Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction, including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. It seeks to ensure that the exercise of the direction-making power is subject to scrutiny and community engagement.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to start the second day in Committee on this Bill. I open this group on airspace modernisation, consultation and charging and move Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, as she is unfortunately unable to be here today.
The amendment is straightforward and seeks simply to insert a new subsection requiring that, before the Secretary of State makes any directions under Clause 4, three things must happen: a consultation with persons and communities likely to be affected; an environmental impact assessment; and a noise impact assessment. On these Benches, we feel that these additions are a basic requirement of legitimate decision-making where the power may have serious local consequences. The Clause 4 directions on airspace redesign are not merely a technical tidying-up exercise and can be used to alter flight concentrations, runway throughput, and the intensity and timing of overflight experienced on the ground. A ministerial direction made under this clause is capable, in substance, of facilitating additional capacity without ever being labelled as such.
As was said at Second Reading, the Bill is a blueprint; it is not the final product. It provides a framework that leaves the substance to future regulation. In that sense, as we have described, it is paving legislation. The Committee is entitled to ask what safeguards are built into that paving before being asked to drive on it. The Minister has given us reassurances that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle for airport expansion; we note and welcome those, and we accept them in the good faith in which they have been given. However, personal reassurances, however well-meaning, are not a legal safeguard. Ministers change, Prime Ministers change, Governments change, and interpretations can also change. The whole point of us seeking to put this duty into the Bill is to ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between a necessary operational change and one that, in effect, delivers additional capacity through the back door of airspace decision-making. Without mandatory consultation and impact assessment, the distinction cannot be realistically made. Even if it could be made, it would happen only after the fact.
Airport change proposals are already assessed through environmental methodologies, noise matrices and statutory directions. This should therefore be aligned with that pre-existing reality. For our communities, these matters are really important. Many, as we know, are already impacted by the noise and environmental impacts of existing airports, and future communities could be impacted by proposals under this legislation. These are real impacts on our communities, from noise late at night to environmental pollution. They should not have to rely on good will, however well-meaningly it is given. If the Secretary of State is to have this power, the Bill should state clearly what the procedural safeguards must be before it is used. That is exactly the point of Amendment 60. We are simply seeking to put a safeguard and some handrails in place around these powers. This is a crucial issue for us in our scrutiny of this Bill.
I turn briefly—I am sorry for speaking to these before others have managed to—to the other amendments in this group. In general, they all seek to do fairly similar things to Amendment 60. Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, would require a minimum 28-day targeted consultation with local communities, local authorities and airport operators before any direction on airspace redesign is issued. We have considerable sympathy for this amendment, for exactly the same reasons that I outlined on our Amendment 60. The 28-day objective is not onerous; it is fundamentally achievable. We hope that the Minister sees fit to put our Amendment 60, this Amendment 61 or some combination of them into the Bill.
Amendment 62, from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, would add the British Airline Pilots Association to the consultation list. We are broadly supportive of this amendment and recognise the central role that our pilots play, particularly in matters of safety. Their judgment and professionalism are essential in any plans to modernise our airspace and capacity. However, our concern is that the amendment, by its nature, names one organisation and does not, for example, name air traffic controllers. We would prefer it if the amendment was reworded to talk about consultation with representatives of the industry, as opposed to naming only one organisation.
Amendment 63, from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require the CAA to establish a blockchain-based audit trail for every airspace change program. We recognise that the underlying objective and purpose of this is to create a tamper-proof, long-term record of what has been decided, by whom and when. That is an entirely legitimate concern. In the past, too many of these decisions have been opaque; it has been extremely difficult for anybody to know what has been happening and what has been done by whom.
The requirements in this amendment, particularly those in proposed new subsection (3) for cryptographic security, 15-year retention and tamper-proof records, are all laudable aims, but we wonder whether naming one specific technology would make this a hostage to fortune in the future. We suggest alternative wording that asks for a secure, auditable and publicly accessible record, without prescribing the exact technology to be used. We feel that that would be a better way forward. It might be that the technology that the noble Lord suggests is the one that is chosen, but alternative wording would at least leave more scope for examination in the round.
Amendment 64, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, probes with characteristic precision the rationale for allowing changes to be imposed under Clause 6 on persons who neither use nor benefit from the air traffic services in question. This is a serious point: the Bill should have open scrutiny of who bears the costs for these matters. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on those points.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment 65, from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. It would require the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the growth and sustainability of general aviation when setting charges and to ensure that charges on general aviation users are proportionate to the use that they make of air traffic services. General aviation is too often forgotten, and this seems a proportional requirement and a modest and reasonable ask. We look forward to the Minister’s response to it.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his comments on my Amendment 61. I will speak to it only briefly, because it is pretty self-explanatory.
The legislation rightly gives some power to the Government to intervene and, in effect, act as arbiter when it comes to airspace redesign. Airspace redesign has taken much too long. It started when I was Secretary of State and now, nearly eight years later, we are still not close to bringing it to fruition, yet it is fundamental to the future of the aviation sector in this country. It will unlock extra capacity and use next-generation technology to enable us to provide more respite to communities that are affected by aircraft noise, even though the level of aircraft noise, in the world in which we live, has dropped enormously over the past generation.
The Government rightly believe that they need some degree of arbiter powers in this, but I do not think that they should have those powers just to say, “Right, that’s the decision”. There is an obligation there—nothing at great length, because we know that government consultations can last for ever, take months to be responded to and all the rest, but with a simple process saying, “Look, that’s what we’re going to do. Is there anything we haven’t thought of? Is there something we’re not quite getting right here?” I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the wording of the amendment is what it is, but I would expect pilots’ organisations, air traffic organisations and all the rest to be able to input a view on this point.
I would see this as being not an isolated consultation but a standard government consultation—a short, snappy one—simply so that the organisations and communities that have a vested interest can come forward and say, “There’s something you haven’t thought of. This is going to have an adverse effect that you haven’t thought about. You really shouldn’t be taking this decision”. It would be improper for that process not to exist where the Government have what is, in effect, a pretty absolute power of direction under the legislation as it is at the moment. I very much hope that the Minister will take that on board and perhaps look to include something of this kind on Report.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 60 to 62; I express a specific concern in my Amendment 62. I thought that I knew about the technology in this debate until I decided to brush up on it yesterday; I have spent most of my working hours since then getting up to date, to some extent.
The essence of the technology, which would allow a much more holistic review of airspace use, is that it is dependent not on aids on the ground but on global positioning systems. That gives great benefits, in terms of what it does for aviation, but I put it to the Committee that it also gives great benefits to those who are concerned about the environmental impact. If your route does not fit with that bit of society and there is a route that can fit with that bit of society, then, with the overarching technology, it can be changed. Up to this point, changing where aeroplanes go close to the ground has been totally dominated by the ground-based aids that they use to land.
The essence of my amendment—as an ex-BALPA shop steward, I thought that I had better represent my old team—is to get pilots involved in this consultation. They are going to face dramatic differences. One of the first things that I would say relates to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made the other day, which is that the planes can fly themselves. Normally, you have to drag the plane into the air then tell it to fly itself, and, when you get to the end, you actually have to make a few decisions. It is a very good theory; hopefully, when you press “flight nav” or something like that, that will happen.
The problem facing the modern pilot is that one of their most important tasks is to cope when there are system failures. There will be system failures. There are no big computer systems in the world that do not have system failures, as we all know to our cost. The problem is that the level of knowledge needed by the operative to cope with a system failure is very large but it is not often practised. It will, I am sure, follow the pilot’s standard of continuous checking. I have never flown an airplane with its engine on fire, but, when I was an airline pilot, I flew a plane with its engine on fire many times in a simulator. It was dramatic and great fun, but the whole essence here is that the systems delivering this will intrinsically and inevitably have failure modes early on. The crew are there to look after that, among all the other safety issues that they have to care about.
All the literature on the impact on pilots of a very different system says that it will require if not an almost completely new licence then certainly a substantial licence endorsement to equip pilots to look after these systems. How can their views and their wisdom be taken into account? They are the only people who can envisage the situation, together with a very dramatic change in standards.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 63. I thank the noble Earl for the excellent way in which he introduced the group and covered the amendments with such eloquence. This is a very straightforward amendment whose purpose is clear: to have an immutable cryptographic record of such important decisions. I agree entirely with the noble Earl. The blockchain reference is merely illustrative but it also shows the unfortunate speed that I was flying at when I was drafting. I would like to have set out criteria that any technology would need to meet to achieve the objectives in the amendment. That was the approach that we took in the Electronic Trade Documents Act, for example, when we specified no particular technology but set out a series of criteria that any technology would have to meet to be able to perform the task. If we can import that into our considerations of this amendment, that would get us pretty much to where I am at.
The point is that blockchain would more than suffice for the task. There is obviously a difference between blockchain and distributed ledger technologies, which we do not need to go into at this stage, but there are technologies that have not even come to fruition, never mind to a level of usability at this stage, which almost certainly will have a part to play in such illustrations as this. It is critical, though I failed in this amendment, to have technology neutrality, because through that technology neutrality you give yourself the best opportunity of having technology future-proofing. If the Minister could respond with those thoughts in mind, which are in the text but I wrote them in white ink on a white page, I would be obliged.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
In proposing Amendment 65, I must declare again my interests as set out at Second Reading. I have held a private pilot’s licence for about 40 years now. I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation, and I am the author of its inquiry into our lower airspace that was conducted a year or two ago. I am honorary vice-president of the British Airline Pilots Association and a former airport director. In a way, I am looking at this subject from rather more than one perspective.
