected on these examples, it struck me that this model could work right across the country—in places where arts venues and cultural schools and institutions are being held back from increasing their community work and impact because they still have outdated buildings or facilities. Despite their best efforts, they are struggling to achieve that last mile or so of fundraising needed, and a commercial loan is not a viable option. We all know that there are countless examples across every part of the country of an arts venue that needs significant capital funding. This model could make that happen.
My hope is that the Minister and the Government consider taking this idea forward within the context of a national arts bank to act as that last-mile loan guarantor. Too often, the relationship between the arts and government is that of receiving a grant or handout. This is different; it represents a mature and respectful relationship. Unlike some Arts Council funding, it is more flexible and can take account of local circumstances.
This is money that will be repaid, but it is money that makes a world of difference not just to the individual organisation but to those many people in the community, young and old, who will benefit from an improved cultural offer from that organisation. It also offers the prospect of increased employment and economic benefit—I know that my noble friend Lady Hyde will talk about that more in due course.
The cultural sector is at the heart of this Government’s industrial strategy. A national arts bank fulfilling the role that I have described would be a clear statement of the Government’s support for their own priorities and strategy. I ask my noble friend the Minister to promote this idea and hope that it may appear in a Budget in the near future.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord John of Southwark on securing this debate and introducing the concept of a national arts bank—capital for our culture. He has already outlined his first-hand experience of implementing similar initiatives at a local level and I believe that he is well placed to lead on this project in your Lordships’ House.
It is widely acknowledged that our cultural institutions are starving for capital. Theatres, galleries and art colleges face a crisis. Commercial banks reject them as too risky and traditional grants offer only short-term relief. We need a permanent structural solution and I think that that solution is a national arts bank.
While I welcome the funding that the Government have outlined under the Arts Everywhere project, it is limited to five years and we need longer-term solutions. We know that artistic venues are vital public infrastructure, yet they are struggling to secure commercial loans. Older theatres require urgent structural modernisation, galleries need high-tech climate control systems and colleges require cutting-edge digital media equipment. Private lenders do not understand creative revenue. They see seasonal ticket sales as unstable. Consequently, as I said, our cultural foundations are crumbling.
I recognise that, 18 months ago, the Government set up the ACE review, under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Hodge. That report highlighted:
“The UK spends less on culture than most of the countries in Europe. In 2022, public investment in culture in the UK was 0.25% of GDP, the lowest across a … list of European countries for whom there is comparable data (including France, Germany, Italy, and all of Scandinavia), and only higher than Greece”.
The Campaign for the Arts has also reported that the UK ranks among the lowest spenders on culture, both as a percentage of GDP and per person, in comparison with various European countries. The sector reports that some local authorities have completely cut their spending on culture. The British Council has curtailed its investment in culture. Nesta, a research and innovation foundation, which had a £250 million government-funded endowment for the creative arts, has pulled out of funding the arts. As I said, local authorities have almost completely given up.
We need to expand our horizons and look for new solutions, and we also need to include the film sector in that. The capital gap that we are speaking about is not exclusive to live stages. Consider our booming, yet vulnerable, film sector: local production studios require massive upfront capital. I have some second-hand knowledge of this; my son is a screenwriter and director, so I hear a lot about this sector. They need virtual production walls and sound stages. Without advanced facilities, international investment tends to go elsewhere.
I believe an arts bank would secure loans for independent film infrastructure. It would allow local studios to compete on a global scale because, as we know, infrastructure is the foundation of modern storytelling. That is why countries such as France, where there is an institute for funding cinema and creative industries, operates two financial tasks: a bank guarantee and a loan, similar to what the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, outlined.
I wonder whether we could also link this to another topical question that we have all been tackling this week: the NEET crisis. I know that capital funding could directly impact our youth unemployment crisis. Thousands of young people are NEET—not in education, employment or training—but I have seen that the creative industries are a proven magnet for reengagement. When I was in the West Midlands as an MEP, I visited a lot of FE colleges, and I saw the level of engagement for young people who did not want to continue studying. They were happy to go into a music studio, drama or anything to do with creative arts. So I think this could be a way of reaching that goal too. I again stress that we need state-of-the-art facilities to run apprenticeships, and we could benefit across the whole sector by having a skilled creative workforce.
By investing in capital, we also drive up educational enrolment. The infrastructure itself becomes a motivation to learn. A national arts bank would make a change. It would not replace commercial financial markets; it would act as a powerful guarantor. This would be an investment, not charity. This model protects hard-earned taxpayer money. Grants disappear once a venue spends them. Guaranteed loans must be paid back fully. Venues build sustainable, long-term business models. The arts generate massive economic ripple effects. Every pound invested would boost nearby hospitality. It would create jobs for technicians, builders and creatives.
To conclude, I believe it would bridge the gap between finance and culture. It would transform state funding from charity to investment. Let us secure our venues and colleges. Let us back the creators who inspire us.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and I agree with everything she said. The impact that something like this could have on NEETs, for instance, has had no attention but really deserves it. I applaud the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark. It is a great idea and something we should go ahead with. It is something that this House could support and would cost us nothing, so what is not to like?
London benefits at the moment, but this Question talks about outside London as well, which is important. Let us not forget that London has quite recently had the benefit of two new theatres, which has happened because of commerce, not because of anything other than money being lent commercially. The most recent is @sohoplace, which has come about on the site of the old Astoria music hall and is there because it is part of the magnificent new development around Crossrail, the revamped Tottenham Court Road. Without a far-sighted developer in the shape of Derwent, @sohoplace would not be there.
Conversely, the Bridge Theatre over at Tower Bridge, which has produced some fantastic work, is an entirely private sector operation—but do not let anybody think that this is easy. The Bridge Theatre is currently seeking outside investors because it needs more money. Being involved in the arts does not come cheap. Although the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord John, is an excellent one, let nobody be persuaded that every arts organisation can make a profit and pay back money. It is important that we put this in context. It would have a really useful role, but those who borrow from it would need to look, in many cases, to philanthropy to fill the gap that would enable them to pay back the money that they have been loaned.
The fact is that underfunding has undermined the arts in the UK for the last decade—actually, much more than that. Although we all know the importance of the arts, not just in creating a healthier, happier society but in building a thriving economy, this is a difficult time to argue the case for a big increase in government spending on what, in some quarters, is still regarded as unnecessary, bordering on the frivolous. We can only look at the fact that the Government are apparently currently considering cutting down the amount of money they dictate to defence spending in the defence spending review that we have been waiting a long time for. If we cannot afford the money that we should be spending on defence, public pleas for money for the arts will find it very hard to succeed, even though we know the long-term benefits.
We should be very grateful not just to the noble Lord, Lord John, but to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge—already quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Gill—who has produced a report that is not full of whinging about the future of arts funding and has come up with some really positive ideas. They are all worth taking note of. Wonderfully, the Government have adopted every one of her recommendations. Let us not be fooled: adopting recommendations is not quite the same as doing anything, but one lives in hope and I am sure some things will result. It is a positive start, at least. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, came up with some very positive ideas, not least about the importance of philanthropy and what the Government might do to encourage more of that into the sector. We have already heard about France’s novel ideas on funding the arts, but it has also done some really good things in encouraging philanthropy. Tax breaks of 60% might not be acceptable in this country but, nevertheless, it has made a huge difference and the money that has flowed from corporate giving as a result, much of it into the arts, would certainly go down well here.
We need to do more. The Government have agreed to look at it, but there are innovative ideas for encouraging philanthropy that are well worth examining. At the moment, the Arts Council does not have the benefit of donations but it could, if one looked at it, have means of activating that. For instance, if it had the endowment fund that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, is suggesting should come its way, with the benefit of the £250 million that Nesta is not spending, there is a suggestion that the Arts Council would have to match every pound of that endowment fund with money that it raises. That could be a really positive move for the arts. We need to look at other things. We need to give the Arts Council a trading arm; that would make a huge difference. Some publicly funded bodies have made a lot of money by doing great productions that go commercial. Some of that money could go back to the Arts Council, if there were a means of getting it there. We need to find a way of doing that. The Arts Council could do much more to encourage philanthropy, particularly outside London.
The other thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, bravely said—I think it is something we all ought to take note of—is that we need to get braver about standing up to boycotts. If the arts are to flourish in this country and if money is to be available to pay back the loans to the new bank, which we all want to support, we will have to look to the commercial sector and be braver about who is tolerated—and indeed encouraged—to become a sponsor. I should declare an interest as a former deputy chairman of the British Museum, and I have to say I was disappointed when it decided that BP should no longer be allowed there. BP is looking for alternatives to just oil, and the money was very useful.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord John for tabling this debate and welcome the contributions from noble Lords so far. I will particularly focus on theatre, having spent about a decade working in that industry and having trained at Guildford School of Acting. I welcome the suggestion of an arts bank, particularly to address the tricky matter of capital funding for some of these important and, in many cases, historic buildings.
Many theatres and cultural venues operate from listed buildings that are technically outdated. Trying to repair them and ensure compliance with accessibility requirements and decarbonisation becomes a very difficult and costly matter. The Government’s Purcell report from January 2026 estimated that about £7 billion in repair, maintenance and renewal was needed across publicly and third-sector owned cultural buildings, with about £3 billion of that being urgent and about £2 billion being needed in terms of the current funding deficit.
Specifically around theatre, a 2024 survey from the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre’s members demonstrated that one in five of their venues needed at least £5 million over the next decade just to continue operating. Again, this is capital funding to do with buildings. This has nothing to do with the mounting of productions or supporting creators; it is just to continue the buildings operating. Without major capital investment, about 40% were at risk of closure and 40% could become unsafe to use.
Despite these challenges, as my noble friend Lord John alluded to earlier, the theatre sector still delivers significant social and economic benefits. It supports over 100,000 jobs and civic infrastructure. It makes towns and cities exciting and vibrant places to live, work and visit. This research estimates that every pound spent on a theatre ticket generates a further £1.40 for the local economy. The Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre have done further research that demonstrates that support for capital investment would mean that 54% of venues could provide more jobs. As my noble friend Lady Gill alluded to, that is a significant part of the argument for an arts bank and further capital funding. It would mean that 62% of these venues would increase their outreach work—again, a brilliant benefit for the community—and 100% of venues said it would improve their environmental sustainability. For those buildings built in the Victorian era, 100% would be able to ensure real accessibility for all patrons.
As has been stated, theatre finances rely on quite a mixed model of funding—philanthropy, sponsorship and, in some cases, public subsidy. Venue operators have to supplement that with their programming, catering, hiring and a variety of means, so financial resilience really depends on how those streams interact with each other. Earned income now accounts for 58% of the total income of subsidised organisations, with just 17% coming from contributed sources—for example, the Arts Council. Growth has really stalled, and competition for what support there is has intensified. Even large organisations are really struggling to secure multiyear commitments at scale, and smaller venues that are not in major cities face even starker barriers.
Theatre really struggles to access suitable commercial finance for capital works. Repayable finance requires predictable cash flows, but theatre income by its nature is backloaded, with ticket revenue arriving only once productions are open and production costs have been recouped. So it is brilliant that DCMS announced a £1.5 billion cultural capital package in January this year. It is the most significant intervention in cultural infrastructure in a generation. It included £425 million through the creative foundations fund, which has already been mentioned, for around 300 capital projects in arts venues. That is really welcome. It feels like the beginning, not the end, of the story about capital investments for the arts. This suggestion of a national arts bank would make that public funding go further to build a far more financially resilient arts estate, with all the benefits that we know it would have.
The financial model of many theatres can make it really difficult, and this arts bank would provide repayable grants to de-risk that investment proposition for investors who may not otherwise have the risk appetite to support arts venues. It is a really easy way for backers to get involved: it simplifies and de-risks it, and I commend the idea to your Lordships. It is also key to ensuring that our rich theatrical heritage is able to enrich lives and the economy for many years to come.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord John for securing this debate. It is a welcome opportunity to highlight the difficulties faced by our theatres, galleries and arts venues, and there has been unified support for it across the Grand Committee.
I found it fascinating to hear of his experience at Southwark Council and of how, under his leadership, the council took steps to address some of these difficulties. The examples he shared of a local authority being able to bridge the gap between fundraising targets and money raised, future-proofing those organisations and benefiting their local communities, are instructive and inspiring. I welcome the foresight of his specific proposal, and support him in urging the Government to think about how financial agreements such as the ones he outlined could be applied more widely. In the current bleak economic climate, we must do all we can to consider new funding models for our cultural and arts organisations, so my noble friend’s suggestion is worthy of serious consideration by all those who want to see a flourishing arts sector.
I have spoken to Joshua McTaggart, CEO of Theatres Trust, which is the DCMS public body tasked with ensuring that all theatres across the country, no matter their size or location, are equipped to serve communities and artists long into the future. Theatres Trust agrees that access to loan finance from public and private sources is a key opportunity to support theatres to secure their future operations.
To add to my noble friend’s example of the Old Vic, I will mention—closer to my own home turf—the former Bradford Odeon, which now operates as Bradford Live. It received a £12 million loan from Bradford Council, which ensured that the £50 million renovation could begin. Having seen it in its previous state, I was delighted to hear that.
Another cultural centre in the north, Morecambe Winter Gardens, secured a £107,000 loan from Lancaster City Council, which enabled the venue to unlock over £2.5 million of grant funding. Last year, the Kenton Theatre in Henley-on-Thames took a £100,000 loan from the town council that enabled it to navigate operational challenges and report a budget surplus this year.
There are also significant examples of successful cultural spaces benefiting from loans via Nesta, as has been mentioned. The arts venue EartH, in Hackney, secured a £2.1 million loan in 2017 and is now a prominent cultural space in London. Birmingham Rep secured a £500,000 bridge loan, which allowed it to unlock further local enterprise partnership funding, and £400,000 for the Mercury Theatre in Colchester enabled the theatre to manage working capital while it carried out major renovation works. It can be done; let us see it more widely done.
As Theatres Trust sees it, the challenge is twofold: there need to be more sources of these loan finances, but also the arts and culture sector needs access to sound financial advice on how to maximise these opportunities and not see a loan as a negative decision or fundamentally bad business.
In these economically challenging times, the question of who pays for the arts—and, just as importantly, how—is more urgent than ever. Indeed, the question resonates through the recent independent review of Arts Council England led by my noble friend Lady Hodge. In her review she reminds us that, between 2009-10 and 2022-23, public spending on culture by ACE and local authorities fell in real terms by 18% and 48% respectively, with some local authorities completely cutting their spending on culture. She notes the “stark capital crisis” facing the cultural sector, with more than three-quarters of arts centres unable to complete planned building work and 60% not having undertaken any significant refurbishment in over a decade.
We know this. It is why the £270 million arts everywhere fund announced last year included the creative foundations fund, aimed at urgent capital works to keep venues up and running. It was a welcome boost for struggling arts venues, museums, libraries and the heritage sector, with Kate Varah, executive director of the National Theatre, saying that this much-needed capital investment
“will begin the task of enabling arts venues in towns and cities across our country to upgrade their facilities, providing more jobs and training … and offering more opportunities for young people and communities”,
as my noble friend Lady Gill so powerfully set out.
We know that investing in the arts is an investment in our communities, our creativity and our future. The arts are a huge driver of economic growth and employment—the creative industries are worth £124 billion to our economy—and help skills development in young people, training the future labour market to be creative and to challenge old ways of thinking.
But while the Hodge review notes the
“existential threat to the health and vibrancy of the arts and culture sectors”
caused by a decade of cuts in public funding, it also acknowledges that fiscal constraints limit the Government’s ability to increase grant-in-aid funding for culture and the arts. No matter that the
“modest resource needed to secure the long-term sustainability of the sector would have a disproportionately positive impact on the cultural sector, economic growth and the life of the nation”.
Instead, in the current climate we must put our efforts into finding other, innovative ways to invest in our arts, as my noble friend Lord John is initiating here.
To that end, like others I commend the Hodge review’s recommendations—all accepted by the Government, I am delighted to see—not least that we support a strong Arts Council England, free from political interference. I hope the Minister can assure us that the Government will explore the various funding ideas put forward in the review as a matter of urgency, including committing to longer funding rounds, cultural tax reliefs and incentivising philanthropy. At the same time, can the Minister provide any further detail of the £425 million creative foundations fund supporting some 300 capital projects in arts venues across the country?
Finally, like others I was interested to learn from our Library briefing of the French initiative between public authorities and the main banks to offer individually tailored financial solutions to creative and cultural industries in the form of a bank guarantee and loans. It has helped more than 2,000 cultural companies and has been going since 1983, so it is high time we caught up.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord John, for this inspired debate. I do not know quite a few of the noble Lords here. This is a different forum, so noble Lords might not appreciate that I am the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
On our Benches, we believe there is a strong case for exploring mechanisms that improve access to affordable capital for cultural organisations, particularly those with significant civic value but limited or no ability to secure conventional lending on viable terms. Cultural organisations are very enterprising, as many noble Lords know. They exist in a mixed economy of grants. If they are lucky and live in Southwark, they are from local councils, but they are also from organisations such as the Arts Council, trusts and foundations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, said. They also seek sponsorship and philanthropic giving. There is direct income from membership schemes, commercial activities such as ticket sales, and revenue from gift and coffee shops.
Owning a building is obviously an asset for a cultural organisation but it comes with huge financial exposure. Today there are rising energy costs, the impact of wars, inflation and, previously, the pandemic. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Lowry in Salford, where I have seen this at first hand. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that I am experiencing it outside London.
Noble Lords have mentioned the excellent report on Arts Council England by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. She put it starkly when she said that arts organisations are facing a
“capital crisis, the scale of which is threatening the very fabric of the country’s cultural infrastructure”.
The last big injection of capital took place 20 years ago and, as she says:
“The boilers and lifts installed then now need to be replaced”.
There are literally cracks in the walls and buckets in the corridors and backstage, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, knows.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, recommends that the Government urgently find innovative ways of responding, and there has been a response. Earlier this year the Government announced capital investment funding distributed through Arts Council England, which will provide financial assistance to invest in
“buildings, equipment, digital infrastructure and technology”,
but much more is required, as the noble Lord mentioned in his introduction. The scale of capital need across the cultural sector is now so substantial, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, said, that demand for support, even in the form of loans or guarantees, is likely to exceed the available capacity. The question therefore becomes not simply how capital is distributed but what outcomes it is intended to achieve.
The most important criterion should be not just remedial capital investment in isolation but investment that demonstrably improves long-term resilience and sustainability. In other words, support should ideally prioritise projects that help organisations adapt successfully to future operating conditions, whether through energy efficiency, modernisation, diversified income generation, audience accessibility, digital capability, workforce development or more flexible use of buildings and assets.
Then there is social capital. Many noble Lords have mentioned NEETs, and I return to the Lowry. It is more than a building, theatres and a gallery. Through vigorous learning and engagement work, it helps and inspires young people into the creative sector. Over the years, it has forged almost 30 community partnerships across Salford and Greater Manchester and has contributed a deep, diverse and long-lasting impact on local lives through educational, volunteering and community engagement programmes. It is at the heart of its community. Many other cultural organisations are the same, but they need to have a stable and safe roof over their heads to provide outreach work, inspiration and future careers for the next generation, as so many have said.
In the past, Nesta, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, mentioned, set up an arts impact fund by bringing together public, private and charitable funding. It provided repayable finance to arts organisations with ambitions to grow, to achieve great artistic quality and, crucially, to impact in the specific area of social value. Does the Minister agree that social capital should be considered as leverage for raising financial funds?
Most theatres, galleries, performance venues and arts training institutions are carrying significant pressures around capital maintenance, infrastructure renewal and cash flow. A national arts bank could help unlock investment where organisations are fundamentally sustainable but constrained by the risk profile perceived by commercial lenders. There will of course be key questions around scope, governance and strategic prioritisation—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned—but if designed well, such a mechanism could strengthen the sector’s resilience and preserve important cultural infrastructure and places. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, that, without that, arts organisations are facing a crisis.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, for securing this debate and for outlining it so powerfully. I congratulate him too on the impressive record that he and his colleagues in Southwark were able to rely on. I am a Southwark resident myself—in fact, it was the strong cultural offering of the borough that attracted me to the area—so I have the benefit of seeing some of the fruits of his hard labour.
The noble Lord mentioned Mountview, the Central School of Ballet and the Old Vic in his opening speech. There are too many cultural venues in the borough to mention, but I will single out two that are celebrating significant anniversaries this year: the Southbank Centre, Europe’s, largest arts centre, which turns 75 this year, and Theatre Peckham, closer to where I live, which turns 40. I congratulate him on the pioneering work that he did and agree that other parts of the country could look to Southwark as a model.
I am glad that they will be able to think about culture much more proactively because of the concession the Government made during the passage of the then English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. In your Lordships’ House, we added culture as an area of strategic competence, which I hope will encourage more local authorities, particularly the metro mayoralties, to look seriously at this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, mentioned the work of the Theatres Trust as an arm’s-length body. The Government are looking at the planning system and the role that bodies such as the Theatres Trust have. Is the Minister able to say any more at this point on the powers they have on planning? I hope that they will be able to continue their work in encouraging local authorities to think about theatres and other cultural venues.
I am proud of the record of the previous Conservative Government. I had the pleasure of serving in the final three years as Arts Minister. In addition to securing a modest increase in the last Arts Council investment programme, I am proud that we expanded, and then made permanent, the tax reliefs available to theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries, which support them in innovative work and particularly in touring them around the country. However, the noble Lord is right that the capital needs of our cultural sector are pressing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and others said, our cultural infrastructure is creaking. The noble Baroness, Lady Hyde of Bemerton, mentioned the figures by SOLT and UK Theatre for theatres alone.
A game-changer for our cultural life in this country was of course the creation of the National Lottery by the Conservative Government of John Major. That brought a huge influx of investment into our culture and heritage. We saw that first wave of lottery investment at the turn of the last century: everybody’s boiler, roof and building are now leaking and need fixing at the same time. There is a pressing backlog of work for our cultural sector. These are the unsexy things to fundraise for. It is much easier to get a new wing of something built than it is to replace a boiler, to improve the lavatories, and so on. Our cultural sector wants to take a lead in being more environmentally sustainable, and brilliant organisations such as the Theatre Green Book are helping them to do that. They want to be proactive in the changes that they make to their buildings.
The previous Government had a series of funds—the museum estate and development fund, the cultural development fund, the towns fund, the UK shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up fund—all of which gave grants to cultural organisations around the country to help them do some of that work. I had the pleasure of visiting some of the beneficiaries, including one in Southwark—the Old Operating Theatre, near London Bridge—where a grant of £157,000 helped it replace the Georgian skylight that looks down on the old operating table at St Thomas’ Church, part of what is now St Thomas’ Hospital.
The noble Lord and other noble Lords who have spoken today are right: we need to look at innovative ideas in the round. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, singled out the success stories of @sohoplace and the Bridge Theatre. As I understand it, the Bridge Theatre benefited, in part, from Section 106 money. Part of the development done in that part of London allowed the creation of a brilliant new theatre, thanks to the brilliant pioneering work of people such as Nick Hytner, Nick Starr and Nica Burns in the case of @sohoplace. We should be looking at organisations such as Figurative, which are looking at new funding models for arts and culture, and cultural leaders such as Sir Vernon Ellis, who is looking in great detail at how we can encourage more place-based giving.
As noble Lords have said, we should all be reading very well-thumbed copies of the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge of Barking. I am very glad the Government have accepted all her recommendations. There are many good ideas in there. We have heard some of them. On the idea that the Arts Council could be given more powers to have a trading arm to benefit from some of the investment that it gives, would that require a change in its royal charter? If so, I do not know whether the Minister can say anything on how the Government might implement these recommendations, but we hope to see these ideas bearing fruit soon.
I was struck in the noble Baroness’s report by the French example of the loi Aillagon, brought in by Jean-Jacques Aillagon, who was the Culture Minister of France in 2003, which gives generous tax deductions of up to 60% for French corporations that make donations. When I was Arts Minister here, we saw a work by Gustave Caillebotte saved for the French nation—a £43 million painting going to the Musée d’Orsay—thanks to a donation from LVMH, a corporation. It was able to claim 90% of that back in tax relief, a very generous allowance that unlocks philanthropy.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that we need to be much bolder in the face of boycotts. Like many, I regret the departure of Baillie Gifford from literary festivals. At the Hay Festival, I am afraid to say, two Labour politicians from both Houses were among those who pulled out. We all need to be strong in the face of boycotts and stand up and thank those companies that are generous with their money in support of arts and culture in our country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, was right: we benefit here from a mixed model of funding. It is not quite the subsidised model of the European continent and not quite the philanthropy of the United States, but a blend of both. When I was Arts Minister, people were very clear with me that individuals and businesses will give, but only if the Government are seen to be doing their part as well. Does the Minister agree that we benefit from that mixed model? Clearly, the innovative thinking in Southwark has done so, and I am very glad that we have been able to have this debate to look at new ideas to encourage people in other parts of the country, too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord John of Southwark—if anybody was in any doubt as to why he took the place designation of Southwark, I think we are clear on it today—on securing this really important debate and thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contributions today. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, that it has been quite inspiring. It is a really nice end to my week of parliamentary engagement to have something on which I can actually say, with huge enthusiasm, that I will have a lot of things to think about over coming days, and I will take some of those points back to the department.
Our theatres, galleries, performance venues and arts colleges are the bedrock of our national story. They drive local growth and expand opportunity. The Government are acutely conscious of the severe financial and physical pressures these institutions face, particularly as they navigate historical underinvestment and inflation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I congratulate my noble friend on his own track record of delivering in this area. As his opening contribution made clear, during his tenure leading Southwark Council, he championed many pioneering local partnerships to fund major capital developments, including the Central School of Ballet, Mountview and the Old Vic. These projects show how creative local collaboration and—in my noble friend’s own words—inspired leadership can deliver truly world-class cultural spaces.
It is particularly inspiring to hear of how that can open up arts venues to young people throughout local communities. My noble friend Lady Gill highlighted the contribution that such venues and investment can make to employment. I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Hyde highlighted the benefits to local communities, and it was also useful to hear of northern councils following suit from my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. As she said, this shows that it can be done. It was also inspiring—in a very inspiring debate—to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, on the work of the Lowry and its contribution in Salford. It shows how rich a vein of cultural contribution we have across the country.
My noble friend Lord John’s proposal of a national arts bank is thought-provoking. I can see that a guarantor lender for the arts could have some strong hypothetical benefits, namely unlocking favourable loan rates where commercial lending is not viable. However, it was welcome to hear about new commercial theatres in London from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, reminding us that, occasionally, commercial loans can be a good way forward. As my noble friend Lady Hyde said, most arts organisations—I think she cited theatres—need a mixed model of finance.
I appreciate that the debate has focused on guaranteeing capital, so I want to speak briefly on how the Government are directly investing in the arts. By focusing on direct, non-repayable capital grants rather than debt, we are taking the most direct route to tackling the critical maintenance backlogs that threaten the long-term viability of our cultural estate. As my noble friend Lady Hyde highlighted and others mentioned, this Government are delivering up to £1.5 billion in capital investment over this Parliament to secure and revitalise England’s cultural infrastructure. This historic package is designed to protect more than 1,000 cherished arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage buildings from damage and, in some cases, even closure.
We agree, however, that public funding can be only part of the solution. Our creative and cultural sectors depend upon a mixed funding model, in which private philanthropy, corporate support and individual giving play a vital role alongside earned income. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlight the role of philanthropy in investment in the arts. This Government’s vision is to build an ambitious, long-term partnership with philanthropists to deliver tangible national renewal within our communities.
In relation to whether cultural institutions should accept sponsorship from companies on a case-by-case basis, I share the Secretary of State’s view that boycotting sponsors serves only to damage the cultural sector. Philanthropy and corporate sponsorship are long and valuable traditions in our country’s history of support for culture, and we undermine that at our peril. I would say, however, that decisions on commercial and philanthropic donations are rightly for the staff and trustees of those organisations, which typically have policies in place for donations and ethics.
In April, we launched Our Place to Give, our new plan for growing place-based philanthropy. This represents a fundamental shift towards a partnership model that treats philanthropy as a strategic partner in innovation. Key initiatives from the plan include investing £1 million to strengthen fundraising capacity in places, convening regional philanthropic ambassadors to broker better links between donors and communities and adopting a “think philanthropy” approach across government to ensure that public investment acts as a catalyst for wider giving. I was pleased, as Gambling Minister, that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned the contributions made by lotto players through the lottery. It all counts towards that mixed model.
While direct grant funding is our primary tool, the Government are actively exploring how to build a modern, resilient funding model for the arts that goes beyond traditional subsidised structures. We have already seen excellent proofs of concept in this space, such as the Arts Council’s Incentivising Touring scheme, which offers repayable grants and has demonstrated how public capital can be recycled to support more productions and wider audiences.
My noble friend Lady Gill, like most noble Lords, highlighted the work by my noble friend Lady Hodge of Barking in her review of Arts Council England. It focused particularly on exploring new ways to bring more funding into our cultural sector through a variety of innovative solutions. The Government confirmed in our response, published earlier this year, that we will consider all these recommendations. This work is being explored with the Arts Council through targeted engagement with financial experts and relevant sector stakeholders to ensure we identify viable high-quality options that fill policy gaps. I would be very happy to talk to noble Lords in greater detail about this in person, if not in a debate in your Lordship’ House—so let us have more debates on DCMS matters.
As we look into these innovative ideas, we will of course proceed responsibly. Any successful new model must satisfy a number of essential conditions. For example, it will require robust governance and sufficient sector capacity to manage repayable instruments. Fundamentally, any future approach must be affordable within our current fiscal constraints and wider budgeting decisions. We must also recognise that a robust financial ecosystem already exists. This includes deploying a portion of the £4 billion secured for priority sectors and exploring how businesses, including those in the creative industries, can secure loans using their intellectual properties, such as copyrights and designs, as collateral. This would give commercial lenders the confidence to back asset-light creative firms, providing an important pathway to finance for creative founders.
Today’s debate has illustrated the depth of expertise and passion for this in your Lordships’ Committee and the passion that I share for making sure that our arts and cultural organisations have the capital funding that they need to succeed and for finding creative solutions to do this. I hope I have demonstrated that this is a passion that the Government share. It is a debate I would be more than happy to continue. I look forward to future discussions, both with my noble friend Lord John and others, to work collaboratively for the shared goal. I have not answered all the questions; I will write to those noble Lords to whom I have not had a chance to respond.
UK Electricity Prices
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lilley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of why UK electricity prices are among the highest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to open this debate, especially with the high calibre of people proposing to participate in it.
The basic science of global warming is rock solid, but we have been told fairy tales about its economics ever since the Climate Change Act 2008. We all love fairy stories. The essence of most of them is the same: the country faces enormous challenge that can be overcome only at huge cost and sacrifice. Then our hero, through determination, clear-sightedness and a magic wand, finds a way to defeat that challenge which, far from involving cost and sacrifice, makes everyone better off and they all live happily ever after. The climate change version of this fairy tale is that, to avoid human extinction, we must eliminate wicked fossil fuels. This looked as if it would involve daunting costs and sacrifices, but along came Prince Miliband who announced that his magic wand—renewables—would not merely banish emissions but give us cheaper, reliable energy and green growth so that we can all live happily ever after.
The United Kingdom has been one of the first countries to embark on the quest for renewables. We have gone further and faster than most other countries. Our emissions are back at the level they were at in 1879. Two decades on, we have the highest electricity prices in Europe, and Europe has the highest electricity prices in the developed world. Far from enjoying green growth, we have seen our energy-using industries decimated, a third of our refineries closed, chemicals and fertilisers thrashed, aluminium and steel shattered, ceramics, bricks and cement rendered uncompetitive.
We are all told that these high electricity costs are a temporary phenomenon, entirely caused by the wars in Ukraine and Iran and our reliance on gas. High gas prices have exacerbated our problems, but even in 2019, before those wars and the pandemic, when gas prices were at the fairly typical level of the previous two decades, our electricity prices were the third highest in the OECD. Why is this? Surely sun and wind are free. That is true but, unfortunately, they are intermittent and capital intensive. Solar is now a competitive source in sunny countries because the main variable demand there is for air conditioning, which is perfectly correlated with the sun shining. Alas, in the UK the sun does not shine when we need the power most: in winter, in the evenings and at night.
That leaves us with wind. In 2024 Prince Miliband, newly reinstated in his palace—I mean his office—as Secretary of State, assured us that new offshore wind was now cheaper than new gas. Unfortunately, that year’s offshore wind auction set the CfD price for wind at £80 per megawatt-hour in 2021 pounds. His own department’s estimate for the levelised cost of new gas was £55 per megawatt-hour, pre-tax.
There is a respectable case for imposing a tax on fossil fuels to pay for the external costs that global warming will impose on the world. Unfortunately, DESNZ has stopped estimating the social cost of carbon because the conventional estimate, used by the Americans and others, of $20 per megawatt-hour was insufficient to make gas appear uncompetitive. Now DESNZ, in assessing the relative costs of different modes of generation, imposes a theoretical policy cost on fossil fuels, which is calculated as the tax necessary to render fossil fuels less competitive than renewables. I kid you not—that is the methodology. Even then, it is on a levelised cost basis, which takes no account of intermittency. Since the wind often does not blow for quite long periods over the whole UK and much of Europe, we need back-up capacity roughly equal to the wind capacity. At present, that can be only gas. If we then have to eliminate emissions from that gas, we will need an equivalent capacity of carbon capture and storage. That is a threefold investment in capital expenditure for one lot of electricity.
Unfortunately, wind blows best in the wrong places: the North Sea and the Scottish highlands, so a major factor is building additional transmission lines, which already add about a tenth to the final price of electricity. Until those transmission lines are built, we often cannot get the electricity from the north to where the power demand is in the Midlands and south. We have to pay the wind farms for the electricity they cannot produce and simultaneously pay for gas-fuelled power.
The Climate Change Committee and the Government themselves insist that the cost of new wind farms is coming down and will come down further. As it happens, we do not need to rely on guesstimates and campaigners’ forecasts. We can find out the true costs of wind farms already built and those under construction because each wind farm is usually owned by a special purpose vehicle, which has to publish its audited accounts. Professor Gordon Hughes, the professor of energy economics at Edinburgh University, has gone to the trouble of analysing 247 wind farm special purpose vehicle accounts and found that their capital costs are not falling in the way the Climate Change Committee predicts or the Government wish. Moreover, as fields age, operating costs rise significantly and the output of a field falls.
I put down a Question to the Minister asking whether the Government had analysed this data; after ignoring it, the Minister said that estimating prices was not a matter for his department but the responsibility of the independent National Energy System Operator, NESO. It too initially ignored the question, but, after I persistently put it again, it eventually admitted this: “We do not draw on the information from SPV accounts. We used data published in the Government’s electricity generation costs”. The Government imagine that NESO is producing independent figures, and NESO is actually recycling figures produced by the Government.
What is to be done? Unfortunately, we cannot undo foolish and costly past commitments. We heavily subsidised the cost of renewables when they were still immature technology. As Professor Dieter Helm has estimated, that premature subsidy for immature technologies has cost us up to £100 billion. The renewable obligation, which we entered into as part of that subsidy process, still accounts for nearly 10% of prices to energy users. If we want to have the cheapest, most reliable energy in future, we should stop offering subsidies—then we will get the cheapest price available. We should remember Dieter Helm’s remark that Governments are not very good at picking winners but losers are very good at picking Governments. We should require firms to bid firm prices—to offer a contract including paying for the back-up dispatchable supply needed to offset their intermittency—and we should base policy on audited facts, not educated guesses. Above all, we should stop believing in fairy tales.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but also a problem, as he has said almost everything that needs to be said on this subject already, and in a style that few of us can imitate.
In the time available, I want to critique one particular argument that we hear quite a lot nowadays: that we just need energy abundance. The argument runs: “We just need more of everything—nuclear, gas, wind and solar. Let’s just get building—it doesn’t really matter what. Let’s just get on with it”. In a way, it is a good thing that we hear this argument. I think it is put forward precisely because people sense that there is something awry with the arguments for renewables but do not want to follow the logic through to its conclusion. Indeed, the argument sounds superficially logical: let us maximise our ability to use everything—the wind is free, so let us use that when we can, and use other things when we cannot. It is said that building lots of everything makes sure we can do that.
There are two problems with this. The first is the best-known one: intermittency. You cannot control when the wind blows, so you have to have enough capacity to replace all your renewables capacity when there is zero wind and zero sun. The more renewables you have on the system, the more back-up you need and the bigger your problem is. Having more renewables requires even more capacity overall, and that brings more cost.
The second problem is perhaps less intuitively obvious but still crucial. It does not matter that the marginal cost of wind is free; it still needs a system to deliver it. After all, rain is free, but we still pay for our water because we need a system to get it to us. It is the nature of this system, and the cost that goes with it, that is the problem. Renewables are a low-density inefficient system; they require a grid that is fundamentally different in nature to the grid that conventional generation needs. It is much more diffuse, much less efficient and much more difficult to get the power to where it is needed, even when it is being generated.
To illustrate the point briefly, compare Hinkley Point to same electricity generated via wind. Hinkley Point C will generate 7% to 10% of the country’s electricity demand on a site roughly the size of Regent’s Park—reliably, all day and all night. To generate the same amount with renewables requires an area half the size of a county such as Nottinghamshire or Leicestershire. In practice, of course, it is much more spread out and much greedier in terms of land use than that.
Such a diffuse and intermittent system requires extra engineering to provide capacities that come automatically with a conventional grid: inertia, voltage support and system strength. All this comes with cost: grid balancing, vast transmission costs, curtailment and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said, subsidy and price support. Optimising a grid to do these things is difficult and expensive—that is just the physical reality of these things.