At Second Reading, I pressed the Minister on Clause 6, and, in particular, on the change it makes to who must pay for air traffic and air navigation services from
“operators or owners of aircraft”
to simply “persons”. I asked what lay behind this decision and whether it was prompted by newer developments such as drone delivery, and at that point I referred to the Minister nodding his head. I am afraid that perhaps I was taking too much on in assuming that the nod related to my remarks—I make no aspersions otherwise. I said then that the burden on general aviation ought to remain broadly where it sits today.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the authority in exercising their functions over these charges to have regard to two matters: the growth and sustainability of general aviation, and the desirability of ensuring that those carrying out general aviation activities do not pay charges disproportionate to the use they make of the services. Many of my colleagues here who have spoken earlier in these debates have indicated their interest in general aviation, so there are quite a lot of us around, but it is important that I explain to the Committee that general aviation means civil aviation other than commercial air transport. It includes gliders, light aeroplanes, microlights, and the private and training flights of which I spoke earlier. It is not airlines and it is not, as I shall come to say, drones. On the Government’s figures in their general aviation strategy, the sector contributes, they accept, something in the order of £3 billion in gross value added and supports some 38,000 jobs. It is around 1/14th of the size of the commercial airline industry.
The figure I ask the Committee to hold in mind is that a great majority of those who sit at the front of the airliners that this Bill is chiefly concerned with—by some estimates three-quarters or more—began in general aviation, very often paying for their own training at the small flying schools the regulator knows as declared and approved training organisations. Those same schools and that same flying give us our future air traffic controllers and aircraft engineers, as well as those who pilot light aircraft. With Boeing and Airbus alike forecasting a need for several hundred thousand new pilots around the world in the years ahead, this is exactly the wrong moment to make it more expensive to learn to fly. From my involvement with the British Airline Pilots Association, I can tell the Committee that the profession, as was referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, watches the health of general aviation closely, for it is from there that the profession is renewed.
I will mention drones, for I suspect they lie close to the heart of the change. The Government have been candid that the Bill is needed in part because of new users of the air—the drones and the air taxis that will follow. I do not quarrel with that. Those users will make real demands on a future digital airspace and it is fair that they should pay their share, but the drone is not general aviation. They are governed by a separate code altogether in the air navigation orders and the unmanned aircraft regulations, in their own open, specific and certified category. My concern is that, when one widens the net from the owner and operator of an aircraft to any person, one catches the drone operator one is aiming at but one may also catch the local gliding club.
The danger is of a single standard designed for the commercial airliner being pressed on everyone, bringing cost and complication to those who fly small and simple aircraft—not always terribly simple, I might add. A glider under tow or a training aeroplane in the circuit draws on a fraction of the air traffic services that an airliner consumes or, for that matter, a fleet of delivery drones one day will. The charge each meets should reflect that and no more. There is a related point that it can hardly be right to levy a charge on a person who does not use and cannot use the very service being charged for. That is the principle behind this amendment: that those who make little use of the system should bear little of its cost.
I want to be clear about what I am not asking. I am not asking that general aviation be exempted from all charges. It pays its way today and it should continue to do so. Nor am I seeking to frustrate the much-needed programme of modernisation that, rightly, this Bill provides for. I supported its general objectives at Second Reading and continue to support them now. I ask only that, as these powers are set out in greater detail, the interests of general aviation are kept in view and the principle of proportionality is clearly set out, rather than left to assurances by the Secretary of State.
If the Minister can tell me that the Government have no intention of drawing general aviation into a charging regime built for the airlines or for commercial drone activity, and that he will consider how that intention might be given proper statutory form, that would be enormously welcome.
Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. I support the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, of a targeted consultation with local communities.
It will surely be the case that, as part of the civil aviation Bill, there will be changes to the use of airspace overhead and the potential not only for increased numbers of flights but the redesign of flight paths and expanding airports. It must surely follow, then, that, as part of the planning and preparation for these changes, residents who may experience new aircraft overflights, increased noise and other meaningful impacts, such as increased traffic on roads leading to local airports, should be given a meaningful role in considering these changes.
It is already the case that government and CAA policy recognises that airspace changes can have significant impacts on people on the ground and therefore includes consultation and stakeholder engagement requirements, but that sometimes feels a little like a box-ticking exercise. I feel strongly that it must be more than that. Communities that may find themselves under new or intensified flight paths deserve a meaningful voice in these decisions that seriously affect their quality of life.
I recognise that the updating of our aviation policies is an essential process from time to time, but surely the best outcomes are achieved through reasonable discussion. A stronger consultation framework may well deliver reforms more smoothly and avoid delay in being implemented, which can arise where opposition intensifies. Whereas existing consultation processes are often seen as insufficient as they take place too late in the process after key decisions have already, in effect, been made, proper engagement with those affected at an earlier stage and a clear demonstration of how their views are being considered is more likely to appear proportionate and pragmatic.
I am not suggesting that communities could or should have a complete veto over necessary airspace changes, but it would help ensure that residents who may experience substantial increases in overhead flights are fully consulted earlier and can see how their concerns are being taken into account. The key may be to introduce formal reviews of new routes after a year or so, independently conducted, and a commitment to revisit the design if impacts prove worse than forecast. The most defensible demand is surely a requirement that decision-makers must demonstrate how community representations have been considered and explain publicly why particular concerns were accepted or rejected.
Yes, residents already have consultation rights in relation to airport expansion and airspace changes, but they are limited and there is no guarantee at the moment that community concerns will materially affect the outcome. The issue is not whether consultation occurs but whether it is meaningful. Communities facing substantial increases in aircraft noise should have a guaranteed opportunity to influence decisions and receive a clear explanation of how their views have been taken into account.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I start by repeating my interest, which I declared on Tuesday, as a current pilot, aircraft owner and operator. On Tuesday, we had a good debate around general aviation, when my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and others took pains to explain the benefits not only to the economy, through the contribution that GA makes, but the broader aviation ecosystem, as it were, particularly in pilot training. Anything that is done to reduce opportunities for pilot training in the UK will have an easy to define effect, which will be the export of pilot training to Europe, where some countries have a different regime and much better weather, the United States and elsewhere. We have to regulate and legislate carefully; the law of unintended consequences is very active in this field.
Access to airspace is critical to the operation of general aviation. I refer to and support my noble friend Lord Kirkhope’s Amendment 65 in both of the thrusts that it seeks to take forward. First, it would protect the importance of GA when it comes to decisions being made around airspace design. It would be easy for the interests of general aviation to be minimised or not taken fully into account, and once decisions are taken it is very difficult for them to be reversed. Yes, much of the country is open, class G airspace, but there are real pinch points and that situation is likely to become exacerbated, rather than made any easier. One example would be around the area of Farnborough, which is close to the London airspace around Heathrow and so forth. I therefore plead for the interests of GA to be considered properly in the design, or redesign, of airspace.
Like my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, I recognise the technological advantages of change that is coming so rapidly. It is difficult for us now to be able to consider what life is going to be like in five years’ time. We support all the advantages that can come from that, including the safety advantages. When I was training as a pilot, one of the biggest concerns was getting lost. It took up quite a lot of my time thinking where one was, particularly in less than perfect weather. Nowadays, with GPS systems, you know precisely where you are at all times. That has taken away one of the excuses, but the safety benefits are extraordinary, and they will continue to come, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said. I flew an aircraft with a big orange button on the front. If you pushed the button, the aircraft could land itself should the pilot become incapacitated. It was way beyond my knowledge and expertise, and I would not be allowed anywhere near such a machine now. The point is that that technology exists today.
The reasonable points that my noble friend made around charges were not special pleading in any sense. He is saying that the charging regime has to be proportionate; it really is as simple as that. There have been issues in the past. I took pains in my remarks on Tuesday to pay tribute to the CAA, but sometimes the cost, for example, in giving approval to small general aviation airfields that are regulated as full airfields can be disproportionate. It is a system that would suit a much bigger airfield and the result is that the airfield in question is no longer regulated, because it is much easier to move to a deregulated situation. However, that has implications for training and what can be done in such a field. What we are saying is this: be cautious and careful, and take into account the advice and interests of what really is the grass roots of aviation, which has been a major part of our success as a nation in the broader aviation industry.
Amendment 62, from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is on the importance of hearing the professional pilot’s voice. I would be very surprised if any consultation did not take into account the views of those who know what they are talking about on large-scale commercial aviation. Exactly how that should be done and the mechanism for it I will leave to others to decide and opine on, but the noble Lord gave a powerful voice to BALPA, as we heard on Tuesday.
In recollecting the discussions around BALPA, I remember our late and much missed colleague Lord Clinton-Davis, who was a powerful advocate for BALPA. I spent many happy hours at the Dispatch Box with him as opposition spokesman in this field, and indeed he was earlier a Minister.
This has been a balanced debate and we very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest that I made on Tuesday as the non-exec chair of RVL Aviation.
I will say a word or two about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and strongly support what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, said. I wanted to ask the Minister to flesh out a bit the answer to the question that I asked at Second Reading. There are already consultation processes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, mentioned. There is no specific one for the exercise of the direction power. I am keen that, if there are extra processes, they fit well together; we do not want one set of consultations at one stage and then, if the Minister decides to do some direction, another set. When the Minister responds and, I suspect, urges the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, not to press his amendment, I would welcome a clear exposition of how the current position works, how it would dovetail with any use of the power of direction that Ministers are taking in Clause 4, how they would expect to use it and how that would fit with the existing consultation mechanism. I am keen that we do not invent another consultation mechanism.
If that power of direction is taken and is used—although the Explanatory Notes say that they do not expect the Government to use it very much, as it is a backstop power—it is almost certainly going to be used in difficult or controversial circumstances, because it would not be needed otherwise. That is the position set out in the Explanatory Notes. It would be helpful to understand how that end-to-end process works. It may be that the Minister should come forward with an amendment on Report that sets out how the power would be used and consulted on, or at least how it will dovetail with existing consultation mechanisms. I am not clear about how that would currently work.
Finally, I back up the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, about the charging mechanism. I want to set out some of the views from the International Air Transport Association. IATA strongly supports, as I do, and welcomes the Government’s intention to do airspace modernisation but has concerns about the charging regime. It thinks that the drafting is too broad and ambiguous, and risks undermining the international charging principles that exist.