This is why “just build more of everything” is a fallacy. You cannot lower electricity prices by adding more of the very technology that increases the costs. “More of everything” just multiplies the most expensive and complicated part of the overall bill. That is why “build more of everything” is not a strategy; it is a refusal to be intellectually honest and a reluctance to face up to what is necessary if we are to get costs and prices down. What is necessary is not layering renewables on top of gas or nuclear but halting renewables expansion altogether, before any more damage is done.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, industrial electricity prices are four times the level of the United States of America’s and more than three times the level of China’s. It is no wonder that we face a disaster of deindustrialisation accelerating under this Government with the closure of the oil refineries, ceramics plants and others that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, rightly mentioned.
This is all avoidable damage. It is self-harm on a huge scale that the Government should be ashamed of. We have signed up for dearer electricity—it was not just this Government, but this Government have signed up to it, doubled the signature and worsened the terms, making it so much worse than even the position they inherited. It was always going to be the case that, if you put on more renewables, you would have dearer electricity. It is completely wrong to suggest otherwise, because you need to pay for two systems: you need the wind power as well as 100% back-up, because on some days, particularly cold, difficult days in winter, there is no wind power at all. So you are paying twice with the back-up.
It was always going to be the case that the more renewables you put on the system, the dearer your cheapest form of energy production, which is gas generation, becomes. When you switch from gas being on baseload to gas being interruptible and brought in only occasionally when there is no wind, it works much less efficiently. The efficiency of the power station drops from over 60% to around 40%, so there will be even more carbon dioxide per amount of energy produced. Of course your costs go up dramatically, because your overhead costs for the gas power station are defrayed by a limited number of days instead of being defrayed by operating every day of the year apart from occasional maintenance. It was baked into the system that this would be less efficient and work less well.
Governments, particularly this one, have then compounded the problem by saying that gas must incur very high carbon tax charges. Of course our electricity was going to get dearer, because customers had to pay additional taxes on the gas. Why are there additional taxes on the gas? It is mainly as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, implied: the gas was too competitive and was still cheaper even on some of the interruptible runnings that they were proposing. So you needed a big carbon tax to say to people, “This really is the dearest part of the power system, which is why we are trying to get rid of it”.
So the Government go out and sell to the public this unbelievable idea that we have uniquely dear electricity because we are producing some on gas—gas which is diminishing in volume because, when we have windy days now, there is more wind power available, so the amount on gas has reduced proportionately. They are not coming clean with the public that a series of levies and carbon taxes are the cause of very high energy prices in the United Kingdom.
The Government offered £300 off people’s bills as a lovely election offer. We all thought that that meant our bill would go down by £300, but we now learn that their down payment is £150 off a rise, so the bill still goes up. The sting in the tail, which we were not told about, is that we have to pay the £150, but out of general taxes instead of our electricity bills. For most people who go to work and pay taxes, that is no advantage at all. The Government are kidding themselves and undermining their own popularity, industry and commerce by a policy which is all self-harm.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Make UK, which represents 26,000 manufacturing businesses in the UK. I declare it not just because it is in the register; I am speaking in this debate because the unfair policy for pricing energy is affecting every one of those 26,000. Our members pay 25p per kilowatt hour. French and German companies in exactly the same field pay 12%.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)
Sorry, I stand corrected: 12p. The noble Lord is right. In China, it is 3p. What does this really mean? Is it just a number? Having been on a presentation with the chief executive officer of Nissan, I can tell the Committee that that company pays more for electricity in Sunderland than in any of its other plants globally. Tinsley Bridge Ltd had to shut its automotive division in Sheffield because of energy prices—110 skilled jobs and £20 million of work went to France. That was because of energy prices. Another company, one of our members in Yorkshire, has seen its bills go up from £1.2 million to £2.4 million, not because of Iran or anything else recently but because of the cost of energy.
Why is this? International oil and gas prices are much the same everywhere. It is the price. This is the Government’s choice. Five different levies make the difference. That is policy; it is a choice that can be made. This is what makes the difference. Domestic prices are regulated, I assume for electoral reasons, but industrial prices are not and there are 150,000 small companies in this country that do manufacturing.
I had the pleasure of working with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, when I was Energy Minister and he was my shadow. He is very smart and understands all these arguments, but I ask him not to respond to this debate by talking about the supercharger. That is an attempt to lower prices, very successfully, for 400 heavy users. I also ask him not to rely on BICS and its subsidies. This was announced after extensive lobbying by Make UK a year ago, when Jonathan Reynolds, then Secretary of State for Business and Trade, phoned up with glee to say that he had won a big argument around the Cabinet table and that there would be this scheme for manufacturing, affecting thousands of businesses and reducing their prices to the levels of those in France and Germany. A year later, what have we had? We have had consultations and arguments about who is included. Ed Miliband’s department tells us that it is the Treasury; the Treasury tells us that it is Ed Miliband’s department. Our members do not care: they get their bills, which are going up and up. Where is this?
I remind the Minister, who is a student of history, that every industrial revolution has been based on cheap power: water, steam, coal and oil. What now? We cannot allow the deindustrialisation of this country because of inept—I do not use the word easily—energy policy which is penalising jobs, employment and, as the Government are always mentioning, growth.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I put on record my registered interest as the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Let me restate what Labour’s manifesto said. It promised to get power bills down by £300. The latest price cap is £294 higher than in those lofty days of July 2024, and even that has been fiddled because the average has shrunk from the previous average, as households are using less because they simply cannot afford to use more. So, like for like, it would be even higher. We are now more than £600 adrift from that manifesto promise. I have always brought to politics the principle that a promise made is a promise to be kept, but that promise is simply not being kept.
I do not want to pre-empt what the Minister might say, but I guess it will be something along the lines of, “Gas is the problem”. The answer should be, “Thank heavens for gas, even better if it is domestically derived”. The price cap for gas is 5.74p. For electricity, it is 24.67p, so gas is just 20% of the price of electricity. As I attempt to heat my home, gas is infinitely preferable on price, as it is for many. Gas sets the price, which I am sure the Minister will say is an indication that the market no longer works. Gas is used as the last resort after renewables have failed to provide the required electricity and after interconnectors are at full tilt—and after the wood-burning fiasco that is the Drax formula of energy generation, using imported wood pellets that have come across the Atlantic. That is the sham of the net-zero fairy tale, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said very clearly.
The nature of renewables is in their intermittencies. Some might say that I do not know very much, but I do know one thing: the sun does not shine at night, so solar does not work very well at night. At our latitude in the UK, somewhat north and with Atlantic-influenced weather, it is not particularly good even on the best of days. Wind is similarly unreliable. In every energy debate, I try to get in the wonderful German word Dunkelflaute, which refers to long periods, usually in the middle of winter, when there is an anticyclone, no wind and—obviously, in the winter—very little solar. As we bulk up on renewables, we simply bulk up on cost, as we are seeing on an annual basis. We have a choice: either create loads more renewables, then create storage systems so that we have enough energy to get us across those Dunkelflaute periods, or use batteries and elevated reservoirs for gravity hydro, or we consider hydrogen. All are abject failures on the thermodynamic pathway. They are all poor. They lose energy at every step and all are horribly expensive.
We are now trying to recreate a perfectly good grid around this low-density electricity production. We are making redundant the perfectly good grid that we used to serve our high-density, high-inertia power stations. That new grid requires steel, aluminium, copper, concrete and transformers, and it simply destroys our beautiful countryside—all to chase the pipe dream of net zero. Surely this Government are aware that more industry will close and household budgets will be further squeezed as we perpetuate high prices for energy. This madness must stop.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I want to make some brief comments in relation to the situation in Northern Ireland.
As noble Lords may be aware, energy prices in Northern Ireland are not controlled by the energy price cap. We all remember that global prices of gas, electricity, oil and other fuels began to rise dramatically in the summer of 2021. Prices then shot through the roof after Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Later that year, the Conservative Government provided support for customers in Northern Ireland, which resulted in the largest electricity supplier in the Province cutting prices in November to a rate below those in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, a reduction in that support from April 2023, and its removal from July 2023, led to price rises in Northern Ireland. Since September 2023, the cheapest prices from Northern Ireland’s largest supplier have been higher than prices under the cap in the rest of the UK.
All Northern Ireland households will shortly receive a £30 annual reduction on their electricity. On the face of it, this is welcome news, until you learn that households in Great Britain will receive £150 per year. I understand that the discrepancy is because one of the two environmental levies being removed from bills by the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not exist in Northern Ireland. However, given the higher price of electricity in the Province which I have just explained, surely that should be taken into account as a means of redressing the current cost imbalance between the two parts of the kingdom.
There is another problem. According to Northern Ireland statistics, approximately 61% to 68% of households in the Province use oil rather than gas as their primary method of central heating. This equates to roughly 500,000 homes, with the reliance on heating oil jumping to over 80% in rural areas. An analysis by the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland found that, in March, following the US-Israeli attack on Iran, heating oil prices in the Province rocketed by 92%, with 500 litres costing consumers an eyewatering £627. I ask the Minister to consider what further support His Majesty’s Government can make available.
Finally, a word on business. While electricity prices for Northern Ireland household consumers are high, the situation for local firms is equally challenging at best, given that large energy users currently pay around 60% more than the EU median. Businesses in the Province are already tied up in knots, with additional costs caused by the ongoing Irish Sea border fiasco. Last month, Trade NI—the alliance of Hospitality Ulster, Retail NI and Manufacturing NI, representing the three largest sectors of industry and the majority of businesses in Northern Ireland—sent a delegation to Westminster. While here, they met Ministers and other key decision-makers to outline some of the practical interventions needed to support Northern Ireland’s competitiveness. I am unaware of whether the Minister was part of these discussions but, if not, I gently ask that he receives a full brief from his officials on the initiatives raised and considers how he and his department might best assist Northern Ireland.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
My Lords, when I was a student at the London School of Economics, there was a thing called the London fog. When it descended, visibility went down to 10 to 20 yards. I must say, as I prepared reading for this debate, I felt that I was entering pure fog. It was confusion and darkness—you were frankly nervous about where you were going.
I will make just three points. The first has already been made, but I want to emphasise it. That is the cost of intermittency. You frequently hear, as the Secretary of State has said, that renewables are nine times cheaper than fossil fuels and gas. In a way, he is right. They are if you consider the price of fuel in connection with them as zero but, on the other hand, intermittency requires enormous investment. Dieter Helm suggests that, in the past, we needed about one-third more capacity to deal with peak demand. Now, he says, we have reached a position where we need twice the capacity to deal with peak demand. In the future, if we are to get the benefit from AI, greater electric vehicles and so on, we need a factor of three. This simply cannot be done from renewables. The enormity of the cost has simply not been recognised by the Government.
My second point is that we have a present grid that is totally out of date. The grid was built to deal with some very large generating companies. I do not know why there were so few. Whenever an economist looks at a few companies, you immediately think of restriction of competition. In the past, there was that small number. Today, you have wind farms and solar parks, and many more access points are needed. The grid is simply not compatible, and we do not have, like other countries, something to fall back on. China and Germany can fall back on coal. France can fall back on nuclear. The US can fall back on oil and gas. We fall back on wind, light and sun. It is really crazy.
My third point is on overregulation. Why should we have one price for power throughout the whole country? Why can we not have a regional pricing of power? If, in Scotland, offshore wind farms and so on are cheaper, why can Scotland not be allowed to attract to the area industries that depend heavily on power? We need much less regulation in this respect and much more flexibility. That is something only the Government can do.
In the 20 years past years, I think we have seen a complete shock in deindustrialisation in this country. If we have any ambition to benefit from things such as AI and to regain the power that we once had, we have to recognise the cost of intermittency. We have to recognise that the grid is out of date and needs restructuring. There is unnecessary government regulation, and we need regional price variation.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow such an excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. I declare my interest in new nuclear technology in the United States.
We have the highest electricity price in the world. Why? The Secretary of State claims that this is solely due to the gas price. The gas price does affect prices, but why and to what degree? Certainly, if the price of gas goes up, the electricity price goes up. But when the gas price goes down, will the cost go down? The devil in electricity prices is intermittent renewables. They are the cause, not just of high electricity prices, but of high prices that will persist in this country for almost the next two decades. While other countries will see their electricity price going lower and lower, we will be left high and dry.
Why is that the case? First, the old renewables contracts ensured not just very healthy profits for the operators but a huge extra and entirely unnecessary bonus when gas prices went up. It is another example of blundering negotiation by a zealous Civil Service under—I do agree—a Government run by my own party, which resulted in the Government being absolutely trounced by far better negotiators to achieve that wonderful upside benefit for the operators. That blunder was finally spotted, and now we have new contracts where the renewables operator does not get anything extra if gas prices go up. That means that, with these new contracts, it is just not true, as Miliband claims, that the gas price rules. Whatever the price of gas, what we pay for that large source is impervious. Note that the only way the Government managed to make even that happen—again in their blundering negotiations—was a very high price guarantee in the first place with very long contracts. The problem will persist, literally for a decade and a half or two, regardless of the cost of gas. Why were these very rich deals seen as necessary? I do not believe they were, but they were seen as necessary. It is because intermittent technologies are medieval.
What are we to do? If we let people drill for gas in the North Sea and by fracking—and the same all over the world—then the supply of gas will inevitably rise to the marginal cost of production, and the cost of gas will lower, say, to what it is currently in the United States, which is a tiny fraction of what we pay here. We are told by the Secretary of State that the price of gas rules our price of electricity, so, when the gas price starts to decline, will the price of electricity go down? No, it will remain high for 15 or 20 years, because there is this enormous renewable subsidy forcing up the price of electricity for contracts going on into the 2040s. For industrial competitiveness, this is dreadful, as everybody else’s price goes down and our does not. This is the disaster that will go on disastering.
In the US, the moment Trump got in last year, he slashed a bunch of useless regulations in nuclear. Within a year, the US has over a dozen safer and cheaper new nuclear plants and technologies being built. Within 15 to 20 years, America will be dominating those technologies while we flounder.
We should stop intermittent renewable contracts now, slash regulation on nuclear—the type that requires a nuclear power station to have less radiation in it than you get by walking down the road—and use our great scientific know-how to become leading in nuclear. Yet, only once we have got through the next awful two decades that face us, with all these intermittent high-cost renewable contracts, will we once again be able to have cheap electricity.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and all those who have contributed. On these Benches, we support the energy transition and reducing our energy bills. They are in fact fundamentally linked, but we must be honest about the cause and the solutions.
UK industrial electricity prices remain among the highest in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrington, so ably put it, and household costs continue to be significantly more for electricity than gas. Prices have fallen from their peak in 2022 but are still well above pre-crisis levels, and this is having serious impacts.
Once again, instability in the Middle East shows our exposure to unreliable and volatile fossil fuels is the cause. Since the start, the UK has avoided around £1.7 billion in gas import costs, thanks to record wind and solar generation. Clean power improves energy security and shields consumers from fossil fuel shocks.
The Conservatives’ explanation of high prices is that it is driven by renewables and net zero madness. These arguments have been made consistently by many speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Mackinlay, but the arguments do not stand up. The core issue lies in the structure of the electricity market. Under marginal pricing, the most expensive generator sets the price. Even when cheaper renewables are generating power, consumers still pay the price linked to gas. The gas price problem is passed directly to bills. Wholesale prices and, above all, continued reliance on gas are the real drivers. Blaming renewables does not explain or resolve the problem.
It is also a fantasy to argue that North Sea drilling provides the answer or would reduce our energy bills. Domestic production is in inevitable and terminal decline; gas is traded internationally. The North Sea will not impact the international markets, reduce bills or provide energy security.
We have already seen the consequences when these markets turn against us. Reliance on fossil fuels cost the UK economy £183 billion in the four years following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is the cost of structural energy vulnerability. As long as we remain exposed to fossil fuel volatility, we will continue to pay.
This is why the seventh carbon budget is so important. A transition to clean energy is not just environmentally necessary but economically advantageous, reducing bills, strengthening security and attracting investment. The Government’s own analysis suggests that emissions reductions of 87% by 2040 could deliver economic benefits of around £865 billion. This is a real opportunity for stability, resilience and growth. The clean energy sector supports over 1 million jobs, and renewable projects capable of powering the equivalent of 23 million homes have already been secured by this Government, and we support that work.
At the same time, the cost of renewables has fallen sharply, with recent auctions delivering prices well below those for new gas generation. The Government have acknowledged the need to break the link between gas and electricity prices, including through adjustments to the generator levy and encouraging fixed-price contracts for existing low-carbon generation. We support those moves. They are welcome steps, but they must be part of a broader and more urgent programme of reform.
Further electricity market reform is needed and must be accelerated. As long as gas sets the price, consumers will not see the full benefit of low-cost renewables. We need a government strategic gas reserve, outside the market. We must address the imbalance in levies. Electricity wrongly continues to carry a disproportionate share of policy costs, despite electrification being central to decarbonisation. We need greater resilience to future shocks. There must be proper, long-term targeted support for bill payers. A permanent, targeted social tariff is needed. We must move faster on electrification, with heat pumps, electric vehicles and grid infrastructure. The direction is right, but the pace insufficient.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn Partners, three companies focused on delivering energy transition.
This has been an excellent debate. Since my noble friend Lord Lilley referred to Dieter Helm, and having just heard the speech from the noble Earl, I think it is important to quote in full what Dieter Helm, who is respected by both the Labour Governments of Blair and Starmer, said only last week:
“The industrial consequences have been dire. High electricity prices have contributed to the closure of Grangemouth refinery, the Exxon refinery in Scotland, one of the Hull refineries, the closure of most of the steel industry, the closure of the fertiliser and fibreglass industries, and severe problems for pottery and for glass-making. Car manufacturing is back to the 1950s’ levels”.
As we have heard:
“There is devastation amongst the SMEs, aggravated by the increase in employer national insurance contributions, enhanced workers’ rights, and increases in the minimum wage. The unfunded welfare spending has increased the cost of capital, with record gilt costs. Energy policy has reduced economic growth, not increased it”.
On these Benches, we believe in reducing household bills, strengthening energy security and increasing UK energy independence by prioritising cheap and reliable energy over net-zero constraints, expanding North Sea production significantly, repealing the energy profits levy and scrapping green subsidies, including carbon price support, which are no longer needed.
Ministers consistently refer to “clean energy”, which they define as homegrown. It is neither of these things. The con trick is to pretend that emissions should exclude the integrated lifecycle costs, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Frost, while pretending naively that, because the wind blows and the sun shines, there is no impact on the environment. We are responsible for creating the demand for Chinese solar panels. Over 90% of the constituent parts of our solar panels come from China; they are not homegrown or clean. We create the demand for polycrystalline. We are accountable for the emissions belched into the atmosphere by Chinese coal-fired production of solar panels—a country, by the way, with which the Secretary of State has created a specific bond between DESNZ and the Chinese state through his secret MoU which encourages these Chinese imports. In this decade alone, China has pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than this country has in total since the industrial revolution.
Yet, we have our own gas reserves, which we are shutting down. This is not economic security. As the new AI technologies unfold, no data centre is going to find Britain’s high-cost economy for a highly intermittent-based electricity system an attractive competitive advantage. Why should it, when 60% of the operating costs of a data centre come from its electricity costs?
The central question for any electricity system in an economy is how good it is at delivering firm power at the lowest possible cost. It is not optional. A modern competitive economy is 100% dependent on firm, low-cost energy. We have a crisis. We have a crisis in British industry: as a result of the highest prices in the developed world, we are uncompetitive. We also have a crisis in affordability for households. Tragically, as this debate has shown, the Secretary of State is doubling down on both crises with the delusion of a zealot heading blindly for a go-for-broke strategy, which is the definition, as my noble friend Lord Redwood said, of economic self-harm.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, on securing this debate. It is a very important debate not just on our present energy crisis as a result of events in the Middle East but to review, among other things, how the energy market has developed in the UK over a long time and what has gone into it.
I, maybe naively, constructed my remarks on the basis of the Question, which addresses why the UK has among the highest energy electricity costs in the OECD area. That is undoubtedly true, although we need to make a number of caveats about how different countries manage their energy markets. Looking at other countries is significant in that respect.
However, I am sorry, but not surprised, that the debate this afternoon has been on a much wider basis. It would require all of us to get around the table for about three hours to talk all these things out, and it would certainly take me more than the 10 minutes that I have this afternoon to remotely address all the points that have been made.
As a general point, I had wanted with my closing speech to address what is being done now about a number of things which I think between us we can agree have been problems and distortions in the UK energy market over a number of years, which need rectifying in the future. But—this is where we come to fairy tales—we know that climate change is real and not a fairy tale. We cannot address the problems and difficulties of the UK energy market and its prices without factoring in what we are doing about climate change. Otherwise, the best thing to do would presumably be to dig a whole load more coal mines and start coal mining again. In our situation, we have to deal with climate change as a central part of our energy economy.
We do that on the basis of a UK energy system in which, for example, more than half of the CCGTs presently in operation are likely to go out of commission within the next few years—a maximum of 10 years, because they are beyond their lives. That is real; it is not a fairy tale. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, informed us, we have a grid system that is completely clapped out and was originally built for an entirely different energy system—not a modern energy system based on climate change and delivering things where they need to go. Whatever the situation, we would have put a great deal of effort in replacing the grid, so that it is up to modern standards and purposes, particularly as far as digitalisation is concern. That is not a fairy tale either.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, it is also not a fairy tale that, as it works at the moment, the system is based on marginal cost pricing. That means that whatever you do in terms of cheaper power in the system, the most expensive element of the system when the bidding process comes in is the one that sets the marginal cost for the entire system. That marginal cost price is still dominated by gas—marginally less so than previously, but it is still a very long way from being resolved.
None of these is a fairy tale. These are things we have to address now with the energy system that we have. I think it was again the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who mentioned that one of the early mistakes that the previous Government made was to generate low-carbon power on the basis of the renewable obligation system, which gives rewards to the 30% of the system still run by renewable obligation-based energy over and above what you would expect it to get because of the volatile price of gas going into the system. But we have it in the system and we have to deal with it. What do we do about it? How do we get those elements out of the system and get a system that really reflects the cheapness of the power coming out of it for the future?
When we look at other energy markets, one answer to these questions is that various other countries are not exposed to those marginal prices and the gas input of 30% or so into the UK system that we are. In France and Canada, for example, it is only a few per cent based on gas. Even in Germany, there is a higher proportion but it is still much lower than us. People may like to say that this is what I would say this afternoon, but it is overwhelmingly the case that the present high electricity prices in the UK market are based on our being very high users of gas in the system to create electricity, and therefore our costs in the system go along with the volatility and changing prices of gas.
There are two more non-fairy tales, of course: the invasion of Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East at the moment. It is true that gas prices have come down a little since the peaks during the invasion of Ukraine, but they are still considerably higher than they were before it. That is the system we are dealing with at the moment.
What are we trying to do to deal with that? First, we have to make sure we get off gas in the system. Part of the mission to achieve clean power by 2030 and accelerate net zero is to place gas on the margins of the system so that it produces a relatively small amount, as has been stated, backing up the system rather than being a central part of it as a whole.
We have indeed brought in price caps, as noble Lords will know, to ensure that price rises are kept in check over a period. The Government never said that energy bills would all come down as a result of price caps or as a result of the transfer of some of the legacy things, such as the renewables obligation or the energy company obligation, away from levies and into the Exchequer. We did not say that would necessarily bring down bills; we said it would make sure those bills would go up rather less than they would otherwise. That is not a fairy tale but an actual fact—that is what has happened with, for example, the reduction in the Ofgem April price cap and the effect on the price cap coming up fairly shortly.
As noble Lords have mentioned, the Government are trying to make sure that prices come down for the industry. Mention has been made of the supercharger, which will cut businesses’ electricity costs by up to £420 million per year, which particularly relates to discounts on electricity network charges for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement and chemicals from 60% to 90%. That will make a real difference.
The Chancellor also announced in April that the Government will cut electricity bills by up to 25% for over 10,000 manufacturers from April 2027 through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. We are working hard to make sure that there is downward pressure on those bills, both domestic and industrial, through the moves that we are making against the background of the electricity system we have at the moment. At the same time, we have to tackle the structural problems that we have in the electricity system for the longer term. It is not just a question of putting more renewables on to the system; it is a question of revising the whole system so that the benefits of those renewables and low carbons come through and that the things that are a cost to the system go to the margins. That is why we are seeking to delink the cost of electricity from management by gas, particularly by taking action against the renewable obligation bodies that still make up quite a considerable portion of the energy market. We think that will produce a considerable reduction in the hold that gas has over the market over the next period. There will be fixed-price contracts for eligible generators, and we will be delinking from gas prices and protecting consumers from future crises.
I am aware that, as I had predicted, I have not been able to take in the entire sweep of this afternoon’s debate in one go. I warmly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will secure a further two or three debates so that we can debate a number of the other issues.
To conclude, the Government are determined that families and businesses cannot be left at the mercy of volatile fossil fuel markets on an international basis. That is why we must press on with the transition not just for climate change purposes but for the good management purposes of having secure, homegrown power that will ultimately bring bills down for good.
AI Regulation Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for a cross-sector AI regulation bill.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to bring this QSD to the Grand Committee for debate. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register, variously as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons and Simmons LLP. I thank all noble Lords who have signed up to speak, and I look forward to their quick-fire contributions.
I have been given eight minutes to open this debate, but I can do it in one word: is there a case for a cross-sector AI Bill? Yes. To expand somewhat on that, the Prime Minister has described AI as:
“The defining opportunity of our generation”,
yet the Government are largely taking a wait-and-see, voluntary and so-called domain-specific approach. I am not sure that wait and see is ever an optimal approach to any issue, particularly one as significant as AI. But do not listen to me; let us consider, on its own merits, how the Government’s approach is going. Harms are unaddressed. Young people are not getting shortlisted for jobs, without even knowing that it is AI that is kicking them out of the process; even if they knew, there would be little, if any, redress at this time. Job seekers, benefit claimants, teachers and teenagers are all suffering the harms of AI that are currently unaddressed. Similarly, vast opportunities are being unoptimised for the UK. Wait and see has really led to partial, piecemeal and voluntary action.
Why have the Government taken this approach? Let us take just two of the elements that are offered. The first is that it is too soon to legislate; they will stymie, stifle or stop progress. Not a bit of it—we know exactly what we need to do to put in place the right-sized legislation and regulation. The second is a falsehood that recurs with tedious inevitability: you can either have regulation or innovation, but you cannot have both. We all know bad regulation—there is a deal of it about—but that does not mean for one second that regulation, of itself, is bad. Right-sized and right-touch regulation is good for citizens, creatives, consumers, innovators and investors alike. We know how to do this. Just look back to the telco regulation of some decades ago. Was it stopping an industry? Far from it: it was a key enabler of Great British telco business.
What do we need to do? What anyone needs are clarity, consistency and coherence. This is currently not the case. We have such an opportunity because we have the great good fortune of common law, which is agile, adaptable and ideal for the task at hand. We need to bring forward principles-based, outcomes-focused, inputs-understood legislation. Those principles are trust and transparency; inclusion and innovation; interoperability and international outlook; accountability, assurance and accessibility—and we need to put those principles on a statutory footing.
We need to look to AI responsible officers across business. We need labelling to address the IP challenge, which currently continues to be kicked down the road, with creatives’ work taken—unremunerated, unrespected and unconsented to. Crucially, we need public engagement across this if we are going to enable all the opportunities from AI. We know what to do. We have the legislative capability, knowledge and history of how to do this.
Do not just listen to me. Let us take the great Ada Lovelace Institute, which variously describes the Government’s approach as chronically insufficient and, in a glorious understatement,
“increasingly out of step with public attitudes”.
If the Government want growth and public trust in AI and optimal outcomes across the whole of society, we need to end this wait-and-see, voluntary, partial, piecemeal approach. For economic, social, democratic and psychological reasons, we need a cross-sector, principles-based, outcomes-focused AI regulation Bill now. We need this for citizens, creatives, consumers, innovators and investors all to be enabled and empowered to say full-throatedly together, “Our data, our decisions, our AI futures”—our human-led, inclusive AI futures.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, my first duty is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for that introduction. He and I are members of the Lords Communications and Digital Committee. We have both benefited from discussions and hearings about AI held by the Select Committee under the shrewd guidance of our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley.
Our briefings seemed to come from two directions. First, the tech sector sees the onward march to artificial intelligence to be a unique opportunity to achieve unprecedented leaps in productivity, problem-solving and efficiency—the very combination of which successive Governments have been seeking since the great financial crash of 2008. There are counterarguments, coming mainly from the creative industries and from people such as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope, who see the risks and dangers associated with AI as enough to give us pause before we decide on the direction to take.
If the AI revolution is already on the way—I believe it is—our first task is to ensure that our machinery of government is fit for purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, suggested a cross-sector AI Bill. I would go further and establish a cross-party, pre-legislative scrutiny committee of both Houses to take evidence on the proposals in such a Bill. I was on the committee for the Communications Act 2003. It was one of the great experiences of my life, in exchanging and hearing ideas.
Something else that has been suggested is the setting up of a COBRA-type committee. I also served on COBRA in the past. AI calls for the kind of committee that is able to look forward, anticipate problems and advise on what we are doing.
These would be two useful first steps in making the AI revolution less painful and destructive to the lives of working people than other tech innovations have in the past.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for securing this debate. I will echo some of his themes.
Cross-sectoral regulation will come. The question is simply: when? This week, the Trump Administration issued an executive order compelling new AI frontier models to be submitted for review. All general-purpose technologies require regulation—electricity, rail and nuclear. Like nuclear, AI is both a general-purpose technology and a dual-use one. But unlike early nuclear, AI innovation is occurring in private companies and not in government labs, which partly explains the regulatory squeamishness. The US fears falling behind China; the UK fears impeding growth and points to Europe, where regulation has damaged innovation. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, into this debate stepped the Pope, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and a host of lesser luminaries, including the head of MI5, the founders of Anthropic and military chiefs—all agitating for action both locally and nationally.
Regulation is not antithetical to growth and to realising the upsides of AI. The Government are delivering cross-sectoral legislation on cybersecurity but have hesitated on a comparable approach to AI safety. I invite the Minister, when summing up, to share when the Government will launch their consultation on AI regulation. Will they consider regulation at the point of development and not simply at the point of use? Will they mandate pre-deployment testing of high-risk AI, as the US has now done? Do they accept the case for an AI regulatory oversight body?
These are robust questions for my own Government. Yet these issues are too big for us to play politics with. I note that I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, who is unquestionably the master of robust challenge. Yet his Government also wrestled with the growth versus regulation dilemma; Rishi Sunak counselled caution as recently as last week about us being a first mover. I welcome the call of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for a cross-party approach. The nation and the world are looking to us for actions that match our moment. This requires an inclusive discussion, debate and direction. It is time to act.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for securing this debate, which has given us the opportunity, albeit briefly, to talk about this subject. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, for what I think was intended as a kind remark.
I support a principles-based approach, which is not surprising since that was the approach set out by the Government of which I was a member. A number of principles should be adopted by existing regulators—I do not support having a single AI regulator—balanced against their existing duties on growth and innovation. This is important because, while there are absolutely risks with AI, it will be one of the biggest potential drivers of growth and innovation if we get it right. We need to balance those two things.
I also want to focus on the thing that we are doing well—the AI Security Institute, which we set up and the current Government have retained. I was listening to Matt Clifford the other day, an apolitical official who is experienced in this sector. He was brought in by Rishi Sunak and retained by the present Prime Minister. He made the point that this is world leading, enabling us to robustly test AI models and approaches to make sure that we deal with the risks. It is very successful at enabling us to be a global leader. We are never going to be like the United States, the centre of all these things, but outside of the US and China we are a leading player in this area.
I support a principles-based approach and a relatively short piece of legislation that would give the duty to existing regulators to adopt those principles. However, we need to move at pace and not do what happened with the Online Safety Act—still talking about the legislation in seven years’ time, when, frankly, the world will have moved on at pace.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on his commitment to AI regulation and on securing today’s QSD. In the time available, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and concentrate on AISI, the AI Security Institute.
When Claude Mythos Preview was released by Anthropic to a select group of launch partners a few weeks ago, AISI was the only non-American government organisation to receive access to the model for safety testing. However, should the UK Government in three years’ time have the same view of AI governance as the current US President, AISI’s future would be under threat. The Government could decide overnight to repurpose it or even shut it down altogether.
I therefore proposed a Private Member’s Bill, not drawn in the ballot, which would establish AISI as an independent statutory body. It would make provision for its functions in relation to the testing and evaluation of advanced AI systems, including pre-deployment and post-deployment assessment of risks, and for the institute to give advice to the Government and Parliament. Putting AISI on a statutory footing, beyond its current status as a unit within DSIT, would signal to the international community that the UK’s commitment to AI safety was permanent.
We cannot wait: Anthropic is predicting that there is a greater than 50% probability that AI self-recursive improvement will be achieved by 2028. If AISI has become an independent statutory body by then, it will be able to provide regulatory advice on whether AI designed by AI is safe to use or whether it should be banned in the UK. Expert-driven regulation based on advice from an independent AISI, using Henry VIII powers if required, is the best option for AI safety in the UK. I urge the Minister and the Government to allocate some bandwidth to thinking about this critical issue.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for bringing this debate. The fact that so many of us wish to speak today shows that this really needs to be properly debated as a society, not just in a series of two-minute soundbites.
I think we all agree that good regulation and economic growth are not a trade-off—they go hand in hand. In order to get good regulation, you have to go through quite detailed and thoughtful work. My question—I have asked the Minister this before in a Question—is: why are the Government not initiating a commission along the lines of the Warnock committee that looked at human embryology and fertilisation in the 1980s?
This single hour shows that there are really important moral, social and economic issues about AI that we need to think through. With the greatest of respect to my noble friend beside me, I genuinely do not think that individual regulators on their own can sort that out. We have to have a proper societal debate about this, and we have the democratic tools to do it. That is not a hurried piece of emergency legislation; it is a proper commission, a Green Paper and a White Paper. It is about building the societal trust that we need for this ground-breaking regulation.
I urge the Government to think carefully, because at the moment we are doing nothing, and that is really dangerous. Nothing takes us to the same place that we are in with social media, which is a huge amount of harm done, no action and then calls to ban the technology. Banning the technology is a really bad idea; regulating it well is where we should be going.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on securing this debate. Given the pace of AI development, it could not be more timely. As Pope Leo said in his recent encyclical:
“Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible”.
Regulation does not of necessity stifle innovation. As David Epstein argues in his recent book Inside the Box, creativity, innovation and problem-solving are often improved by constraints rather than exhortations to “think outside the box”. The need for regulation in this space, however, goes well beyond this. One cannot divorce current technological advances from the moral framework which underlies them. Every advance reflects a moral vision and an ideological bias. There is—in some quarters of the AI industry at least—a dehumanising conviction that evolution drives us towards perfection. AI, it is argued, will be better than us at many things, so why not harvest the best of us and move on? As recent debates about social media use by under-16s demonstrate, large technology companies motivated exclusively by profit do not necessarily have our best interests at heart. Such utilitarianism is not a basis for a human ethical framework.
Regulation is ultimately about the restraint of such power for the common good. There are underlying systems which power many of the applications with which we are familiar, and it is these that need to be regulated. As many noble Lords have said, it is insufficient to do this piecemeal by sector when the risks that experts warn about are not sector specific. They are systemic, and potentially catastrophic. Noble Lords in this debate have already suggested many methodologies for bringing that into practice. I urge His Majesty’s Government, in collaboration with other nations, to introduce guardrails at the point of development.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and chairman of the News Media Association. The vast, unaccountable technology companies would have us believe that any attempt at regulation in this area would stifle their growth and damage the economy. That is nonsense, of course. The truth is that legislation, even of the most modest sort, is long overdue to protect public safety, ensure transparency, tame untrammelled market power and protect content and intellectual property.
I have two points. First, there is already legislation on the statute book that, as a starting point, simply needs to be enforced. Rather than trying to rip the guts out of the CMA, the Government should actively direct it to encourage greater competition in digital markets. Google’s announcement yesterday that it will give publishers greater control over use of their work globally, after the CMA introduces binding conduct requirements on search, not only demonstrates that big tech will not flee if we introduce proportionate regulation but shows that the UK has an opportunity to lead the way.
Secondly, the Government should act now to ensure that existing copyright law is meaningfully enforced. For news publishers, indeed all content publishers, whose content is routinely scraped—or stolen—without consent or remuneration, simple transparency over the identity and purpose of the “crawlers” accessing that content would provide the basic information required to assert their rights and be rewarded for them. It is not a radical demand and falls well short of proper regulation, but it would be a start as a practical measure to make existing law effective. Yet even this has been kicked into the long grass, despite consistent demands from this House for action.
We should not accept political paralysis on this vital issue. AI can be a great force for good but, to serve all of society, laws must be enforced and fresh regulation put in place at speed. Unless we act now, history will taunt us with its most feared words: “too late”.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has done us all a favour by facilitating this discourse, but it should not be necessary. In the 2024 King’s Speech, the Government committed to placing binding regulations on the developers of the most powerful AI models. Almost two years later, we still await legislation to fulfil this commitment. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be able to explain why that important policy has been dropped in favour of a weaker approach through targeted regulation at the point of use.
This ignores the warnings by experts developing superintelligent AI and leaves a major regulatory gap because recent models, such as Claude Mythos, have exposed the serious risks that originate at the point of development. On this occasion, the developers decided not to release the model to the public owing to its dangerous capabilities, but a more blindly profit-driven company or hostile actor in the future may not, and we cannot afford to rely on private companies doing the right thing to avoid national and global security threats.
It has been said that the pace of technological change is greater today than it has ever been, but never again will it be as slow as it is today. Companies are investing in what is known as recursive self-improvement, which means AIs autonomously developing more AIs. That would be the point at which we as humans lose control—a truly frightening prospect. MI5 director-general Ken McCallum recently commented that
“Artificial intelligence may never ‘mean’ us harm. But it would be reckless to ignore the potential for it to cause harm”.
I declare an interest of sorts, because I am one of more than 100 parliamentarians in both Houses who have joined ControlAI’s campaign on raising awareness of superintelligence and calling for binding regulation on the most powerful models. British mathematicians and scientists have done much to advance Al technology and the leading ones—the Nobel laureates and “godfathers of AI”—are loudest in their calls for proper regulation. It is past time that the Government took note and acted decisively.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for securing this important debate. Innovation and technology have brought solutions to everyday problems. Britain can be proud of the fact that it started the Industrial Revolution, but we are now in the fast-moving AI revolution. Either we regulate or we stagnate.
It was my Bill that, in 1997, established Britain’s first ever comprehensive DNA database. However, without DNA regulation, we would not have experienced that positive DNA revolution. As a result, we became the first nation in the world to embrace this ground-breaking technology. Nearly 30 years later, the DNA database has positively transformed the effectiveness of medicine, forensic science and research science. Some 175 of the 195 nations in the world now utilise DNA profiles.
There was no mention of an AI regulation Bill in the King’s Speech. Meanwhile, AI is being monitored in pieces through the Online Safety Act and a patchwork of policies in various sectors. This is not the same as a coherent framework for the development, deployment and use of AI. It seems to me that clear regulation on the basis of established common-law principles is not the enemy of innovation. Can the Minister please indicate when we are likely to see an AI regulation Bill?
The Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill is long overdue. In recent months, we have seen airports such as Heathrow, retail chains such as Marks & Spencer, and large manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover all be immobilised by hacking. Two days ago, President Trump created a framework, or clearing house, for federal government to vet powerful new AI models before they are released. This stemmed from Anthropic’s warning that it has developed an AI tool, Claude Mythos, which is an advanced cyber security threat. Will the Minister follow this policy but go one step further than the Americans and make a UK AI clearing house mandatory, not voluntary?
For 10 years, I had the privilege of being the vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification. We regulated films and videos from all over the world, including the “Star Wars” epics. Unless we introduce effective AI regulation now, AI could become less Luke Skywalker and more Darth Vader.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My thanks go to my noble friend Lord Holmes for securing this debate.
The last thing that one of the few sectors in the British economy that is growing needs is more regulation. The example of Anthropic referring Mythos to the AI Security Institute in order to do a safety evaluation shows that AI companies have a commercial incentive to prioritise safety. That is not an argument for a cross-sector regulator. I am concerned that more red tape will favour well-resourced incumbents who can afford compliance departments and penalise scrappy upstarts.
The UK is currently third in the world in the AI arms race. How long will it retain that position if we introduce heavy-handed regulation to the UK, which would put us at a competitive disadvantage? I urge the Government not to think about creating a cross-sector AI regulator but, instead, to think about the transnational regulation of AI and to engage with some of our trading partners on developing a transnational regulatory framework that could be built into trade agreements. The natural trading partner to begin that conversation with, if you are not having it already, is the United States, which is the leading developer of AI in the world. I would prefer a transnational regulatory system for AI to be based on the principles of the first amendment and developed in partnership with the United States—perhaps with Switzerland, too, as another non-EU European country—rather than favouring the model in the EU’s AI safety Act, which, like the EU’s Digital Services Act, prioritises safety over liberty and innovation to far too great an extent.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for this debate and for my first opportunity to speak in Grand Committee. I want to dwell on two connected examples that demonstrate both the potential benefits and dangers of using AI on the battlefield, including why defence needs a bespoke approach. In doing so, I acknowledge the excellent research of Katrina Manson and Kevin T Baker on the US development of AI in warfare under the auspices of Project Maven.
In 2011, a friendly fire incident took place, killing US marines fighting in Afghanistan. The troops were mistakenly identified as the Taliban and targeted by a US drone. However, the way in which the marines were arranged, prone on the ground, was not the way the Taliban fought. This motivated senior US officers to push for the increased use of AI in order to prevent human error and was a key factor in the journey that the US military took in developing Project Maven.
In March this year, US weapons hit a primary school in Minab in southern Iran, killing more than 150 people, mostly schoolgirls. The knee-jerk reaction was to blame AI, but people had built a system that was fast enough to make a failure to update the target database lethal. Nobody searched the database to check that the target was legitimate because, with the Project Maven system making 1,000 decisions an hour, nobody could.
I offer as a conclusion that the use of AI in warfare does not lend itself to cross-sector regulation; in fact, I am much persuaded by the approach suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, more generally. In the defence context, a question that remains unanswered is whether AI is a tool, with humans at the helm, or a killer in its own right. The ethical implications relate to the tension between reducing adherence to the law of armed conflict and risking unintended outcomes, or losing in warfare because the enemy has no qualms about those risks. There is no time now to dwell further on this important moral challenge, but perhaps we should debate it further in the House in future.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for obtaining this debate, and more so for his singular and determined leadership and focus on this issue. The need is becoming even more urgent for the Government to end their current policy of “just wait and see”. They should go for an overall scheme and unified set of principles, preferably with a single regulator.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that regulation is needed to underpin growth and development. Great though the common law is, on its own it is not enough. I illustrate this with reference to the legal sector, which, to the advantage of the United Kingdom, has a significant international lead at present. The sector is making major investment in AI, with real change to the way in which lawyers have trained and work is under way. This is now having a marked effect on the business of the courts and arbitration, and to the competitiveness of the industries it serves, particularly our leading financial services sector.
The issues that arise in the legal sector are many. To list but a few, they include confidentiality, transparency, integrity, copyright, automatic decision-making, protection from bias and discrimination, equal treatment, training, storage of data and ensuring the competitive market for AI. These are exactly the same as exist elsewhere and should be guided by a single set of principles with sectoral adjustment where necessary. Such a uniform set of principles is, in my view, essential to the maintenance of the leading edge of the legal sector in its international position in what is a fiercely competitive international market. There is much to be said for transnational regulation, but we should start it by our own set of principles.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, the smartphone, the web and ancillaries would have seemed magical just a generation ago. There is no gainsaying their benefits to billions worldwide. It is welcome that machines supplement, if not replace, white-collar jobs, routine legal work, accountancy and even surgery. This clearly needs regulation at a national level.
However, looking ahead, we must keep our minds open, or at least ajar, to transformative advances that may seem exhilarating today but are frightening too. LLMs will surely confront us, writ large with the downsides of existing social media—fake news, photos and videos of unmoderated extremist diatribes and so forth. Social media can spread panic and rumour, and psychic and economic contagion, literally at the speed of light.
Experts such as Geoff Hinton speak of “human extinction”. This may be an exaggeration. My concern is less the science fiction scenarios of a takeover by superintelligence, but rather the risks of breakdowns or sabotage of interconnected networks, electricity grids, GPS, the internet et cetera, which could cause a societal breakdown that cascades globally. Regulation for this is harder. The Atomic Energy Authority works because building an atom bomb requires large-scale conspicuous facilities. It is not so easy to control developers of rogue viruses or, indeed, cyber criminals, and that is the problem we face.
There needs to be a balance to enable innovation to continue but also display a method of doing all we can to prevent such spreads, which could be catastrophic. To quote a well-known proverb, although this is unfamiliar, it is not improbable, and the biggest scare we face in coming decades is this one.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his persistent leadership in this debate. As the Government consider cross-sector AI regulation, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the work I have witnessed as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Digital Identity and a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cyber Security and Business Resilience, which frequently fill committee rooms with UK experts and businesses highlighting the opportunities presented by AI and its profound implications for sovereignty, security, democratic accountability and workforce development.
The Government have chosen—perhaps unwisely, in my view—to favour cross-sector regulation rather than introducing a comprehensive AI framework, for which the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others have called. Coming as I do from a local government management background, fragmentation was often regarded as a source of inefficiency, inconsistency and risk. Yet AI systems now operate across our healthcare, finance, education and public services through outsourced and disparate technology providers. What assessment have Ministers made of its effectiveness? Has there been a cost-benefit analysis of these proposed, fragmented regulatory approaches?
Other jurisdictions are moving more decisively. The EU has the European Artificial Intelligence Act, with a common framework based on risk and accountability. Singapore has a national AI governance model that combines innovation with oversight, while, as has been said, the United States has been aligning AI development with national security and sovereign capability.
Against this backdrop, what assessment have the Government made of the UK’s position in the Sovereign AI Power Index, which was launched in the UK and which measures national capability across compute, data, talent, energy, research and governance? Do the Government regard strengthening sovereign AI capability as a strategic national priority? Do they consider the stewardship of strategically important data sets under UK sovereign control to be critical to national resilience and security, given the increasing role of global technology companies in managing public infrastructures and sensitive public sector data—including in the NHS and HMRC—in partnership with companies such as Apple, Google and Palantir? They may bring expertise and innovation, but what safeguards exist to ensure that the UK’s most valuable public data assets remain subject to British law and sovereignty, ultimately in the interests of British citizens? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. We should all thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his consistent advocacy for regulation, the need for which is clearly shared widely around this Room.
Geoffrey Hinton, the Nobel laureate and godfather of AI, and Yoshua Bengio, the world’s most cited computer scientist, are not alarmists about AI. They are the people who built it, and now, of course, they are our religious leaders. When they call for binding regulation, the Government should listen. Moreover, the Ada Lovelace Institute has found that 89% of the public support an independent AI regulator with enforcement powers, and that 48% reject lighter rules to keep pace with other countries.
This is a manifesto commitment abandoned without explanation. Binding regulation was promised in 2024 and reaffirmed in the King’s Speech thereafter, but it has gone by 2026. The Government say that the existing frameworks suffice. We have the CMA’s conduct requirement for Google but, in other areas, Amazon’s cloud businesses, say, remain unregulated under the Digital Markets Unit after years of investigation. The existing frameworks are not sufficient, and now the competition reform Bill further threatens the independence of the CMA.
On the regulating for growth Bill, the King’s Speech briefing notes make clear that successful sandbox pilots could lead to law being permanently disapplied. This risks becoming a Henry VIII power grab. We await the Bill text, but the stated intention alone should alarm us.
On copyright, 274 commercial licensing agreements between content providers and AI developers already exist. The myth that legal licensing is impossible has always been false. The Government know this, yet even requiring web crawlers to identify themselves has been sidelined. I ask a Minister one question: the Government have the legislative moment, the mandate and their own manifesto; why not bring forward the cross-sector framework that the House, the public and the experts have all called for? The window is still open but, in my view, not for long without huge risks to our society.
Lord Markham (Con)
I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Holmes for bringing this debate forward today. It is a complex area, and we would all agree that it is difficult to do it justice with such limited time. I think we also all agree that there are some areas where we definitely need controls on AI: safeguarding against suicidal ideation, imparting dangerous knowledge on biological and other weaponry, and nudification of people, to name just a few areas.
However, we also see that there are dangers to overregulation and tying our hands behind our back. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, AI is a winner-takes-all world. In the area of defence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, mentioned, we need only to see a small technologically advanced Spanish army defeating a much larger Aztec army to learn some of the lessons—we do not want to be in that position as we go forward. Unless we can get every country in the world—and every terrorist group—to sign up to the same set of regulatory rules, we are danger of being on the wrong side of history. I would much rather make sure that we are at the forefront of AI development, rather than at the mercy of others, by tying our hands behind our back with regulatory restrictions.
It is with this knowledge that the Conservative Government took the approach they did, setting up the AI Security Institute to try to safeguard and test models for the reputable producers of AI, so we can make sure they are working in the way we want them to. In combining that with an agile regulatory framework, as my noble friend Lord Camrose previously noted, the priority was to ensure coherence across existing regulations while having a period of non-statutory implementation. AI will touch every aspect of our lives: business, social, health, education, defence and media. I believe it is impossible for one AI regulator to act across all those fields, but much more manageable to make every regulator responsible for their part of AI in that area.
I am afraid, however, that I do not know what this Government’s approach is. Do they intend to continue with the current framework or a more cross-sectoral model? It is vital to get this right to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of AI, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister the Government’s approach.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate and I am thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for initiating this debate, and for the wide variety of contributions made so concisely. It is such an important topic that if I fail to respond, I will of course follow up in writing.
The Government believe that AI has transformative potential for the UK: from scientific innovation and public sector reform, to increasing productivity to drive economic growth. To realise these benefits, we need to make sure that AI is used in a secure and controllable way. Our approach to regulation must enable innovation and protect our citizens from the risks that emerge as AI capabilities develop.
Recognising the point that noble Lords have made, that regulation and growth are not a trade-off, our regulating for growth Bill was announced last month in the King’s Speech. It is an example of how we will make the UK’s regulatory system fit for the future, so that it plays a full role in delivering growth and supporting innovation, including in AI, safely and sustainably. The Bill will create cross-economy sandboxing powers, so that businesses can test cutting-edge new products and technologies safely, prove what works, and then scale up delivery of these changes more quickly. That is how we regulate well and within a controlled environment.
As noble Lords have asked, we do believe that AI is a general-purpose technology with a wide range of applications, which is why the Government believe that most AI systems should be regulated at the point of use. Following the AI Opportunities Action Plan, the Government are committed to working with regulators to boost those capabilities. As a part of this, the Government issued letters to 19 regulators in January 2026, asking them to publish a plan setting out how they will enable safe AI-powered innovation. These regulators cover several high-potential sectors for AI innovation, including life sciences.
In addition, the Regulatory Innovation Office, which was launched in 2024, delivers targeted funding for regulatory experimentation through the regulators’ pioneer fund and the AI capability fund to support pilots, sandboxes and new regulatory pathways. For example, the MHRA is developing an AI-based tool to analyse drug-to-drug interactions in cardiovascular patients, and this will enable MHRA regulators to safely analyse the implications of proposed new drugs quickly and more effectively.
To respond to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, we believe that AI in legal services is a multifaceted area and that a single AI regulator in legal services would risk duplicating existing regulatory functions, creating uncertainty. As I said, we have also written to the Legal Services Board asking for its plan on how to regulate AI safely.
As my noble friend Lady Antrobus mentioned, the issues of defence are complex. AI in defence is moving very fast. It is becoming a defining feature of modern warfare and, as she mentioned, a critical enabler of defence capability. We have an updated strategic approach to AI in defence, which reflects the more operational delivery-focused model. We are prioritising AI-enabled war-fighting advantage and enterprise transformation, strengthening governance and accountability, and ensuring that ambition is backed by the data, compute, skills and partnerships needed to scale at pace while taking a disciplined approach to frontier AI and maintaining robust standards. We also remain firmly committed to context-appropriate human involvement, which centres on humans as the accountable actors in the use of force. The role of any human intervention is therefore to ensure that responsibility and accountability are also clearly retained by people and not machines, to one of the important points my noble friend raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, made a very important point about the fact that regulation does not happen without the context of the other measures we are taking to support the development of UK-based AI. We have launched our sovereign AI fund, supporting the development of AI capability here, as well as our support for the AI growth zones, as noble Lords will know. In addition, we are investing in the skills of people in this country. Effective regulation will only go hand in hand with a workforce, regulators and everybody being skilled to understand the risks and the judgments that have been taken day to day—including in media literacy, being able to take that discerning view about what people are seeing and consuming as part of media.
On the important points made about the fact that this is a global set of developments, and on the important role the UK has taken in the past and continues to take in shaping the passage of key international AI initiatives, we have indeed led on initiatives such as the Global Dialogue on AI Governance and the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI at the UN, and the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence in the Council of Europe. These are really important initiatives. Earlier this week I was at the OECD, where we as the UK were supporting the dissemination of principles for AI policy-making. It is very important that all countries apply regulation and policy effectively, as noble Lords have said. This is a globally developing set of initiatives.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Harper, Lord Tarassenko and Lord Markham—and I heartily agree with them—mentioned the AI Security Institute. This is indeed an institute that the Government are proud of. It is world-leading and a centre of expertise, and has been analysing AI systems for two and half years. It is in an extremely unusual position globally, in that it has close collaboration with AI labs and has tested over 30 models to understand their potentially harmful capabilities. Leading industry players, including Anthropic and OpenAI, have made changes to strengthen AI model safeguards based on the institute’s findings.
This foundational research—to discover methods for building AI systems that are beneficial, reliable and aligned with human values—is essential, and these findings are shared with the Home Office, the NCSC and other national security organisations, enabling the UK to stay one step ahead of the risks brought by AI capabilities. We are committed to giving the institute the funding it needs through the spending review.
Noble Lords have highlighted the speed of development of AI models, and earlier this year Anthropic announced that Mythos represented a significant step-up in AI cyber capabilities. This is being monitored carefully by AISI and the NCSC, and they have published their findings on that. We have given further guidance to businesses and regulators on the measures that need to be taken to prevent and mitigate the risks of these further developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, which is moving to Report in the other place this month. It is designed to protect the services that the public rely on, and those regulations take an all-hazards risk-based approach that requires organisations to manage cyber security, physical security and broader operational risks, instead of specifying particular risks of technologies, in order to stay up to date and take into account further developments in technologies of the future.
I fear that I am not going to do justice to the topic of copyright.
Lord Harper (Con)
Just before the Minister sits down—we have seven minutes left before the debate runs out—can I ask her a question? My noble friend Lord Holmes drew attention to the Government’s original commitment to legislate for a cross-sector approach, and he referenced how the Government have now dropped that commitment. The only bit of legislation that the Government are doing is, as the Minister said, in the regulation for growth Bill, but I have not heard the Government explain why they have changed their approach from the one they originally set out. Can the Minister, in the seven minutes we have left, set out for noble Lords the reasons why the Government have done that? That would be helpful.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Our view is that AI is a general-purpose technology with a wide range of applications, and also that regulators understand well the sectors they are regulating. They understand the risks that are present and understand, as many noble Lords have raised in the debate, the specific applications that AI is bringing, the potential risks to consumers and the nature of the competitive landscape—the balance between competition, incumbents and new entrants. That is the reason we are taking the approach to regulate at the point of use and using those regulatory frameworks.
We also already regulate AI in the UK—for example, in the Online Safety Act or under the GDPR—and, in some areas, across sectors. There are some areas in which legislation applies to the application of AI technologies.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
On that question of going domain-specific, what occurs in situations where there is a domain with no competent regulator? Similarly, how do the Government assure clarity, consistency and coherence of approach? As a citizen, you may come across AI—as noble Lords have rightly identified—in defence, education, health, tax and benefits. If you do not some sense of a guiding mind or horizontal direction, how can you possibly deliver consistency and clarity for people wherever they may come across AI?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
In all regulation, there is obviously a balance between consistency and context-specific, appropriate regulation. It is not always the case that consistency is the most appropriate or first-order principle. It may be that, as we have been discussing, there are many issues: a focus on growth, a focus on consumer protection or, for the energy markets in particular, a motivation towards decarbonisation. That is why the regulator, for whichever market we are talking about, is very well placed to look at how their objectives, as set out in their statutory duties, are best applied in the context of this new technology, which provides different functionalities and the opportunity for new innovation.
That is one reason we have also given these sandboxing powers. We realise that the current set of statutory frameworks was set up assuming that humans would always, for example, be in vehicles or crew vessels. We may need to adapt that in order to take account of the potential new innovations that AI brings, while doing so in a safe and secure way.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Temporary Skilled Worker Visas: Creative Occupations
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change their policy on temporary skilled worker visas for creative occupations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The United Kingdom has one of the most generous visa offers in Europe for workers in the creative industries. A large number of people, including nationals of EU member states, do not require visas if coming for less than six months. The Government have identified separately the creative industries as one of their eight key growth-driving sectors and have set out a new industrial strategy, including £380 million in targeted funding.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am particularly concerned about the world of dance. Despite the fact that dancers and choreographers spend years training, their qualifications are assessed as being below degree level, and consequently they are eligible for sponsorship to work in the UK via the skilled workers visa route only if they remain on the temporary shortage list. If they do not remain, can the Government confirm that they will secure some sort of exemption or special arrangement for them, as already exists for sportspeople, otherwise there will be a huge negative impact on our world-renowned dance sector and the dance companies that all recruit from a global talent pool?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. Musicians, entertainers, artists and technical staff from non-visa national countries can perform in the UK for up to six months, as she knows. They require only an ETA, which costs just £20 and lasts two years. If she will let me, I will look at the specific issue of dancers and correspond with her. The Government’s general approach is to ensure that we have as much access as we can because we want to support the creative industries at home and we want to support those in the creative industries being able to travel abroad. I will look at the specific points that she has mentioned.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I shall ask about another class of skilled and creative workers in need of temporary visas—namely, sheep-shearers during the sheep-shearing season. They are fundamental to animal welfare. There is a serious issue about the grant of visas. I do not imagine that the Minister knows the answer immediately. Will he be good enough to write to me and copy his response to the chairman of the NFU?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Funnily enough, as the noble Viscount will know, sheep-shearers were not on my briefing for the creative industries. I am sure it is extremely creative and extremely high skilled, but it was not specifically part of my research in answering the Question. The key point is that the Government are trying to ensure that, where possible, we encourage locally grown talent to fill all skilled worker positions. I will look at the specific issue that he has mentioned, and I will ensure that any future creative industries Question includes sheep-shearers as part of my paragraphs.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, when a skilled worker applies for a job in the UK, he pays thousands of pounds to the Home Office in fees, and then he pays thousands of pounds in surcharge every year to the National Health Service. He pays his taxes, national insurance and council tax, and in return he gets nothing—none of the benefits and no recourse to public funds. Yet right-wing parties such as Reform and others are saying that these workers are a financial burden on our country. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with that statement?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not agree that all individuals who come to this country are financial burdens. People historically have made long-term contributions, paid taxes and filled vacancies. However, the Government have to have a managed border system and ensure that, where we can, we upskill United Kingdom citizens to compete and fill vacancies. That is the objective that the Government have in the White Paper, and it is one that I know my noble friend will support.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, following up on the question from my noble friend, when the Minister writes to her regarding the position of dancers, will he take on board that, had the existing rules applied, Acosta would never have been able to come from Cuba to fulfil the wonderful work that he has been doing since?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government’s objective in all this is to ensure that we support the creative industries, that people with skills who wish to come to the UK to participate in the creative industries or to tour as part of the creative industries can do so, and that UK citizens can travel elsewhere in the world as frictionlessly as they possibly can in order to meet their creative talents and employment. That is the objective. I will certainly reflect on all the points that have been made today relating to specific issues that have been raised.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, do the Government accept that, across a wide range of skills, the country is simply unable at the moment to attract many of the most talented people that it needs in order to secure growth, and that part of the problem is the administrative burden, which has just been alluded to, of making those applications? Will they undertake a review of the administration of the scheme in order to try to obtain those skilled workers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I refer the noble Lord to the immigration White Paper that the Government produced last year, which will see itself translated into potential legislative proposals during the course of the forthcoming year that will be subject to scrutiny in both Houses. The purpose of the immigration White Paper was to say that there are certain skills that we need and that, if we can, those skills should be met from the UK’s workforce, and, if not, we will upskill. If there are other skills, then certainly there have to be some strictures around how we attract those skills to the UK. The Government’s central mission is one of encouraging growth. That is what we are trying to do within the remit of managing our borders in a secure and safe way.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, we all recognise the contribution that creative artists make when visiting our country, but we have to restrict the criteria for skilled worker visas to ensure that the system works as intended, so I welcome the Government’s action here. Given that, can the Minister confirm that the Government will hold the line on this issue, not reverse the changes that they have made, and follow through on their other immigration reforms, particularly their policy on indefinite leave to remain?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know—again, for the House’s reference—that we had the immigration White Paper, we have set a direction of travel and we have announced in the King’s Speech an immigration Bill that will be coming forth shortly. I suspect it will arrive first in the House of Commons. The Government have a duty on behalf of the UK population to secure our borders and make sure that our immigration system is fair. That is what we are trying to do with the proposals that he is aware of.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that my wife was a board member of the English National Ballet for many years. I want to follow up on the original Question. It is the case, as the Home Office would know if it bothered to consult the ballet companies, that its rules do not allow visas to be granted to brilliant young dancers from all over the world. There is a particular case of people who have been recruited from the Brazilian favelas as brilliant dancers who are excluded from Britain because of a negative Home Office policy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing that to my attention in the Chamber today. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, I will look at the question of dancers specifically. There is a threshold, and I am not clear where the dancing community falls in relation to it, but I will check that and copy any letter that I write to the noble Baroness to my noble friend.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting the case for visas for those in the creative industries, I draw my noble friend’s attention to another area that I have already discussed with him: the fishing industry. That industry depends on migrant workers who come for a short period of time, but, under the current regulations, that is no longer happening. My noble friend the Minister’s colleagues in Defra are talking to the fishing industry in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the UK about possible solutions. I urge him to have discussions with ministerial colleagues in Defra with a view to finding solutions that allow growth in the fishing economy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend and I have had a significant correspondence on this issue over the past 12 months. I recognise that there are concerns about a labour shortage for certain skills in Northern Ireland. The argument that the Government have continually made is that we need to look at how we can encourage home-grown skills, but I will certainly reflect on what she said today, discuss it with my colleagues in Defra and, if there are any updates, I will contact the noble Baroness accordingly.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, on a similar point to that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I am a trustee of the National Opera Studio, which trains brilliant young opera singers and is sponsored by the country’s leading opera companies. There are problems in the operation of the global talent visa for a small number of singers who come from other countries. I know that there is a call for evidence on this. Would the Government please look at this matter? We are talking about a small number of people and about protecting the position of the UK as internationally significant in opera.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will certainly look at the points that the noble Lord has mentioned. I come back to the key point: the Government have recognised that the creative industries are not just fluffy but are an economic driver for the UK, in television, film, art, opera and dance. That is why the Government have committed £380 million towards a plan to help the creative industries to secure growth. I will look at the specific points that the noble Lord has mentioned. Again, some of these points are important but not necessarily at the front of the discussions that I have had. I will look at those points, but the House needs to be assured that this Government are committed to growth and to the creative industries and see them as an engine of employment and wealth.
Military in the Gulf
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to locate a permanent military presence in the Gulf to protect allies and ensure international freedom of navigation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the three members of the Royal Navy who died during a helicopter training exercise in the early hours of Wednesday near Sourton in Devon. The families have requested a period of grace before further details are released, but I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with their families and friends at this terrible time. This tragic news comes after the Defence Secretary sadly announced on Monday the death of Lance Corporal Freeman during a joint training exercise in Iraq. I am sure that Members of the House will want to extend their deepest sympathies to his loved ones and those of the American service person who died in the same incident.
The UK maintains a network of bases across the region. They include the United Kingdom Naval Support Facility in Bahrain and Donnelly Lines at Al Minhad Air Base in the UAE, while the UK Joint Logistics Support Base at Port Duqm in Oman opened in 2018, a port that is large enough to accommodate Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. This ongoing commitment to the region is demonstrated by our response to the current Strait of Hormuz challenge, where the UK and France are leading planning for a multinational military mission.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I join the Minister in expressing condolences to the families of the service personnel who have been killed in recent accidents. It draws the attention of the whole House to the risks that our service personnel run every single day of their lives.
Is it not the case that the events that overtook us at the beginning of this year, with the beginning of the Iranian war, demonstrate that even though we may have bases, largely there are certainly no vessels within them? We were not capable of providing protection to our allies in that area; indeed, we were not even capable of properly protecting our own bases in Cyprus. Is this not illustrative of a long-term, decades-long decline in our capabilities? What does the Minister believe will be the long-term consequences for our standing in that region when it was clear that we were unable to come to the aid of our very long-standing, close allies there?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. On the regional contact we have, as well as the other contacts from the Foreign Office, the Prime Minister and others, I have met virtually every single week the ambassadors and/or the defence attachés of the various Middle East countries in the Ministry of Defence to discuss what they require. As a consequence of their answers, we have provided further fighter jets, drone capabilities, radar and anti-air defensive capabilities, so we have done a significant amount of work already. There are 1,000 British service personnel across the region. There have been one of two issue that have arisen, but it is important to recognise the important military support we have given to the region, and they have been very appreciative of that.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real need in this area is for a far more effective maritime tracking system than we have today, for legal and illegal shipping, and for underwater and surface shipping? Armed in this way, something such as the Commonwealth, with a fantastic network of 34 island states and 12 coastal states, would be an excellent ally and supporter in developing a modern network for better control of the seas.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a really significant point. The noble Lord will know that the First Sea Lord has talked about the hybrid Navy, the importance of artificial intelligence, and the importance of intelligence in guiding the systems of the future, including drone capability. In providing that capability, instead of necessarily having minesweepers, the idea is that we should do the sort of thing that the noble Lord is talking about. An example would be RFA “Lyme Bay”, which is moving towards the region. The autonomous systems that it has to operate above, on the sea and underwater to protect our interests is a template which we will follow. That requires intelligence and the co-operation of various nations.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I express our condolences to the families of those who tragically lost their lives this week. As always, we owe a huge debt to service personnel and their families.
The Minister has already said he has had much engagement with the ambassadors and defence attachés from the Gulf region. Is he able to say categorically to them that we have the naval capabilities to give them the reassurance they need? Or do we need to push the Treasury to move further and faster?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that those discussions with the Treasury continue. On the point she makes, of course they ask for various military capabilities. HMS “Dragon” is in the region at the moment to support any operations that may be needed. Alongside that, what they have particularly asked for, given the indiscriminate way in which Iran responded, is for anti-air defence. We have provided that in significant quantity, with jets and the capability to defend their bases. They have been very appreciative of that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that military means are not necessarily the best means to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and that one better way of achieving that might be to revert to the situation we have been in for the last 30 years, where the Iranians did not ratify the Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea but they did not interfere with freedom of navigation? That would surely be a better way of restoring economic growth to the world than military action.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord will know from his own experience that diplomacy is the first option in any problem—any issue that arises. Certainly, one way forward would be for Iran to ratify that treaty. He will know also that, in terms of the multinational mission we are planning jointly with France, our belief is that needs to happen within a permissive environment, which is what we are seeking. We see the current ceasefires with Lebanon and Iran, whatever the tensions are around them, and we would encourage people to maintain those ceasefires and try to find a diplomatic solution to the situation we are in.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, under the last Government, we saw the hollowing out of our Armed Forces. Now we have started to invest in our Armed Forces again, but there are limits to that. Does my noble friend agree that those advocating spending lots more money need to identify where that cash will come from and what the effect of that spending will be?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Indeed, we cannot spend without identifying where the money is coming from—my noble friend makes a really good point. Clearly, there will be an increase in the amount of spending on defence, and there is a discussion about how much that should be. However, as I have often said, it is not about the money just in one particular instance; it is also about how we spend that money and what we spend it on, and the new capabilities for wars and threats of the future.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces. The naval support facility in Bahrain is an excellent facility, commissioned by the last Government specifically to support the forward deployment of frigates and ships in the Gulf. While it may be entirely realistic that there will be no more minehunters in the Gulf because the nature of underwater detection has changed to be autonomous, the forward deployment of HMS “Lancaster” until her decommissioning at the end of last year was crucial. I recognise that there are limited vessels that are able to deploy at the moment, but as more vessels come on board—frigates and destroyers—will it be a priority for the Government once again to forward-deploy a frigate or destroyer to the region?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his service in the command position he has in the reserves. This also answers the important Question from the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Of course, exactly what priorities we set in the region and how we move forward will be a matter for the Government to consider as they look to the future and the laying down of forces in the Middle East region. What I will do is ensure that the point he makes, about the need for basing autonomous ships that support that sort of uncrewed capability, is considered in the discussions that take place.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, despite all the noise about the imminent arrival of much more money, is it not now a fundamental fact that the biggest constraint on both the generation and deployment of British capability is affordability? If one was to look at the relative balance of payments of, let us say, the UAE and the United Kingdom in its December 2024 figures, one would see that the UK was running a $40 billion deficit and the UAE was running an $80 billion surplus. Might not there be scope for some agreement whereby the generosity of the UAE might help get the defence investment plan over the line this side of the Summer Recess?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As the noble and gallant Lord will have heard the Defence Secretary say in the other place, the Government are determined to ensure that the defence investment plan is published before 7 July and the Ankara summit. The noble and gallant Lord makes an interesting point. A number of noble Lords have made points about how we could raise money for this and for that in respect of defence. Clearly, we spend a lot of time talking to our friends and partners, in this case in the Middle East region, to determine how best we support them and work with them to provide the capabilities they need to protect themselves—in this instance from the indiscriminate response from Iran.
EU-UK Cultural Exchange Arrangements
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in securing better cultural exchange arrangements between the creative sectors of the EU and the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government recognise the importance of strong cultural exchange between the UK and the EU. On 24 March, the Minister for Creative Industries co-led the first UK-European Commission high-level meeting on culture, with Commissioner Glenn Micallef, building on commitments made at the inaugural UK-EU summit in May 2025 to deepen cultural exchange. We continue to work closely with European partners and industry, including through engagement with the Cultural Exchange Coalition, to support our creative sectors.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. The Brexit deal delivered complex, costly arrangements for touring artists, now made even worse by the recent introduction of digital passports, or carnets, for equipment. In a recent UK Music creators survey, 43% of those who previously toured the EU stated that it is no longer viable for them to do so—a hit to our growing economy and our soft power, repeated across other art forms. Can my noble friend reassure the House that, in keeping with the Government’s manifesto commitment to seek to resolve this issue, it remains a top priority in the current UK-EU reset negotiations, and update the House on what considerations Ministers are giving to stepping up now to help subsidise the cost of the equipment carnets, until a permanent solution is found?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As my noble friend Lord Hanson made clear, the creative industries are a key sector for this Government. Supporting touring artists is a government manifesto commitment and we deeply value and promote the importance of cultural exchange across Europe. We recognise, as I think my noble friend does, that this is a highly complex issue and we continue to work with our European partners to make progress on practical, mutually beneficial solutions. I can assure my noble friend that the department remains committed, as do the Government more widely, to securing improvements for our musicians and artists, and their support staff, working closely with the creative and cultural sectors as we do so.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister give us some idea of what the Government have done about looking into the amount of red tape created by the Brexit deal and whether they have a strategy for cutting through? At the moment, we seem to be benefiting lawyers and administrators, and stopping everybody else doing their jobs.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I think your Lordships’ House will be clear from the previous times we have debated this issue that it is complex. We are working hard on continuing the reset of our relations with European partners. We are fully aware of this and talk regularly to both the creative sector and EU partners about some of the ways we can simplify things. We want to make sure that we have a strong creative sector and that we continue the exchange with the EU. I remind noble Lords that the EU accounted for 44% of UK services exports in the music, performing and visual arts sector, but this is something that we want to promote and encourage further.
Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach (Lab)
My Lords, this matters economically and culturally. Scotland and the wider UK have an internationally respected music sector, but that reputation depends on the development pipeline. If the artist cannot tour, cannot earn and cannot reach audiences beyond their immediate locality, the sector will lose future headliners, future exports and future cultural ambassadors. Can the Minister give an indication of when these obstacles might be removed?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
These are complex negotiations, but we will continue to engage with the EU and member states to explore solutions that improve mobility arrangements for touring across Europe. We welcome the constructive tone of recent UK-EU engagement on cultural mobility, including references in the EU visa strategy to practical flexibilities for touring professionals. We recognise that the 90-day and 180-day limits continue to pose a significant challenge for touring professionals working across multiple EU member states so, as well as working with individual states, we continue to work with partners at a more European-wide level.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I hope I am not stepping on anyone’s toes but, to pick up the point that my noble friend Lady MacLeod just made, the focus of this discussion tends to be on touring. In fact, as my noble friend indicated, the lives of many musicians depend on their being able to take up employment in the EU—for example, in orchestras or opera companies—and 90 days is simply not enough to fulfil a contract which goes to build the reputations of those musicians and then, as my noble friend said, enhances the reputation of our creative industries overall. Can the Minister be clear about what efforts are being made to make it easier for people to take up contracts overseas, particularly in the EU?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I mentioned in an earlier response, Minister Murray co-chaired the first UK-European Commission high-level meeting on culture. One priority for his work in this area is ensuring that, working closely with music and arts industry stakeholders, we engage with European counterparts to work through some of the clear obstacles that we would be keen to address in relation to our creative sector being able to access EU countries. The previous question on visas shows that we are actively looking at this, but there are issues that we need to work through.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we all want to see better cultural exchange, not just with the 27 members of the EU but with 200 countries around the world. Issues of visas, cabotage and carnets are not restricted to the European Union. What work are the Government doing on the broader international stage to make it easier for artists, musicians and others to travel the world, not just to those countries immediately on our doorstep?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The UK has made a number of arrangements with non-EU countries that are possible because we have been outside the EU, as part of our work on that since Brexit, so there are opportunities for broader cultural exchange. One of the successes of this Government’s work on culture is in some of the delegations that have taken place to non-EU countries. There has been huge enthusiasm from our sectors here for that, but also from the countries to which UK delegations have travelled.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of trustees of the Council for Dance, Drama and Musical Theatre. Following on from the noble Lord’s question, can my noble friend give a slightly wider view? What are we going to do to support Ukraine from a cultural perspective, after it has had so many years of dealing with a dreadful war?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend makes a valid and topical point, because in the past week there has been some publicity around some of the destruction wrought on Ukraine’s cultural landmarks. Recently, the UK and the European Commission each committed £250,000 to support cultural heritage protection in Ukraine, aimed at protecting and restoring Ukraine’s cultural landmarks. We have also discussed collaborating on the impact of artificial intelligence in the creative industries with Ukraine, facilitating international cultural collaboration and improving working conditions for creative and cultural professionals. I met the Ukrainian Culture Minister recently and discussed with her how we could work more closely to support them in their cultural recovery.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Why are the Government opposed to a full creative industries mobility scheme with the EU?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are working through negotiations. I am not going to give a running commentary on negotiations from the Dispatch Box, not least as they are not ones that I am leading myself. We are continuing to engage constructively with EU member states. We are not looking, as I think we made clear in our manifesto, to re-enter a situation where we would have free movement. We committed to that in the manifesto. I am quite clear that in our manifesto we stood on clear red lines in relation to Europe, and those are ones that remain this Government’s policy.