IATA is also concerned—a concern shared by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Moylan—about replacing the words
“operators or owners of aircraft”
with the undefined “persons”. It thinks that that significantly expands the pool of liable entities and breaks the link with service provision. It understands the need for flexibility for future entrants but think there should be a narrower definition that encompasses those but is not as broad as the one that exists.
IATA is also concerned about revised Section 75(7), which allows charges to be levied on the basis that services are merely
“available for use or benefit”,
irrespective of the actual use. That represents a fundamental shift away from usage-based charging, which is the agreed international regime.
IATA has a number of concerns, not about the principle of what the Government are doing. It recognises that there will be new users and technologies, and the need to change how charging is done, but there are some accepted principles about the user paying for these things. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said, that should be done proportionately, but it is not sufficiently backed up by the broad wording in the Bill as currently set out.
It would be helpful if the Minister could say what the thinking was behind the drafting; whether the Government agree with IATA’s views about whether the Bill is in accordance with existing principles; and whether the Bill would be improved by a tighter definition that absolutely encompassed new technologies such as drones and other potential things in the future but was not so broad, and explicitly reintroduced the link between the usage of airspace and the charging, rather than simply the theoretical benefit. The Bill would be improved if those changes were made, and I look forward to the Minister setting out the Government’s thinking about how its wording was arrived at.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, there are some positive amendments in this group. Amendments 60 and 61 are trying to get to the same place. If there are new arrangements for the management of airspace, that is code for motorways in the sky. But it also means that if there are new routes or a material intensification of a route, it is only right and proper that local people are consulted about it, because it can have a significant material impact on their lives.
Where perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, has the essence of the matter is that he specified a time. We could argue about whether 28 days is right, but the fundamental principle that he is pointing out is that consultations can be endless and open-ended and never reach a decision. Something needs to be put in to tie it down, provided consultees have adequate notice and there is an understanding. It is a bit like neighbourhood notification and planning applications. There are specific groups of people who need to be approached about this: the people over whom these aircraft will be flying, and those affected by other intensification activities, whether traffic or whatever. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, gets to the essence of this. Whether we settle on a specific number of days is another matter, but the principle has to be established.
I agree with the principle of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, but I also accept that it would be inappropriate to specify a particular trade union, because they may change. There are pilots represented by other unions and some represented by none. That could change over time. If you specify the union in your legislation, that would be awkward. As the noble Lord said, we can find a form of words but the principle is the same. However technology may change, having air traffic controllers in the frame for that is common sense. These are the people who, day to day, have to do it. Also, as has been made clear, computer systems break down. We had a long debate on Tuesday over NATS and the breakdown there. The noble Lord is right. Pilots earn their money when the systems do not work, which is a regular occurrence.
By and large, there are some positive amendments in this group. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that I would not specify a particular trade union. Other than that, I support these amendments. There are some positive ones.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, and this has been a useful debate. It goes to the heart of what the Bill could enable and the safeguards clearly needed to protect communities that will be impacted by any changes to airspace use. As my noble friend Lord Russell outlined, Amendment 60, in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, would put those guardrails in place. It would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities, alongside making environmental and noise impact assessments, before being able to make a direction. This is critical. As we know, altering flight paths and redesigning airspace will have a significant impact on a surprisingly large area, as those communities impacted by the existing Heathrow and Gatwick airports, for example, are only too aware. A Secretary of State must understand the impact on people, noise and the environment of any potential decision. It is an important part of the decision-making process.
I understand that the Minister has given assurances that the Bill is not intended as a vehicle for airport expansion, but that is not a legal safeguard, as my noble friend Lord Russell outlined. Putting a duty in the Bill would ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between a necessary operational change and a change that, in effect, facilitates additional capacity without the transparency that would accompany a normal expansion decision. Without mandatory consultation and that impact assessment, there is a real risk that expansion could be delivered through the back door. This amendment matters to residents under the flight path, including communities such as those in Richmond, Kingston and Hounslow. They already live with the consequences of aircraft noise and emissions. If the Secretary of State is to have this power, the Bill must clearly specify procedural safeguards.
As we have heard from noble Lords, the other amendments in this group test the same principle of whether airspace modernisation is being carried out in a transparent, accountable and proportionate way. We are sympathetic to their aims as detailed by my noble friend Lord Russell. I am rather nervous about the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, getting lost in the sky, as he said earlier. I am very grateful that we have modern navigation systems these days. If we are to redesign our skies, we should not do so in a way that leaves people on the ground with less say, less information and fewer protections than we had before. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am impressed by the enormous experience of aviation and ministerial responsibility for aviation present in the Committee. I do not claim either, but I will do my best to respond to this group. First, I say that we support the principle of airspace modernisation. If we have a complaint about it, it is that it is taking so long. If it needs legislation, why is that legislation is arriving only now, seven years after it started? The Minister might explain that and what sort of timetable he is expecting to pursue with airspace modernisation.
The Bill gives the Minister new powers of direction that are extremely broad, and that is the basis for most of the complaints and concerns—I think concerns rather than complaints—expressed in the Committee so far. They are very broad powers of direction and are almost unconstrained. I think it fair to say that no part of the Committee believes that those powers should be unconstrained. We believe that there should be processes that allow for consultation and accountability. Indeed, one could even argue that it would be more appropriate than giving directions for the Secretary of State to have to have recourse to a statutory instrument. That is not an amendment that has been proposed today, but it would be one way of addressing the Committee’s concerns.
I will briefly deal with the amendments. Both Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 61, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, seek to impose a consultation requirement of a general character on the Minister. I do not think that that can be gainsaid; the Minister will have to agree it in one form or another. If he cannot give us assurances today that he will bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report, I very much hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will work together to draft an amendment that we can all rally behind.
Amendment 62 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. As at Second Reading, I found his speech most enlightening and interesting. I will make a small diversion to comment on it in a moment. However, the general principle is whether pilots—either through their trade union or in some other forum, as he said—should be consulted, and consulted specifically and early, about airspace changes. The answer is surely that they must be, since, as he explained—I do not need to repeat it—their stake in the business and activity is so high and so responsible that they should of course be involved in consultation at an early stage.
I will comment briefly on the broader question raised by the noble Lord of how this system works. We are seeing automated systems very much on the railways and certainly on London Underground—I know the noble Lord has great experience in rail and not just as a pilot—and in the motorcars with gubbins on the top that one now sees around the streets, driving themselves but with a driver present. The essential point of all these systems is to get them to drive closer together. They will drive closer together more safely under these automated systems. Take the example of the Victoria line, where the trains come practically every 90 seconds: that would not be possible if there was a human driver responsible for stopping and starting, because they would need to make judgments about how to do that.
The crucial difference—here I support the noble Lord—with ground-based systems such as railways, and, I assume, cars, is that the fail-safe if something goes wrong is to bring the system to a total stop. You can do that on a railway; you can just stop it, so that no train moves until you work out what has gone wrong and how to put it right. That is the safety mechanism. You cannot do that in the air, so our approach to aviation safety has to be very different. The input of pilots must be crucial to all of this. If, in the absence of an amendment from the Minister, one were to come forward from the noble Lord that expressed that—although not necessarily in these words, but if he could show himself open to adaptation—we would be very happy to support it.
My noble friends Lord Kirkhope and Lord Goschen spoke about the importance of general aviation. I am happy to second that for all the reasons they gave on both its economic contribution and its role in being a feeder to the skills necessary in the larger commercial aviation sector.
I will focus particularly on what my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said about charging and turn to my own Amendment 64, which is on just that point. There is a striking new subsection in Clause 6. It says:
“Persons may be specified (or of a description specified) if the services concerned are available for their use or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by, or actually benefit or could benefit, them”.
There is something of a contradiction written into that, because they would have to meet both limbs of the test. The first limb says that they
“are available for their use or benefit”.
The second limbs says, “Well, they could not be used by them and could not benefit them”. How can they be available for their use or benefit on the one hand and it still be the case that they could not be used by or benefit them and are still chargeable? I hope that I have expressed that correctly but, if noble Lords read the clause carefully, they will see that that is what it says. It says that they have to be available for their use or benefit but that it is immaterial whether they could use them or benefit from them. That seems like an obvious contradiction.
Introducing the word “persons” obviously requires some explanation. I am sure that the Minister is going to give it. I suspect that the explanation might be along the lines of the fact that there are drones and other things in the skies now, not simply aircraft. If that is the explanation, it has to deal with the clear point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, but I am a little more relaxed about that. What I am not relaxed about is being asked to give the Minister the power to levy charges on people who could not use or benefit from the services in question. As it stands, this clause shows every sign of being hastily and poorly drafted. One would hope that the Minister would come forward on Report with improved drafting, but, if not, I suspect that there will be an amendment to deal with it.
It is fair to say, in these happy circumstances that have arisen, that the whole of the Committee is united on nearly all of the points we have debated in this group. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to join that circle and not disrupt the unanimity that the Committee has so fortunately achieved.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions on this group of amendments. Although I rarely seem to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I do so now in admiring the depth of aviation knowledge in this Committee today.
I will respond to the points that have been made and set out how the Bill enables progress on essential airspace reforms while maintaining the appropriate safeguards. I will start with Amendment 60, which was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. It will be convenient for me to address Amendments 61 and 62, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grayling and Lord Tunnicliffe, respectively, and to note the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bray of Coln.
I assure all of them that environmental assessments and consultation are, and will remain, a fundamental part of the airspace change process. Let me be clear at the outset that nothing in these powers removes or weakens the existing requirements for thorough consultation and robust assessment of environmental and noise impacts. The Bill will extend the Secretary of State’s existing powers under the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. It allows her, if needed, to require the implementation of an approved airspace change. For the avoidance of doubt, that means an airspace change proposal that has already been properly developed, consulted on and approved.