Young People and Work
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Alan Milburn's report Young people and work: interim report, published on 28 May; and what steps they intend to take to address the rising number of young people who are not in education, employment or training.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name in the Order Paper. I understand that there is a debate going on about where I should be sitting. If I have got it wrong, I am really sorry.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government’s priority is to ensure that young people have the best opportunities to get on in life. That is why we commissioned Alan Milburn to identify the underlying drivers of the NEET participation crisis. His interim report shows that this is a systemic challenge across departments and society. We are already taking action across education, health, youth services and welfare, and we will build further on this as we consider full recommendations from Alan Milburn in the autumn.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer, which is encouraging. We on these Benches welcome the Milburn report. It is a serious, research-driven diagnosis of a problem that has accelerated since the pandemic. The NEET problem is complex and cuts across almost every government department—and it is more than welfare policy, as the Minister has already said. It is about interaction with education, skills, health and the labour market, economic growth and young people’s ability to transition from school to the labour market.
We all agree that economic growth matters and business confidence matters, and, most importantly, we need employers who are willing and able to afford to hire young people in the current climate. The latter is something we can address right now. Why will the Government not revoke the damaging policies—such as the increases in national insurance, increasing employment burdens and rising labour costs—that are preventing employers employing young people? That will reinvigorate the number of entry-level jobs, get young people into work and keep them there.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I was with the noble Baroness for the first part of her question. She is right: the Milburn report does identify a wide-ranging problem and a need for systemic and country-wide action. I am afraid that she may not have read it as carefully as she should have in relation to the last part of her question. Alan Milburn is very clear in paragraph 266 that
“it is worth remembering that those under 21 remain exempt from employer NICs and, as the review has already highlighted, the increase in youth inactivity long precedes any recent changes”
to NEETs. Employers do not pay national insurance contributions for under-21s, or for apprentices under 25. If national insurance contributions were really responsible for the rise in NEETs, why did the number increase by 250,000 before the general election and before any changes to employer national insurance were made?
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that excellent response. As she knows, I have been obsessed with this issue for many years, and I strongly welcome the fact that the Secretary of State asked Alan Milburn to undertake this review. Does she agree that this gives the opportunity, through the final report, to offer a comprehensive and coherent approach, including drawing together the measures the Government have already put in place? Does she also agree that the way this report was presented and communicated to the public was an exemplar that all of us in politics might learn from?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do agree with my noble friend. The report rightly identified the systemic issues that have led to one million young people not being able to earn or learn. It is therefore this Government’s responsibility to take action—as we have already started to do—through the education system, through our youth services and through our welfare and health systems to address the wide range of issues that are leading to young people’s failure to start their working and learning lives in a way that will lead to the sorts of futures we all want them to have.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, as we have said, the Milburn review found that one million young people are now classed as NEET—the highest level for 12 years. The report warns that without further action, one in six young people could be in this position within five years. Hospitality vacancies alone have halved in four years. The Government’s own youth jobs grant will reach a miserable 60,000 young people over three years. This is a sticking plaster on a wound the Government helped create. Does the Minister agree that the jobs tax is hammering the very entry-level opportunities on which young people rely? Mention has been made of national insurance contributions. Could the Minister at least confirm that the Government will be consulting on a lower employer NIC band for workers earning between £5,000 and £9,100? The Minister’s comment about workers under 21 does not cover that wide gamut of people. I would like to feel that there is consultation as to how this is affecting the employment of young people.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have already reminded noble Lords, given that we are talking about the Milburn report, what Alan Milburn actually said about the position with respect to national insurance contributions. I am disappointed that the noble Lord believes that this Government’s youth guarantee of £2.5 billion of investment—including a £3,000 youth jobs grant for every young person aged 18 to 24 who is hired across Great Britain and who has been looking for work for six months or more, available from next month—is somehow meaningless. It is really important, which is why I spend my time talking to employers about how this Government, alongside employers, can make the best use of the additional investment we are putting into ensuring that this is not a lost generation.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches, then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is it possible for the Minister to explain to me this kind of scattergun effect? She says that it covers all departments—education and everything else—but why is there not a central office in government for the eradication of poverty? Only by bringing everyone’s energies together will we bring about change.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord and I have discussed his suggestion, both in this Chamber and in my office. I would not agree with his characterisation that is a scattergun approach. What we have is a cross-government recognition of the challenge of ensuring that young people can get into work or can learn in pathways that will lead them to satisfactory work. That requires action in schools to identify young people who will potentially become NEET. It requires action, which we are taking, in the welfare system. It requires action in the Department of Health to support young people’s mental health needs. It requires the youth strategy that this Government have already produced. That is not scattergun; it is consistent cross-government action to tackle this problem.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
Alan Milburn’s report highlighted the harms of social media for young people. Just a few weeks ago, the front page of the Mirror newspaper ran with the headline, “Kids’ social media ban within weeks”, citing Liz Kendall. Can the Minister please give us an update? Noble Lords were clear during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on the importance of this.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course, during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we took legislative powers to be able to implement the results of the consultation that is currently under way. I am glad that the noble Earl peruses the Daily Mirror, but I am afraid he will have to wait a bit longer, with the certainty that this Government will take action, for the results of that consultation.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about the issue of AI in this context. I speak with some personal experience, in that my son’s partner has recently been made redundant as the result of an AI system that she herself developed. It is inevitable that AI systems will grow, unchecked and unregulated, and will continue to reduce entry-level jobs across a range of sectors. What projections have the Government made of this, and what action do they plan to take to ensure that a healthy entry-level job market will remain for young people?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right. As Alan Milburn identifies, structural change in the labour market, particularly with respect to entry-level jobs, is an important issue. There are both opportunities and threats that come from the development of AI. Just this morning, I was talking to higher education vice-chancellors about the work they are doing to prepare their graduates to operate in a world where being able to use AI—notwithstanding the right reverend Prelate’s example—will make it more likely that they are equipped for a rapidly changing labour market resulting from AI and other things. We are working across government to identify the impact of AI on the future workforce. What is more, through our education system we are working to equip young people to be able to respond to those challenges, wherever they come from.
Corporate Waste Responsibility Bill [HL]
Genocide Determination Bill [HL]
Fertility Treatment Regulation
Baroness Deech
That this House takes note of the adequacy of the law on the regulation of fertility treatment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairwoman of the HFEA. When I was approached for the job, I explained that, at my school, we were not even taught what were then called the “facts of life”. It turned out that this did not matter, as the task of the HFEA chairwoman was to explain to the public, in language that everyone could understand, what was happening and the ethical problems. That is the approach that I am taking today.
The UK was a first in pioneering and regulating in vitro fertilisation. As in other fields, being first is something to be proud of, but it risks us falling behind what is required as the years go on—as in our railway system—and not being sufficiently visionary to encompass future developments. This is not to belittle the global achievement of Baroness Warnock and her committee, when they produced the report that laid the ground for the HFEA and its followers in regulation the world over. I hope that we can now once more be leaders in bringing that law up to date, future-proofing it and coming into line with societal changes. I am well aware of the complexities and time commitments involved in reforming the law, and the risk that legislators will pile in with restrictions and other issues that are not in accord with the root needs, but we have done it before, with Acts reforming the original Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and we can do it again with a progressive government.
Many of the patients are desperate, and the clinicians are competitive. This is where the dangers of statistics become apparent. More important than generalities, the basic elements in statistics have to be the age of the woman being treated and the age at which her eggs were frozen. Clinics offer extras in treatment, for which the patient pays more, and it is suspected that they are not sufficiently improving to be worth it. These so-called add-ons need to be reported to the HFEA, which they are not at the moment. Another issue of concern is that the NHS does too little of the work. It is a postcode lottery. IVF is private, eye-wateringly expensive and commercialised. Of course, one understands that fertility treatment is regarded as of less urgency in the struggle for funding compared with life-threatening diseases, but it is a painful situation.
Since 1990, the fertility sector has transformed beyond recognition, with new technologies, new family structures, new ethical questions and new challenges for patients. When I started as chairwoman, the burning question was whether treatment should be offered only to married couples. Now, of course, same-sex and single people are provided for by statute. The HFEA itself acknowledges that, while much of the 1990 Act remains fit for purpose, it has been updated by statute only once, in 2008, and now contains significant technical gaps, outdated consent rules and insufficient regulatory powers. The HFEA has made proposals for modernisation.
At the same time, the law governing surrogacy, the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, was drafted for a world in which surrogacy was rare, poorly understood and feared. Today, surrogacy no longer raises eyebrows, with the number of children born that way increasing fourfold over the last decade. However, with increased use comes the increased danger of exploitation of poor women and risk to their health and their babies’ welfare. Families are left uncertain in that situation. Clinics are constrained, judges strain the legislation to make it workable, and the UK risks falling behind in welfare protection. However, reforming surrogacy, and the very concept itself, is hotly contested.
Comprehensive reform of both areas is on the table, and we have before us two reform proposals—first, the HFEA’s 2023 proposals to modernise the law, and, secondly, the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations for a new surrogacy framework. The HFEA proposals tend to an innovative, ethical, patient-centred system of reproductive law. The Law Commission’s proposals about surrogacy are different. As I have looked into this recently, I am less certain than I was that surrogacy and reproductive law can be resolved—certainly not in one statute. Parliament needs to take the lead in scrutiny.
The HFEA’s case is clear: the fertility sector has outgrown the 1990 Act; it has expanded dramatically in size, complexity and commercialisation. Clinics now operate in hybrid, online and in-person models; donor-conceived people have new rights to information; and scientific developments, from mitochondrial donation to embryo research, have outpaced the statutory framework.
Yet the HFEA’s regulatory powers remain narrow, limiting its ability to enforce patient safety and good practice. The consequences are inconsistent clinic standards, complex consent rules, legal uncertainty around parenthood—especially in cases of relationship breakdown and posthumous conception—and a regulatory regime that cannot keep pace with innovation.
Surrogacy law is far more controversial. The Law Commission’s review found consensus that the current law is outdated and unclear. The surrogate remains the legal parent at birth, even in gestational surrogacy where she has no genetic link to the child. Intended parents must apply for a parental order, a process that can take six months, during which they cannot make legal or medical decisions for the child; the child’s status is uncertain and so is that of the parents. But the interests of the surrogate are not fully considered, not least in that she may be burdened with unwanted legal responsibility or even left literally holding the baby.
Meanwhile, cross-border surrogacy is increasing, often involving commercial arrangements that UK law neither permits nor adequately regulates. We have all read concerning stories about poor women, often abroad—for example in Nigeria or Ukraine—delivering in war zones, with uncertain future steps to safeguard the baby. I have great respect for the Law Commission and its logic is impeccable, but its plans to reform surrogacy would reduce the time a surrogate mother has to change her mind. They would reduce the oversight by the family court and Cafcass for domestic arrangements. They would transfer rights to the baby at birth, taking away fresh consent from the surrogate, and they would relax other requirements and safeguards.
Children’s rights and mothers’ rights would suffer if the law tilted too much towards the commissioning parents and away from the surrogate mother. Although the commissions do not propose major changes for cross-border arrangements, they recommend improvements to immigration processes and the recognition of intended fathers for nationality purposes. One wishes that these international transactions could be more controlled or even prevented, but that seems to be impractical.
As I get older, my inner Mary Whitehouse has real concern about single male parent surrogacy and the exploitation of women. Surrogacy welfare checks must be made as stringent as they are for adoption. When I started to research this speech, I thought that surrogacy law and a reformed HFEA law could be combined in one. I am still convinced that there are urgent needs for HFEA reforms—even limited, such as statutory instrument provision for the possible extension of a 14-day embryo limit and protection for new types of gametes. But surrogacy still needs more wariness and consultation, not least because the HFEA seems unwilling to take on surrogacy regulation.
Public attitudes and family structures have changed. The 1990 HFE Act was drafted for a world in which heterosexual couples were the assumed norm. The 2008 amendments widened access for same-sex couples, but the underlying structure remains in assumptions that no longer reflect modern family life. So the HFEA’s 2023 recommendations focus on four key areas. The first is strengthening patient safety and regulatory power. They propose expanded inspection and enforcement powers to ensure that clinics meet high standards of care. The regulator must have flexible tools to protect patients—for example, fining rather than closing clinics.
We need improved access to donor information. Donor-conceived individuals can now access identifying information at age 18. The HFEA proposes going further: removing anonymity from birth for all future donations, with appropriate counselling and support. This reflects a growing consensus that identity matters and that donor-conceived people have a right to know their origins. It was once feared that the removal of anonymity would reduce the willingness to donate but, as it has become more acceptable, that fear is diminishing. Moreover, there are genetic search engines online, enabling people to find their parents without official interference. Frankly, there is no point in keeping the current identity rules, and donors and patients should be warned that it is unlikely that they can remain unknown.
We need to clarify the consent rules. The current regime has led to difficult litigation, especially in cases of relationship breakdown or posthumous use of gametes. The HFEA calls for clearer statutory definitions to protect all parties and reduce judicial uncertainty. Posthumous taking of gametes by violating a corpse is certainly not the way forward—not without consent. There should be automatic record sharing between clinics and the NHS central records system. This fits with the record-sharing provision in the NHS modernisation Bill and could be an amendment to it. There should be more reminders to patients that they can donate unused embryos to research. There is even a suggestion of a national embryo research bank.
We have to prepare for scientific innovation. As I said, I am no scientist and I will leave the details to the distinguished experts who are speaking in this debate. But there are three areas that impinge importantly on the foresight needed in regulation. They are the keeping of embryos beyond the 14-day limit, stem cell-based embryo models and in vitro-derived gametes. The extension of the 14-day rule is linked to the research capability required for the latter. It is being reviewed by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which is consulting with the public. In vitro-derived gametes are created by reprogramming other cells—for example, skin. Under current law, they could be used for research but not reproduction. The advantages are that they would eliminate the need for gamete donation, but they will need separate definition in the HFE Act, fresh consideration of the definition of parenthood and, of course, much more research.
The frameworks of regulation must deal with anticipated developments here and their ethics. There are also stem cell-based embryo models, which are lab-grown models made from human stem cells that mimic early stages of human embryonic development. They may verge on becoming real human embryos, and the voluntary code of practice developed in Cambridge needs to be embedded, with a view to developing a distinct method of regulating them—not bad for someone with no biology O-level.
What must Parliament do? It must modernise the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. Parliament should plan by setting up a Select Committee to examine the HFEA’s proposals to expand regulatory powers, simplify consent rules, modernise donor information provisions and create a flexible framework for future scientific developments. A Select Committee also needs to look at the Law Commission’s surrogacy reforms as a second-order issue. As I said, I am not at all sure about integrating fertility and surrogacy law into a whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has said that the Government are deciding how to take this forward, and there was a Bill about this in the Commons last year. Let us start by updating our fertility law, in keeping with the UK’s history of an ethically cautious and scientifically informed approach, which has made us a global leader. Will the Minister move forward with a Select Committee and pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill to reform the HFEA? I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing this matter to the House. At present, the HFEA regulations are under a law that is over 35 years old, as identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the legislation is unfit for the purpose in many areas. The HFEA has no flexibility to adjust its powers according to regulatory performance; it needs to reduce the regulatory burden for compliant clinics and focus oversight on those not meeting the required regulatory standards.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, summed it up when she talked about fining not closing clinics. The HFEA wants to achieve the greatest impact with the most proportionate sanction for the fertility sector as it is today, with many licensed clinics being part of large private equity-backed groups and more than 70% of patients self-funding. Should there be a financial penalty, which HFEA cannot impose at present? This must be better than removing or suspending a licence. The aim must be to improve compliance while not impacting existing patients.
The current regulations are also out of date where patient safety and other areas are concerned, but it has to be said that treatment in a UK-licensed fertility clinic continues to be very safe. However, we should not rest on our laurels. The UK needs to stay ahead of technical advances by reforming the legislation; the current law is inflexible and does not easily allow for scientific and medical innovation in an area where new treatments and extraordinary advances, such as stem cell-derived gametes, are around the corner. The HFEA is still considered globally the gold standard in fertility regulation, and the UK must not lose that reputation.
The UK fertility laws were enacted in 1990 and only partially reviewed in the HFE Act 2008. After over 35 years, it must be time for a new review of aspects of the legislation. Is the Minister able to give any hope that this sensible change can happen?
It is also very ironic that it is difficult for many patients to access publicly funded fertility treatment in the very country where IVF was originally pioneered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said she was not this and not that, but spoke with great eloquence. She said there would be many distinguished speakers speaking at length. I do not count myself among them and will listen with eagerness to what they have to say.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to come down to earth a little bit. First of all, I suggest that infertility is not a disease; it is actually a symptom of something wrong, and that is the basic problem here. What we are doing here with in vitro fertilisation is using a medical treatment for a symptom without actually making a diagnosis. That is almost universal; it is not only in this country but in every other country. In my view, that is something that neither the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority nor NICE have done. In fact, they have made it very difficult to investigate patients to find out what is wrong.
There are at least 100 causes of infertility, some of which are extremely serious and end up with people being childless. They could be treated far more cheaply in all sorts of ways but are not, because in vitro fertilisation is seen, as we have just heard, as the gold standard. Believe me, it is not the gold standard. Indeed, it is not well regulated, for reasons I will explain, and cannot be in this situation.
One issues we have to think about is whether we should really be doing some kind of special regulation for one small treatment in the whole medical spectrum. In my sense, that no longer works. The HFEA was an important body in its time, when there was public unrest about the human embryo and it was very clear that in vitro fertilisation was going to be a new treatment. It is now absolutely essential that IVF is normalised. That will be very complicated, but it is something that this Government could do; they could regulate it far more effectively with the vast things at their arm.
In vitro fertilisation is of course increasingly expensive, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, pointed out, because it is largely in private practice. It is in the National Health Service a bit, but the National Health Service is making a profit out of in vitro fertilisation. One president of the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said to me, “Don’t say too much about NHS IVF: we need it because it is currently, together with abortion, paying for maternal care”. That was what he said privately as a president of the college. How we fund the health service is a real issue to think about.
At the moment, private clinics are making vast sums of money. Clinics are being sold for several hundred million pounds at a time; the equipment in them is probably worth about £15 million at best. There is very little understanding and regulation of that, nor is the inspections situation sufficient. In my own laboratory, I remember one year we had a fantastic review saying it was the best lab they had ever visited. We were not then treating patients; we were simply doing research, with some patients being involved in that research. The following year, having changed nothing that was praised, we got a terrible review—for no reason other than the fact there was a different set of examiners, some of whom were in private practice and were jealous of what we were doing. That is a real issue.
That resulted in my closest colleague, Kate Hardy, who was one of the best embryologists in Europe, finally saying she did not want to do embryo research any more—she was in tears—and she never did. She was actually so depressed by that review that she gave up and ended up doing other work on the ovary, which did not involve in vitro fertilisation. We lost one of the best scientists we could have had in that field. She had papers in Nature and many other journals. We had worked together, for example, as the first people to do pre-implantation diagnosis, to look at genes in the embryo, and she was one of the four authors of that paper. She gave it up because of what the HFEA had done to her mentally. She really suffered.
I want to make it clear that we need to do something much more serious about this. As much as I respect the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, we cannot say that it is the envy of the world: it is not. As a so-called expert in in vitro fertilisation—whatever that means—I have visited virtually every civilised country where in vitro fertilisation is done. They laugh at the idea of the HFEA. It does not matter where you are: they do not think that our regulations are fit for purpose.
One of the issues is the way we understand the results of in vitro fertilisation. I mentioned this in the King’s Speech debate the other day, when I pointed out that one area of in vitro fertilisation that is hopelessly accounted for is egg freezing. I showed the data: there are something like a quarter of a million eggs recorded as available which have been frozen. So far, some 34,000 of those have been unfrozen in the past year for the purposes of treatment. Of that number, 2,000 embryos were produced, and only 900 pregnancies were produced. We do not even know the number of live births. People do not want to have an embryo transfer; they want to have a baby. That is why they come.
The problem is that, right from the beginning, we ignore the fact that the treatment is a long process. It starts with an assessment of what is wrong, which should mean a diagnosis, wherever possible. Secondly, we have to look at the hormonal control of ovulation. Particularly, we have to understand that the eggs must be matured properly before they can be treated with sperm, otherwise you do not get normal embryos. When that is done, we have the problem, in some cases, of finally getting embryos. But before we do that, we have to understand male infertility, which is very poorly served and really not dealt with at all by the HFEA, even though it is an integral part of infertility. We need to have far more expertise in dealing with male fertility. We have just ignored it completely, quite unnecessarily. All sorts of research could be employed—but we do need more research.
Once we have an egg that seems to be fertilised, we culture it. It spends up to five days in a dark medium, the constituents of which we do not know, because the constituents of the media that are available commercially are secret. We have been doing extensive work on this to find out what the ingredients are. One of my colleagues, Sheba Jarvis, has looked with spectroscopy and we found 302 different proteins which we did not know were in one particular medium. That is really quite serious, because some of these proteins may be bioactive and could have an effect on the outcome of the culture. After that black box is opened and the embryo is taken out, if it has produced an embryo—which it does in some cases—we hopefully end up with an implantation.
All those stages carry a failure rate, which is not recorded properly in the statistics. In fact, when I recently asked the HFEA to write to the Minister, I was told that we do not know how many eggs are being frozen, how many end up fertilised, how many become embryos or what happens to those embryos—we only know the number of embryos transferred to uteruses and the number of pregnancies. We do not even really know the number of miscarriages, which seems to be at about 15%. That is not satisfactory.
In conclusion, I would argue that the HFEA was a great organisation to start with, but it is now no longer fit for purpose. We need to bring it back in to make in vitro fertilisation a proper treatment that is recognised, so that it ceases to be something that is managed by private practitioners at huge advantage to their pockets. That should not be allowed to happen.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston. We live in an increasingly digital world. We entrust apps with our fitness data and menstrual cycle, and healthcare providers frequently offer virtual consultations. It is no surprise, therefore, that many people entrust fertility treatment to the number of concierge-style online providers that have emerged in recent years. Yet our law has not kept pace. These online providers operate entirely outside the remit of the HFEA. The authority regulates licensed fertility clinics and the treatments that take place in them, but the digital-first fertility businesses that sit alongside those physical clinics and play a central role in patients’ treatment journeys face no equivalent oversight. This major gap in our fertility law became painfully clear with the closure of Apricity Fertility, which had called itself
“the UK’s top virtual IVF clinic”.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for tabling this debate to highlight where the law desperately needs to be updated. Apricity provided patients with online access to qualified medical professionals and a network of clinical services across the country, scheduling appointments, providing expert advice to couples at a vulnerable and emotionally taxing time and offering flexibility for those unable to consistently access the same location. This can be particularly helpful for patients managing treatment around work, caring responsibilities or long journeys to clinics.
Two of its clients, Rosie and her husband Andy, had been undergoing IVF treatment through Apricity when, just a few days before Christmas 2024, they received a mass email informing them that the company would be closing on 1 January. By that point, they had already invested months in treatment and were waiting for their embryo transfer. Instead of looking forward to the next stage of their journey, they spent the Christmas period uncertain whether the treatment would continue and what would happen to their embryo. Rosie told me, “If you’re having trouble conceiving, every single month is important”. She said: “It was stunning to learn that the HFEA had no remit to step in and help us. We were effectively abandoned. When digital-first services close, there are no guarantees for patients, and couples like us are left fighting to protect our embryo, our money and our chance of having a much-wanted child”.
Rosie’s experience is not an isolated one. Many people who had entrusted Apricity with their hopes of having a family were left in fear that they might not receive their money back or be able to afford continuing treatment with another provider. They are unlikely to know that the law as it stands means that the HFEA can regulate only UK-licensed fertility clinics, which are the physical premises where the treatments take place. Patients assume that, when a company is central to the delivery of their fertility treatment, there will be regulatory oversight and protections if that company fails. At present, that assumption is not always correct.
The HFEA itself has recognised this. One of its recommendations in the 2023 report on modernising fertility regulation was that:
“The Act should be revised to accommodate developments in the way fertility services are provided”.
Following Apricity’s closure, the HFEA’s chief executive, Peter Thompson, warned that fertility legislation was more than 30 years old and had failed to keep pace with the way that modern life is organised.
Around the time of Apricity Fertility’s closure in early 2025, I asked the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, whether the Government would review the HFEA’s power, to ensure that it was appropriate for a digital age. The Government responded that they would meet the HFEA’s chair and CEO to discuss the regulatory challenges they face, and that they were considering the HFEA’s priorities, should the opportunity for legislative reform arise. In June 2025, I was told in a subsequent Written Answer that the Government were
“considering the HFEA’s priorities … and will decide how to take this forward at the earliest opportunity”.
Seven months later, in January 2026, the Government’s position had moved no further, and they answered that they
“will decide how we might move forward”.
That is not good enough. The gap is clear. The HFEA has set out its recommendations. Patients have been left without protection. The only thing missing is government action. I ask the Minister why, given the clear gap exposed by Apricity’s closure and the HFEA’s own recommendation for reform, the Government have still not set out a timetable for the legislation. Can she now tell the House when the Government intend to bring forward proposals to ensure that digital and concierge-style fertility providers are brought within an appropriate regulatory framework? Our fertility laws are not fit for the digital age, and women and couples hoping for a family deserve so much better.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I recognise the depth of expertise in this Chamber and that my background is not a scientific one. However, it is incumbent on us all to engage in these crucial issues, which hold wide significance and implication. I approach this debate in the knowledge of what it is to long deeply for children. I am profoundly grateful for the gift of my own three children following the experience of difficult and intrusive treatment over many years, including miscarriages and several cycles of IVF. Indeed, if I may be personal, I was for a number of years a patient under the care of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for whom I have both affection and great admiration and to whose speech I listened very carefully indeed.
I want to recognise the highly complex and agonising experiences of infertility that many go through, and what it is like to have an unfulfilled longing for a child. This debate takes place in a profoundly challenging scientific, moral, legal and emotional context. I recognise that the lives of my children are the result of extraordinary scientific and medical advances, but, ultimately, like any child, they are a remarkable gift from God. Throughout the treatment, I was always aware that they were never a right of mine to be claimed. Good legislation, thoughtful limits and sober weighing of the implications of those limits are vital if we are to continue responsibly in this work with clarity for all. Indeed, I know personally the importance of those limits for tempering what can be a very human dimension, which, if unchecked, can lead to desperation and a willingness to do anything to have a child.
I turn to the HFEA’s proposed changes to the law in its 2023 report. The Church of England’s policy team responded to the consultation about the recommendations put forward at the time, which I am also drawing on. They and I recognise the important issues highlighted and the need for a regulatory update, especially around patient safety, licensing and the HFEA’s ability to incentivise compliance within fertility clinics. With the development of the online world, the landscape for people accessing information and selecting their options is changing significantly. There is much misleading advertising on social media, including claims about the guaranteed success of IVF treatment. On such a highly emotional and charged issue, this is deeply troubling and there is a clear case to be made for ensuring stricter regulation of services. The moves towards patient safety and the HFEA having sufficient powers to take action where patient safety is at risk also seem clear to me.
However, some of the proposals in the HFEA report must be considered with more caution. First, it highlights the 14-day limit on embryo experimentation as something that could be changed in the light of scientific developments. In 2003, the General Synod of the Church of England affirmed
“the sanctity of the human embryo and therefore the need to treat it with profound respect”.
Though I recognise the possibility for research into the development of embryos between 14 and 28 days, and, from that, the possibility of therapeutic benefit, it remains the case that individuation and identity are significant to moral status, so I believe that the 14-day limit should not be overstepped.
Secondly, the report proposes changes to the way consent is obtained. In order to prioritise patient safety and access to the best possible care, it seems vital that information can be shared with other healthcare providers. My caution is around the proposals related to changing the consent approach to one which is package-based. Anyone undergoing or considering fertility treatment and having a conversation with a specialist is likely to be experiencing intense stress and possible feelings of overwhelm. That is precisely why it is essential they understand absolutely what they are proceeding with. Each part of the process is weighty and should be considered carefully, according to the conscience of the individual or couple concerned. It is right, proper and honouring of them to ensure that this weighing-up is enabled and facilitated.
Similarly, with the proposed change to the consent regime for research on embryos, if a decision has been made to donate embryos to scientific research, there is likely to be a variety of preferences and approaches. Though some may be content for their embryos to be used for any available research, this will not be the case for everyone. Maintaining the requirement for consent to each named project will be important for some and so should not be overlooked.
I have touched on just a handful of issues for consideration in this complex and important debate. What is clear is that, if legislation is to be brought, it must be preceded by full consultation which facilitates public understanding and engagement. These are matters not only of personal importance, though I understand that dimension all too well, but of societal importance, and any proposals to change the law must be treated with both compassion and great care.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. That was very moving, and I am very pleased that her three children are in this world thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. That is amazing. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I confess my inner Mary Whitehouse is hovering at the moment too, so I agree with her. I am going to slightly change the topic, because we cannot talk about fertility policy without talking about prevention. I have personal family experience of IVF, although not for myself. It is a wild west—it is horrible. The chequebook was extremely strained. The result was great but, my God, that was difficult. And all I see in young people I know is that this problem is getting worse.
I buy into the argument that women want children later, women work, and then there is the cost of living—but there is something else going on, and that something is plastics. They are not just a waste problem; they are a chemical problem. The public treats plastic as litter, but plastics are a very complex chemical exposure. They migrate from packaging, consumer goods and medical products into us through what we wear, through the dust, through our skin. There are 16,000 different chemicals in everyday plastics, and right now we only know about 6,000 of them. Reproductive development is particularly sensitive to hormone disruption, which is caused by chemicals. Fertility, as we know, is governed by hormones; they tell organs when to grow, when to develop and when to reproduce. If these messages are disturbed during pregnancy, infancy or puberty, the consequences can last for decades. This is why endocrine-disrupting chemicals deserve particular attention in a fertility debate.
Declining sperm quality is not just a private medical concern; it may be an early warning signal. Relevant research of 185 studies found a 52% decline in sperm concentration and a 59% decline in total sperm count among a completely cross group of men from North Africa, Europe, Australia and New Zealand between 1973 and 2011. This was updated in 2023, and the same sort of decline was found: a 51% decline in sperm concentration and a 62% decline in the total sperm count between 1973 and 2018, with the evidence that this is accelerated.
Phthalates are a priority, because their impact on reproductive evidence is particularly strong. They are used to make plastic fibres; they are present in products that touch food, bodies and babies, and they are the clearest evidence of reproductive concern. Many studies—and I can supply any noble Lord with huge research details; it has been very difficult trying to chop this down to seven minutes—have shown that prenatal phthalate exposure at environmental levels is associated with altered male reproductive development, particularly if measured through the anogenital distance. For people undergoing fertility treatment, chemical exposure is not an abstract issue. It is not just men who are affected. In a Singapore preconception cohort, higher PFAS exposures were associated with decreased fertility in women. Another 2024 report from the Endocrine Society summarises evidence that phthalates are linked with reduced egg quality and other aspects of egg viability.
Fertility does not end with conception. A fertility policy that ignores miscarriage, preterm birth, placental health and early development is incomplete. The first 1,000 days from conception to age two is the period when plastic-associated chemicals will do their most harm. One global estimate says that 1.97 million preterm births in 2018 were due to phthalate exposure. In tiny babies and tiny bodies, a tiny amount makes a big difference. It might not make a big difference to me or you, but it makes a difference to that foetus. We are not talking here about an industrial accident: this is every day in our kitchens and supermarkets. We cannot expect women and men to understand what chemicals are in saucepans and milk bottles. For instance, all 20 brands of baby bottles and 13 brands of sippy cups tested released BPA and BPS under test conditions. Polypropylene infant feeding bottles release microplastics at levels of up to 16.2 million particles per litre. Ironically and very sadly, sterilisation and high temperatures actually increase the way that plastic chemicals are released into whatever product is around it. The saddest point is if you give your baby those tiny yoghurt pots, that food has had more exposure to plastic than if you bought a large family-sized pot.
We cannot regulate one chemical at a time. It is not a case of saying, “This chemical is no good; replace it with another one”. The Government should now move from reassurance to regulation of the whole lot. The average person cannot inspect the chemistry of a can lining, so the rules have to be set upstream. The European Chemicals Agency is considering a broad restriction of all these chemicals, moving entirely beyond a substance-by-substance individual plan. Will the Government commit to a government review of plastic-associated chemicals and reproductive health as part of any wider review of fertility treatment and regulation, develop a UK plan on endocrine-disrupting chemicals, fertility and pregnancy, including all the related chemicals, and strengthen UK REACH restrictions? If we are serious about fertility, we cannot only fund the treatment after the harm has happened. This is rising and it is real. Chemicals are made by fossil fuel industries; at the moment 25% of fossil fuels goes into plastics. This number is rising while fossil fuels going into industrial combustion engines is falling.
I leave you with one small anecdote. I went to see the lovely NHS doctor here the other day because I have had a tick and I did not know if I needed antibiotics. I was chatting to him and I said, “What do you do when you are not here?” He said, “I run a men’s clinic”. I said, “What do you do in your men’s clinic”? He said, “It’s for men from 18 to 32. It is very strange; all they want is HRT”. I said, “What?” He said, “Yes, they want testosterone”. That is because their bodies are lacking testosterone and, if you do not have testosterone, your sperm are not as mobile or healthy, and your sex drive is not as good. He said they were depressed, but they perked up after that. We have a problem that is ours to fix and ours not to continue.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this very important debate. I declare an interest as a board member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and as someone who previously led IVF and fertility units for over three decades. The debate is rooted in my long-standing and strong commitment to promoting the health and safety of women and the belief that fertility treatment has raised the standard in the UK.
I have been proud to serve in the fertility sector for most of my career. I have seen IVF move from a pioneering treatment to a routine service in our healthcare, with around one in every 32 births in the UK—that is one child in every classroom—now resulting from IVF. I have also seen the important role that the regulation has played in maintaining public trust and improving standards of care.
It is true that the UK’s regulatory framework, the first in the world, is considered a gold standard across the world, and it has been a genuine success. Some examples include the collaborative work that the HFEA has done to reduce multiple births from IVF treatment from 30% in the 1990s to 3% now. It has also used data to publish outcomes, including trends, and highlight inequalities in access and outcomes from IVF treatment for Black and Asian patients. In addition, the HFEA provides robust, impartial and accurate data to help with commissioning for NHS patients and patients in general.
Infertility is a disease, as stated by the World Health Organization, and IVF is an essential treatment for many. We must celebrate the success of our regulatory framework, and it is time to modernise it to better protect patients in a changing fertility sector. The HFEA has set out three practical areas for reform: stronger patient protection, regulation that reflects the changing fertility sector and more proportionate sanctions. I support all three proposals. I want to view them through the lens of something that I have argued for for many years: that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act must recognise not only the welfare of the child but the safety and protection of the woman undergoing treatment.
While fertility treatment creates families, the burden of treatment falls overwhelmingly on women. Women undergo multiple and often invasive investigations, daily hormone injections during the treatment and out-patient surgical procedures. They suffer from side effects, the potential complications of these treatments and the emotional and financial strain that accompany them. Yet, despite carrying so much of the burden, patient protection remains largely absent from the legislation that governs our fertility treatment at the moment. The Act was built around the embryo and the future child. The next generation of reform must explicitly state “safety and protection of the patient” at the heart of the Act.
More than 52,000 patients undergo IVF treatment each year, and 70% pay for it privately, navigating a complex commercial market at a time of considerable vulnerability. The absence of an explicit reference to patient protection limits the regulator’s ability to act when patients are offered and encouraged to pay for treatment add-ons—not only do these lack official evidence of benefit but, for some, there is evidence of harm—or when a small number of clinics maintain persistently high multiple birth rates, despite known risks to mothers and babies.
When the Act was drafted, fertility treatment largely took place within a single licensed clinic. Today, services are increasingly fragmented and delivered across multiple sites, including online. Patients reasonably assume that, if a service presents itself as a fertility provider, it is regulated by the HFEA. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, mentioned, when one of the prominent online providers closed recently, patients were left with no recourse to the regulator they believed had been protecting them. Protection must follow the patient, not the premises.
Putting patient protection at the heart of the regulation means giving regulators proportionate tools to intervene when things go wrong. At present, the HFEA’s principal sanction is to suspend or remove a clinic’s licence. In many cases, a financial penalty would be a more proportionate and patient-centred response. A licence suspension can disrupt treatment for patients in the middle of their fertility journey. Financial penalties can drive improvement while minimising harm to the very people that the regulator is there to protect.
Women move between fertility services, maternity services and the wider NHS, yet these parts of the system too often operate separately and do not communicate with each other. I have spoken previously in this House about the proportionate opportunities created by the single patient record. If we are serious about protecting patients throughout the entire reproductive journey, we need a more joined-up approach to understanding what is happening. Better linkage between the HFEA and NHS data would improve patient safety and help us understand complications and long-term outcomes and ensure that women are not lost between the systems. We also need the HFEA to have increased information powers. We owe it to women to make sure that the HFEA has more power and is able to protect.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to modernise the HFE Act in order to protect patient safety, ensure the continuity of care and hold clinics using unproven and potentially harmful add-ons to account. The responsibility must be matched with power. The HFEA’s proposals are practical, proportionate and ready. I ask my noble friend the Minister to urge our Government to act on them.