The powers introduced by the Bill do not circumvent the existing requirements built into the airspace change process, and any proposal must first go through the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 process. This requires the sponsor of an airspace change to undertake detailed assessments of the potential impacts of flight paths, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions. Sponsors must hold meaningful consultations on the proposals with affected communities and other stakeholders, including airspace users or groups representing them, and, where appropriate, with pilots and those who represent them. These assessments must be rigorously scrutinised by the Civil Aviation Authority before any proposal can be approved. Where a change is taken forward by the UK Airspace Design Service, it will work closely with airports, in line with the bespoke partnership agreements.
Lord Grayling (Con)
May I just ask a specific question? If we countenance the situation where, for example, a plan coming from Heathrow to amend the routes into that airport clash with the routes into Farnborough and it has been through extensive process and, effectively, there is a logjam where one says one thing and the other says another, my understanding is that the Government, using their direction power, can say, “Right, we vote for Farnborough, not Heathrow”, or vice versa. In that situation, where the Government say they are voting for Farnborough, is there still a duty to consult on that decision before it is implemented?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will take some advice and respond further. But I note in response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, that both proposals will have been consulted on and agreed, so it is not the case that consultation would not have applied to either of them. I will write to him with the precise answer to his very reasonable question and copy it to other noble Lords.
Amendment 63 is from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and he is right that information about airspace changes should be secure and transparent. I take the noble Lord’s point about the choice of technology. The Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 airspace change process is designed to ensure transparency throughout. There is already a legal requirement for directions related to airspace change to be published, as well as any steps the CAA takes to enforce them. In addition, both the sponsor of an airspace change and the CAA are required to publish relevant documentation throughout the process, which is held on the CAA’s airspace change portal—a secure platform which acts as a single source of truth. When an approved design is implemented, it is published in the UK Aeronautical Information Publication, as required by international law.
This is not an area where there is a lack of trust or accountability requiring a more complex or novel audit mechanism. The CAA operates within a well-established statutory framework with clear oversight and requirements for publication and traceability. Introducing a requirement to store this information in a prescriptive or novel format risks adding complexity without corresponding benefit, given that the core objectives of transparency, accessibility, and auditability are already being met. It would also apply irrespective of any identified gap, creating additional cost and rigidity on how information is managed, so I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Amendment 64 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, relates to a technical change arising from the proposed expansion of who can pay charges for air traffic services, which will ensure that the “user pays” principle can continue to be fairly applied in future. Air traffic services are provided for all users within a block of airspace. Even when an airspace user does not use a service directly, they may still benefit from it. For example, if two aircraft avoid a collision because one is directed away from the other, both benefit even though one did not directly receive the service.
It is right that the charging framework reflects this. The Bill does not say that charges may be imposed on persons who cannot use or benefit from them. We reassure noble Lords that charges are not set without safeguards and that the Bill maintains them. The Civil Aviation Authority accounts for factors such as efficiency and proportionality and follows an established process, including extensive engagement, statutory consultation and rights of appeal.
A requirement to prove the precise level of use or benefit for every airspace user would be disproportionate and unworkable, particularly as an increasing number of emerging uses, especially drones and other unmanned aircraft systems, are integrated into shared airspace and require air traffic services in future. That issue is what the existing provision is designed to avoid and what the changes in the Bill seek to maintain. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister says that the Bill does not say that you can be charged if you cannot use the service, but that is precisely what it says. It says that
“it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by, or actually benefit or could benefit, them”.
I do not think it is logically coherent, because they have to be available to them to qualify on the first limb of the clause.
It may well be that the noble Lord has the intention he expressed at the Dispatch Box. However, I ask him whether he considers this clause to be drafted to articulate that intention. As it stands, it seems internally self-contradictory. But if it is not internally self-contradictory and he can prove that it is not, I would still object to people being charged for services that they could not use or benefit from.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
In those circumstances, I will take away the noble Lord’s very detailed point and attempt to either explain why it does what I said, or alter it so that it does what I said.
Finally, I will address Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I also listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, on this subject. As experienced pilots themselves, they know better than most that general aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities.
Clause 6 seeks to provide the Civil Aviation Authority with greater flexibility as to who can be charged for air traffic services provided under a licence. This will ensure that, as the UK’s airspace evolves, the cost of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the user pays principle. I note the replication of the IATA view on this from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and I will take that away.
As noble Lords will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines as they are the main users of the relevant services. General aviation is largely exempt. The noble Lord is right that we do have in mind drone operations on operators and other unmanned aircraft. Ahead of any changes in future, the CAA has a statutory duty to consult on its proposals. Those whose interests are materially affected by its decision could appeal if they considered they had grounds to do so.
The CAA already has an obligation under the Transport Act 2000 to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, including in relation to the availability and cost of licensed air traffic services. This includes any that might be classed as general aviation to the extent that they are affected. Given this duty, the thorough and well-established processes for setting charges and the fact that there is currently no plan to create a new charge for general aviation users, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really interesting and informative group. I know that we have spent a bit of time of it, but it has been time well spent in understanding the Bill. Four key points have come up. There is the whole issue of the need for modernisation, and the fact that it can provide environmental as well as safety benefits, but also the sheer complexity of doing that. Obviously, the powers given to the Minister under Clause 4 and the need for guardrails have come up as well and, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, there is consensus in Committee on the concern around those issues. There is the need for consultation, where I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, put it really well; that needs to be meaningful. Finally, there is the issue of general inclusion and the Bill’s impacts on general aviation.
I am forever thankful to the Minister for his care and attention to these matters. We welcome his response on Amendments 60, 61 and 62. It is fair to say that we will reflect on his exact words and have a look at Hansard. These matters are complex and I welcome the words he has given. I am not certain, as I speak here, whether they will be enough or whether we will need to look at drafting a joint amendment on those matters. In any case, I am sure that we can have further conversations prior to Report on those issues.
I also note the Minister’s comments in relation to Amendment 63 and welcome the response from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about having the purpose rather than the technology as the vehicle. Again, we need to reflect on some of the Minister’s response around the risks. I note the reassurance that he gave about the CAA as a single source of truth and the systems already in play. With that, I beg to withdraw my amendment and thank noble Lords for the debate we have had.
Lord Berkeley
“Air ambulance operations: regulations(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of supporting the operation of air ambulance services in civil aviation.(2) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision about—(a) access to airport and aerodrome facilities;(b) access to airspace and air navigation services;(c) the treatment of air ambulance operations in aviation planning and operational decisions.(3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the CAA, air ambulance operators, airport operators and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations supporting the operation of air ambulance services in civil aviation.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to these amendments today. Before speaking to the individual amendments, I would like to reflect on how great it has been to hear so many comments about general aviation, which tends to get left out on occasions. All my amendments in this group apply primarily to general aviation.
Amendment 65B is designed to give encouragement and support to the air ambulance team, which does an enormous amount of good work not only in places such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly but all over the country—and not just over the sea.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 102A, also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who is unfortunately not able to be with us today. He was here for day one in Committee, and he wanted me to place on record his support for this amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has set out, the airfield advisory team is something that existed and has recently been disbanded. It would be helpful for the Minister to confirm that that is indeed the case, give the reasons for disbanding it, and say whether, in the light of the amendment, he would reconsider that decision. My understanding is that it was a useful forum for the CAA and the Department for Transport to engage with airfield operators to discuss relevant issues, and for them to communicate with those operators, but, perhaps more importantly, for airfield operators to feed back their concerns and ask questions of the regulator and the department.
Unless there was a very good reason for getting rid of it, having those forums for users of the services provided seems a very good thing. My understanding is that the airfield operators would very much welcome that advisory team being re-established. I would be pleased to hear what the Minister has to say.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in this group of amendments.
We are fortunate to have air ambulance services operating in the United Kingdom. It is important to stress that these are typically not government-provided services; they are supported by charitable organisations and others. When one needs the service, one needs it very much indeed—that is probably the best way of putting it. The speed of response, particularly in rural Devon where I live—the air ambulance is based in a field that I am very familiar with—means that it is a tremendous service. It is able to get around the county swiftly and provide much needed services for people who have been involved in serious road or agricultural accidents, have been carried out to sea, or whatever.
I was concerned to hear, as the noble Lord stated, that the industry had concerns about the rules and regulations and procedures under which they operate, and felt they could be enhanced. From my own anecdotal experience of hearing from the air ambulance service, I know it is always given priority, formally and informally, by other users and by ATCs. I am concerned and surprised that there are such problems, and I look forward to the Minister responding. On whether those requirements should be written into the Bill, I am not going to fall into the trap, much criticised earlier in our proceedings, of doing the Minister’s job for him. We will let him do some heavy lifting on that.
Similarly, on Amendment 102A, I am not familiar with the precise detail but it is clearly important that the CAA takes fully into account all the voices and interests of those with a great deal of expertise in small airport operation. Again, whether that needs to be written into the Bill or not is something that we can consider later. If the noble Lord succeeds in achieving his objective of easier access to the Scilly Isles, no doubt he will be carried shoulder-high by his fellow islanders.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, are worthy of support and raise some important points. I am grateful to him for bringing these important matters before the Committee and for his persistence on these issues.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought before the Committee some interesting and valuable amendments. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about them.
On EGNOS, I never quite understand why everyone wants to crawl back to Europe. The problem with that is that, every time you ask the Europeans for something, they want to exact a very large price, simply because they are still very cross with us for voting to restore our representative democracy in this country and for taking advantage of Brexit.