Baroness Gerada (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this important debate. Before I start, I will just clarify one issue: about 98% of abortion treatment is carried out in the not-for-profit sector, funded around 98% by the NHS. NHS hospitals do not make a profit from abortion care. In my experience, infertility clinics that were run through the NHS used to take both co-payments—that is, self-payment and not-for-payment—and it cross-fertilised and cross-funded so that women who are more deprived could get either NHS treatment or cheap treatment.
I have spent decades looking after women and helping them navigate a fertility system that too often fails them. At the root of that failure lies a simple truth—this outdated law governing fertility treatment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others have already said, the regulatory framework, which was set up in the 1990s, was ground-breaking and was the first of its kind. As a young GP at the time, I welcomed it.
But, as we have heard, the law was enacted before the promotion of unnecessary and non-essential add-ons—they just did not exist—such as pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy, which is an abnormal number of chromosomes; endometrial scratches, which, exactly as it sounds, means scratching the uterus in order to create a scar; or the adjunctive use of quite a dangerous growth hormone in the belief that it creates ovarian stimulation and increases chances of conception. This was all before the rise of virtual clinics or of AI embryonic selection. The HFEA itself, the architect of this law, has told us that it is no longer fit for purpose and that the law has not kept pace with the reality of modern care and has left a legislative vacuum. This House should listen to the HFEA.
I just want to mention a composite patient, drawn from many years of my clinical experience. Sarah was 38 when she walked into her fertility clinic. She and her partner had spent years trying to conceive: years of hope, disappointment, and quiet grief. By the time she sat down in that consultation room, she had run out of options. What happened next was not illegal; it was not even unusual. Sarah was offered a series of add-ons to her IVF treatment: embryo glue, immune therapies, time-lapse imaging, supplements and acupuncture. Each was presented as something she could have. None was framed as essential, and yet declining them felt impossible because when you are desperate, and someone in a white coat suggests something might help, how can you say no? It is a little bit like testosterone for men who are depressed. The clinic reminded her more than once that time was precious at her age. Every failed cycle brought a new suggestion and another invoice. By the end, Sarah and her partner had spent nearly £30,000 with still no baby. They spent not on treatment, as she reflected later, but on hope—hope that had been carefully packaged and endlessly sold.
Sarah’s story is not rare. In many clinics, it is routine. Individuals such as Sarah, who are desperate to have a child, are extremely vulnerable, and many find that they are prepared to do anything and to pay for anything to realise their dream of becoming parents. When given a shopping list of costly add-ons, some harmless but many invasive and time-consuming, most patients—and according to HFEA, 73% of patients—go to extraordinary lengths to raise the necessary funds, only to find that their hopes are never realised. Many of these are pure marketing, and, clinically speaking, to quote a professor at UCL, “nonsense”.
In 2023, the HFEA introduced a new five-point rating scheme for add-ons, which was well received, but it remains a regulatory sticking plaster on a structural legislative wound. The HFEA, as we have heard, has limited powers to intervene and no explicit statutory principle of patient protection within the 1990 Act. Without legislative backing, it lacks enforcement power.
Across modern healthcare regulation, the needs and interests of the patient sit at the centre of that regulation, but fertility law has not kept pace. That must change. Patients must be told clearly before they pay when a treatment is not evidence-based. Informed consent is not a courtesy; it is a right, and it is a legal and ethical obligation.
So why are so many women in the private system in the first place? It is because the NHS system has collapsed. The proportion of NHS-funded IVF cycles has fallen to just under 30%, the lowest level since 2008. Of the very few integrated care boards that provide NICE-approved IVF, that number has decreased as well. Even when they do provide it, it is usually only one cycle. In my own borough in Lambeth, it excludes couples who have had a child by a previous relationship, irrespective of how old that child is or where that child resides. Imagine that you have had a child in an abusive relationship way back when. That child is now living with the father or the mother, and you have no access to that child and may not have had for 20 years, but you are excluded from IVF. That does not sound like fairness.
We have heard about the digital revolution and the fact that the law has not kept up with that. In 2023, HFEA published Modernising Fertility Law and its proposals centre on three clear areas, which I commend to this House: patient protection as an explicit principle of the Act, regulation of online and virtual fertility services, and power to levy financial penalties.
The HFEA has already done much of the analytical work. What is needed now is a Government willing to move from consideration to commitment, and a timetable that women and their partners can hold on to. Women and their partners navigating fertility treatment are not seeking special treatment. They are seeking honest information, equitable access, and a legal framework that reflects the world that we currently live in. This is the least that this Government should be willing to deliver.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing these important questions to the House. Women’s health, fertility, and experience of motherhood are matters that are rarely given the attention they deserve, and I am hugely grateful for the opportunity to learn from the expertise of so many of your Lordships on these issues today.
I want to speak about surrogacy, and begin by acknowledging the wonderful, loving families that have been created through surrogacy and the generosity of spirit that can motivate altruistic surrogates. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, the Law Commission has proposed reforms to the laws governing domestic surrogacy. It has made many important recommendations. However, it was not tasked with considering the policy challenges or the ethics of surrogacy, as it says, nor does its work cover international surrogacy.
The practice of surrogacy in this country is growing and changing, so I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that we need to stand back and consider the implications further before we legislate. There are four fundamental questions to answer. First—and here I am starting with first principles—do we stand by our current position that surrogacy should be legal? Surrogacy has been legal in this country for many years and is increasingly used as a means of assisting conception. However, many European countries oppose it. France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland all prohibit surrogacy on the grounds that it is incompatible with human dignity and amounts to the commodification of women’s bodies. India, Thailand and Nepal have all moved to ban or severely restrict surrogacy after seeing the reality of the industry at scale: low-income women taking on high-risk pregnancies for wealthy foreigners.
Reem Alsalem, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, argues:
“Surrogacy reduces women and children including girls to mere commodities, stripping them of their equality and dignity and encouraging their exploitation and abuse”.
Of course, many completely disagree with this analysis, and a full debate in this country may reveal that our sensibilities are closer to those of the Americans than to those of the Europeans on this issue. Some may conclude that surrogacy poses no challenges whatever to female equality or human dignity; others may conclude that there are challenges, but these can be dealt with through the right legal and regulatory framework. Either way, we need a wider and deeper discussion before we change the law.
Secondly, if we conclude that surrogacy is an acceptable practice, what safeguards do we need to protect the women who become surrogate mothers? Take consent as one example. There is no legal requirement for a woman to have given birth before becoming a surrogate mother, and the Law Commission does not propose it. Is that right? Do you need to know what pregnancy and birth will entail to give informed consent? Canadian research suggests that gestational surrogate mothers carry three times the risk of severe complications compared to unassisted pregnancies. Are women properly informed about these risks?
Even more difficult, how do we feel about money changing hands? It has long been a criminal offence to buy or sell organs for transplantation in this country, and since 2022 it has been an offence for UK residents to do so anywhere in the world. The risk of exploitation is deemed too great. However, we treat surrogacy differently. UK residents are free to enter commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad. While third-party organisations cannot profit from surrogacy services here, surrogate mothers receive payments from commissioning parents. These are meant to cover expenses, but they are uncapped and unregulated. That is unlike the payments allowed for egg and sperm donors, which are capped by the HFEA precisely to prevent a market in human gametes. We do not have reliable data on average payments to surrogate mothers. We know they can run to tens of thousands of pounds; they can be paid in regular monthly instalments, and they are not tied to specific expenses. We also know that, as Maternity Action described,
“there is generally a power imbalance between surrogate mothers and intended parents. Intended parents tend to be older, wealthier, better educated and employed in higher status jobs than surrogate mothers”.
Given that structural context, what safeguards do we need to prevent the exploitation of women? The Law Commission—rightly, in my view—proposes regulating expenses, but it does not propose capping them. Is that sufficient? If so, who has the expertise and resources to regulate those payments, since the HFEA has said it does not? Further thought on safeguards is clearly needed.
Thirdly, do we believe that there should be any restrictions whatever on who may commission babies? Take age: in 2025, our courts considered cases involving commissioning parents in their 70s. There is no upper age limit for commissioning parents, and the Law Commission does not propose one. In one case, the judge noted plainly that the child would experience the loss and grief of elderly or incapacitated parents during their childhood.
Do we believe that all adults should be able to have the option of commissioning surrogate mothers, or do we believe that there should be some checks or restrictions? Commissioning parents may rightly note that biological fatherhood has no age limit, and that other couples face no suitability checks before conceiving. That is of course true. On the other hand, we have extremely strict frameworks governing adoption, which also involves the separation of a child from its birth family. Which is the more appropriate model for surrogacy?
My fourth and final question is: what do children need? Even if a surrogate mother is consenting freely and the commissioning parents will provide a loving home, how do we centre the child in the practice? In all other circumstances we would consider it traumatic for a newborn to be removed from its birth mother. Does that trauma exist for babies born to surrogate mothers? The adoption framework has evolved over decades as we have come to understand, often painfully, that questions of identity and origin matter deeply to children as they grow.
Many children born to surrogates will never see their birth mothers again. Does that matter, and if it does, how can we best support them? What those children need from us is expertise in child development—expertise that has generally been missing in this debate so far.
These are sensitive and emotive questions, but they are hugely important for the women and children involved. So, if this Government, or a future one, conclude that reform of surrogacy is the right path, I very much hope that they will commit to significantly more work and a full, open and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford described, compassionate debate on these issues before the legislation comes to this House.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing forward this important short debate and for her work in this area. I am also grateful for the richness of the debate from noble Lords across the House, and with such expertise, and for the personal contribution from right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford.
One in seven couples may have difficulty conceiving, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, stated, there is now roughly one IVF child in every classroom, with IVF births making up around one in 32 of UK births. The number of patients having fertility treatment has increased over the last 30 years—over 52,000 in 2023.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, stated that there are more than 100 reasons for infertility, which are not always investigated, but the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, highlighted for us the issue of plastics and chemicals and their impact on fertility.
As we have heard today, there is a postcode lottery of access to IVF and fertility services across the country, which is undermining the hopes and family life of many couples. Patients in England are struggling to access publicly funded IVF, despite the NICE recommendation that has been in place since 2004 that the NHS should offer an initial three full cycles of IVF treatment to any woman under the age of 40. A briefing from the Progress Educational Trust highlighted that only two out of the 42 integrated care boards in England comply with the NICE fertility guidelines, and 19 offer only a partial IVF cycle, not even a full cycle. This means stopping treatment before all the viable embryos already created have been transferred.
It is therefore crucial that people be able to expect high-quality fertility treatment wherever they live, rather than being priced out of having children just because of their postcode and their local ICB’s policy at that time. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered following Wales and Scotland in centralising commissioning for IVF, rather than the current postcode lottery approach?
A specific inequality that has not been mentioned today still exists for the LGBTQ+ community. In England, NHS-funded access to IVF is available only to women who have not conceived after two years of regular unprotected intercourse or 12 cycles of artificial insemination. But in practice, that requires all lesbian couples to pay for artificial insemination cycles before becoming eligible for NHS-funded IVF. That is a considerable financial barrier for many of those couples, given that cycles can cost thousands of pounds.
Despite the previous Government’s women’s health strategy pledging to remove that requirement for lesbian couples, the rollout has been at a snail’s pace. As of April 2024—the last data I could find—only four of the 42 integrated care boards in England have implemented this. There should be equitable access to IVF for all lesbian couples who are looking to start a family. Can the Minister update the House on what work the department is undertaking to ensure that the requirement is rolled out across all ICBs?
As we have discussed, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was established back in 1991 and was the first regulatory body of its kind in the world. But as we have also been discussing, a lot has changed since 1991—both scientific developments and societal attitudes. Although the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was last amended in 2008, there has been no significant change to how the HFEA regulates, despite the significant changes to the UK fertility sector.
As we have heard so clearly today, while much of the original 1990 Act remains fit for purpose, the regulatory framework is not flexible enough and change is required to deal with the shift to fertility services that are being provided online. A greater range of powers to improve compliance and protect patients is needed. Particularly given that there is limited access to IVF on the NHS, with 73% of treatment privately funded, this regulation needs an urgent update.
With groups of private clinics and changes to the types of fertility services and related services being offered—as was outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Owen and Lady Nargund; and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, described in detail some of those so-called add-ons—it is very important that patients can have full confidence that the services they are paying for are carefully and thoroughly regulated, safe and adding value, whether it is in a physical clinic or online.
I was surprised to read in preparing for this debate that patient-specific fertility treatment information has an almost exceptional status, with staff at the relevant fertility clinic and at the HFEA being pretty much the only professionals able to access patient-specific fertility treatment information records. However, as we have heard, that may compromise patient safety, and I am not sure how this will fit with the newly proposed single patient record, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, also raised. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
As my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill said, the legislation is now unfit for today. The HFEA proposals for reform relate to a number of areas: patient protection and safety; effectively regulating a changing sector; and effective and proportionate sanctions, including financial.
The HFEA wishes to match its regulatory oversight to the risks involved in a changing sector. That seems like a proportionate approach. As we heard, the HFEA published its proposed changes in autumn 2023—some time ago. Perhaps the Minister can advise when the Government will be responding in full to these proposals. I am sure we would be happy with a season rather than a specific date.
The other side of this is the need for research. There is a clear desire for the HFEA to be able to permit patients to give generic consent for the use of their embryos in research. I think many patients would want their embryos to be used to help science in this area, but currently this is not permitted. It is of course important that we have an ethical framework for embryo research, but will the Government consider any movement in this area regarding general consent?
We have heard today about other important issues such as surrogacy and the current law, which is some 40 years old. This is a complex area and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, set out so clearly, it needs careful consideration, along with a discussion on what is going on in the so-called industry. For those who wish to start a family and are having trouble conceiving, are in a same-sex relationship, or are by themselves, the role of IVF becomes an absolute lifeline. We were ahead of the game, with the first IVF baby born in the UK in 1978. We need to update some areas to ensure that they are fit for purpose in the 21st century and the digital world, and to help people to have the child—and children—they desire.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this important debate.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for her focus on this subject, drawing on her extensive experience in the sector, including chairing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for eight years. I also highlight the deep knowledge of the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, who combines her role as the lead consultant for reproductive medicine services at St George’s Hospital with being an honorary professor of women’s health at the University of London and an international advisory board member of the Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, & Women’s Health journal. She is also the founder CEO and now medical director of a fertility clinic.
The UK has long been regarded as a world leader in the regulation of fertility treatment and embryo research. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was landmark legislation. It established a framework that balanced scientific innovation, ethical oversight and public confidence in a way that was pioneering at the time. Much of that framework remains strong. The principle that the embryo merits special legal and ethical status continues to command cross-party support. Having treatment in licensed clinics remains safe, with incident rates low, even as IVF has become increasingly common.
In line with other noble Lords, I suggest that the question before your Lordships’ House is whether a framework designed in the early 1990s is appropriate for the fertility sector as it exists in 2026. There is an increasing consensus that it is not. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, highlighted, the sector has changed fundamentally. Around one in 32 births in the United Kingdom now results from IVF. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, flagged, fertility treatment is no longer marginal or exceptional medicine; it is close to mainstream healthcare and, for many, a central route to family formation.
However, while demand and complexity have increased, the structure of provision has shifted dramatically. Treatment is now predominantly privately funded. While this plays a positive role in increasing capacity and reducing pressure on the NHS, it raises concerns for some. Increasingly, elements of fertility care are delivered through online or hybrid “virtual clinic” models that sit outside the traditional boundaries of regulation. This is creating a system that is more nuanced and potentially harder for patients to navigate. The HFEA has argued that the current legislative framework is increasingly out of step with the modern fertility sector. My noble friend Lady Owen highlighted the growth of online fertility services operating beyond the traditional licensed clinic model. The HFEA has argued that its enforcement powers are no longer sufficiently flexible and has proposed that the Act should contain an explicit, overarching focus on patient protection.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford talked about social media disinformation. My noble kinswoman Lady Boycott referenced the “Wild West”. The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, pointed to hope that has been sold. The regulatory gaps become particularly visible in relation to online fertility services, where patients are increasingly looking for advice from charity websites, social media, online forums and clinic websites. Patients are increasingly encountering providers marketing themselves as offering “fertility services”. However, key clinical interventions take place elsewhere, sometimes under separate regulatory arrangements and sometimes outside clear regulatory oversight altogether. Patients may reasonably assume that a service presenting itself as a clinic-equivalent is fully regulated. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, agreed, it can be a mistake to make assumptions. The fertility sector has evolved rapidly, with new online models and commercial networks that do not fit neatly within the assumptions of the 1990 Act. This is precisely the kind of gap that undermines transparency and public confidence, notwithstanding the related issue concerning surrogacy reform.
My noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson gave us a deep and informed insight into the topic of surrogacy. The Law Commission has proposed reforms which would, for some arrangements, transfer legal parenthood to the intended parents from birth, place greater reliance on consent given before conception and reduce the role currently played by the courts and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service after birth. Supporters argue that these changes would provide greater certainty for intended parents and children. However, others have questioned whether they would weaken important safeguards by reducing the significance of post-birth consent and judicial oversight.
Some are concerned that the proposals would make it more difficult for a surrogate mother to change her mind and move away from the long-established principle that the woman who gives birth is initially recognised as the child’s legal mother. These concerns arise against the backdrop of a growing international surrogacy market. Increasing numbers of British residents enter into commercial surrogacy arrangements overseas, raising wider questions around child protection, exploitation and the legal recognition of arrangements that would simply not be permitted here.
There are also legitimate questions about whether reforms designed to expand domestic surrogacy arrangements, including proposals allowing regulated organisations to recruit surrogate mothers, command public support. As reproductive technologies continue to evolve, parliamentary oversight of embryo research and emerging technologies must remain central. Given the Government’s decision not to proceed with the Law Commission’s proposals, can the Minister clarify whether the Government have reached a new, settled view on surrogacy reform and what safeguards they consider essential in any future review of the law?
While regulation is one challenge facing the sector, consistency of access remains an issue. Despite updated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommending up to three NHS-funded IVF cycles for eligible women under 40, access remains highly variable across England, because ICBs are not required to implement that guidance. As a result, we continue to see variations in fertility treatment. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested a postcode lottery.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition recognise that the Government have stated that ICBs should “consider and reflect” national institute guidance. We welcome efforts to improve consistency through NHS England. However, there remains a clear gap between guidance and enforceable entitlement. That inconsistency sits uneasily alongside the Government’s Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England, which commits to ensuring that every woman “can easily access” fertility services and places strong emphasis on consistency of care and patient experience.
That commitment is most welcome, but it raises important questions. While some ICBs do offer up to three NHS-funded IVF cycles, in line with NICE guidance, what plans are there to help or encourage those ICBs which offer only one NHS-funded IVF cycles or impose additional eligibility restrictions? This was so well put by the noble Baronesses, Lady Gerada and Lady Pidgeon. If the patient experience is to be placed at the centre of women’s health policy, do the Government plan to embed patient protection explicitly within fertility legislation, as the HFEA has proposed?
In closing, I suggest that the strength of the 1990 Act was not only its technical design but its willingness to confront emerging science and changing societal realities head-on. The fertility sector has changed profoundly since then. It is more commercial, more technologically complex and more integrated with digital service delivery. Scientific techniques are evolving rapidly and the boundaries of what constitutes fertility treatment are no longer as clearly defined as they once were. The HFEA’s reform proposals are therefore measured and pragmatic. They seek not to dismantle the existing system but to modernise it through strengthening patient protection, clarifying regulatory scope and introducing more proportionate enforcement tools. At their core, these proposals are about ensuring that regulation keeps pace with reality. The United Kingdom became a global leader in this field because it combined scientific advancement with ethics and public trust. Long may that continue.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to this debate, particularly regarding the adequacy of law on the regulation of fertility treatment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising this topical and important matter and for her thoughtful and wide-reaching comments which framed the debate that followed.
As always, I have to start with the caveat that I probably will not be able to answer everything that has been raised today in the time that I have, but I am always happy to write to noble Lords to expand on their very thoughtful points around this complex issue. Just to reframe it, I remind everyone that the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act came in 1990, and we all need to reflect on just how long ago that is. The Act set out to regulate assisted reproduction and human embryo research. It established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and I shall refer to that as the HFEA. This was the first dedicated regulator of fertility treatment and embryo research anywhere in the world. It is quite extraordinary that it still has so many robust features that are applied to this day.
The HFEA ensures that fertility clinics operate to high standards and that sensitive and complex treatments are carried out safely and ethically. It remains an important and effective regulator, helping to ensure that treatment and research are conducted responsibly, with positive outcomes for patients. This is particularly important as fertility treatments continue to help people in the UK to have children—we must not forget this—with almost 21,000 babies born from IVF in 2023, accounting for one in 32 UK births. Having treatment in a UK-licensed fertility clinic continues to be very safe. In 2024-25, out of more than 100,000 cycles of fertility treatment, storage or donations, incidents occurred in less than 1% of cycles.
The issue of postcode lottery was raised by many noble Lords today, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Gerada, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for fertility problems, assessment and treatment were published on 31 March 2026, and this guidance informs how ICBs should commission fertility services within their local populations. However, the Government recognise that access to NHS-funded fertility services is variable in England and are looking into achievable ambitions to improve access to fertility services. With regard to ICBs, the nature of commissioning that we have in England is a really important element of this.
However, the Government recognise that the success of the legislative framework does not mean that it is fully adequate for the modern day, which has framed so many comments today. The fertility sector has evolved significantly since 1990, when the first Act was introduced—the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was quite right to highlight the challenging issues—and, although it was updated in 2008, that is still a significant amount of time away. Scientific advancements, changes in societal attitudes and the growth of a largely privately funded treatment sector have transformed both demand and delivery for such a service. The HFEA itself has concluded that while much of the original framework remains fit for purpose, targeted reform is now required.
In 2023, the HFEA published the detailed set of recommendations to update the original Act, identifying four key areas in which reform is required, including patient protection and safety, as we have heard so clearly today, consent, donor anonymity and scientific developments. Within this, the HFEA set out its views to strengthen regulatory powers to protect patients, simplify consent, and ensure that the system can accommodate scientific innovation, as so clearly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. These issues do not undermine the foundations of the existing system; rather, they highlight an opportunity to update and future-proof the framework.
The HFEA has highlighted the need for the regulatory framework to reflect changes in how patients access information and treatment decisions. Since 1990, the growth of online platforms and social media has fundamentally reshaped the fertility landscape, influencing how patients engage with clinics, access information, and make decisions about treatment.
In terms of the very thoughtful contributions around surrogacy, I should add that the Government recognise the significance and importance of this issue and welcome the Law Commission’s comprehensive report, published in 2023. However, given the limited parliamentary time available and competing legislative priorities, we are not currently able to bring forward the reform immediately, but we will publish a formal response as soon as capacity allows and keep this issue under review.
To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on setting financial penalties, I say this would also need to be considered as a part of the broader update in regulatory powers. The other absolutely critical area covered by so many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Gerada and Lady Deech, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is the whole issue of consent. The Government recognise concerns raised by noble Lords on the complexity of consent arrangements, including withdrawal of consent and ensuring patients fully understand the legal implications, and we will consider all these issues as part of any wider reform.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Nargund for her informed contribution to this debate. She is right to highlight the success and the continuing importance of the regulatory framework. That framework, together with the work of the HFEA, has delivered tangible improvements in patient outcomes, including significant reductions in multiple birth rates and greater transparency through the publication of clinic performance data.
The Government are clear that patients must be at the centre of the system. Fertility treatment can be physically and emotionally demanding, and we expect providers to meet the highest standards of care, safety, and ethical practice. We recognise the argument that the legislation should more explicitly reflect the safety and protection of those undergoing treatment. This has been carefully considered as part of the wider discussions on potential reform.
We acknowledge concerns about the limits of the current enforcement regime to drive improvement and that better use of data has the potential to strengthen oversight and support joined-up care. I assure the House that all these issues are receiving careful and ongoing consideration. Any reforms must strike the right balance in maintaining public trust and patient safety while enabling responsible scientific progress.
I again emphasise the fact, which I know will be disappointing to noble Lords, that the legislative programme for this parliamentary Session is very full. Due to the limited time available to undertake legislative reform and the priorities the Government set out in the King’ Speech, we are not able to pursue immediate legislative reform of the Act in the current Session. However, the Government are considering potential legislative options and, if parliamentary time allows, will ensure that any future reforms support patient safety, reflect societal change and maintain the UK’s position as a global leader in fertility regulation. I can tell that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is perhaps not as impressed as she might be, but I am sure she was expecting my comments none the less.
On the possibility of setting up a Select Committee, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, we will of course consider all the different options. As she outlined, one of those options could indeed be setting up a relevant committee.
I recognise the need to update the Act. On the significant changes in fertility and scientific innovation we have witnessed and the comments by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, I am sure she will appreciate that any reform must be approached in a considered and balanced way, given the ethical sensitivity and complexity of this area.
On the issues raised about the lack of clarity on the fate of embryos for those families who very sadly could not continue treatments, any future reform would include a review of issues relating to digital clinics and how we might move forward to improve the regulatory regime in the digital area.
On the inequity and commercial exploitation in the fertility sector, raised by my noble friend Lord Winston, it is right to highlight the pace of change in the sector. While we acknowledge that the legal framework has provided strong safeguards and recognise the growing pressures from the expanding and increasingly complex private market, the Government are clear that patient safety and fairness must remain paramount and support the HFEA in maintaining the robust regulation of clinics. However, we also recognise concerns about affordability, access and the risk of inequity. While the UK continues to have a strong, established regulatory regime, we are not complacent and will continue to determine next steps to ensure that it reflects developments in both technology and the market.
Going back to the framework, the task before us is to build on the framework to retain the strengths of the existing legislation while reinforcing the capability of the HFEA and ensuring that the law keeps pace with science, society and patient expectations. We look to ensure that the UK continues to lead in the responsible regulation of fertility treatment.
My noble friend Lord Winston raised important issues about egg freezing. As we are aware, elective egg freezing is not a service provided by the National Health Service. The HFEA publishes advice about egg freezing on its website, including information about the process, risks, success and data on this. Those who freeze their eggs do so within a tightly regulated system with strict rules set out in law and in the HFEA code of practice. The HFEA expects clinics to follow consumer law and advertising guidance for UK fertility clinics produced by the CMA and the ASA. Although egg freezing is becoming a popular choice, it is not, as we have heard very clearly today, an insurance policy that can guarantee a baby in the future. Fertility clinics have a responsibility to ensure that anyone using fertility services understands the risks and the long-term impact of any treatment decisions that they make.
I am pleased to say that my noble friend Lady Merron listened very carefully to the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Winston during the King’s Speech. Although she was not winding up on that particular debate, she undertook to write to him, sparing the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, from attempting to answer his questions in the summing up. I am pleased to say that she has since written to him to address his concerns and will, Iusb have no doubt, engage with him on the further concerns that he has raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, raised particular concerns about Apricity. I think all of us will have heard about those cases with extreme concern and felt sensitivity for those people who went through such a distressing experience. Of course, we know that Apricity’s closure did not fall under the HFEA’s regulatory remit, as it was a digital service only. Of course, affected patients were advised to complain through trading standards about the service that was offered. Cases such as this will be very much at the forefront in considering the work we need to do going forward.
I have on several occasions listened with enormous interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about the impact of chemicals in our system. I do not have the ability to respond to her fully on that point, but it is an issue—also raised by my noble friend Lord Winston—that is generating a huge amount of concern. I reassure her that I will write to Defra colleagues and ask them to pass on their comments. We will send a copy of the words she said today to move that on.
I do not think I have debated with the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, before. I was very interested to hear her comments, obviously based on a lot of experience at the policy end of the spectrum. I look forward to her further contributions on this point.
I again thank everyone for taking part in this important debate. The challenges are very well recognised, and we look forward to addressing them in a way that many couples, families and individuals can benefit from in the future.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether she would be kind enough to answer one question for me. The figures that I presented on embryo freezing show that there were 909 births, some of which miscarried. However, it is clear that at least 42,000 treatments with embryos were given to different women in that period of time. That is a massive disappointment for women who are hoping to preserve their fertility. Even that figure is clearly an underestimate. I repeat my question to my noble friend Lady Merron and request that she be kind enough to write to me explaining why the HFEA no longer keeps these figures in the way it used to. It is really important to find out what is happening.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am delighted to say that I will pass on my noble friend’s comments to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. As I said, she will follow up on further comments that he has made today. I was struck by the statistics that I looked at and that my noble friend has raised in the debate today. In this day and age, we should make sure that we have up-to-date data to analyse. We have the tools to do it, and we should make sure that everyone involved makes full use of that opportunity.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, this debate has consisted of highs and lows. One high, of course, is that it is wonderful that the House of Lords has so many world experts on infertility ready to speak today and contribute their knowledge. That is what we are all about. The lows I am coming to.
I can pick out only a few comments in the limited time left. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, quite rightly pointed out that there are underlying causes of infertility, but time is of the essence. When women are in their 30s or late 30s, there is not time to queue for medical investigations that could take years. The practice of IVF, including freezing eggs, has brought happiness to so many and should not be overlooked. This is an area where there are great disappointments but also great happinesses, and we should not overlook that.
I have been invited all over the world to speak about the virtues of regulation, in particular in the United States, which is regarded as the Wild West of this area. There, things go terribly wrong, because, as you would expect, autonomy and no interference is the theme there, leading many women to fall into severe traps and malpractice. From my limited global experience, I know that the HFEA and its model of regulation was widely admired and indeed copied. When they cut me open when I am gone, they will find “Dolly the sheep” carved on my heart, because, under my watch, the Scots made that terrific breakthrough that led to the use of stem cells. Because the HFEA was supervising that and being cautious, we have been able to advance with that treatment and research, and that is something we should be very proud of indeed.
How wonderful it is that a Bishop in our House should have had that experience. I was privileged to work with two outstanding bishops at the HFEA: Bishop Richard Holloway, who I am glad to say is still with us, a man of great heart and compassion, and, of course, the sorely missed Richard Harries was able to contribute. There was nobody better than him. How much we miss his voice in all areas of life.
On the issue of plastics, all I can say is that it is certainly worth looking at. I have had my own argument with Optrex—I am sure noble Lords all know Optrex—about glass bottles now being replaced by plastic. I wrote to ask why I should introduce plastic into my eyes. Of course, I got no reply, even though many other people objected as well.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson and Lady Pidgeon, and others mentioned surrogacy. There are great reservations about the practice of surrogacy. We must take this very cautiously, although it has of course brought joy to some people.
The Minister’s response is disappointing. I can see that she and no doubt her staff have taken all this into account, but time is of the essence, as I have said before. I call once more on the Government to get going and to set up a Select Committee and produce a draft Bill, which is what happened the last time the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was revised. It takes time but, if they do not start now, we will never get around to it. The Government need to draw on the expertise that was so evident in this House today. In future years, we may not have such a wealth of expertise. Now is the time to get going. It might well take some years, but the Government really need to set up that Select Committee and do the legislative scrutiny right now.
Let me end on a note of joy, because there has not been much of that. To serve on the HFEA was a joy and the privilege of my life. People of my generation thought we were clever in not conceiving. That was the big issue—it never crossed my mind that there were fertility issues. I learned that there were and how painful they were. To see the joy of people who have managed to have families, such as the right reverend Prelate and others I could mention, thanks to the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and others was very special.
We are told that we live in a country where there are not enough babies. The HFEA is helping people to produce those much-wanted babies and I wish it well. It was a great privilege to serve. At the time, there were ethical considerations. As members, we had a bishop, a rabbi and an actress—you could not have a broader spread of input than that—and it all worked very well, with great results. I end by pleading with the Minister to get on with legislative reform for the sake of our health, growth in families and the joy of would-be parents.
Declining Birth Rates
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Nargund
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the UK’s declining birth rates in an ageing population, and the impact of this demographic shift on the workforce, demand for public services and economic growth.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important topic in your Lordships’ House. “Demography is destiny” is an old saying that has never felt more urgent. The UK faces a demographic shift that threatens an unfolding economic crisis. This issue has concerned me for nearly two decades. In 2009, I published a peer-reviewed paper, which was described as a landmark paper, on this topic. Since then, I have continued to debate and address this subject nationally and internationally. I am particularly pleased that today’s debate benefits from the contribution of so many learned noble Lords. Today, I will address the impact of our ageing population, falling fertility rates, the economic barriers preventing family formation and why equal access to fertility treatment and gender equality need to be central to our long-term growth.
Deaths are now projected to outnumber births in the UK every single year. By 2034, pensioners will outnumber children by 3 million. Since 2010, UK fertility rates have fallen by 25%, the steepest decline in the G7. These are not just social statistics; they are fiscal ones. PwC estimates that population ageing could reduce UK GDP by £429 billion by the year 2100, while public health funding is forecast to nearly double as a share of our economy by 2074.
We face a compounding crisis of rising healthcare and pension costs alongside a shrinking workforce. Nowhere is this more visible than in our National Health Service. When it was founded in 1948, only 11% of our population was over the age of 65. Today, the figure is nearly 20%. The number of over-85s, the highest users of our healthcare, has doubled in two decades. At the same time, 2 million people over 65 have unmet care needs, while over 150,000 social care posts sit vacant every single day. These pressures extend across the workforce. Economic inactivity rates rise from 17.4% at the age of 50 to nearly 70% by the age of 66. By state pension age, more than two-thirds of people have left work. We are losing experienced workers precisely when we can least afford to. Pension and retirement reforms can help to address this.
I turn to declining birth rates. The UK fertility rate fell to 1.39 in 2025, far below the 2.1 needed to sustain our population. The consequences are reshaping our communities. Maternity units are closing and so are primary schools across our country. That is simply because there are fewer children. Declining birth rates are a global phenomenon. Some of that reflects a cultural change, yet many people still want children or want more children but cannot afford to have them. That gap between aspiration and reality, known as the fertility gap, is a policy failure. We do not want to create economic conditions that make parenthood unaffordable or fail to provide fair access to fertility treatment, and we do not want to create political infertility. As the UK fertility expert on the panel for the Economist impact report Fertility Policy and Practice: a Toolkit for Europe, I can say that the evidence is clear: child-friendly policies pay for themselves.
No conversation about declining birth rates is complete without addressing assisted reproduction. We still have a postcode lottery for IVF provision, with nearly 70% of ICBs funding only one cycle of treatment. I welcome our Government’s neighbourhood health hubs as an opportunity to improve the early diagnosis of reproductive conditions to facilitate faster treatments of infertility. I have argued repeatedly that the introduction of a national tariff and a price cap for IVF would increase access within the existing budget.
Peer-reviewed research has shown that public funding for IVF delivers an eightfold return on investment to our Treasury, taking into account the lifetime economic value of a child born in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it promotes the creation of diverse and inclusive families by helping single women and same-sex couples. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: should equal and fair access to fertility treatment be recognised as an economic priority?
We cannot speak about demographic decline while leaving families to navigate parenthood alone. Raising a child to the age of 18 now costs around £260,000 for a couple and £290,000 for a single parent. Nearly 40% cite the cost of raising children as a reason for delaying having family; people call it a second mortgage. The UK has the fourth most expensive childcare in the world, and only 11% of employers offer it.
I welcome the Government’s measures in the Renters’ Rights Act and the Social Housing Bill, which matter not only socially but economically. Our statutory paternity leave remains among the lowest in Europe. I also welcome our Government’s review on parental leave, and I urge them to extend paternity leave and pay so that it is viable for all families. Immigration has an important role to play, but immigration alone cannot rebalance these demographic imbalances.
Finally, there is also a digital challenge. Recent research cited in the Financial Times found that the first areas in the UK to receive 4G also saw birth rates fall earliest and fastest. Young people are socialising less and forming fewer long-term relationships. If we are serious about reversing demographic decline, we must also examine the impact of technology on connection, relationships and family formation.
There is no single solution to this challenge, but the thread connecting all of it is economic growth. At the heart of any solution must be family-friendly policies that promote gender parity, support work and parenthood, and create financial security. These are not costs to the Exchequer; they are investments in our future prosperity. This requires co-ordinated cross-governmental action. Will my noble friend the Minister therefore consider the appointment of a dedicated government lead to address this issue? “Demography is destiny” need not become our nation’s fate, but only if we act now. I look forward to my noble friend’s reply.
Lord Hobby (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chief executive of the Kemnal Academies Trust. I am also a non-exec director at Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, for securing this vital debate; it is a pleasure to listen to her expertise on this topic. As a pioneering fertility specialist serving the NHS for more than three decades, she has done more than most people to raise the cause of reproductive health and to bring these questions to a wider audience.
In my contribution I want to connect this topic to Alan Milburn’s interim report on young people and work. We heard a little about that this morning, with the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. The two topics are tightly linked. The effects of the demographic transition are, at the heart of the matter, a quite simple ratio; there are fewer working-age people supporting a larger population that relies on public services and benefits. The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, has already quoted the key statistics on this, so I need not repeat them, but I am struck by that particularly gloomy one: that we are projecting that deaths will continue to outnumber births for the foreseeable future. So we must debate measures to lift fertility, support families and reduce the cost of raising children, and the Government have a promising suite of measures in place for this.
But whatever we do now, the shift in age structure we have spoken about is already baked in for decades. Short of dramatically increasing migration, which seems politically challenging, there is nothing we can do to change the underlying demographic facts in the medium term. I guess it is a strange way of putting it, but it takes 18 years to make a new worker. The international evidence so far seems to suggest that we can slow but not reverse the decline in fertility.
What we can change is how many of our working-age population are actually working and how much they produce when they do work. So, our immediate response belongs in the realm of productivity and participation. On productivity, the UK’s track record since the financial crisis offers little grounds for optimism, but we must keep trying. This leaves participation. Here, Milburn’s report gives us fresh cause for worry: not only will we have fewer young people, but fewer of those we do have are entering work. Over 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training, and more are economically inactive than are unemployed, often because of poor physical and mental health. This is double blow: these young people are not working, and many of them will need to lean on the same services that are already stretched by the ageing population. England is projected to need around 470,000 more social care workers by 2040, according to the Darzi report, even as the working-age population to fill those roles shrinks. So we have fewer workers and greater need, and both terms of that ratio are moving against us.