It is worth asking the Minister if he has discussed whether this service might be available, with a bit of expenditure, from Mr Elon Musk. As I understand it, Elon Musk is now in command of around two-thirds of the satellites going around the earth. I am sure that a man of such ingenuity and enterprise could easily develop a navigation system that depended on these satellites. Would that not be a sensible alternative? It might keep the Europeans on their toes, should we want to use their system, if they thought of taking advantage of us. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. There is a bigger world out there—it is not just Europe—and we should all take advantage of it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this grouping covers resilience, infrastructure and connectivity. I begin by addressing my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s Amendment 65B. I listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on this subject. The Government support the life-saving work of air ambulances and the department, alongside the Civil Aviation Authority, regularly engages with air ambulance charities to understand their unique needs. Air ambulances already operate under a special regime from the Civil Aviation Authority that allows them privileged access to airspace and ensures that they can land wherever they need to in order to carry out their life-saving work. If my noble friend or the operators have any concerns about how this is working, the Minister for Aviation in the other place would be more than happy to hear them and deal with them. I hope that reassures my noble friend that his amendment is not needed.
On my noble friend’s Amendment 65B, the Government recognise the importance of satellite navigation services to support operations in all weather conditions. As my noble friend notes from his observation of the Answer to a Written Question in the other place, the Government are actively reviewing the viability of these services, including our access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service, or EGNOS, and the output from that is expected later this year, as he said. I will not pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. I have not personally spoken to Elon Musk on this, or indeed any other subject, but I am sure that the Government are considering the full range of possibilities to do what EGNOS delivered in the past. I hope my noble friend understands that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that review.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his amendment relating to an airfield advisory team. The CAA carries out extensive engagement with aerodrome operators and values the insights and feedback that they provide, which play an important part in informing policy development in this area. At present, there is no clearly established rationale for creating a statutory panel for this group of stakeholders, particularly when similar arrangements are not in place for other stakeholder groups. Introducing such a panel could risk creating an imbalance by conferring a status on one group over others. But, having noted the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I will take the issue away and inquire further about this team and the reasons for its disbandment. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
I should add clarity to my comments in Committee on Tuesday, to which my noble friend referred. I said this in my speech:
“Requiring training would not be appropriate for all airfields”.—[Official Report, 16/6/26; col. GC 114.]
I then gave some different reasons, which my noble friend quoted, for why training might not be possible at some airports. It was certainly not intended to suggest that no airfields would be suitable for training, as that would be unacceptable. I hope that that makes things clear.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his answers, which I shall read carefully. I still think that it would be useful if we could have a quick meeting with him before the next stage, particularly to be told a bit more about what is happening on EGNOS and whether Mr Musk’s alternative is a sensible one. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grayling
“(a) allocating additional capacity created at an existing airport or a new airport where the affected air carriers have failed to reach a voluntary commercial agreement within a reasonable timeframe;(b) as to the circumstances in which, the terms on which and the procedure by which, slots may be transferred, exchanged or withdrawn where there is no agreement between the commercial parties about the slots;(c) determining the temporary reallocation or suspension of unused slots during a period of international crisis;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strictly limits the Secretary of State’s power to intervene in airport slot allocation to distinct scenarios: managing unused slots during international crises, handling entirely new airports, or distributing newly created capacity where commercial airlines fail to reach an agreement, thereby preventing broader state intervention in functioning commercial slot markets.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, we now move on to the slots regime. My two amendments in this group, Amendments 66 and 68, are designed to press the Government to understand what they are trying to achieve and where the limits to that are.
I had always expected that, when we left the European Union, we would be able to have a less regulated slots regime, particularly once we and the European Union had taken the view that we would not stay part of the EASA. Fundamentally, we are talking about a private sector market, with privately owned airports or airports owned by third-party bodies—such as the local authorities in Manchester—and independent airlines. So the question is this: what do the Government actually need to do? What is the role of the Government in this space? Should the Government be determining how many airlines fly to an airport, how many slots are available to it and the circumstances in which slots can transfer between one organisation and another?
It seems to me that there are three things that the Government should be doing. I see the role of the Government in this as referee rather than regulator. I am concerned that the content of the clauses that relate to the slots regime give the Government extraordinarily sweeping powers. If I have a slight regret, it is that I did not provide for the removal of new subsection (4), which says:
“The regulations may make different provision for different purposes”.
What on earth does that mean? The Government are taking on to their own shoulders blanket powers to manage the whole of the slots regime between a commercially run airport, a commercially owned airport and a commercially owned airline. To me, that feels like many steps too far.
What I have sought to do with these two amendments is, first, on the principal amendment, focus on the things that the Government need. The first is all about acting as arbiter and referee, where there is genuinely a problem. We are talking about our key airports here. Where there is genuinely a problem—a dispute that cannot be resolved—I understand that the Government may, for strategic reasons for the benefit of the United Kingdom, need to have put in place some form of arbitration mechanism. Proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) are designed to achieve that. It is topical because of the Iran war, as we have seen. We had the debate last week over the change to the slot regime resulting from that conflict and the need to take away from airlines the requirement to use a slot at a particular time. There may be circumstances in which, in a period of international crisis, the Government need to have a role in the slot regime.
I should also say that, on reflection—I look at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—I agree that there is an element, although we might not agree about the scale of it, of a need to make sure there is connectivity within the United Kingdom. In part, the market delivers that anyway. If you are a major international airline flying from Heathrow to another part of the world, you need the feeder flights to fill your planes. If you do not have flights from Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester, you are losing a whole chunk of your market—probably losing a whole chunk of it to Schiphol. It is not, therefore, necessary for the Government to take an absolute view about this. But in much the same way that the Government provide and subsidise key strategic routes within the United Kingdom that may not be economically viable but are socially necessary, I understand that there may be a case, in some circumstances, for making sure that a particular route and slot is available to the airline. Therefore, I am not sure I agree with the full detail of the noble Lord’s amendment, but I have some sympathy with what he is trying to achieve.
What we do not need to do—this is my fear about elements of the Bill—is try to micromanage the market that is the independent aviation sector. This part of the Bill feels like it is treading into that territory. I am looking for the Minister to provide some clear justifications for the steps being taken here. Particularly, Clause 68 is designed to address, effectively, a criminal provision within the slots regime. I do not quite understand that. Why on earth does there need to be a criminal context to the management of the slots regime? I understand that there can, on occasions, be a need for regulatory enforcement or enforcement in the civil courts—but the criminal courts? My amendment would take out that provision. Frankly, I would take some persuading by the Minister before we come to Report that we need a criminal provision in the management of slots at our key airports. That feels like a bridge that goes much too far.
I need to hear from the Minister an explanation for why all this is necessary: why the slots regime needs to be as all-encompassing as it is, and why the Bill comes up with extraordinary provisions of interference. I refer again to proposed new subsection (4). The Bill does much more than is necessary to provide a sensible framework simply for protecting the strategic interests of the United Kingdom. It amounts to interference, not strategy, and should take a step back from where it is.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I instinctively agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, has said but there are situations in extremis that could arise regarding access to hub airports, which is a critical—not only socially but economically—necessity. It has nothing to do with subsidy. There are some modest PSOs in operation. We had them when we were in the European Union. Cornwall was involved at one stage and had a subsidised air route. But that is not what I am getting at here. It is nothing to do with subsidy because all the main regional airports going to hub airports, primarily Heathrow, are perfectly economically viable. It is not a question of subsidy.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will primarily speak to my Amendment 73, which was suggested by IATA. I tabled it because I read it and thought it raised some important issues on which I want to test the Government’s thinking.
When I was Secretary of State, this process worked very smoothly and, as my noble friend Lord Grayling said, this is largely a commercial exercise. Slots have economic value. They are allocated independent of government and that usually works very well. There are circumstances, as the Minister set out at Second Reading, where there are challenges to how the system works because of outside circumstances. The Government then step in and make some changes which work in the interests of consumers and the industry.
It is also the case that the slot co-ordinator, Airport Coordination Limited, a private company, exercises a considerable amount of power and influence. At airports with a constrained supply of slots, that gives it significant economic power. At the moment, it does not have any regulatory oversight. It is effectively exercising what could be argued to be a quasi-regulatory function, but there is no formal oversight.
The amendment I have tabled is quite narrow but would bring the co-ordinator under the oversight of the CAA, which would give it the ability to scrutinise decisions and its governance. It would, importantly, preserve the independence of the UK slot co-ordinator, which is important and required by our international agreements. It would also introduce a proportionate independent mechanism to challenge decisions. At the moment, if anybody wants to challenge a decision, they have to go through a judicial review process, which is very costly, time-consuming and almost never happens. If you had CAA oversight, it would mean that either the airlines or the department could refer decisions to the CAA and have them looked at independently. It is important that the Government do not have the power to do that, but we should have some sort of process in place.
What I seek from the Minister is the Government’s view on whether the system works well at the moment. Do the Government believe the slot co-ordinator, effectively, has powers which should be better regulated or are they perfectly content with the system as currently set up? Do the Government think it need any changes? I thought the amendment was a useful way of testing the Government’s view. I was therefore very happy to table it and to make the case for it. I look forward to the Minister setting out the Government’s position when he responds to this group.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Harper. I intend to speak to Amendments 74 and 75 in my name. It would be only slightly reductive to say it is all about the slots. In many ways, this part of the Bill is the very heart of the industry.
To that end, it would seem to make sense, under Amendment 74, to have greater clarity and transparency for all those who should be involved, should be concerned and should have a role in this. They would have that clarity through such a system as set out in Amendment 74. Again, I accept the specificities around blockchain and DLT and would insert mid speech a criteria-based approach so that other technologies which could achieve this aim are equally beneficial to the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment 75 moves that on somewhat to test how much the Government would wish not to overly interfere with slot allocation but, where all things remained equal, they would want other provisions to be brought in. In Amendment 75, I cite the example of environmental concerns, but the principle would work equally well for regional connectivity being higher up the agenda or other issues the Government may wish to push through. As has been rightly set out by my noble friend Lord Grayling, this is largely a commercial matter and there is a market but, like all good markets, that does not mean there is no role for government in it.
It is clear that the Government need to get the right level for that role and not overstep, but it is critical because in many ways the essence of that element of the industry is all about the slots. I am interested to hear where the Minister believes that line should be drawn and whether there is potential to bring other factors to bear, which would fit very well with some of the Government’s other key objectives, such as environmental issues, growth, the nations and regions, and connectivity. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I should like to make a couple of observations on the amendments tabled by colleagues. First, it is clear that slots are a very complex and sophisticated trading system, the value of which, as my noble friend Lord Empey mentioned, will certainly be like the value of a company. I go back to the comment about European Union regulation. I was involved in the initial European Union regulation more than 20 years ago, and the revision about 10 years later. I can say with great certainty that even the European Commission did not have any involvement in the designation of slot use. That was completely a no-no, and that was absolutely right.
This brings me then to the possible role of the Secretary of State. Slot allocation is a neutral, independent activity, handled by the slot co-ordinator without due influence of government, airlines and airports, and long may that remain—if it ain’t broke, we do not need to fix it. My view is that Secretary of State should not be at liberty to decide on slot allocation outcomes, whether temporary, during periods of crisis, or during normal times. There is no evidence that our slot co-ordinators, certainly in the United Kingdom, have ever been unduly influenced and made the wrong decisions, so I think we should continue to have that confidence in their role. It is recognised both Europe-wide and more internationally, because Heathrow as a hub is an extremely important airport.
I would like to touch on a comment from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. His amendment talks about the environment and a possible link to an environmental allocation. I do not believe that is the right way forward at all. It is the wrong tool to ensure the sector’s sustainability targets can be met. In any event, the actual co-ordinators can already choose an air carrier due to their environmental credentials. However, this is not and should not be their primary decision.
I finally reflect on what we complied with in the United Kingdom, and still do, even though we are not members of the European Union. Regulation 598/2014 introduced noise-related operating restrictions at EU airports, which broadened that out to environment as well. It was called the balanced approach and repealed a directive from some years before.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this is a substantial group and I am grateful to noble Lords who have tabled amendments covering how slot allocation powers should be structured, constrained and scrutinised. It is a clear theme in many of the amendments before us. I thought the referee versus regulator point from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, was powerful in summing up a lot of this.
Before I turn to the amendments, I will remind the Committee of a thread that ran through Second Reading: the question of airport expansion and, in particular, whether the slots regime and the significant new powers that the Secretary of State is taking in relation to it could be used to facilitate or, in effect, predetermine expansion decisions. As your Lordships have heard, slots are capacity. Control over slot allocation is, in important respects, control over how airports can grow and who benefits from that growth. The Government may say that the expansion question is separate, but the mechanisms are not neatly separate, and I suspect that those questions will return on Report.
The regional connectivity concern raised in this group is one that many noble Lords feel strongly about. Hub airport access for regional routes is not just for commercial convenience. It is a question of whether communities and economies across the United Kingdom are connected nationally and then internationally.
Finally, on parliamentary procedure, the House has consistently held that significant regulatory powers should be subject to proper parliamentary oversight. I hope the Minister would not want to resist that principle here. I look forward to his response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly introduce my own amendments and then comment on others. I have Amendments 70, 71 and 72. Amendment 72 is consequential on Amendment 71 so, in effect, I have two amendments, and the first is to do with consultation.
I can see no requirement in the Bill for the Government to undertake any consultation prior to exercising the powers they seek under this legislation. We recently debated the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026, and the industry told us that the consultation on those was extremely short. That was partly to do with getting the regulations done before the powers gap closes or opens, but the consultation was extremely short.
The result of it, according to the Government’s own statement, was that the airlines supported what the Government were doing but the airports were adamantly opposed. They were opposed principally because, as my noble friend Lady Foster said, the slots allocator already has the powers to respond in emergencies; there is no need for this action to take place. I come back to the point about consultation. That was a good example of consultation done badly and not listened to. Here, we have no consultation promised at all. My amendment would require it.
My second amendment concerns the fact that statutory instruments will be used here. The significant ones will be done by the affirmative process, but there is an exemption for those that have temporary effect, which will be done by the negative process. This is a direct downgrading because the airport slots regulations we considered in Grand Committee only last week were temporary in their character; they last only for the coming summer and winter seasons. It is precisely that type of statutory instrument—that type of government action—that will now be moved to be taken under the negative process. This is definitely a downgrade of parliamentary scrutiny and my amendment would eliminate it. Amendment 72 is, as I say, consequential on that.
To come to the other contributions in this debate, it is fair to say that, between them, my noble friends Lord Grayling and Lady Foster of Oxton have driven an entire coach and horses through this section of the Bill. They ask the crucial question: what is the necessity for this? Not only that, but what is the benefit to the public of the Government intervening in something that is, in essence, first, a private market activity and, secondly, working perfectly well at the moment, with no reason to think that that is likely to change? Although I am sure that the Minister will want to defend these proposals when he gets to his feet, the tenor of debate in Committee is that they should be done away with wholesale. My amendments, which would simply require consultation and better processes, are inadequate to the task. When we come back on Report, we will have to challenge clearly why the Government are involved in this at all, with what purpose and to what effect—unless, of course, the Minister can satisfy us today.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, this group concerns the airport slots regime. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I will address each one in turn but first note two common points that apply across this group.
The UK slots regime depends on independent, fair, transparent and non-discriminatory allocation by the slot co-ordinator. It also operates within international frameworks, such as the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, the global standard for managing airport capacity at congested level 3 and capacity-constrained level 2 airports. The regime already recognises commercial expectations that require clarity, consistency and timely decision-making. Where I refer to independence, proportionality, flexibility or international alignment, these are the common justifications I have in mind. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that the processes in this Bill do not in themselves allow airport expansion; they are about the efficient allocation of capacity created by expansion, which is a different issue.
I begin with Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. I understand the concern that the Government should not interfere in a liberalised and well-functioning sector, and our policy intent is not to interfere in this. These provisions, however, largely replicate provisions previously available through EU legislation. All the Government are doing is replicating the powers we think we appropriately need to continue. I refer the noble Lord to paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.
Neither the Government nor airlines have a role in the day-to-day allocation of slots. As noble Lords have noted, that is undertaken by an independent slot co-ordinator who must allocate slots openly, fairly, transparently and without discrimination. The amendment would therefore not have the intended effect and would create uncertainty. The temporary reallocation or suspension of unused slots during an international crisis is already addressed by Clause 7. In our view, Amendment 66 is therefore unnecessary and duplicative.
I turn to Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which would require sufficient slots at hub airports such as Heathrow to be allocated to flights from UK regional airports. The Government recognise the importance of strong regional connectivity and effective access to hub airports for people and businesses across the United Kingdom.
However, I cannot support the amendment because requiring hub airports to prioritise domestic regional services over international routes could conflict with non-discrimination and fair competition obligations in the UK’s bilateral air services agreements. It could also require the reallocation of slots from incumbent operators that have historic rights where usage requirements are met, raising legal and practical issues. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
The next amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seeks to remove the ability to create regulations on enforcement of the slots regime through criminal and civil sanctions. Existing assimilated law already contains criminal and civil enforcement provisions, which the Government believe are necessary. Removing this power would freeze the current enforcement regime, meaning that even proportionate updates could be made only through further primary legislation. I do not believe that that is the noble Lord’s intention.
Lord Grayling (Con)
Can the Minister illustrate to me the kind of circumstance in which a criminal sanction is required?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will respond to the noble Lord after today.
Clause 7 already reduces the severity of sanctions by removing the possibility of imprisonment for breaches of slots regulations. Any exercise of the power to amend enforcement provisions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring scrutiny and debate in both Houses. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult airlines, airport operators and others before making any slots regulations under Clause 7. The Government recognise the importance of proper engagement and, where new policy is developed under this power, will carry out appropriate consultation, including with industry and, where relevant, communities. However, an inflexible statutory consultation duty would not be appropriate. The power may need to be used urgently in response to significant disruption, as was necessary during the pandemic. In those circumstances, government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 70.
I will take Amendments 71 and 72, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. They would require all regulations relating to slots to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, but the Bill already draws a proportionate distinction. The negative procedure is available only where there is a significant threat to public health, or another substantial reason, and only for temporary changes to slot-usage requirements. Requiring the affirmative procedure in every case could delay necessary action during disruption, where speed may be essential. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 71 and 72.
Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, would—
Lord Moylan (Con)
The point that the Minister makes about emergencies and so forth is not reflected in the text of the Bill, which says on page eight:
“Regulations are excluded regulations if the Secretary of State considers that their only substantive effect is temporarily to disapply or modify a requirement as to regularity of use of slots”.
That would cover the airport slots regulations that we debated last week. Those would move from being affirmative procedure SIs to negative procedure SIs. The additional stipulations that the Minister mentioned are not reflected in the clause that defines an excluded regulation.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that observation. I will of course take it away and consider what he has said.
Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, would place the slot co-ordinator under the oversight of the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand the intention to strengthen oversight, but the amendment would cut across a fundamental principle of the slots regime: that the co-ordinator must remain functionally and financially independent of all interested parties, including government. The noble Lord asked whether we are content with the current system, and we are. That principle is reflected in the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, which align these matters across all level 2 and level 3 airports across the globe and are essential to ensuring that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or Government. They protect new entrants and maintain confidence in the global system. Creating a statutory CAA oversight role would risk putting the UK at odds with established international practice and creating legal and operational uncertainty. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 73.
Lord Empey (UUP)
In the Minister’s response to my Amendment 67, he responded to a point that I had not made. I had not asked for domestic slots to replace international slots. Mine is a probing amendment, but it is a very simple proposition: in extremis, does the Secretary of State have the power to ensure regional connectivity, or does he not? It is not a complicated issue in essence, even though the operational issues are. He anticipated something that I had not actually proposed, and I assure him that on this issue, while I shall not move my amendment today, I do not intend to go away. Perhaps his team could engage with me before Report.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If I may, I shall respond to the noble Lord by saying that, if I have not understood his point clearly, I shall indeed go away and have a further discussion with him.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. Again, some important issues were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, makes an important point. In fact, when reflecting on my own amendment at the start, I thought that what he was saying might be an element missing from mine. I have a lot of sympathy with what he has said.