Youth worklessness is a tragedy on its own terms; it is a waste of potential and a source of future division and alienation. If the first rungs of the ladder are being chopped away, we should not be surprised that fewer people are deciding to climb that ladder. This topic shows that the combination of growing worklessness and an ageing population is a threat to all our futures. The Work and Pensions Secretary who commissioned Milburn’s review called it a cause of our times. Connected to the demographic challenge before us, we could come to see it as the defining cause of our times.
So, I have two questions to put to the Minister. Will he assure us that the Government will respond to the recommendations in the second phase of the report with the urgency and vigour they demand, as echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, earlier? Finally—and here, I repeat the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund—given all these threads coming together, is it time for a wide, coherent, cross-governmental demographic strategy?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Nargund for raising this important issue; it was a good illustration of the expertise that is brought before this House. I recognise the important work that she has done in this area, looking at the barriers to parenthood and the need for family-friendly policies. We need to prioritise long-term thinking, but I want to highlight that falling fertility is also a story about women’s choices. There is a certain symmetry to our debates; the previous debate was about women who want to have children and what we can do to help them, but it is also a choice not to have children.
This is not just a UK issue, of course; we know that the global fertility rate has roughly halved since the 1960s. The standard explanations focus on housing costs, debt, technology and the general pressures of modern life. Those things exist and they are influential, but the evidence is that they are not necessarily the primary explanation. The other explanation is that women now have far greater control over their reproductive lives, and they are exercising it. I do not have the presumption to speak on behalf of women; I simply read the consistent evidence on the pattern of falling fertility.
Fertility decline is not concentrated among women facing the greatest economic pressure. If costs were the main driver, you would expect the sharpest falls among the least well-off. This is not what we see. What cuts across all groups is access to contraception and, equally important, the freedom to use it. The timing of the decline in fertility tracks closely with the expansion of women’s reproductive autonomy, not with any particular economic shock.
Education reinforces this. Better-educated women exercise more choice over how many children they want, when to have them and how many they actually have. It is not that education makes women want to have fewer children, but it is associated with more effective control over that decision. When teenage birth rates fall decade after decade across every country, as they have, that is not young women being unable to afford children; it is a decline in unintended pregnancies. This must be progress, not failure. The conclusion is that much of this decline in fertility simply reflects what women, given genuine choice, actually want. To that extent, it should be welcomed and not seen necessarily as a problem to be solved.
In the time remaining, I will add two further thoughts that bear on this issue. First, the last 100 years demonstrate that human society can deal with massive economic and demographic change. I often ponder what Lloyd George, when he introduced his state pension, would have thought about the possibility of having the current, much better, state pension when circumstances, on the criteria that we are talking about now, have made it massively more difficult. But, of course, we have overcome them over time. It is important that we understand that, while people often say time is a healer, it is also an enabler: it enables us to confront these changes.
Finally, there must come a time, now or in the future, when we say that enough is enough. Growth, whether economic or in the population, is not good in itself; it is what you do with what this world provides that really counts.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, as we have heard, declining birth rates carry profound economic and social consequences. The story of human origins in the Book of Genesis begins with a God-given mandate to populate the Earth, and supports the basic goodness of family life. The Christian tradition has consistently affirmed the value of children. The baptism liturgy declares that children are a blessing and a gift from God. That conviction remains important, not only for people of faith but for society as a whole. Children represent continuity, connecting us with the generations that have gone before us and giving hope for the future. They are a gift to the whole community, not only to their parents and others who may raise them.
It is important, however, to understand the complex factors behind declining birth rates, which, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, include women’s choice but also fearfulness about the future, difficulties in combining career and family and financial pressures. The expense of housing, student loan repayments and the rising cost of living all contribute to delaying family formation. Couples now marry later, start a family later and often have fewer children than hoped for, not least because, by the time financial circumstances may seem more favourable, biology may well be less co-operative.
As I have said before in this Chamber, we are witnessing the unravelling of an unwritten social contract: namely, if you obtain a decent education and work hard, you should be able to save for a deposit, buy a home, start a family and provide stability for your children until they can do likewise. For many young adults today, that promise feels increasingly out of reach. It takes many years to save for a deposit, and two stable salaries are then typically needed to pay the mortgage, with an average house now costing 7.6 times the average salary, rising to 10.6 in London. High house prices also limit the ability of younger generations to build housing wealth and financial security, contributing to the growing crisis in intergenerational equity. While there are limits to what the state can and should do, there is much within a Government’s power to address some of the barriers that I have described, and to legislate in such a way that supports families of varying shapes and sizes, as outlined so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, in her opening speech.
I am heartened by the Government’s commitment to family hubs. At their best, they can provide valuable help and support for all parents and families. However, they remain something of a postcode lottery. If they are to make a difference across our communities, they should be accessible and attractive to all families, not only those experiencing crisis, and they should be embedded in a wider ecosystem of support, involving voluntary organisations, and community and faith groups.
Secondly, the Government’s family test should be strengthened. It is too weak at present: inconsistently applied and insufficient to ensure that the effects of policy on family relationships are properly considered across government. I therefore urge the DWP to review the family test, strengthen its application and make it a statutory requirement, so that the well-being of families is embedded more firmly across government decision-making. This would signal to prospective parents that their choice to have children will be supported by the state. I therefore ask the Minister whether any steps have been taken to review the family test, considering concerns about declining birth rates.
Demographic change presents us with serious challenges, but it also invites us to reflect on the kind of society that we wish to build. If we value families, if we welcome children as a blessing and as a source of hope, and if we want future generations to flourish, we must ensure that those who wish to marry, establish a home and raise children are not prevented from doing so by barriers that could be avoided.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My thanks, too, to my noble friend for opening this debate.
My Lords, it seems ironic that some of the very same politicians who framed the falling birth rate as a crisis have also pledged to bring back the two-child benefit cap. Meanwhile, the far right peddles racist conspiracy theories about white European populations being replaced and proclaims that having babies is a woman’s patriotic duty.
In contrast, my starting point is women’s choice. Most of us do not want a Handmaid’s Tale-style future, with the state pressurising women into motherhood. Instead, we should celebrate how better education and access to contraception and abortion services has helped women take more control over reproductive choices. In a free society, it is not for government to dictate whether we have children or how many. But government policies can either support citizens’ choices or push them beyond reach. Ordinary people have suffered years of austerity and pressure on wages, and they were told that they had no right to expect job security, let alone a secure home.
I pay tribute to this Government’s Employment Rights Act and Renters’ Rights Act, which guarantee a more stable life, including for those who want to start a family. Policies that recognise that families come in all shapes and sizes are important too. A quarter of families are headed by a single parent, who are overwhelmingly mothers—I was one of them—so action on equal pay and childcare really counts.
The paid parental leave system, which this Government have inherited, is among the worst in Europe. That makes it harder for new mothers to stay in the workforce, or relegates them to second-class status, holding back economic growth. New fathers and other parents get a raw deal too. While many employers top up statutory paternity pay, blue-collar workers are much more likely to rely on the statutory rate, and self-employed dads get nothing at all. The UK’s parental leave system is still rooted in the 1950s idea of the sole male breadwinner and emotionally detached fatherhood—a model of masculinity that only the so-called populist right still aspires to. All the evidence is that women and men want to share parenthood more equally, and giving new babies more time with their parents is one of the best forms of early years investment. Change is urgent.
Similarly, living longer lives should be seen as a measure of human progress. It becomes a crisis only if we fail to put in place policies necessary to support a happy old age, not least tackling the UK’s stark class inequality in healthy life expectancy. The last thing we need is divisive proposals that stoke intergenerational wars. That brings me to the recent report from the Centre for Social Justice, Baby Bust. It argues that “too many retirees” believe that
“they have ‘paid for’ their pension rather than understanding that it is funded by current taxpayers”.
The centre could have usefully added that this generation of taxpayers has an interest in protecting a decent state pension, because one day they will claim it too. The state pension is, in fact, a prime example of intergenerational solidarity.
Reading the report, you might also think that the UK’s state pension provision is generous. It is not. UK spending on state pensions as a percentage of GDP is well below the OECD average. Of course, we must prioritise economic growth to support an ageing society. Many argue that technology is the answer, and it has been calculated that the introduction of AI alone will deliver multibillion-dollar productivity gains. I would welcome the Minister’s views on ways to ensure that those gains are shared fairly, and on how big tech can pay its fair share towards the decent public goods and services that our ageing population has earned.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, for having secured this debate, and to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for having introduced the business of intergenerational solidarity. I want to concentrate on the other end—not on birth but on this older population, because it makes a civic contribution through volunteers and through its economic impact.
The total economic impact of volunteers is to save the country around £27.4 billion per annum. Those over the age of 85 in employment bring in £6 billion to £8 billion in income tax revenue annually, and 1.7 million people earn around half what younger earners gain in employment. So they are working and earning less, but they are bringing in tax and certainly not being a burden on the state.
But there are families where the child cannot be looked after in the conventional way, and I will focus on kinship for a moment. In the 2021 census, most children living in kinship care—that is 60%—lived with at least one grandparent. The 2025 survey showed that nearly half the respondents were aged over 60 and more than one in eight were aged over 70. Seven out of 10 kinship carers are grandparents to at least one child in their care. They are taking a huge burden off the state in many ways, yet they suffer significant practical and financial problems, often using their own savings to look after these children. They have found that, if they go for a special guardianship order, they jeopardise their pension going into the future. For some, it is better financially to remain as kinship foster carers because they get a foster care allowance, but that does not provide as much stability for the child. So I hope that the issue of kinship care will be looked at seriously by the Government because we could improve it and the contribution of kinship carers is enormous.
Looking at volunteers—I declare that I am president of Attend—for Attend alone we have 400 groups across the country working in hospitals. They are led by officers who are usually between 70 and 90 years of age. They work many hours voluntarily. There are about 20,000 people actively supporting their community by belonging to one of these groups, and for each of them there are 10 others who are ad hoc volunteers coming in to provide support across their community. Through Attend alone, we have about 20 young people every year gaining work experience as volunteers in order to strengthen their CVs and move forward later—that volunteer contribution is essential.
I also point out, as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, that falls avoidance is absolutely essential. If we avoid falls among older people and we connect them with other people, often through volunteering, we avoid loneliness and the problems of people saying that they feel that they are a burden. When people feel that they are a burden, they avoid seeking help early and present with problems later. One of the big problems in this older group is hidden alcohol abuse. These are all aspects that we must address if we are going to address the demographic challenges we face.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Nargund on securing this debate, and I note how busy she seems to have been today. I have a strange feeling that she is only just getting started in your Lordships’ House—let us see what happens next. This debate is a veritable banquet of related policy issues. I intend to address those which are to do with the ageing demographic.
I declare an interest as the chair elect of SCIE, the Social Care Institute for Excellence, founded by your Lordships’ House around 2003. I follow distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House in chairing this organisation. I am also a non-executive director of Whittington Health, where I am the maternity lead. I am going to talk about the demographic impact of our ageing population. It is important to say, as other noble Lords have said, that having a population of so many people living longer is a matter for rejoicing. It creates issues, but it is something for which I think we should all be grateful.
It is indeed the case that 14.2 million of us will be living longer by 2034, and 9.1 million of that number will have a serious illness. So, I am very pleased that the NHS 10-year plan addresses the UK’s ageing population by shifting the health service’s focus from reactive hospital treatment to proactive integrated care in local communities and tackling the unsustainable rise in demand from major illness by promoting preventive care, better digital access and stronger social care.
The plan has various elements. On neighbourhood health services, it will decentralise care by expanding multidisciplinary teams in our local communities. On digital integration, it will enhance the NHS app to empower patients to manage their own care. I appreciate that raises issues of digital exclusion, but those are issues we need to tackle. We should not underestimate the fact that those of us who are older are perfectly digitally capable given the chance to be so—although I have to say the phone on my desk has stopped working again, but I promise I will solve that problem. On preventive healthcare, the NHS will shift from reactive to predictive care by leveraging genomics and health risk scores to intervene earlier.
The plan also envisages social care alignment, which I will spend my last couple of minutes talking about. It emphasises the urgent need to accelerate social care reform to ensure smooth hospital discharges and, more importantly, sustained support at home. It emphasises shifting care closer to home and building a neighbourhood health service. That is not achievable unless we can really place social care on an equal footing with healthcare.
Social care’s role is vital in effectively delivering neighbourhood health and early support. That is why the Casey report is very important. However, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the interim report expected this year will address the necessary transition to equal status for social care fast enough to allow this delivery to happen. Will the plan also fulfil the commitment to incorporating lived experience in the design of neighbourhood healthcare development? Will the voluntary sector, social enterprises and community organisations also be involved in the delivery of the neighbourhood healthcare we need to develop and build to ensure a soft landing for the future?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, for her choice of subject—what a neatly symmetrical pairing it was. I wish I could have been here for the earlier debate.
I am one of the ageing—or, I admit, aged—generation, a very lucky generation, a post-World War II baby boomer, who never considered not having a job, leaving university with a huge debt, having to go on working longer than I would want, if I could, or not having stable housing. These are all factors relevant to choices today. We are also a generation, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, acutely aware of the importance of social care.
I tend to think in terms of the classic family of parents and 2.4 children, as it was. The replacement rate per woman, I understand, would be 2.1, but the total fertility rate fell last year to less than 1.4. There are many aspects to this issue. I stumbled over a couple of articles recently, and I have picked up on a couple. In the US, people in red states seem to be having more children than those in blue. I am not advocating following Elon Musk, but there is certainly a political hue—which echoes the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. Viktor Orbán said before his non-election, “We need Hungarian children”, announcing a lifelong exemption from income tax for women with four or more. The more you read about this, the less men seem to feature in the comments. There are also lots of historical references one might make.
There were factors that I had not anticipated, which I got from an article in the FT that cited sources from a range of academic research. One American university published a paper looking at birth rates through the lens of the rollout of 4G mobile networks in the US and the UK—this takes on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, made. The number of births fell first and fastest in areas that received high-speed mobile connectivity earliest. Researchers argue that smartphones reduce young people’s in-person socialising. Another academic commented:
“To meet a person you are going to marry”—
they should have said “partner with” instead of “marry”—
“requires filtering through a lot of people”.
He added:
“If you spend lots of time socialising with your peers in the real world, your standards … are anchored in the real world. If you spend your time on Instagram”—
I confess that I do not know whether that is an out-of-date reference—
“your standards are anchored to an artificial sense of what is normal”.
But what is less startling to me is the connection with immigration. It is obvious that the UK’s need for people should not be detached from people’s wish or need to be in the UK—or vice versa. Reform UK says that we need “to cut immigration drastically”, and that:
“At the same time, to fix that population crisis, we’re trying to encourage British people already here to have kids”.
There is a lot to analyse in that, which I do not have time for, but one of their leader’s suggestions is that only “British-born” families should have the two-child benefit limit lifted. We already have a situation in which a lot of people are looked after in care homes and hospitals by the very people who are demonised. The Government and the media should be welcoming them, and lead the way in doing so, because we are in danger of the penny dropping far too late. The following words are not original; I should credit John Harris, who wrote them in the Guardian. He said,
“pulling up the drawbridge as birthrates crashed is the absolute definition of folly”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, on securing her first QSD, and on her perceptive comments after a lifetime devoted to reproductive medicine. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I was particularly struck when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford reminded us that children are a blessing; and by the emphasis of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the elderly avoiding falls, which is a very good example of preventive healthcare.
The collapse in the birth rate is not a new issue, but it is an increasingly urgent one. As we have heard, the number of babies born per woman fell to 1.39 in 2025, down from 1.9 in 2010 and well below the 2.1 needed to replace the existing population. The ONS projects that over the decade to mid-2034 there will be around 450,000 more deaths than births in the UK.
It is a trend replicated in other developed countries, with Japan and Korea worst affected. I have spent time in both countries, and they are well aware of the problem. I remember addressing a large room of women working at the then Tesco operation in Korea. At the end, the male CEO emerged at the back to thank me profusely. Inappropriately, he added that Korea would not be facing the difficulties it was if mothers there had taken a leaf out of my book and given birth to four boys.
The UK is moving from a model in which population growth came from a combination of such births and some migration to one in which future growth is expected to depend on migration. That is a profound shift. I am going to focus on three of the challenges.
With the steep fall in the birth rate, there will be fewer children entering our nurseries and schools. This could mean smaller class sizes and an improvement in teaching, but I fear that with pupil funding per head, it will mean that more schools have to close, forcing some very difficult choices on the authorities, especially in rural areas. But there should be cost savings, which should be banked, even if we would prefer that they did not arise.
The lower birth rate will also mean fewer people entering the labour market in years to come. Falling birth rates affect both the number of people who need public services and the number available to provide them. That is critical in sectors such as health and social care, where pressures are already acute, as we have heard. This matters because our economy urgently needs sustained growth. Yet demographic change is pushing us in the opposite direction towards greater demand for public services and a smaller working-age population. The answer is that people must stay in work for longer, as many of us have done in Parliament, and that means raising the state pension age, except perhaps for those who have had particularly physically taxing jobs, as I suggested in my report for DWP on the subject in 2022.
Another challenge is the cost of an ageing population to the public purse. The OBR has warned that on our current trajectory the long-term pressure of ageing and related spending could push borrowing and debt to absurd levels. But the markets will not let that happen, so we have to develop a response. State pension spending is projected to rise from around 5% of GDP today to 7.7% by the early 2070s. At the same time, an older population will mean rising demand for health and social care. The state is therefore being squeezed from both directions—higher spending on one side and a smaller tax base relative to the retired population on the other. That is why declining birth rates are not simply a social trend or a private matter for families; they are central to the fiscal sustainability of the country.
What can be done? I believe the matter should be addressed with real seriousness. This is not an undergraduate debate; it is the future of the country. Government policies across the board will need adjustment, as we have heard. That means taxation, childcare, fertility treatment, social and welfare rules, technology, and what we teach our children in our schools. First, can the Minister set out whether the Government have a cross-departmental strategy for responding to the UK’s persistently low fertility with a view to changing the situation over time? Secondly, what assessment have the Government made of the long-term fiscal consequences of the demographic shift, particularly for pensions and for health and social care? This is a vital topic affecting our country into the distant future. We need answers to this problem, and quickly. I hope the outlines of a way forward will emerge from today’s important debate.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Nargund for introducing this debate, which is very important to the long-term future of the country. The contributions we have heard show that it is a very complicated issue which is determined not just by one factor. A lot of factors are involved, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has just said, this is happening globally as well.
On the global aspect, birth rates are declining in Japan, Korea, across Europe and in every other advanced country. A declining birth rate in an ageing population represents one of the most significant challenges we face. The trends will shape the future size and composition of the workforce, increase pressure on public services, and have important implications for economic growth and the sustainability of public finances, not just in this country but in all the countries affected. As I have said, and as my noble friend Lord Davies made clear, the issues we face are very complicated, ranging from the impact of low birth rates on the workforce to the cost of pensions for the elderly. Even social media has an important impact on trends and demography.
These pressures reinforce the importance of maintaining a strong and productive economy. Economic growth and rising productivity will be essential in ensuring that the United Kingdom can continue to fund high-quality public services while supporting long-term fiscal sustainability.
Several noble Lords rightly highlighted the implication for the labour market. I just point out one statistic, which I find interesting: there were only two peacetime years in the past 150 years when average annual employment was higher than in 2025. The UK employment rate is in the top half of OECD economies and is above the G7 average.
We are providing support for those who wish to remain in or return to work, including parents, older workers and those currently economically inactive. The Government also recognise the importance of life-long learning, workforce flexibility and ensuring that people contribute to society throughout their lives.
Noble Lords spoke about the wider pressures facing younger generations. Decisions about having children are deeply personal. However, the Government recognise that factors such as housing affordability, childcare costs, job security and broader economic confidence can all shape those decisions. That is why supporting families and improving economic opportunity remains important, not only for individuals and households but for the long-term resilience of the economy.
The debate underlined that there is no single policy solution to demographic change. I will spend the rest of my time answering the questions raised by noble Lords in this short debate. I will try to answer them all, but we will write to the noble Lords in question on the ones I do not get round to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, and the right reverend Prelate said that equal and fair access to fertility treatment should be recognised as an economic priority. Fair access is a priority for the Government, and we recognise that access to NHS-funded fertility services currently varies across England. Commissioning decisions are made by integrated care boards based on local clinical need and are informed by national guidance. The Government are committed to improving fair and equitable access to fertility services, recognising the significant emotional and health impacts of infertility.
On social care, which was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Nargund, Lady Hamwee and Lady Thornton, and others, following the 2025 spending review there will be an addition £4.6 billion of funding available for adult social care in 2028-29 compared to 2025-26. This will enable an increase in the NHS’s minimum contribution to adult social care via the better care fund, in line with the DHSC’s spending review settlement, and some £500 million to begin implementing the fair pay agreement in 2028-29.
The noble Lord, Lord Hobby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Nargund and Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked how importantly the Government regard this and whether there will be a cross-government, cross-departmental approach. The Government are committed to ensuring that the right structures are in place for co-ordinating their response to the challenges posed by an ageing society. Boosting economic growth is central to this response, and the Prime Minister recently announced a number of changes to the Cabinet committee structure, including establishing a Growth and Living Standards Committee, which provides terms of reference to consider many of the issues raised in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hobby, raised the issue of rising unemployment. The Government inherited a level of young people not in education, employment or training that was far too high—12.6% in the second quarter of 2024. In March, the Government announced £1 billion more to unlock 200,000 new jobs and apprenticeships for the next generation, as part of a new deal for young people.
The noble Lord, Lord Hobby, also mentioned the Milburn review, the final report of which will be published this autumn. We take very seriously the issues raised in that review, and I know we will concentrate on that once the final report has been issued, some time in September or October.
The noble Lord, Lord Hobby, again, mentioned the Milburn review, which we all agree is very important going forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned commitments by the Government to kinship care. I will pass on her comments to the DWP and the relevant departments, but I can tell her that the Government are committed to tackling child poverty and improving outcomes for low-income families. Scrapping the two-child limit is just one way in which the Government are tackling the root causes of child poverty, and the child poverty strategy was published in December last year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised issues around social care. The autumn 2025 Budget confirmed that millions in England will see the cost of their prescriptions frozen to 2026-27. The Budget also confirmed that the NHS neighbourhood rebuild programme will deliver 250 new neighbourhood health centres. The Government’s 10-year health plan is committed to shift care from hospitals to community by establishing a neighbourhood health service that will bring care closer to home. Of course, the Casey review into all of this is very important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, raised housing and affordability. Noble Lords highlighted the relationship between housing and declining birth rates; the Government recognise that economic security includes access to stable and affordable housing, which can influence long-term family-planning decisions. The amount of money announced in the Budget for social housing is significant. I have got a minute to go.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I will do my best. The right reverend Prelate commented that family hubs will draw on what we know works from Sure Start, and the Best Start in Life programme will provide essential support for parents and families. The Government are committed to providing funds for all local authorities to deliver Best Start family hubs to a total amount of £500 million.
In response to the comments of my noble friend Lady O’Grady, it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons between different countries where state pension schemes are concerned. The UK has one of the most generous approaches globally to uplifting pensions, because no other country has the triple lock. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke about the UK’s immigration system; it is geared towards supporting businesses and accessing high-skilled overseas workers who boost the supply of skills and talent in the UK.
One of the big issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned was the pension situation. The Government are legally required to review the state pension age every six years to ensure that it is fair and sustainable. We announced the launch of the third review of the state pension age in July 2025, alongside the Pensions Commission, so I think it is fair to say that we are doing a lot in this regard. There is obviously more to do. It is a very complicated issue but I hope that, in future, we will be able to have another debate on this in this Chamber. It is something that is very important and complicated, and there are no easy answers.
Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
That this House takes note of the role of government policy in combating atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords participating in today’s debate, along with the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, Protection Approaches, and the Coalition for Genocide Response—of which I am a patron—Dr Ewelina Ochab, and the House of Lords Library for its invaluable background papers.
My thanks also to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, who in 2021, from the Opposition Front Bench, was such an outstanding supporter of the genocide amendments to the Trade Bill—about which I shall say a little more at the conclusion and a lot more on 17 July, when my new Genocide Determination Bill, introduced earlier today, receives its Second Reading.
It is particularly apposite that we are debating this topic today, as we mark the 37th anniversary of the horrific Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing—and indeed across China—on 4 June 1989, graphically symbolised by the heroism of “Tank Man”, who stood against the dictatorship’s might. It was moving from me to attend earlier today the unveiling of a new statue to “Tank Man” and to hear Kate Adie describe the horrors that unfolded in the square that day, where she was as a young journalist. We recall the many brave advocates for democracy and human rights incarcerated today by the Chinese Communist Party, including Hong Kong’s Jimmy Lai. All over the world, it is patently obvious that we need more of the steely resolve of “Tank Man” in demanding justice for victims and an end to impunity.
Let me give the House some examples of our wholly inadequate, inconsistent and sometimes craven approach. In 2015, I raised the plight of the Yazidis and other minorities, which the House of Commons declared to be a genocide. In response, the Foreign Office said that Parliament had no right to declare a genocide. In the case of the Yazidis, seven years elapsed until a German court used universal jurisdiction to convict an IS insurgent of Yazidi genocide. Perversely, two years later, in 2023, having blocked attempts to enable our own High Court to make a genocide declaration, the FCDO said that the German court’s findings would enable it to formally recognise a genocide.
In a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair, looking at the Yazidi genocide committed by British members of ISIS, we highlighted the more than 400 returnees to the UK, not one of whom has been prosecuted for the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity. Is that still the case? When will we act on the JCHR’s recommendation to extend universal jurisdiction? Let us contrast that decision to finally recognise the Yazidi genocide with the FCDO’s almost simultaneous removal of its recognition of what the ICC had declared to be a genocide in Darfur—this, despite speeches from Ministers, still extant online, describing atrocities in Darfur as genocide.
While the FCDO airbrushed Darfur out of its list of genocides, several organisations were ringing the alarm of an impending new genocide. In April 2023, I chaired an inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and published a report entitled Genocide: All Over Again in Darfur? It warned of systematic atrocities against non-Arab ethnic groups and urged immediate international intervention to prevent another genocide. Removing the previous determination inevitably affected our response to the events that were unfolding. By 2026, a UN mechanism confirmed that at El Fasher all the hallmarks of genocide were indeed present. This was predictable—it was preventable. In what is the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe, tens of thousands have died, including at Darfur’s El-Daein Teaching Hospital, where 70 people were killed, including 13 children and three medical workers.
Why is it important to call out atrocities such as this for what they are? Under the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide, such determinations require us to take decisive steps; our obligations are to prevent, protect and punish, and they are crucial in understanding early warning signs of future atrocities. What of our duty to hold perpetrators to account? Why is Omar al-Bashir, charged by the International Criminal Court with the 2003-08 genocide in Darfur—a systematic campaign of mass killings, rape and forced displacement, which I saw myself at first hand—still at large? Will his early arrest be part of the Foreign Secretary’s welcome decision to create the international coalition to prevent further atrocities in Sudan?
Staying with Africa for a moment, which I know is close to the Minister’s heart and where he did great work as the Africa Minister, can he update us on action to bring the perpetrators of wicked crimes in Tigray—especially the targeting of women—to justice? Are we acting on the admirable proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for a permanent mechanism focused on conflict-related sexual violence? In Nigeria, what assessment has been made of the recent statement of Caleb Mutfwang, governor of Plateau state, that over 60 entire villages have been eradicated by jihadist militias? He said:
“I cannot find any explanation other than genocide sponsored by terrorists”.
Is the FCDO at least conducting a joint analysis of conflict and stability assessment in Nigeria?
In the DRC, the Ebola crisis is happening against the perfect storm of endless atrocities by jihadists and terror groups which include massacres, beheadings and abductions across the eastern provinces of North Kivu and Ituri. On 12 May 2025, when I raised the execution of Christians by jihadists, the Minister wrote telling me that:
“We are alarmed and saddened by the attacks by IS-affiliated Allied Democratic Forces … all those who have committed human rights violations and abuses must be held accountable”.
A year has passed. Has anyone been held to account? With gross impunity in so many situations, is it any wonder that genocide happens over and over again?
What of that other theatre of war, in Ukraine? As we recall appalling atrocities committed in Mariupol, Bucha, Izyum, Olenivka and elsewhere, what progress are we making in holding Vladimir Putin’s regime to account for his atrocity crimes, including abduction of children and recent reports of forced recruitment and trafficking of foreigners to fight in the Russian armed forces in Ukraine? This has been documented by Fortify Rights, on whose leadership council I serve, and Truth Hounds, which later this month will be publishing a ground-breaking report on the use of sexual violence by Russian military against Ukrainian men. What are we doing to support the efforts to ensure justice and accountability for such crimes?
Where war crimes occur, whether they are committed by our foes or our friends, we must uphold the conventions, especially the Geneva convention. As is clear in Gaza, even wars must be governed by laws. I refer to my Question answered on 29 April concerning reports of the deaths of more than 38,000 women and children in Gaza. The conventions set the standards for international humanitarian law, and we ignore or abandon them at our peril.
Elsewhere, in Burma such war crimes occur daily. During several visits, both legally and illegally, I have walked through the smouldering villages of Karen state and interviewed survivors of the military’s attacks. I visited a burned-out village near the capital, Naypyidaw, in the aftermath of attacks on the Muslim community. Will the Minister examine the reports by Fortify Rights about airstrikes and related atrocity crimes across Myanmar, and its call to bring the military, the Arakan Army and Ata Ullah—the leader of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army—to justice for their atrocities?
Can the Minister update us on progress in the case brought by the Gambia at the International Court of Justice—supported, I was glad to see, by the United Kingdom—on charges of genocide against the Rohingya? What progress is being made in achieving the request by the ICC prosecutor for an arrest warrant for Myanmar’s dictator, Min Aung Hlaing?
With Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, I co-chair the APPG on North Korea, where human rights violations have been described in a UN commission of inquiry report, chaired by the Australian Justice Michael Kirby, as
“a state without parallel”.
I have been in North Korea on four occasions, met many escapees and chaired numerous hearings here in Parliament—including one just two weeks ago with Thae Yong-ho, former North Korean deputy ambassador to the UK and one of the highest-level defectors. Thae told us that, when the commission of inquiry reported, senior figures in the North Korean regime were initially very nervous reading the commission’s call for the leadership to be tried by the ICC for crimes against humanity. However, he said that, when it became clear that the international community were not going to act upon the call by the ICC, the regime in Pyongyang regained its confidence.
What does this say about the international community’s effectiveness in addressing atrocity crimes? Do we have any intention of ever following through on the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, and what stops us as a country from leading those efforts? North Korea, like Iran, routinely imprisons, tortures and executes people, even for listening to banned music or watching banned movies, and 300,000 people are incarcerated in its gulags and prison camps.
North Korea, Iran, Russia and China are part of what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, calls “a deadly quartet”. In noting that all four have sanctioned me, the House will not be surprised that I am deeply disappointed by the response we have made to the CCP’s atrocities in China. What practical actions have we taken in response to the two independent tribunals chaired by the eminent lawyer, Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who prosecuted Milosevic, and which found evidence of genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, a view again endorsed as such by the House of Commons, and forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China?
On China, what practical response are the Government making to two other inquiries by the Joint Committee on Human Rights? Last year, we heard evidence of CCP transnational repression in the UK, including the imposition of a bounty on the head of a young woman, Chloe Cheung. The committee unanimously identified the CCP regime as the worst TNR offender and said it should be placed in the top tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—when will that happen?
In a second unanimous report, the JCHR also found that state-imposed, coercive, forced labour in Xinjiang is widespread and deeply entrenched in global supply chains of everything from cotton to solar panels. Is it reasonable to simply do business as usual with the CCP regime, which Sir Geoffrey says is
“interacting with a criminal state”.
Are we simply turning a blind eye or, rather, ravenously eyeing up the next trade deal?
The duty to prevent genocide in Article 1 of the convention is triggered the moment a state learns or should have learned that there is a serious risk of genocide. In 2021, the all-party genocide determination amendments to the then Trade Bill were passed here in this House with substantial majorities, including with eloquent support from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who moved amendments linking trade to human rights violations and called for Magnitsky sanctions on perpetrators; some of those things are still waiting to happen. Crafted with the wise assistance of the former Supreme Court judge, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, and supported by two former Lord Chancellors, the genocide amendment was opposed by the Foreign Office and Trade Ministers and ultimately was wrecked by an amendment—now Section 3 of the Trade Act 2021—that is not worth the paper on which it was printed and which does nothing for victims survivors of genocide.
Successive Governments were lamely repeating the Foreign Office mantra that “only a court” can decide whether grievous criminality constitutes genocide while disingenuously blocking every attempt to empower our own UK courts to do so. The failure to provide judicial architecture has a further undesirable effect. It allows the word genocide to be misappropriated and turned into a slogan. Preventing the High Court from making a determination plays into that sloganeering.
The noble Lord may have been encouraged to repeat the FCDO’s contention that failure to formally recognise a genocide does not hamper our ability to act. However, as I explained in the case of Darfur, this is far from empirical reality. There is also recommendation 7 of the Truro review on genocide and atrocity prevention and the future of the mass atrocity prevention hub, on which I hope we will hear more when the Minister comes to reply.
Atrocity crimes come at great cost. They are linked to identity-based persecution, collective punishment, sexual violence, a culture of impunity, endless repetition and a deficit of accountability, playing into security and humanitarian challenges, including the mass displacement of over 120 million people. Instead of obfuscation about the future of the hub, we need clarity and transparency, and we must have JACS assessments that are not kept secret but published, so that we know why and what action is being taken.
What is not acceptable is a continuation of the illusion that we have a clear and effective strategy for combating atrocity crimes. In so many respects, today’s debate puts atrocity crimes back on to the House of Lords’ agenda, and I am incredibly grateful to all noble Lords who are ensuring that that will happen. I thank all noble Lords who are going to speak. I beg to move.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate. “Never again” was the promise made after the Holocaust. Since then, the world has witnessed Cambodia, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Kashmir, Myanmar and more recent mass atrocities in South Sudan and Sudan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere. The promise has been broken too often.
Prevention is not a technical footnote to foreign policy. It is the central test of whether the post-1945 international system works. Once mass killing begins, stopping it costs more lives, money and credibility than preventing it. We must get better at early warning and early action. Atrocities do not erupt without signs. Hate speech that dehumanises a group, systematic discrimination, the build-up of militias, attacks on journalists and civil society, the manipulation of elections and identity politics are patterns that UN offices and NGOs have documented for decades.
The UK helped create the UN Office on Genocide Prevention, but early warning is useless without early action. The UN Security Council must shift from crisis response to crisis prevention. That means using the UN General Assembly’s uniting for peace procedure more often when a veto paralyses the UN Security Council. The General Assembly cannot authorise force but it can mandate fact-finding, sanctions and diplomatic initiatives. We must fund the UN’s prevention architecture properly.
What should the British Government do? The UK has unique tools: it is a P5 seat holder with strong intelligence capacity, a global diplomatic network and the FCDO’s atrocity prevention department. But we need to use these tools more consistently by making atrocity prevention a core objective of all UK country strategies, not just in obvious conflict zones. Trade, aid and security partnerships should all be screened for risk. The UK-India FTA had no human rights clause. That sends the wrong signal. Every agreement should have clear benchmarks and consequences.
The UK must lead on accountability. It should support the ICC, politically and financially, and use sanctions against individuals inciting genocide or crimes against humanity faster. We must protect those who sound the alarm. Journalists, human rights defenders and local civil society groups are the first to document atrocity risks, yet they are often the first targets. Our aid and diplomatic protection must prioritise them.
The UK must address the drivers at home. Genocide does not start with killing; it starts with rhetoric that divides “us” from “them”. The UK must enforce laws against incitement to hatred and disinformation that targets ethnic or religious groups, including online. Prevention begins in our own public discourse.
We must be honest about inconsistency. The credibility of “never again” depends on applying it everywhere. When international law is enforced selectively, with some victims getting UN Security Council resolutions and others silence, the whole framework weakens. Civilians in Sudan, Palestine, Ukraine, Myanmar and Kashmir deserve the same standards of protection.
Prevention is political, not just humanitarian. It means being willing to have difficult conversations with allies and partners. It means accepting that short-term stability brought about by ignoring repression usually collapses into long-term conflict. It means the UK using its P5 voice to push for mediation before the killing starts, not after.
I believe that genocide is not a natural disaster. It is a political crime with political causes. It can be prevented if we choose to see the warning signs and act early. The British Government should make atrocity prevention a standing priority across the FCDO, the MoD and trade policy. The UN should resource prevention, use the General Assembly when the Security Council is blocked and protect those documenting risk on the ground. “Never again” cannot be a slogan we dust off after mass graves are found. It must be the calculation we make when the first warning sign appears.
With that in mind, what is the Government’s assessment of the latest report of the renowned international human rights organisation, Genocide Watch, which indicates that India has reached stage 7—preparation—of genocide? What steps are the British Government taking to stop that genocide taking place? Finally, will the Government publish the annual atrocity risk assessment and table a UN General Assembly resolution strengthening early warning and prevention mechanisms when the Security Council is unable to act?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, my great friend, for securing this debate and congratulate him on introducing his Genocide Determination Bill this morning. I will of course be supporting him.