I want to be frank with the Minister. He knows that I have the highest regard for him; he knows that I regard him as knowing more about much of the transport system than anyone I know, so I do not direct this comment at him, but at the Government. I am really quite unimpressed by the Government’s inability to explain what are relatively simple things, or should be relatively simple, if they had thought this through properly, in the measures that they are taking in this Bill and those in the debate that we had last week over the slot regime. If the Government want to take powers or continue powers to enforce criminal sanctions, they should at least be able to say what kind of issues those criminal sanctions are designed to address, because I do not think that this is simply a replication of existing EU law—and were it so, I would be asking what we can we do less of, rather than more of, outside the European Union.
However, if the Government’s intention is purely to replicate what is there already, they do not need new Section 34A(4), which says:
“The regulations may make different provision for different purposes”.
What does that mean? What it does is create a blank cheque for the Government to expand their remit in the slots regime beyond where it is at the moment. They are also seeking, as I say, to continue with criminal sanctions. That does not feel to me like a Government who are trying to maintain a light touch in what the Minister rightly says is a commercial marketplace with established processes that are part of international agreements that go beyond the European Union. So some of this should not be necessary, and it should not be necessary to continue some of it on from what we had before. Where it is continuing, there needs to be a good explanation for it. I am sorry, but I do not think that the Minister has been able to give that good explanation. The Government need to do a better job on what should be pretty basic questions about what they are proposing.
I will of course seek to withdraw this amendment today, but I give notice to the Minister that these questions need to be answered properly before we get to Report, because I can see no justification for having what are clear Henry VIII powers in the slots regime. There is not even a provision for the affirmative resolution so, frankly, in six or 12 months’ time, another Minister—I am sure that it would not be this Minister—could simply come back and take a much more interventionist approach to the slots regime, which would be absolutely out of kilter with anything that we have done either inside or outside the European Union. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I will not leave this issue untouched when we come back on Report.
Baroness Pidgeon
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section that would have the effect of facilitating airport expansion unless the Secretary of State has first—(a) consulted persons likely to be affected by the proposed expansion, including communities in the vicinity of the airport,(b) undertaken an environmental impact assessment of the proposed expansion, and(c) undertaken a noise impact assessment of the proposed expansion.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations that facilitate airport expansion unless they have first consulted affected communities, completed an environmental impact assessment, and completed a noise impact assessment. It ensures that proper scrutiny and community engagement take place before any expansion can be progressed through secondary legislation.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment 105 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, to which I have added my name. Amendments 69 and 105 address what is, for me, the key issue with the Bill: whether the powers could be used to facilitate airport expansion and, if so, on what terms. Amendment 69 would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities, complete an environmental impact assessment and complete a noise impact assessment before making any regulations that facilitate expansion. Amendment 105 would go further by prohibiting the use of the powers in the Bill for that purpose altogether.
All the communities that are most directly affected by airport expansion—those living under flight paths, those experiencing noise, air quality and traffic impacts and those with a general disturbance from planes flying over them quite some distance from airports—have consistently found themselves presented with fait accompli decisions rather than meaningful consultation. Amendment 69 would, at a minimum, require such consultation, environmental assessment and noise assessment to precede any regulatory action that facilitates expansion. That is not a high bar; it is basic good governance. Although I heard what the Minister said to us in our debate on an earlier group, we believe that this amendment is very much needed, so that it is clearly spelled out.
Airport expansion, at Heathrow in particular, is one of the most contested infrastructure decisions that this country faces. It has planning implications, climate implications and profound implications for communities living under flight paths. Amendment 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, rightly asks for a published assessment of airspace slot and scheduling impact before any decision on a third runway. We think that he makes an important point.
The central question for the Minister is simple: can he give this Committee a clear, unambiguous assurance that nothing at all in the Bill could be used to facilitate airport expansion decisions that have not been subject to full environmental scrutiny, proper community consultation, which goes far further than the exercise we discussed earlier, and meaningful parliamentary oversight? I look forward to his answer with interest and I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 110 and make one or two comments on the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, spoke to. Amendment 69 seems perfectly sensible, requiring consultation and so forth. I have more of an issue with Amendment 105. If the processes to determine airport expansion have been complied with, it does not seem sensible to say, “As a result, you can’t use any of the powers in this Act to facilitate that properly taken and consulted-on decision”. While I do not have enormous objection to the noble Baroness’s first amendment, the second one goes a bit too far, so I am half agreeing with her, which is an improvement on where we were last time. I hope that she takes that in the spirit in which it is intended.
My remarks on my own amendment may appear a bit disjointed because I am going to slightly amend them in flight, as it were. Members of the Committee may or may not be aware that, while we have been debating this, the Secretary of State has published a Written Ministerial Statement on the aviation framework, which is specifically to do with Heathrow expansion. I thank the Minister for his courtesy in drawing to my attention, because I have tabled amendments on Heathrow, that the timing of the Written Statement would be during our debate today. I have been through the Statement, but it is quite extensive, so I have done it at speed and might ask things that are covered in it or in some of the attached documentation, which I have not had a chance to study. Given that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, talked about airport expansion, my amendment might give the Minister a helpful opportunity when he comes to wind up this group of amendments to perhaps set out for the Committee’s benefit one or two of the key points in the Secretary of State’s Written Statement, which I think will interest all noble Lords who are interested in aviation.
My amendment is drafted in such a way as to make sure that it is within scope of the Bill. The purpose of tabling it was to press the Government a bit on the choice that they made, which they set out last November and reiterated in the Written Statement today, to settle on the more expensive of the two options set out: the proposal by Heathrow Airport Ltd for a more ambitious, longer runway with a total price tag of £49 billion. Heathrow Airport has committed that that will be financed entirely privately. Obviously, there will need to be a regulatory funding mechanism for that, but I will not dwell on that now because I have some later amendments, in group 7, which I will touch on at that point, so as not to repeat myself.
I want to understand from the Minister whether the Government are satisfied—I presume that they are, given that they are proceeding in this direction, but I have not seen the underpinning rationale that supports the decision. When she made the decision, the Secretary of State said that the Government’s choice of the more expensive of the two options was “the most credible”, so I would like to understand the Government’s thinking about that.
The Minister and I worked together on HS2 when I was Secretary of State and he was chairman of Network Rail. He knows that infrastructure projects, albeit publicly financed ones, can end up costing rather more money than originally intended. I am worried that this project is now intended to be entirely privately financed. If that does not stick, the Government are very much committed—rightly, in my view—to expanding Heathrow, and I want to make sure that the taxpayer does not at some point end up being on the hook for very significant amounts of public money that they are not currently planning to spend.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lord, I shall speak to Amendment 114, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is unable to attend the Committee today. I will speak to both her amendments, this one and one in a later group. I am mindful of what the Companion says on these matters, so, just to be clear, these are my words and not hers.
This amendment seeks to insert a new clause imposing a climate duty on the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State. It would require the CAA, when exercising its functions under the Bill, to have regard to the target established by Section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, the carbon budgets established under the Act and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from civil aviation. It would also require the Secretary of State to have regard to emissions reductions when exercising powers under the Bill, to refrain from using those powers for the purposes of airport capacity expansion and to use them in pursuit of a strategy aimed at reducing airport capacity.
The case for the amendment is reasonably straightforward. Aviation is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise, but difficulty is not an argument for inaction. It is precisely because aviation is hard to abate that we need clear legislative direction now rather than later. Without it, the CAA risks operating in a policy vacuum, exercising its functions under this Bill, particularly new functions, with no statutory obligation to consider our national carbon budgets or our commitments under the Climate Change Act, specifically in relation to new powers. I argue that that is not a sustainable position; it warrants examination and perhaps further clarity. The duty the amendment would impose is well known and deliberately light-touch. To “have regard to” is not a command. It would not stand in the way of other duties that the CEA continues to have in carrying out its functions. It would simply require that, when those functions are exercised, it has one eye on the statutory climate framework that Parliament has already enacted.
It would be curious indeed if the Bill to modernise our regulatory aviation framework contained no reference whatever to our climate obligations. I should be transparent with the Committee that my Amendment 107 in a later group pursues similar goals in perhaps a slightly different way. I guess my motivations are similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
The CAA, particularly with its new powers, must be benchmarked against our national climate commitments. This and my future amendment both call for some form of reporting on that process. An annual account of the environmental efforts of the CAA’s functions and of its compliance with the climate duty is essential for meaningful future parliamentary scrutiny. Aviation’s contributions to emissions cannot be indefinitely treated as an afterthought in legislation. I hope the Minister recognises the constructive spirit in which the noble Baroness’s amendment is advanced, and I look forward to the Government’s response.
I turn briefly to Amendment 110, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper. I thank him for his half-support, or support for one of our amendments, which is gratefully received. We on these Benches are supportive of his amendment: it is sensible and modest in its proposition. He asked some interesting questions of the Minister on the revisions to the Airports National Policy Statement that have literally just come out, and I would be interested in hearing the answers. We could have completely opposing views on whether we need Heathrow expansion but both accept this amendment. The point is not whether we support expansion but how it is reported and properly assessed. There needs to be a proper framework for doing that, so we are supportive of that.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on the subject in general. I have long been an advocate for airport expansion, particularly at Heathrow. On that note, I support the Government taking this brave step. Having lived in south-west London and under the odd flight path from time to time, I recognise that there was an airport there long before me and before most people who live in the area. It was unfortunately most regrettable—I now intend to be quite party political—that the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats relied on objecting to every element of expansion at Heathrow, whether for new terminals or runways. Most people would agree that we should have had a third runway more than 30 years ago, when the cost would have been substantially less.