Only a few years ago, I, too, promoted a genocide prevention and response Bill. It completed all its stages in this House and it was meant to proceed to the other place, but we then had an election. I remind the House that, at the time, when in opposition, my great friend the Minister supported my Bill. He said:
“The solution in the Bill is absolutely vital. It is to put on a statutory footing this special hub within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which will monitor and evaluate processes and keep in touch with developments taking place and research being done”.—[Official Report, 22/3/24; col. 456.]
As I said, my Bill did not go through. That is a warning to all who come up well in the Private Members’ Bills ballot.
I hope that the Government have not lost that support and that it has not dissolved, because a lot has changed in our world over the past two years, unfortunately for the worse. We witness not only the highest number of conflicts and atrocity crimes since World War II but a global unravelling of the international rules-based order—a dismantling that will cost us dearly in the long run.
I start with the United States. I am going to mention the inspiration from Elie Wiesel that shaped some of the approaches that were taken by the US before the current Administration. The late Elie Wiesel, who I had the good fortune of getting to know and to meet several times, was a survivor of the Holocaust and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and he understood better than most the consequences of indifference. His warning was simple but profound:
“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim”.
That principle inspired the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act in the United States. The Act recognised that genocide and mass atrocities do not happen overnight. They are preceded by warning signs that slowly but surely progress into full-blown atrocities.
For many years, the United States played a leading role in building international mechanisms for atrocity prevention. The Elie Wiesel Act was the cornerstone of it. The US invested in expertise, early-warning systems and dedicated structures within government capable of identifying risks before they became catastrophes. I had the good fortune of working with many of the lawyers who were involved in that. These structures inside the State Department were not perfect but were far more advanced than anywhere else in the world. Today, however, many of these structures have, I am afraid, been dismantled.
As conflicts are multiplying and international norms are under strain, institutional capacity for atrocity prevention is being reduced. In the long term, the price we will pay for this is much higher than anything that can be saved in the short term.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is undergoing restructuring again in the name of cutting costs. There are concerns that the atrocity prevention hub—which already exists but is small—and the expertise that it contains may disappear or be absorbed into broader structures. That would be a serious mistake that we would feel for decades to come. For now, we are being told that those reports are incorrect. I hope that is true, but we are not provided with any information in relation to these changes and how they will affect the UK’s work on atrocity prevention and responses. What risk assessment was done before any of the proposed changes? How are the changes going to affect our ability to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes? How are they going to affect victims? Atrocity prevention requires dedicated expertise and it requires people engaged with identifying risks, analysing warning signs and ensuring that His Majesty’s Government act before the early warning signs turn into atrocities.
Without a clear and comprehensive mechanism for atrocity prevention and responses, we will be more prone to the mistake of politicising genocide. Our responses will depend not on the suffering of victims but on the identity of perpetrators, our strategic alliances—where we soft-pedal on whom we may be witnessing committing terrible crimes—or geopolitical interests. The result is a system marked by double standards. When genocide becomes a political label deployed selectively, its power is diminished. Victims notice the inconsistency and, even worse, perpetrators notice it too and feel empowered. This challenge is particularly visible in the example, already given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of China. The evidence relating to the persecution and genocide of the Uyghurs has been extensively documented by human rights organisations, yet too often our willingness to confront these abuses is constrained by economic dependence and trade relationships. I do not resile from my view that trade is important and prosperity matters, but economic interests cannot be an excuse for silence in the face of atrocity crimes.
Another warning sign that is too often ignored is the growing attack on journalists. Across numerous conflicts and atrocity situations, journalists are increasingly targeted, intimidated or killed. We have seen restrictions on reporting and attacks on independent media in places such as Gaza. Journalists from outside were not allowed in and still are not. In India, we get no coverage now of what is happening in Kashmir or Assam. Then there are Ethiopia and Afghanistan—the list goes on. This matters because atrocities thrive in darkness. Over 200 journalists in Gaza have been killed. Protecting journalists is therefore an essential component of atrocity prevention and accountability.
Throughout these crises, one reality remains painfully constant: children continue to be among the primary victims. We have spoken—this is close to my heart—about what happens to women, with the weaponising of sexual violence in conflict, but children too continue to bear the consequences of our collective failures. We see it in Gaza and in Russia in the war on Ukraine, with the abduction of children for forced adoptions. We are seeing serious war crimes across all conflicts, with children being a significant percentage of victims of conflict-related sexual violence and many other atrocities. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned Sudan, and sexual violence towards children has been one of the signatures of that terrible conflict.
I end by emphasising that we know more than ever before about how atrocities develop. We know the warning signs and we know that institutions can help to prevent them. We know the importance of independent journalism, strong diplomacy, international co-operation and political courage. The United Kingdom has the expertise, diplomatic reach and moral authority to lead. Are we prepared to show that leadership?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I express my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing today’s debate and for his tireless and principled leadership on atrocity prevention. His work, including the Genocide Determination Bill and the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, both of which I have previously supported, has been indispensable in ensuring that this House continues to confront these issues with the seriousness that they deserve.
I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register and support provided by the Coalition for Global Prosperity, in the form of a parliamentary researcher for one day a week. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords speaking in this debate, I am a member of the advisory board for the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes, which is chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. The standing group is conducting an independent review into the UK’s approach to atrocity prevention and response, and I hope the Minister will commit to considering the findings of the group carefully.
The—as ever—excellent House of Lords Library briefing on protecting populations from atrocity crimes provides a sobering reminder of the scale of the challenge. It also sets out the evolution of UK policy across successive Governments, and it is right that we acknowledge this record. Between 2010 and 2024, the previous Conservative Government introduced several significant initiatives. These included the creation of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which incorporated atrocity prevention objectives; leadership on the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and the declaration of humanity; the adoption of recommendation 7 of the Bishop of Truro review and the establishment of the mass atrocity prevention hub within the FCDO, designed to improve early warning and cross government co-ordination; and continued support for international accountability mechanisms, including the work establishing UNITAD to promote accountability for crimes committed by Daesh and ISIL, and support for the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine. These were meaningful steps that strengthened the UK’s institutional capacity to identify and respond to atrocity risks. Since 2024, the Labour Government have expressed a commitment to reinvigorating atrocity prevention policy, including a renewed emphasis on multilateral engagement. These steps are welcome, but they must be matched with clarity, resourcing and urgency.
Despite all these efforts, we continue to see what can only be described as a circular failure of responsibility. National Governments point to international institutions, insisting that bodies such as the UN or the ICC must act. Meanwhile, those institutions rely on national Governments to raise alarms, provide evidence and push forward prosecutions. The result is inertia, and in that inertia atrocities take root. If we are serious about prevention, we must break that cycle.
Another structural weakness is our tendency to view atrocity prevention solely through the prism of armed conflict. Yet some of the gravest crimes of our time have occurred outside traditional conflict scenarios: the persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the systematic violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar, and the atrocities against Muslims and Christians in India—these are all reminders that atrocity crimes can be perpetrated by states against their own populations, often behind a facade of stability. Our frameworks really must evolve to reflect this reality.
Nowhere is the urgency of reform clearer than in Sudan. The conflict that erupted in April 2023 has produced one of the world’s worst humanitarian and human rights catastrophes. We have seen widespread and systematic attacks on civilians, including ethnically targeted killings; mass displacement on a scale now exceeding that of Syria or Ukraine; sexual violence used as a weapon of war, including against children; and the near total collapse of legal protections, with no functioning justice system capable of investigating or prosecuting atrocity crimes. There is a growing risk of further genocidal violence, particularly in Darfur, where communities already scarred by past atrocities are once again being targeted. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has mentioned, this is after a UN mechanism already identified hallmarks of genocide in the brutal takeover of El Fasher.
International mechanisms have failed to respond with the urgency required, and the international system remains paralysed. Sudan is not simply a humanitarian crisis; it is an atrocity crime crisis and an impunity crisis. It is precisely the kind of crisis our policies are meant to anticipate and prevent. We often hear and say, “never again”, but this is becoming an eerie refrain, and the evidence suggests otherwise. The International Development Committee has shown that, between 2000 and 2020, at least 37 countries experienced mass atrocities or were at serious risk of them.
Today is the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression. Nowhere is the need for a renewed commitment clearer than in the protection of children affected by armed conflict. The UK has long been a global leader on the children and armed conflict mandate, yet we still lack a dedicated strategy. Such a strategy is needed, especially in the context of significant aid reductions, which risk weakening the very systems designed to protect the most vulnerable. I am grateful to the Minister, Chris Elmore, for his recent reply to the letter from Save the Children that I cosigned, and his indication that the Government are considering a new dedicated toolkit for officials is welcome. But, with the ongoing restructuring of the FCDO, we need clarity on whether the CAAC team will be protected from the ODA cuts, and with it the department’s expertise on CAAC, PSVI and atrocity prevention more broadly. My current understanding is that the restructure has been pushed back and will likely conclude by late summer. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that in his response.
Ending impunity remains the single most effective deterrent to atrocity crimes. This requires action on two fronts. We must lead by example. That means passing the Genocide Determination Bill—I look forward to supporting the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in that in the coming weeks and months. It means safeguarding funding for children and armed conflict teams and specialist expertise. It means closing loopholes in our universal jurisdiction framework, as proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and cross-party amendments tabled in the previous Session. It also means continuing to support mechanisms such as the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine.
The Prime Minister has stated that the UK will not be a safe haven for criminals, but, as we know, non-British perpetrators who have committed genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity can visit our shores without fear of prosecution. Can the Minister say whether the UK Government are considering amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to stop these cycles of impunity?
Secondly, we must push for stronger international co-ordination mechanisms. I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to ensure that, once the treaty on crimes against humanity is adopted, we can implement the duties enshrined in the treaty. How are the Government supporting the process at the UN to make sure that it is not watered down and will provide an effective mechanism?
With the UK taking on the G20 presidency next year, and the G7 presidency the year after, we have a unique opportunity to elevate atrocity prevention on to the global agenda. Of course, we cannot ignore the cuts to the UK’s official development assistance—the largest proportional cuts in the G7—which will bring ODA to its lowest share of gross national income since 1999. That will obviously have a significant impact on the UK’s ability to do the important work needed on combating atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
I believe the time has come for a national strategy on atrocity prevention: one that includes statutory powers for referral of suspected genocides and a clear focus on protecting children and young girls in conflict. It should also include a mechanism on conflict-related sexual violence, as previously proposed by my noble friend Lady Helic. If we are to honour our commitments—our moral, legal and historical commitments—we must move from rhetoric to architecture and from aspiration to action. The tools exist. The evidence is overwhelming and we have a responsibility to take action.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely and important debate and I thank the House of Lords Library for its extremely helpful briefing. It is also a privilege to follow the noble Baroness and to acknowledge all the great work she does in this area. I refer the House to my registered interests as a trustee of Burma Campaign UK and an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Burma.
Instances of mass atrocity violence—crimes against humanity, genocide and ethnic cleansing—are not only persisting but in many cases spiralling. The United Kingdom has long accepted a responsibility to help protect populations from atrocity crimes through early warning, prevention, accountability and co-ordinated international action. Yet the persistence of such crimes raises profound questions about whether those mechanisms are being used effectively and, crucially, early enough. Nowhere are those questions more urgent than in Burma.
Burma’s history demonstrates how atrocity crimes follow a recognisable trajectory. Discrimination becomes institutionalised, legal protections are stripped away, persecution intensifies and violence escalates into mass atrocity. Following the 1962 coup, Burma entered decades of authoritarian rule, in which political dissent was violently suppressed and minority groups marginalised. By the 1970s, this had already translated into mass displacement, including the expulsion of around 200,000 Rohingya into Bangladesh. The 1982 citizenship law then rendered the Rohingya effectively stateless, removing any legal protection and exposing them to systemic abuse.
The Tatmadaw has used extreme violence against civilian populations. During the 1988 uprising, thousands were killed in the suppression of pro-democracy protests, entrenching a pattern of impunity that has defined Myanmar ever since. That pattern culminated in the atrocities against the Rohingya, with mass killings, widespread sexual violence and the destruction of communities, forcing 1 million into exile into Bangladesh. These acts are widely recognised as genocide, alongside crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
The lesson is clear: these outcomes are not inevitable. They occur when warning signs are not acted upon, where diplomatic caution replaces decisive action and where accountability is deferred rather than enforced. This is not simply a matter of history; it is a matter of present policy. Since the 2021 coup, the same patterns have continued, yet the military adapted—not to reform, but to survive. It changes names, reshapes its institutions and offers limited concessions, but the underlying reality does not change: military control, impunity and the preservation of power. That is not reform. It is just rebranding.
We see this in the so-called elections of last year, which have entrenched military control rather than loosened it. We see it in attempts to regain international legitimacy, whether through engagement with ASEAN or high-level diplomatic outreach, such as the leader of the Tatmadaw’s visit to India this week as the rebranded “President”. We see it too in gestures such as the transfer of Aung San Suu Kyi from prison to house arrest, designed to encourage re-engagement. We have seen this before. After the 2010 elections, a similar pattern of engagement and eased pressure contributed to an environment in which grave atrocities, including genocide, were allowed to occur. We must not repeat that mistake.
If we are serious about prevention, we must also be serious about pressure. That means working with our allies to target not only individuals but the military as an institution and its sources of power. It means expanding co-ordinated action with the United States, the European Union and others to restrict the military’s core revenue streams, including oil and gas, which finance its operations. It means strengthening action on aviation fuel and supply chains, which sustain the air strikes devastating civilian populations. It means tightening restrictions on financial services and military-linked entities. Crucially, it means ensuring that sanctions follow the reality of military control, not the changing names of its institutions. It also means recognising the UK’s particular responsibility as the UN Security Council penholder on Myanmar. In that role, we are not simply a participant in international efforts; we help shape them. That comes with a duty to lead, by co-ordinating action, maintaining pressure and ensuring that the Council does not drift into inertia at precisely the moment when sustained action is needed.
At the same time, it is essential that we recognise what is happening beyond military-controlled areas. Across Burma, local communities are building democratic systems from the ground up, developing governance structures, consulting citizens and creating new institutions despite ongoing air strikes. This reflects a central principle of atrocity prevention: that protecting populations means supporting resilient, inclusive and democratic alternatives before the violence escalates further. The people of Burma have not given up on democracy, but they cannot succeed alone.
Following the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I also have three questions for the Minister. First, on prevention, how are the Government strengthening their early warning and response mechanisms to ensure that indicators of mass atrocity crimes, such as those in Burma, trigger timely and concrete action? Secondly, on legitimacy, what steps will the Government take to ensure that UK engagement does not confer legitimacy on what remains, in substance, a military regime operating under what it hopes is a civilian guise? Thirdly, on sanctions and co-ordination, will the Government commit to working with the United States and international partners to expand co-ordinated sanctions in three areas: oil and gas revenues, aviation fuel supply chains and financial measures against military-linked entities? Finally, in her role as UN penholder, can the Minister say how the UK is using its position to advance stronger and more consistent Security Council action on Myanmar?
The lesson from Burma is clear. Atrocity crimes do not emerge without warning. They develop through patterns that are visible, identifiable and preventable. The question is not whether we understand those patterns but whether we act on them. That means sustained pressure, refusing legitimacy to a regime built on violence and standing firmly with the people of Burma in their pursuit of a democratic future.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of Redress. No one has done more in this House to persuade Governments to act decisively to prevent and stop atrocity crimes than the noble Lord, Lord Alton. His efforts, and the efforts of others—and here I must mention the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—have ceaselessly attempted to insert amendments to any likely or relevant Bill that comes before this House. For example, amendments were tabled to what became the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and, of course, to the Trade Act 2021. They failed despite strenuous efforts on the part of my noble friend and widespread support in this House. For this, we all owe the noble Lord and his colleagues a debt of gratitude. But there is still a long way to go. The need for reform is long-standing and reflects a structural gap in UK law.
We have heard in clear terms what obligations the UK shoulders as a signatory to the international treaties that address atrocities. We know that Governments do not have to wait for a full-blown genocide, as happened in Rwanda in 1994. The onus is on Governments to act when there is a serious risk of genocide. The UK has not undertaken such preventive actions in recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also reminds us that we must consider war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the UK’s obligations arising from the UN responsibility to protect commitment, which was adopted by member states in 2025.
However, between 2000 and 2020, almost 40 countries experienced mass atrocities or serious concerns that they could take place imminently. Currently, atrocity crimes are at the centre of four UK foreign policy crises: Ukraine, Sudan, Israel and Palestine, and Iran. However, experience demonstrates that Governments—and perhaps too this Government—tend to ignore the facts of atrocity, such as the Daesh and Burmese military atrocities, which were reported by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, or the recommendations in the reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the International Development Committee’s 2023 report on Srebrenica.
What might be the underlying reasons for this inaction? We have heard some of the answers. A straightforward answer could be that Governments sometimes go to extreme lengths to avoid taking actions to stop genocide and other atrocities, in part due to the international diplomatic and economic risks they entail. For example, it is reported that, during the Rwanda massacres, USA officials were advised not to use the term “genocide” precisely because to do so would have immediately invoked the duty to intervene.
For many years in the UK, a key mechanism for justifying such inaction has been the argument of who is competent to determine the fact of genocide—deemed, by the UK at least, to be a legal definition issued only by a ruling from the courts. However, in today’s world of information transfer, the evidence of genocide and other atrocities is recorded, verified and documented by any number of competent, internationally recognised bodies, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and several international human rights organisations, including well-attested local human rights organisations. If the Geneva conventions require action on the basis of a serious threat of genocide, there is absolutely no scarcity of reliable information. Once again, we ask the Government to return to remedies put forward in recent years and reconsider their adoption.
A Genocide Determination Bill, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in 2022, empowered groups affected by atrocities, or representative organisations, to apply to UK courts for a judicial determination of genocide or the risk thereof. That Bill aimed to enable the courts, as a neutral arbiter, to make interim determinations of genocide and thereby get a faster response. That Bill, and others, failed due to a lack of time, among other reasons. Undeterred, the noble Lord has, as we have heard today, once again tabled a Genocide Determination Bill this morning. We wish him every possible success, and we will give him every possible support.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights produced two reports in 2025 recommending the adoption and incorporation of universal jurisdiction—a hugely important aspect of law in the fight against genocide. The adoption and incorporation of universal jurisdiction, as an amendment to the International Criminal Court Act 2001, would remove the requirement that alleged perpetrators of atrocities be British citizens or residents, which, in effect, allows Britain to be a safe haven for Putin’s henchmen, or indeed the Taliban. The principle of universal jurisdiction has yet to be incorporated into UK law. These reports and draft legislation offer varied mechanisms for preventive action.
Overall, we do not yet have a clear national strategy for the prevention of atrocities, which we desperately need. Such a strategy might include strengthening FCDO capacity to detect early warning indicators and to develop mechanisms for interventions. Among these must be the willingness to confront authoritarian states and anti-democratic statecraft as a national security priority. The goal must be to embed clear and transparent thresholds of threat and the triggers for action, and, in so doing, provide a lead for other departments—for example, the department for trade—in considering its own policies and action.
I want to end with a quote from a paper entitled A Dangerous Moment for UK Atrocity Prevention Policy from the organisation, Protection Approaches:
“Strategy, ambition and opportunity must triumph over hesitancy, absence of clarity regarding the UK policy position, lack of confidence and a reluctance to put forward creative policy options that centre on saving lives”.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in the early 1990s, I worked in Tigray, northern Ethiopia, at Axum, which is more or less on the southern border with Eritrea. I was there for a few months as an archaeologist. Before I went, I did hardly any research about the area. My life at the time was travelling around the near East to different digs, and I had got a bit blasé about new countries, new currencies and new languages.
We were lodged in Axum in a very basic but secure hotel, a bit like a Roman house—three sides and well fenced with a big gate on the fourth side. On such digs, one worked with local people who also dig and while we worked, we chatted. The locals came across as subdued, very thin and did not talk much about their lives past or present. Much later, I realised, of course, that they were suffering from quite severe trauma.
The food at the hotel was very basic. After long days working at 6,000 feet—at one point, I had 12 small trenches open on a hillside, which meant quite a lot of exercise—we came back to almost always the same meal: boiled goat, pasta and tinned tomato sauce. I was vegetarian at the time but as I lost weight quite quickly, I began to eat the goat meat as well. Our hosts would go to the market, buy three little goats at a time and let them graze tethered together in the grass inside the hotel. Then, one day, there would just be two grazing and fresh, boiled goat on the menu. The lack of vegetables and fruit was not because the local people were not good at farming and growing but as a result of past burning of crops and destruction of trees and bushes—plus, of course, the denying of food from international organisations.
This was all caused by the conflict of a few previous years. For example, in 1989, there was an advance southward by the rebel forces of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, or EPRDF, a coalition led by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front—the TPLF. The rebels thrust to within 100 miles of Addis Ababa and to fight the TPLF, the authorities forcibly conscripted tens of thousands of young men and boys, some as young as 13 or 14, in violation of international law and Ethiopian regulations on military service.
A year later, in 1990, there was a major defeat with the loss of the port town, Massawa—on the Red Sea coast to the north of Eritrea—to the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, the EPLF. Is everybody keeping up? During the fighting, 200 civilians were killed, many of them kept hostage as human shields by retreating government forces. Massawa was repeatedly bombed by government aircraft using napalm or phosphorus bombs, high explosives and cluster bombs. Main targets were places where civilian refugees were encamped outside the town.
About 25,000 tonnes of food donated by international humanitarian organisations were burned and the Government prevented a ship carrying relief supplies docking by threatening to attack it. On numerous occasions, soldiers in garrison towns near the front line arbitrarily opened fire on local residents, including women and children. Local women were forced to work as cooks, cleaners and prostitutes with the soldiers.
A year later, in 1991, there were killings of demonstrators who were protesting against the new EPRDF Government. A major humanitarian crisis developed as a result of the war, which led to a widespread famine—hence the food we were eating as archaeologists, but which was probably a lot better than what the local people were managing to eat. It also inflicted immense economic damage on the region, with the cost of rebuilding alone estimated to be tens of billions of pounds. But it was not a genocide, apparently.
Then, nearly three decades later, in 2020-22, there was an acknowledged genocide committed in Tigray. Estimates suggest 162,000 to 600,000 civilians were killed, with over 120,000 women raped and more than 6 million Tigrayans affected by violence, displacement and famine. More than 2.2 million people were displaced, and the destruction of healthcare and social infrastructure left the region in crisis, with maternal mortality rates quadrupling.
This is a deeply traumatised country. In 2024, the Australian Greens expressed deep concern over the continuing humanitarian crisis in Tigray, citing the New Lines Institute genocide report. They believe the actions of Ethiopian and Eritrean forces may constitute genocide and urge the Australian Government to support accountability. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this debate: we here must do the same, and I hope the Government listen to our debate.
I would also like to mention the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1916. Of the around 1.5 million Armenians who lived in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, at least 664,000 and possibly as many as 1.2 million were killed in massacres or individual killings, or died from systematic ill-treatment, exposure and starvation.
As of today, the UK does not officially recognise that genocide, as it is
“not for governments to decide whether genocide has been committed as this is a complex legal question”.
However, it
“recognises the terrible suffering that was inflicted on Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire and acknowledges the strength of feeling regarding this terrible episode of history”.
Well, that is good, then, that they recognise the suffering.
Of course, there is the genocide in Gaza, which other noble Lords have mentioned. There are recommendations for the Government from ActionAid which would end our Government’s complicity and uphold their obligations under international law. They should act urgently, consistently and concretely to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
To me, as someone who does not talk about this issue a lot—although I talk about human rights a lot—it seems a rather haphazard process as to when a humanitarian disaster becomes an atrocity, a massacre or a genocide. My view is that the UK must uphold international law consistently, support accountability wherever violations occur, and ensure it is never complicit in the crimes it claims to oppose. It really does not look like that at the moment.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Alton for arranging this debate today and for all the work he is doing with us and outside this House. I offer further congratulations on the Private Member’s Bill, which we will all support, as I am sure others will outside this House, too.
Crimes of atrocity are just awful. I have worked on this subject for decades. From the numerous debates, the important conversations in this House and my work as an adviser to the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, I have come to know with absolute certainty that atrocity crimes do not start on the day this House or an international community notices them. There are always warning signs, like the targeting of minorities, the silencing of certain groups, dehumanising language, and very often the deliberate use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. The Georgetown Institute’s recent index, which has just been updated, shows the many countries throughout the world where there are signs of this happening.
The question, therefore, is not only how we recognise these crimes but how we use government policy and our global influence to prevent them escalating in the first place. For example, the G20 and the G7 are coming up, where we should be able to insist that this issue is on the agenda. We have an opportunity to put it on the agenda and keep it there.
July last year marked 20 years since we, as the international community, recognised the responsibility to protect, but between 2000 and 2020, at least 37 countries either certainly experienced or were highly likely to experience atrocity crimes of some nature. The world is now witnessing the highest number of armed conflicts. As my noble friend Lord Robertson says, the world is at war; it is witnessing the highest number of crimes since the end of the Second World War. Attacks on civilians and widespread violations of international humanitarian law are brazenly conducted with impunity. We have to do more to protect other countries and to enforce the law through the international courts and the global organisations of which we are a member.
In Ukraine, we know that civilians and children are being targeted and there are reports of abductions of Ukrainian children. In Sudan, the people of Darfur are persecuted and killed based on ethnicity, and there are well-established reports of rape and other forms of sexual violence. In Myanmar, the Rohingyas have suffered grievously; in Afghanistan, women and girls have been erased from public life; and in Gaza the suffering of civilians, especially women and children, is devastating. Unfortunately, this is to name just a few such cases. We have to put pressure on the international community to work against these atrocities.
I welcome the Government’s clear commitment to atrocity prevention, in particular through the work of the conflict and atrocity prevention department, which I hope will not be affected by the redistribution of funds and reorganisation of the FCDO. I welcome the Government’s stated intention to strengthen their ability to identify risks at the earliest possible stage, to uphold international law and to work with international partners to save lives.
Atrocity prevention is not the same as conflict prevention; it requires distinct skills, systems and tools. I hope that Ministers will ensure that our approach is cross-government and that our diplomats, experts, defence teams and specialists all have the training and political support necessary to act urgently, early and coherently. In the months ahead, I hope that Ministers will continue to strengthen a clear, cross-government approach to atrocity prevention. That means ensuring that our diplomats, development experts, defence teams and sanctions specialists have the tools, training and political support they need from the Government to identify risks early and act coherently.
I would like to take a moment to remind the Government that women, peace and security must remain central to the agenda. Women are, of course, both victims and survivors of atrocity crimes, but they are also the route to sustained peace through their work as peacebuilders, human rights defenders, mediators and early-warning actors. We must use their knowledge and expertise to shape our analysis, programming and diplomacy in those countries after peace is established. It is women who understand what is needed in development, health and education and for the long-term future of these countries. We know that where women sign peace agreements, those agreements stay.
I support the proposal advanced by my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for a permanent international investigative commission on conflict-related sexual violence. Such a mechanism would help ensure that evidence is gathered properly, survivors are treated with dignity and sexual violence is investigated as a core feature of atrocity crimes, not as an afterthought.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as per the register. I welcome this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing it and pay tribute to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for giving voice to the survivors of atrocity crimes and pressing successive Governments to act before warning becomes catastrophe.
We cannot speak credibly about preventing genocide while disregarding existing mechanisms for confronting it: the genocide convention, the Rome statute, the international courts and international humanitarian law. Our problem is not the absence of legal frameworks but the absence of political will, moral clarity and preparedness to use what tools we have. As the United Nations Secretary-General recently warned, we are witnessing a dangerous erosion of respect for international law. Whatever view we hold of any individual conflict or of any individual state, the law cannot be selectively applied. Where grave violations occur, accountability must always follow, whoever the perpetrators are.
Genocide does not begin with mass killing, as others have said. It begins with dehumanisation, erosion of legal protections, impunity for attacks on civilians, and the use of sexual violence to terrorise communities, just to mention a few. Our recent history shows that prevention is possible, but only when states are prepared to act. In 1998, in Kosovo, we showed that timely international action saves lives. I am not arguing for military intervention. States have many other tools available to them: sanctions, arms embargoes, travel bans, effective diplomacy and legal action. We just have to be prepared to use them. Yet hesitation remains endemic. Each time the international community decides the moment to act has not yet arrived, the promise of “never again” grows weaker.
Today, warning signs are visible across multiple conflicts. I shall mention just a few. In Sudan, the United Nations and other independent bodies have documented credible allegations of ethnic massacres, widespread atrocities and conflict-related sexual violence. In El Fasher, survivors described armed men asking victims whether they were soldiers or civilians and then killing them regardless of the answer in conduct bearing “the hallmarks of genocide”.
In Gaza, we have watched restrictions on food and medical supplies, large-scale displacement, and credible allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law. The gravity of these concerns has been underscored by international organisations and legal experts, and even in some situations by members of the Israel Defence Forces. One soldier recently recalled that the word “civilian” was scarcely mentioned during operations. Others described practices that, if verified, entirely disregard the laws of armed conflict, including the alleged use of captured Palestinians as so-called “mosquitoes” in place of sniffer dogs to trigger booby traps.
In Xinjiang, systematic repression of Uyghurs continues, as well as of Protestants and other Christian groups, including pervasive surveillance, coercive social control, and restrictions on cultural and religious life.
More broadly, the latest report of the United Nations Secretary-General on conflict-related sexual violence records a dramatic increase in such crimes in countries like Russia, but also in democracies like Israel, which shows the moral collapse that is happening in that country. Conflict-related sexual violence is not incidental; it is deployed deliberately to force displacement and destroy the fabric of communities. The United Kingdom once led international efforts to confront these crimes through the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative. Our leadership must not be allowed to diminish; recently, it seems to have done so. I fully note and welcome the latest initiative by the Foreign Office on countering violence against women and girls, but we have to do more about this.
I put several questions to the Minister. First, what further steps will the Government take to strengthen the United Kingdom’s capacity to identify and respond to genocide and atrocity crimes at an early stage? I hope that parliamentary time will be made available for the noble Lord’s Private Member’s Bill, which I hope to support. Secondly, has the time come to update our policy on universal jurisdiction to ensure that the United Kingdom does not become a safe haven for individuals implicated in genocide, crimes against humanity and other serious international crimes, as others have pointed out? Thirdly, can the noble Lord say what exact mechanisms are used by the Government to ensure that the warnings from international investigators, courts and monitoring bodies trigger preventive action rather than retrospective expressions of concern?
Finally, will the Government reaffirm the United Kingdom’s commitment to preventing conflict-related sexual violence through its sustained support for documentation, accountability and international co-ordination? I hope that the Prime Minister will appoint a new special envoy on this issue, as this position has remained vacant since November last year, while the crimes have been increasing—and not because they have decreased or because we are in a better place. We are in a much worse place than we were last year.
The question is not whether we possess the legal instruments to confront and prevent genocide and crimes against humanity—we do; the question is whether we possess the resolve to use them in a timely way. Too often, the international community acts only after the worst has happened, and so do we. Prevention requires vigilance, consistency and the courage to uphold our principles.
In conclusion, I hope that your Lordships will not mind me reminding the House of the late Sir Alex Younger, whose distinguished public service reflected a profound understanding that national security and democratic values cannot be separated. As he put it:
“If we undermine the values we defend, even in the name of defending them, then we have lost”.
That warning reaches far beyond the world of intelligence and security; it applies with equal force to our response to war crimes. The credibility of international law rests not on the principles we proclaim in comfortable times but on our willingness to uphold them when doing so is hard.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, all of us are deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is like a dog with a bone—that is not a very noble metaphor, but I could not think of anything else—as he keeps on reminding us of the importance of these issues and the hard work that he does, not just in making a fine speech but behind the scenes in gathering people together, keeping us focused and reminding all of us of an aspect of the world we live in that is to be worried about. I am grateful to him and to other Members of this House for making us aware of atrocities that are being committed in different places around the world, the failures in our systems to deal with them, and the need for better measures in the future.
My observations will be of a more general nature. I have been a member of the delegation from this Parliament to the Council of Europe for the last five years, and I sit on its immigration committee. Less than three weeks ago, the Chisinău Declaration was put out—Chisinău is the capital of Moldova. It came from the Foreign Ministers of all the countries of Europe, who were convened to look at the problems relating to legislation, as it is embodied in national legislatures, that deals with immigration and the role of the European Court of Justice. A crisis has been perceived in Strasbourg about the erosion of aspects of our conventions dealing with refugees, asylum seekers and immigration in general. Around the continent, countries are taking different approaches to eating into some of the things that were provided all those years ago in the aftermath of the Second World War. The declaration is an attempt to make sense of all that and rally the troops around the core values that are at the heart of that convention.
At the Council of Europe, the Secretary-General, Mr Alain Berset, recognised that similar things are happening to democracy itself; the Council of Europe is dedicated to monitoring what happens in the fields of the rule of law, human rights and democracy. He established a democratic pact, which seeks, through all the agencies and institutions that come under the aegis of the Council of Europe, to take another look at how our democracies are working and whether there is a need to bring in changes and modifications and to once again rally the troops. These two things are happening in Strasbourg, and they have caused me to ask whether some similar exercise does not need to happen in relation to the mechanisms that emerged from the Second World War in the field of justice, the implementation of justice and the issues that we have been concerned about today.
After the Nuremberg trials, a convention was passed almost at once for the prevention and punishment of genocide. Raphael Lemkin and Hersch Lauterpacht had a similar and parallel proposal, which was to have a convention for the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. Of course, 80 years later, we still do not have that. The United Nations has, I understand, over the last 15 years or so, been working on this, and several drafts have been put before it to make good that omission. The UN has promised that this year and next will be the years of working to bring such a convention for ratification in 2028.
All these different organisations exist, but public awareness of the European Court of Human Rights is negligible. Add to that what we think of the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and the convention on genocide, and the ways in which we cope with the absence of a convention or treaty on crimes against humanity, and you have all the elements for a state of confusion—and certainly not for public awareness.
My holy text—it is good for a religious man to talk about holy texts—in this case is Philippe Sands’s book, East West Street, which is truly a fantastic piece of work. In the epilogue of that book, he talks about the ways in which he has litigated and been involved in various cases that deal with both crimes against humanity and genocide, and how it has come to pass that there is a kind of league fight between the two categories of crime and that the crime of genocide is placed—in what people seek in appropriate circumstances—above crimes against humanity. He feels that that puts a difficulty in the way of legislators. He finds it extremely difficult to litigate because he sees that the cases he pursues in court run, as a consequence, the risk of forming victims who consolidate their opposition and perpetrators who consolidate themselves in the position they are defending. In other words, they are producing two categories of people at loggerheads with each other, which is exactly what the cases are intended to solve.
I find all of this bewildering. I wish there was a commission—I do not know what you would call it—that would try to bring together the mechanisms and institutions at the heart of all these concerns in the ever-more complicated world in which we live, so that we could have more hope of consolidated, consequential and positive outcomes in the future. Debates such as this one remind us of the need for such clarification. One can only hope that perhaps His Majesty’s Government can solve all their problems by committing themselves to precisely that kind of outcome.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the debate we are having today is an essential one, and my noble friend Lord Alton is to be congratulated on bringing us back to it, as he does regularly and with good reason. It is also a rather paradoxical debate. While the appalling crimes being committed around the world are not being reduced but rather are being intensified, the collective response of Governments is feeble and flawed.
In the first half of the 1990s, two completely horrendous genocides were committed, one at Srebrenica in Bosnia and the other in Rwanda. The international community was horrified, not least because of the inadequacy of its own response ahead of the crimes—for which, as Britain’s ambassador to the UN at the time, I feel some responsibility. The UN Security Council’s reaction then was strong. It established two international tribunals to identify and to try those who committed the crimes, and many of those are now in prison for the rest of their lives. Later in that decade, an International Criminal Court was established as a standing instance to try many of those crimes, and later still the International Court of Justice took up claims of genocide, on which it is still to give a ruling. So something was being done, with the hope of deterring these crimes and then bringing to justice the perpetrators of them.
However, since then, all the developments have been in a negative direction—going backwards. The UN Security Council has been blocked by abusive vetoes of several of its members, many significant member states have declined to join the International Criminal Court or to honour its rulings, and our principal ally, the United States, is doing its best to put the International Criminal Court out of business. This is a miserable record, and it is no wonder that the perpetrators of these crimes have not been deterred.
What needs to be done? First, there should be another attempt to get the UN Security Council to agree that, when genocide is at issue, a veto will not be in order. Such an attempt may not succeed, but those who block it should be required to take responsibility for their actions. I hope the Minister will say that the Government would support such an attempt. Secondly, if this cannot be agreed in the Security Council then the UN General Assembly, which takes its decisions by a majority and where vetoes do not apply, should be encouraged to express its views on these crimes and to bring to bear the court of international public opinion. Thirdly, can the Government not extract themselves from the Catch-22 of saying that it is only for a court to rule on the issue of genocide when no such decision is available, even when there is prima facie evidence that genocide is being committed? My noble friend Lord Alton raised that point again and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will respond to it.
Speaking as a non-lawyer myself, I feel that accusations of genocide are sometimes—I am not here speaking for one moment about those who have intervened in this debate or, above all, about my noble friend Lord Alton—thrown around too freely. There are plenty of war crimes and atrocities that are being committed which do not necessarily amount to genocide but which surely should be brought to international justice.
In conclusion, I trust that our Government will not conceal from the current US Administration how much we are dismayed by the vindictiveness of their proceedings against the International Criminal Court. Whether the US joins the Rome statute is a matter for it to decide, but the attacks it is directing at the ICC are hardly fitting for a country which established the international tribunals after the Second World War and which voted for the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals.
The matters we are debating are at the heart of our values in international affairs. I trust that we will promote them strongly in the period ahead and not always shelter behind rather complex legal arguments.
Lord Rook (Lab)
My Lords, about a year ago, I gave one of my first speeches in your Lordships’ House. It was in a debate also led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on this very subject. I said then that, as a rookie Peer, my aspiration was to become more like him as I grow up. I am not sure how much progress I have made in the last year, but the aspiration remains.
When we discuss genocide, crimes against humanity and other atrocities, there is a tendency to call for justice and accountability after the event. Obviously accountability and justice matter, but prevention matters as much, if not more. For this reason, the genocide convention imposes a duty not merely to punish genocide but to prevent it. That duty does not begin after the horror has happened but before an atrocity occurs in the first place.
Commissioned in 2019 by the then Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Truro review examined the persecution of Christians around the world. However, its insights extend far beyond this one religion, and its recommendations explicitly call on government to protect and promote freedoms across every community. The author of the review, Bishop Philip Mounstephen, then Bishop of Truro and now the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, regrets that he is not in his place today due to long-standing commitments. While I make a poor substitute, in his absence I remind the House of his excellent work.
This ground-breaking publication garnered praise and support from experts and leaders around the world. Following its publication in 2019, the Government accepted all recommendations and created the post of envoy for freedom of religion or belief within the FCDO. A central tenet of the review was the call for future Governments to recognise the warning signs of persecution and identity-based violence before they escalate into mass atrocities. Recommendation 7 calls for mechanisms to facilitate an immediate response to atrocity crimes, including genocide. It specifically highlights the need for early-warning mechanisms, preventive diplomacy and upstream prevention work.
My honourable friend in the other place, David Smith MP, who serves as the UK’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, is doing fine work to advance the Government’s efforts. Only a few weeks ago, he was meeting with politicians, officials and faith leaders in Nigeria, a country which is experiencing an escalation in targeted attacks on different religious groups and a context where too many extremist groups are committing atrocities with impunity.
In another area, grant funding from the FCDO has enabled the BBC “Eye Investigations” unit to report powerfully on atrocity crimes. In response, the BBC faces continual resistance to this reporting. The former China correspondent John Sudworth told the “Today” programme that the corporation has
“faced threats of legal action as well as massive surveillance, obstruction and intimidation”
from Chinese authorities, all for its revelations of crimes against the Muslim Uyghurs. I hope that the Government will continue to support the BBC against such state-led threats and further encourage the BBC to report evidence of ongoing crimes despite threats from powerful regimes.
The question before us today is therefore not whether the Government are advancing the work outlined in the Truro review of 2019. They certainly are. The question is: what more could and should be done to prevent atrocities, crimes against humanity and, specifically, genocide? The evidence presented to Parliament over recent years suggests that serious gaps remain. We have seen repeated examples—from Iraq and Syria to Myanmar, Sudan, Afghanistan and elsewhere—of warning signs being missed or ignored long before atrocities reached their most devastating stage. The challenge does not simply concern a lack of information. Reports are produced. Evidence is gathered. Warnings are issued. The question is whether government has the institutional capacity to identify atrocity risks systematically, assess them consistently and ensure that Ministers receive clear recommendations for effective preventative action. That is precisely what recommendation 7 of the Truro report seeks to address.
There are of course international mechanisms that seek to provide such warnings. The United Nations has established the office of genocide prevention, which monitors risk factors and issues alerts. Independent organisations, such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s early warning project, also assess countries at risk and publish regular forecasts. Yet these bodies do not possess the authority or operational reach to ensure that warnings are translated into timely action by states. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have repeatedly made clear in this debate, both in government and in opposition my noble friend the Minister has called on His Majesty’s Government to exercise leadership on the international stage. He has regularly called out bad actors and has sought to prevent atrocities wherever and whenever possible. I am hugely grateful for his efforts and have three questions for the Government in this debate.
First, following recent departmental restructuring, what has happened to the atrocity prevention functions that were previously located within the Office for Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation, and the mass atrocity prevention hub? What dedicated atrocity prevention capability currently exists within the FCDO? Secondly, and in line with this, do the Government intend to publish a clear assessment of progress against recommendation 7 of the Truro review, setting out what has been implemented, what remains outstanding and how effectiveness is currently being measured? Thirdly, will my noble friend the Minister and the UK Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief host a private round table with Peers who have participated in this debate and those officials who are currently working on these issues to discuss them further?
Prevention is not only a legal obligation; it is also the most humane and ultimately the least costly response to atrocity crimes. When genocide occurs, the international community invariably asks why nobody acted sooner. The Truro review offered a practical answer to that challenge. It called for an early warning system, early engagement and early action. The Government deserve much credit for accepting that recommendation. But acceptance is only the beginning. The true test is implementation. If we are serious about preventing future atrocities, whether against Christians, Muslims, Yazidis, Rohingya, Uyghurs or any other vulnerable community, we must ensure that the commitments already made are translated into enduring institutions, clear processes and effective action.
I hope the Government will use this debate to reaffirm the commitment and to demonstrate how recommendation 7 is being taken forward in practice. Prevention delayed is prevention denied. Put simply, the best time to stop an atrocity is before starts.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing it and on the manner in which he moved today’s Motion. This of course follows the First Reading earlier today of the Genocide Determination Bill—a Private Member’s Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—to provide an avenue for justice to victims of the crime of genocide, which is also a topic of concern to me.
In the few minutes available today, I wish to focus on avenues for justice and accountability for international crimes. There is one particular case on which I wish to focus—a case which I have previously raised in this Chamber—relating to the tragic death of Ryan Evans of Wrexham, who was working for Reuters in Ukraine in August 2024, covering alleged atrocities committed by the Russians in Ukraine. The hotel in which the Reuters team was staying was hit by a Russian missile. Ryan was killed and nine others were injured.
I raised this by way of an amendment to the then Crime and Policing Bill, but we were unable at that stage to persuade the Government to adopt it. The reply I received in that debate made me question whether the Government understand what a victim/survivor-centric response to international crimes means, or indeed what victim/survivor-centric justice should look like.
On that day in February, I was told that the UK Government are already doing a lot to support justice and accountability in Ukraine, such as providing training for lawyers, judges and others. However, even now I have received no response as to what the Government are doing to provide justice and accountability for Ryan’s family. So what have the present UK Government done to support Ryan’s family in their pursuit of justice and accountability for his premature and unlawful death?
As it is, the families of such victims are left powerless. This is totally at odds with the victim/survivor-centric approach that the Government have always stressed. In all seriousness, what do the Government expect the family of Ryan Evans to do? Seek justice in Ukraine? There must surely be an easier way. The UK Government may be aware that, while the law in this country does not allow it, other countries have managed to find a way to ensure that their citizens, as victims and survivors of international crimes abroad, can seek justice through their domestic courts. This is called a passive personality jurisdiction and it allows a state to prosecute foreign nationals for crimes committed abroad when the victim is a citizen of that prosecuting state. It is the citizenship of the victims/survivors that is the critical factor.
Such laws exist in France, Germany, Spain, Canada and Lithuania among others. Indeed, Lithuania is investigating the killing of its own citizen, Mantas Kvedaravičius, who was killed by the Russian military in Mariupol. In February 2024, the prosecutor-general of Lithuania announced that three soldiers had been identified as suspects and charged with the killing of Mantas. Why would we not want to help our citizens seek justice before our domestic courts? Why can other countries find a more humane solution than we can? If a small country such as Lithuania—the size of Wales—can do it, surely it is not beyond the capability of the UK to do likewise. Is it just a matter of not having the political commitment to deliver justice for UK citizens caught in such tragic circumstances?
I tabled a Bill for these purposes in the Private Members’ Bill ballot earlier this year but was unsuccessful. However, I will continue to seek opportunities to press for British citizens who are victims of international crimes to have clear avenues for justice and accountability. I do so in memory of Ryan, for his family, and for future victims and their families, all of whom will suffer the same challenges until the law in the UK is changed.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool for never having stopped keeping up the pressure on enhancing our awareness of human rights, often at great personal expense to himself and his family. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his support going back many years when we first exposed the issue of illegal organ harvesting and transplantation. It is on that topic that I will focus, because it is a despicable side-effect of some of the terrible killings that go on around the world.
In 2024, across the world, it was estimated that 173,727 organs were transplanted overall, 47,000 of which came from deceased donors. Those figures are from international data submitted to the Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. When you look at Great Britain, the UK, Ireland and the USA, the figures are comprehensive and properly registered. When you look at other countries that we have been discussing today, the data columns are very often blank the whole way down—nothing is declared. There are figures given by China, but I will come on to those in a moment.
The problem has been that the demand for organs has outstripped the supply through legal ethical routes. I declare my interest as a patron in establishing the Commonwealth Tribute to Life through NHS Blood and Transplant, which has been trying to ensure that there are ethical transplant practices across the whole Commonwealth. We have had some success, with memorandums of understanding and a decrease in the sale of organs, particularly kidneys. But it is very hard to get a full picture because of the secret nature of this activity.
Organ harvesting involves illegally removing parts of a body for transplant for commercial gain with or without the victim’s so-called consent. Of course, under modern slavery laws, a victim cannot consent to their own exploitation.
The China Tribunal in 2020, set up by Sir Geoffrey Nice, again with enormous courage, revealed very much of what was going on in China. He found that waiting times were short—days or weeks—in places where voluntary donation systems could not possibly have been providing all the organs that were used and documented the problem of Falun Gong practitioners being targeted since 1999 and the mass detention of people in Xinjiang province with forced medical screenings and biometric analysis. There was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting. Survivors who managed to escape Chinese custody have provided accounts, including to the British Medical Journal, detailing unconsented practices and very narrow escapes from surgery.
Internationally, most of the victims seem to be men, with about two-thirds of reported cases involving men whose organs have been taken. That is UN data. The victims are poor, uneducated or unemployed. They are often asylum seekers, refugees or from minority backgrounds. Shockingly and surprisingly, north Africa and the Middle East have the highest share of detected victims, as reported by the United States Department of State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for raising the issue of children caught up because, horrifically, children are being trafficked for their organs globally. There are reports of teenage girls having their ovaries harvested unknowingly to be trafficked for profit. Some of the anecdotal reports come out of Nigeria.
However, victims are mostly men, leaving women and girls without a provider for their families. Female spouses become obliged to donate their organs because the man in the family, the breadwinner, is ill or has perhaps died. Adult women have been trafficked, for their ovaries and their eggs.
In Afghanistan in 2023, 459 kidney transplants were documented. However, the United Nations estimated that 59% of the population was in need of life-saving humanitarian aid, so the pressure on people to donate was phenomenal. In 2021, a mother was quoted as saying:
“My children roam on the streets begging … If I don’t sell my kidney, I will be forced to sell my one-year-old daughter”.
More recently, the state has said that it is un-Islamic to undertake any organ transplantation, and it is notable that the latest return, for 2024, to the observatory shows no kidneys. I do not believe that it is a zero; it is just completely hidden.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, for highlighting Burma. In Myanmar, young people are removed and killed, and in the morning when their body has been left outside their family’s door, it is often found that they have been opened and seem to have had their organs stripped out. There seem to be fast-track routes through some of the airports for organs to be taken to China for transplantation. What has China’s response been? Beijing initially denied accusations but admitted in 2015 that it had routinely harvested organs from executed death row prisoners. Now the Chinese Government assert that they completely ended that practice in 2015 and that they rely entirely on voluntary citizen donation systems. There is an enormous worry about how so-called consent is obtained.
The United States has the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act to impose property blocking and sanctions. The European Union has passed resolutions requiring member institutions to evaluate aggressively and to sever medical training and research collaboration with such teams. The National Institutes of Health has historically published statements from first-hand witnesses and imposed medical sanctions. I feel that my professional group needs to ensure that the World Medical Association takes this much more seriously because, far too often, healthcare professionals are intimately involved through threats, intimidation and fear for their own family and may possibly be killed if they do not participate in this signal of overwhelming abuse around the world.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
Like other noble Lords, I am in awe of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his patience and persistence in keeping the question of atrocity prevention before this Chamber. I thank him and indeed all those who have spoken. It is not my intention to repeat any of what has already been said: rather, I shall go deeper into the area of the relationship between conflict prevention and overseas aid.
The wholesale dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development has given us for the first time something close to a controlled experiment in what happens when a major donor abruptly walks away from fragile states. A study published last month in Science examined 870 subnational regions across most of the African continent in the 10 months before and after USAID came to an abrupt stop. Using a difference-in-differences design, it compared places that had been heavily reliant on USAID with otherwise comparable places that had not.
Before January 2025, the trends in violent conflict in the two groups moved in step. After January 2025, they diverged sharply. In the most exposed regions, the probability of a violent conflict event rose by roughly 6.5%. In some subnational analyses, conflict events and combat deaths rose by about 10%. This translates, on the authors’ own conservative estimates, into roughly 1,000 additional deaths from armed violence in a single calendar year, and that is before we count the indirect mortality from collapsed clinics, interrupted food programmes and displacements, all of which are estimated to lead to more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under the age of five.
Another study conducted by Jimmy Graham, a genocide and atrocity prevention research fellow at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, finds the same headline result, but he also notes that civilian unrest increased first, followed by armed violence, which suggests that the increase in conflict was not just a coincidence but rather a response to institutional weakening. Graham also argues that the withdrawal of aid acts as a signal of short-term state weakness. Rebels, militias and other armed actors infer, with good reason, that the state has just been deprived of a major source of administrative capacity, basic service delivery and economic stability, all of which gives them a window of opportunity.
That evidence should concern us greatly, because we too are embarking on significant further cuts to our aid budget. By next year, UK aid spending will fall to 0.3% of GNI, reducing proportionate aid spending to levels not seen since the late 1990s, and the total value of FCDO programmes will fall by 31% compared with 2025-26. The Government will tell the House that the share of bilateral aid going to fragile and conflict-affected states is rising, and that is correct, but it is rising against a sharply shrinking total, and the rise is achieved largely by protecting four countries—Ukraine, Sudan, Palestine and Lebanon—while the other 34 fragile states share a much smaller pot. Bond’s analysis finds that bilateral aid to Africa will have fallen by 56%, or £874 million, by 2028-29 compared with 2024-25, and the UK Integrated Security Fund, the principal instrument for stabilisation and peacebuilding, has already been cut by one-third in a single year.
Yet, at precisely the same moment, Ministers rightly tell us that the world is becoming more dangerous. As we have already heard, we face instability in Sudan, catastrophe in Gaza, conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, worsening food security across the Horn of Africa, and growing geopolitical competition in fragile states across the Balkans, the Sahel and the Indo-Pacific. If the world is indeed becoming more dangerous, this is surely the wrong moment to dismantle one of the principal instruments through which Britain has historically reduced instability peacefully.
So I ask the Minister: will the Government set out a credible path back to 0.7%? The 2016 Act remains on the statute book. The commitment remains in the Prime Minister’s own words, but a commitment with no timetable lacks resolution. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that, where bilateral programmes are being wound down, they are wound down in a sequenced way: strengthening local institutions, transferring capacity to domestic authorities and civil society, and giving partners reasonable notice, so that the reduction in UK presence does not itself become a driver of instability? Atrocity prevention requires more than public statements and diplomacy after violence has begun. It requires sustained investment in the conditions that make atrocities less likely in the first place.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is pleasure to speak immediately after the right reverend Prelate, and to share these Benches’ support for his call to reinstate the 0.7% for overseas aid as soon possible. If the Minister is able to give any insight into that, that would be very welcome, because, as the right reverend Prelate has just said, words are never enough. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, about the dangers of democratic backsliding and other phenomena. So there is a range of issues that we need to think about this afternoon at the end of a very powerful debate.
As always, I pay tribute to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We have already heard that the noble Lord, Lord Rook, aspires to be like the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He also wants to be, perhaps, a deputy Bishop and did the work of presenting the words of the former Bishop of Truro and his report very effectively. As many noble Lords will realise, one of the things to which you would have to aspire, to be like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is to be utterly persistent and to ensure that, whenever there is a scintilla of hope that somebody might be willing to speak in a debate, you will keep coming and saying, “Could you just do this?” The noble Lord is so passionate about the causes that matter.
The causes on which he speaks, including bringing us today’s debate and introducing another Private Member’s Bill, are always of the most profound importance: literally, matters of life and death. They are issues on which we find it very easy to agree that there is a need to speak. Across the Chamber, we may find many points of convergence, but so often there is one person or one group of people who seems to find it so very difficult to support what the noble Lord and other noble Lords have said in the debate. I am hoping today that I might be proved wrong, and that the Government Benches might be willing to say, “You’re right. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has brought such a compelling case and his Private Member’s Bill is so important that we are going to give it a fair wind”.
We have heard this afternoon about the difficulty that we, and the other place, have faced over the years when suggesting that a case may be one of genocide. The response from the Government Front Bench is always, “A very difficult case—we agree there’s a problem, but we can’t name it as a genocide. That is for the courts to decide”. The response of the courts is, “We can’t determine a genocide, because we need some legal basis on which to do that, beyond the general international law norms”. I very much hope that the Minister might be able to suggest that he can be a little more open, and that the Government might welcome a very useful Private Member’s Bill that is on its way.
“Never again” were the words with which I planned to open my speech. My noble friend Lord Hussain did so in his speech, because they were the words that were proclaimed immediately after World War II and after the Holocaust. When we had the convention on genocide, its words had the important contribution of Raphael Lemkin, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, earlier, and there was the work of Hersch Lauterpacht on crimes against humanity. It was “never again”, and yet, 80 years on, we see so frequently cases that are clearly atrocity crimes.
I am very mindful of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He said that we need to be careful about calling too many things genocide; perhaps we use that word too casually. But it is important for us to find a way, as a country, and to be able to be reassured that the Government are mindful of all their duties under the convention on genocide. It is not simply about naming a genocide or just about punishing one, if a court is eventually able to agree that one has been perpetrated. It is also, as we have heard this afternoon, about preventing genocide.
That might sound a very large demand, and it is. I am very grateful for a briefing that I was sent by Ewelina Ochab, who has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in which there is a reminder that in 2007, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro, the judgment stated that the duty to prevent genocide is to be triggered when the state
“learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed”.
Even in the 1930s, if the word genocide had existed, people would have been able to see that there was a genocide of the Jewish people—and that was in the days before mass media and mass, instantaneous communication.
We now have many more opportunities to be aware of potential atrocities, crimes against humanity and genocide. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm this afternoon whether he feels that the Government have all the tools they need to be aware of genocides that may be being perpetrated, or where there is a serious risk of genocide, because that is clearly a duty for this Government and for our country. From the first speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, onwards, we have heard references to a whole series of cases where there are clearly crimes of atrocity. Whether or not they are genocides, there are crimes that need to be investigated and explored: in Sudan; with the Uyghurs in China; the case of the Rohingya; and the situation in the Middle East, where there are allegations that clearly need to be looked into. If there is nothing to see then no crime will be found, but there is at least a duty to explore cases where perhaps there may be genocide or crimes against humanity.
One case I would like to touch on before I conclude is Afghanistan. Just under five years ago, NATO troops withdrew from Afghanistan. We had played a crucial role there. When we left, we left behind many vulnerable people: women and girls, who have been mentioned, and members of the judiciary, for whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, did fantastic work. But the end of May marked 1,717 days since restraints on women’s education began, and over 500 days since women have no longer been able to train as midwives in Afghanistan. On 14 May this year, the Taliban had a decree on the principles of separation between spouses; this legalises child marriage and establishes different standards of consent for girls and boys who are minors. Under the decree, a minor girl’s silence is treated as consent to marriage, whereas a boy at least has explicitly to accept or reject such marriage. There is also a decree that can essentially take away the property of Afghans who are currently out of the country. Why might they be out of the country? It is precisely because they have fled for their lives from the Taliban. As a country, we still owe a duty to many Afghan refugees and to those still in Afghanistan. What is His Majesty’s Government doing to support them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I will add to the paeons of praise for the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and all his tireless campaigning. He is the epitome of the phrase “campaigning Peer”. His treatment by foreign governments demonstrates just how effective his campaigning is; he has done some very important work, of which we are all in awe. I look forward to working with him in the new Session on tackling some of the most appalling crimes committed by state actors, terror groups and others across the world.
The Official Opposition are unequivocal: atrocity crimes should never go unpunished, wherever they take place. As my noble friend Lady Sugg reminded us, the previous Government took a number of steps to tackle global war atrocities—not least of which in Ukraine, following the appalling crimes that have been committed in that conflict, including in Bucha. The images from there are impressed on all our memories, and the victims of those crimes deserve justice. I am very proud that the last Government, working with our US and EU partners, established the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine. That work is ongoing. I know that my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis of Banbury continues to play an active role in the efforts to bring the perpetrators of war crimes in that conflict to justice.
We on this side of the House will always back the Government when they are supporting efforts to prosecute atrocities and genocide committed in other countries. I am pleased to say that Britain’s values and principles of law are respected across the world, and from that flows respect and legitimacy. It is surely right that we use our high reputation in justice as a force for good on the international stage. Given the important role that Britain has established over many years, we have a unique contribution to make in many parts of the world affected by instability, terrorism and war.
In that context, I ask the Minister to update the House on the Government’s current assessment of the terrible situation in Sudan. We were all appalled by the massacre at the El Fasher hospital. As many others have said in this debate, the conflict in Sudan has left hundreds of thousands of people dead, and indeed millions affected by famine. The UK has long experience in supporting the prosecution of atrocities and war crimes perpetrated abroad. In addition to the diplomatic efforts made by the Government to seek an end to the conflict, what steps are Ministers taking to ensure that the UK can support the prosecution of atrocities committed in that conflict?
Another important point—emphasised by my noble friend Lady Sugg—is that we should never forget that atrocities are not committed just in conflicts such as those in Ukraine and Sudan. Sadly, there are many states that are committing atrocities against their own people in the world today. It would not be right for us to discuss those atrocities perpetrated by states without reflecting on China’s treatment of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, did so effectively. The evidence is clear, and we must all be united in our condemnation of China’s actions.
Across this House, we all cherish our freedoms. China appears to have no regard for the rights and freedoms of the Uyghur people, and we firmly support the campaign for justice of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will continue to hold the Chinese Government to account for their persecution of the Uyghur people? Can he reassure the House that the Government will work to ensure that our procurement processes are robust in prohibiting the purchase of the products of slave labour, however difficult they are to identify?
On Hong Kong, what are the Government doing to monitor the Chinese state’s actions against Hong Kongers? We all want to see Jimmy Lai released, so can the Minister update the House on the representations that the Government are making to the Chinese Government for his release? Of course, at the same time it is also important to protect the residents of Hong Kong who have come to the UK since China breached the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Can the Minister update the House on the steps that the Government are taking to support those people in the UK?
Finally, now that the internet has been partly restored, the evidence of massacres perpetrated by Iran against its own people is growing. The images of families seeking to identify their loved ones who have been killed by the regime, which we saw earlier this year—there have been some recent images released as well—are profoundly moving. Can the Minister say whether the Government are taking steps to support any evidence gathering in relation to these atrocities? Does he believe that there will be an opportunity to hold the perpetrators to account in the coming years?
Britain has an important role to play in championing the causes of tolerance, freedom, respect and justice across the world. We cannot discuss all areas of conflict today, although many have been raised. Many people are still suffering in an increasingly unstable world, and I support so many of the heartfelt sentiments that have been expressed across the House in our debate today. We must never waver in our ambition to stamp out hatred, discrimination, atrocities and genocide across the world, and, where it does occur, we must not flinch in our efforts to deliver justice for the victims. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and particularly how he will justify the actions of the Government in light of his previous statements. I look forward to his statements.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate and for his continued work on human rights and civil liberties. He and I may not have always agreed on the means, but the one thing that we have been absolutely at one on is the ends: we want to see an end to this sort of behaviour. There will always be differences on the means. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has frequently said to me, his positions in government often changed when he moved into opposition. Sometimes that happens in reverse.
This has been an incredibly comprehensive debate, and it is going to be very difficult for me to cover every one of the issues that have been raised. I know that we will study Hansard carefully and, if I fail to address any particular point, we will write and put a letter in the Library.
How we use the full weight of policy to prevent the gravest crimes known to humanity is among the most serious responsibility of any Government. Across the world, we are witnessing a deeply troubling rise in conflict and instability. From Sudan to Ukraine and from Gaza to Myanmar, the human cost is devastating. In the face of such suffering, it is right that this House considers how government policy can respond more effectively both to prevent these crimes and to ensure accountability when they occur.
The UK Government’s approach rests on the clear principle that preventing and responding to atrocity crimes must be embedded across our foreign, development and security policy. This is not an isolated issue; it is integral to how we promote stability, uphold international law and protect human rights. Our policies are therefore designed to operate across three mutually reinforcing areas: preventing atrocity risks from emerging or escalating; responding decisively where crimes occur or are imminent; and strengthening accountability and justice mechanisms to deter future violations.
Before I address those three areas, I remind the House that on Human Rights Day 2024, the Government identified five key priorities that very much reflect how this debate has gone. The first priority was about defending civic space and fundamental freedoms. By the way—noble Lords have heard me say this—one of the most important ingredients of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society; it enables people to hold their Governments to account. This Government are committed to supporting civil society organisations.
The second priority—again, noble Lords have raised this issue—is the upholding of the rule of law. We are committed to the institutions that promote the international rule of law, including the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. We need to build broad alliances and to listen to the views of others, even when we disagree. It matters that perpetrators of atrocities know that justice awaits them, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows. That is why we strongly support an effective and independent ICC.
The third priority is to champion equal rights for all. Stalling progress on the rights of women and girls, LGBT+ people and those belonging to other marginalised groups is troubling, and it is increasing. We must, more than ever, stand in solidarity with them, and we will advocate for the rights and freedoms of women and girls at every opportunity. This fundamentally includes sexual and reproductive health rights, which are very much under threat at this moment in time.
By championing the freedom of religion or belief for all, we are fighting back against the threats so many people face simply for what they do or do not believe in. The UK special envoy for VAWG, David Smith—my noble friend Lord Rook has mentioned him—launched his strategy last year and gave an excellent timetable for work, which focused on recommendation 7 of the Truro report. We are making progress; we will deliver on that. I am sure that David Smith will be the open to the suggestion of meeting with noble Lords, and I will certainly convey that idea to him.
The fifth and final priority is to respond to the global challenges by prioritising human rights and governance principles, working to end all forms of modern slavery and promoting business and human rights—these things go together and I have strongly argued for them. When I was Minister for Africa, in every African country I went to, I said that if their first priority is economic growth, how do they deliver it? They deliver it with an inclusive workforce that includes delivering on the rights of women. That is what we need to do.
I now turn to those three areas I mentioned, the first of which is prevention. Preventing these crimes depends on early, informed and co-ordinated action. Government policy prioritises building a deep understanding of risk. The UK undertakes rigorous cross-government analysis of conflict and instability, drawing on diplomatic reporting, expert insights and global data. This allows us to identify the drivers of violence, including political exclusion of specific groups of people, weak governance, identity-based tensions or a history of impunity. Our global network of diplomatic missions plays a vital role in this effort, and I have seen this across many continents. Colleagues on the ground, supported by specialist advisers and analysis, provide real-time insights into emerging risks and help to shape targeted responses. This ensures that our policy decisions are based on evidence and focused on where they can have the greatest impact to prevent atrocities.
To protect sensitive intelligence sources and prevent hostile actors from exploiting strategic vulnerabilities, many of our assessments, including the Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy, must remain confidential. Last year, I invited both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend to talk about the review we were doing on the JACS process, which has been a very positive thing.
Prevention also means tackling the root causes of violence, with a focus on areas where analysis identifies those at greatest risk. For example, we support peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts in fragile and conflict-affected regions, helping to address long-standing grievances. We invest in strengthening institutions, promoting the rule of law and countering disinformation and hate speech. We also work to advance gender equality and protect the rights of women and girls, recognising that gender-based violence is not just abhorrent in its own right but also a very big warning sign of broader risks of atrocities. Through our contributions on multilateral mechanisms, including UN peacebuilding efforts, we are building that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, raised PSVI and gender-based and sexual violence in conflict. I pay tribute to her for her excellent work. I have been absolutely committed to the PSVI work we have undertaken. We are making very good progress in terms of renewing our commitments beyond 2026, which we will do. The noble Baroness is right: we need a replacement for the excellent previous special representative on PSVI, and I very much hope that will be announced fairly shortly.
I was in Costa Rica for the inauguration of the new president there, where I met representatives of the UN agencies with whom we were giving financial support to the survivors of sexual violence in three countries in Latin America. I was really impressed with the impact of that. Of course, the key to that has been our absolute focus on a survivor-centred approach, listening to the people who are most affected, responding to them and building that programme.
In relation to Tigray, I had the opportunity to go there and meet the survivors of sexual violence, to understand what they wanted, not only in terms of ensuring accountability but also in how they can rebuild their lives and not suffer the associated stigma. That is why people use sexual violence in conflict—they know it has a stigmatising effect, and that is what we have to properly address.
The second area is how we respond, which is and must be decisive. Where risks escalate and atrocities occur, the Government act swiftly and in co-ordination with partners. The UK uses diplomatic channels to raise concerns directly with states and to press for de-escalation. We work through international institutions, including the UN, to raise the alarm, build consensus and co-ordinate action. Of course, this includes the Human Rights Council, where, for example, on 16 March our human rights ambassador raised the UK’s deep concern, which many noble Lords have raised, around the situation in Xinjiang. We have repeatedly used the Human Rights Council—because we can win votes there, by the way, beyond simply the Security Council; I accept what people are saying in relation to the situation in the Security Council.
Many noble Lords raised Sudan. The UK’s commitment to atrocity prevention in Sudan is unequivocal and long-standing, and we consistently monitor emerging risks, press the parties to the conflict for restraint and urge compliance with international humanitarian law. The Foreign Secretary has made it a priority. We must try to absolutely focus on this issue to ensure that it is not pushed down the global agenda, as we know it has been. The UK, as a leader of the core group on Sudan at the UN Human Rights Council, led efforts to renew the UN fact-finding mission mandate in October—the only UN mechanism investigating violations across Sudan.
This year, we supported the deployment of specialist sexual and gender-based violence investigators, to strengthen accountability specifically on conflict-related sexual violence so that we can hold the perpetrators to account. On 6 May, the atrocity prevention coalition issued a joint statement calling out the risk of escalation in and around Dilling in South Kordofan, pressing the warring parties to guarantee unimpeded access. I know these are words, and the situation in Sudan is dreadful, but we must make sure that it does not go down the global agenda.
On accountability, a central pillar of government policy is supporting international efforts to ensure that those responsible for atrocity crimes are held accountable. This is clear in Ukraine, where we have played a leading role in supporting the Ukraine Government to document crimes and pursue justice, including through co-operation with international partners and others. In Myanmar, the British embassy in Yangon is at the forefront of efforts to address the culture of impunity that is fuelling cycles of violence, as my noble friend Lady Nye mentioned.
Achieving justice can be challenging. Too often, the path is long and difficult—I know that that is the case in relation what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. I reassure him that it is not that we do not think there is accountability, but when crimes are committed, it is vital that we support the opportunity to gather evidence. You cannot pursue a trial without proper evidence, and that is a key element of our work. I am not dismissing in any way the nature of these crimes, but if we are to hold people accountable, that system is really important.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who asked about the case brought by the Gambia in relation to Myanmar. From what I understand, in March 2025, the UK submitted written observations to the ICJ in the case brought by the Gambia for alleged breaches of the genocide convention. The UK’s intervention presented legal arguments regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the genocide convention. We have trusted that this will help the court when considering these provisions.
The Gambia v Myanmar proceedings have now moved beyond the oral hearings on the merits, which concluded in January of this year, and we are now into the court’s deliberative phase. It remains the United Kingdom’s position that a determination of genocide should be made by the competent court or tribunal, and we welcome the ICJ’s consideration of the issues in relation to Myanmar’s obligations under the convention. However, the status of the arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing is a matter for the court, which is independent, and we will not interfere with its processes.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, it is important to emphasise that no country can address these issues and these challenges alone; it is how we work with others that is vital. That is why our actions are grounded in multilateral co-operation. We work closely with partners and share information. Those returning from conflict in Syria or Iraq must expect to be met at the UK border by counterterrorism policing, interviewed and, where relevant, investigated to determine whether they have committed criminal offences.
I am about to run out of time, but I want to address some fundamental issues. I acknowledge what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said about organ harvesting. These things are happening without public knowledge, and they are atrocities we need to address. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also raised UN processes, particularly on the UN vote veto. The UK Government were proud to co-sponsor the veto initiative that enables the UN General Assembly to scrutinise the use of the veto. We support the accountability, coherence and transparency code of conduct through which we have committed not to vote in the UN General Assembly against a credible draft resolution to prevent or end a mass atrocity.
I conclude by saying that the role of government policy in combating atrocity crimes is profound and far-reaching. I know what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said about his genocide Bill, and he knows my response: we will not be supporting it. But we share the same ends. People need to be held accountable for atrocity crimes, and we need to ensure that we have the means to do that. I want to put the sort of effort that we have been doing successfully into supporting all those agencies which are gathering the necessary evidence, and where that evidence has been able to be presented to a competent court, we will do our utmost to support it. The Government are determined that we raise these issues, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for having this debate and for putting his Bill forward for consideration. I wanted to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, but he has gone now; he has obviously escaped in time. Anyway, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate. It has been incredibly broad ranging, but very important for the future of mankind and womankind.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am greatly encouraged to have heard our House speak so powerfully, so eloquently, and with such a united voice about our determination to tackle atrocity crimes in whatever vestige they may come, whether it is outright genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. I was obviously disappointed to hear the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. As he said, he and I want to see the same ends, so I was disappointed to hear him say that he is unable at the present moment to support the Genocide Determination Bill. He has heard the Opposition Front Benches, and I was extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham and to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for what they had to say and for the support the Bill has been given, particularly by people like the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Sugg, in their remarks today.
There will be a debate about the Bill on 15 July. We are in continued discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and I met with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General. We have questions for the Lord Chancellor, David Lammy, around this and universal jurisdiction. I hope that the conversation will remain open, because we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say, as the Minister did in his last remarks, that we will abide by the determination of a court if we then rule out the opportunity of the High Court of England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland being able to do that, which is why my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, helped to devise the terms of the Bill.
I hope that, given that the vetoes that we heard referred to by my noble friend Lord Hannay, will always be used by Russia or China when you seek to refer to a case, such as that of the Uyghur Muslims, or even the United Nations’ own commission of inquiry into North Korea, which called for a referral to the ICC, it has not gone forward because of the threat of the use of veto. My noble friend was right that the United Kingdom should revisit this question, even if it is only to call out the countries that would block such referrals. The French floated this idea some time ago. We should work with them to try and make sure that it is placed before the Security Council—something, I know, that would be close to the heart of the Minister.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said that we needed clarity, resources and urgency. The point about resources was underlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. It takes me back to my student union days, when I argued for Resolution 2626—the United Nations resolution calling for 0.7% of our gross national product to be provided in development aid. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has an incredibly honourable record on this. Not many people leave government over a matter of principle. I enormously admire her for putting her beliefs into action in that way. She is right: we must understand what impact this is having on things such as the atrocity prevention strategy. I hope, therefore, that when the letter comes from the Minister that something more can be said about whether this impact of resources will affect capacity and the size of the hub.
Many Peers echoed the call for a cross-departmental and cross-government strategy, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and others. We were told that it is a core question. Many lamented the absence of a national strategy. The scale of the challenge was underlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Nye, my noble friend Lady D’Souza, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and others. The re-vivification of the conventions was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, made, and it was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
Hersch Lauterpacht and Raphael Lemkin were called in aid. I had the privilege of visiting Simele in northern Iraq, which is where Lemkin went in the early 1930s to understand what had happened to the Assyrians and Armenians. It was on that basis that he started to think about crafting something to try and deal with atrocity crimes. More than 40 of his own family members were murdered in the Holocaust. Churchill said that there is no word sufficient in our language to capture the scale, the monstrosity of the crimes that have been committed. Lemkin gave us that word: genocide—the cutting of the human family. In every generation, we owe it to the founding fathers and mothers of that period—from Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Winston Churchill and the many senior figures in the Conservative Party and the Labour Party at that time who promoted the European Convention on Human Rights, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rook, spoke when I had a debate on that subject. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to pass the baton on to the noble Lord, who has more than grown into his own shoes. I am particularly pleased that he has joined us on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where he is already making quite a mark.
In the 1930s, we saw, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, the growth of crimes that nobody responded to in any adequate way. There was insufficient justice or accountability. People were not listening to the survivors and victims. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, gave us a particular case, that of Ryan Evans, who paid the ultimate price in Ukraine for shining a light on the atrocities there.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that I heard Kate Adie earlier today at the unveiling of the statue of “Tank Man”, where she said that the protesters in the square in Tiananmen said to her, “Please go and tell the world”. That is what so many of our brave journalists have done down the years. They have gone and told the world, at great risk to their own lives. We surely have to underline, as my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, told us, that atrocities flourish in darkness, and we have to shine a light on those things.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, said that early warning is useless without early action. The noble Lord, Lord Rook, said that the true test is in implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said that we needed something like the Elie Wiesel Act in our own country. This is the beginning of a conversation. We can continue it, I think, on 17 July, on my Private Member’s Bill. But it is also a conversation to have within your Lordships’ House, perhaps with the special envoy David Smith, the Member of Parliament who has been referred to, with whom I travelled once to India. I have a very high regard for him, but it would be good too to have officials from the FCDO present at a meeting with those who have taken part in this debate, where we can discuss more candidly, and perhaps with one another, some of the issues that I know unite us.
I will end by saying that I was particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was given the task of replying to today’s debate. We have missed his voice often in this House on these issues. No one cares more deeply about them than he does. I am grateful to him and to all the Members of your Lordships’ House who have taken part in today’s debate.