My final point is that, while I fully support the Government pushing ahead with expansion and a third runway, the decision on this particular project, at a cost of £49 billion, with disruption to areas around the M25 and elsewhere, is completely wrong. I see it ending up like some of the other massive infrastructure projects that we have had in rail. I do not believe this is the best way forward. There should be a rethink. Other projects would be less disruptive but have not been fully considered. As a general point, I fully support the Government’s ideals to expand but think that the initial decision is wrong at this time.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I note the publication, while the Committee has been sitting, of the revisions to the Airports National Policy Statement. Obviously, I have not read it, and I do not imagine that other Members have, apart from the Minister and his close associates.
It is worth saying that that this publication does not take us forward; it takes us back to 2018, when the Airports National Policy Statement was published. It was then taken through the courts. There were some ridiculous objections to it, but it got through the High Court. It fell on one particular objection only at the Court of Appeal, which turned, as I recall, on the question of the definition of the word “policy”—this is how great infrastructure projects proceed in this country. It eventually went to the Supreme Court, which took a different view on the definition of “policy” and finally approved the ANPS. By that stage, of course, it was totally out of date and Covid had intervened, so the work had to be started again by the department. The fruits of that work are what have been published today. As I say, I am not in a position to comment on it. We are back to where we were in 2018 and have made no progress in that period. We will see whether this new ANPS survives the sort of process that the previous one was subjected to and whether we will need a third ANPS a few years down the road.
In relation to these amendments, I unfortunately find myself not entirely able to agree with my Liberal Democrat colleagues on the two in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. It is not because of the intention, because that is of course important—there should be consultation, an environmental impact assessment and a noise impact assessment if Heathrow is to be expanded—but because I think those things will happen anyway without this amendment. Nor can I honestly say that I support Amendment 105. One cannot create powers for the Government in specific areas of aviation and then say that they cannot be used for one particular purpose within the field of aviation. That makes no sense so, sadly, I am slightly out of sympathy on those two.
I understand the comments about the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but, sadly, this time, I do not feel I can pursue that either. There are other amendments relating to the environment later on, not least one in the name of my noble friend Lord Harper, which raise some interesting questions.
I find myself very much in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Harper. I sympathise with his remarks about the financial consequences and financial circumstances relating to Heathrow expansion. Perhaps I can give a few figures that will help the Committee put this in some context, and then put a couple of questions to the Minister.
Heathrow is a private company and it is very difficult to know its market valuation, because its shares trade so rarely. There was a trade 13 or 14 years ago, which valued the company at approximately £14 billion. That was roughly the same as the value of the airport’s regulated asset base at the time. There was then a trade approximately two years ago—there was quite a reorganisation of shareholders approximately two years ago—and I understand that the valuation implicit in those trades was that the airport was now worth only £10 billion, roughly. Its value had fallen over that period. Meanwhile, its regulated asset base has gone up to in excess of £20 billion, so the shareholders bought a regulated asset base for half its price.
Of the capital structure of the company, there is a large amount of debt—in fact, more debt than there was some years ago. The amount of equity belonging to the shareholders in the company is therefore probably no more than £2 billion—let us say £3 billion to be generous. Now we hear of a company with £3 billion of shareholder commitment that wishes to embark upon a project costing, conservatively, £49 billion at current estimated prices. This is vaunting ambition at the very least. If it were purely a private company, it would be completely unfinanceable without a huge new infusion of shareholder capital, because no bank will lend £49 billion to a company that has only £3 billion of equity and already has several billion pounds of debt on top of that. It is simply an unfinanceable project.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this group concerns airport expansion capacity. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments.
I will address Amendments 69, 105, 110 and 114 in turn. Before doing so, I will make two points that apply across the group. First, as I made clear at Second Reading, the Bill is not a route to airport expansion. It does not grant planning consent, remove environmental safeguards or predetermine the outcome of any expansion proposal. Secondly, where airport expansion is proposed, the relevant issues, including noise, carbon emissions, air quality, economic benefits and local impacts, are considered through national policy statements and the development consent order processes, with consultation, assessment, scrutiny and independent examination. Those are the common justifications, which I will refer back to. Expansion decisions sit within the planning regime, while this Bill concerns aviation consumer protection and regulatory reform.
I turn first to Amendment 69 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation impact assessments before laying slot regulations that facilitate airport expansion. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are fully committed to meaningful consultation with communities and to thorough environmental and noise assessment before airport expansion proceeds. However, slot regulations do not grant planning for physical expansion, nor do they increase the legally permitted cap on aircraft movements. They determine how capacity at co-ordinated airports is allocated between airlines. The slots measure in the Bill would allow regulations to be updated if needed so that any capacity already approved through the planning process can be used effectively. Amendment 69 would therefore duplicate consultation and assessment processes that already take place before slot allocation becomes relevant, and for that reason I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
I turn next to Amendment 105, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. This amendment would prohibit the powers in the Bill being used for the purposes of airport expansion. The Bill and the question of airport expansion are distinct. The Bill is focused, as I said, on consumer protection reform of the aviation regulatory framework. The Government would take forward these measures, irrespective of any expansion decision. The Government support Heathrow expansion, but any decision on the third runway is subject to the national policy statement and the development consent order processes, both of which include consultation and scrutiny. Airspace modernisation is also needed, whether or not a third runway is proceeded with. Its purpose is to make UK airspace more efficient, resilient, quieter and cleaner, not to provide a shortcut to expansion. Similarly, slots regulation does not create airport capacity; it manages capacity after it has been approved through the planning process.
Amendment 105 would undermine the workability of the Bill’s regulatory framework. For example, it could prevent reforms to slot regulation where those reforms are needed to manage new capacity that has already been approved. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press it.
I turn next to Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on a third runway at Heathrow. The Government agree that decisions on airport expansion should be evidence-based and subject to transparency, consultation and scrutiny. However, Amendment 110 is not necessary to achieve that, because decisions on Heathrow expansion will be taken through the national policy statement and development consent order processes.
As noble Lords have noted, the department has today published the revised airports national policy statement, which has been renamed the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, to clarify that it applies only to Heathrow expansion and its associated infrastructure for consultation.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and others, I am not going to be in a position to respond to the detail of what has literally just been published, which I am sure he and others will understand. However, I have no doubt that the points he and others raise will be discussed both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. I have also heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but as I say, this is for discussion at another time.
I have also written today to all noble Lords with further details. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will accept that I am not going to answer his questions now, because the Written Statement was laid less than two hours ago.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Would the noble Lord be so good as to answer them by letter before we reach Report?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will certainly consider what I can say to the noble Lord before Report.
The Heathrow expansion national policy statement includes the full suite of appraisal and supporting analytical documents. Alongside the public consultation, that draft policy statement will be laid before Parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny by a nominated parliamentary Select Committee. Following the consultation, the Government will carefully consider all responses received, alongside the report of the parliamentary Select Committee, before deciding whether to designate an amended national policy statement. If the Government decide to proceed, the amended policy statement will be published and laid before Parliament, in accordance with the requirements set out in the Planning Act 2008, and be subject to a vote in the other place before it can take legal effect. Any development consent application for expansion at Heathrow must include detailed, project-specific assessments, including operational and system-wide impacts, and will be published and examined through the Planning Inspectorate process.
Not all the matters covered by Amendment 110 can be determined at a single point. Airspace design, in particular, is developed iteratively and requires sufficient certainty about an expansion scheme before it can be finalised, approved and implemented. Airspace change proposals are also subject to their own oversight processes, including detailed assessment and public consultation, and do not pre-empt planning decisions. It would not be appropriate to include requirements for a specific infrastructure project in this Bill, which is concerned, as I have said, with consumer protection and regulatory reform. Given the extensive information and scrutiny that will already apply to Heathrow expansion, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I agree that tackling climate change and reducing aviation emissions must remain central to aviation policy. However, I cannot accept this amendment. Elements of Amendment 114 would duplicate existing duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, but the provisions on airport capacity go significantly further. This Government support airport expansion where it is justified. The UK needs sufficient airport capacity to support economic growth, trade, freight and connectivity across the country. Proposals are, and will continue to be, assessed case by case against strict climate, environmental and economic tests.
Amendment 114 would prevent the Secretary of State using powers under the Bill to support any expansion of airport capacity and go further, by requiring a reduction in capacity. That would remove the Government’s ability to respond to real capacity constraints, even where a scheme could meet the rigorous tests I have described. This Bill is not the vehicle for making those determinations. I therefore ask for Amendment 114 not to be pressed.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. It has been an interesting debate, and I think that how noble Lords view these amendments and powers may reflect which side of the debate one sits on in terms of airport expansion. On these Benches, we are clear that we oppose expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick. I am grateful for the half support from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for our amendments, though we clearly have different views on Heathrow expansion. We will now need to reflect on the Minister’s words—and, of course, the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement that, as has been discussed, has been published while we have been sitting—ahead of Report in any amendments that we may wish to table then. But on that basis, I agree to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for CAA rules to be made by regulations by the Secretary of State.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have a lot of amendments in this group, but I assure noble Lords that a number of them are duplicative, because they seek to replace “document” with “guidance” wherever it appears in the clause. None the less, it will take me a moment to go through my amendments.
We are dealing here with the CAA’s rule-making powers. It is worth reminding noble Lords that the first part of the Bill is about consumer protection and the CAA’s role as the direct enforcer of consumer protection powers. This is a very different part of the Bill. It is about making rules. It gives the CAA huge, unprecedented powers to make rules, including ones that may have criminal penalties, and it does so with practically no supervision—certainly not by Parliament and, as far as I can make out, very little by the Minister either. That is what these amendments are intended to deal with.
The first one probes why it is necessary for the Civil Aviation Authority to have rule-making powers at all. Until recently, the rules it made emanated from the European Union; in fact, they often came through from the ICAO, trickling down in that fashion. But, for all their faults, regulations made by the European Union were not made in secret. One could see what was happening. We had, here in your Lordships’ House, a committee that reviewed regulations and statutory instruments relating to European Union legislation.
All these rules were made under air navigation orders, which are a form of statutory instrument—again, it is a parliamentary process. In future, neither will apply. There will be no scrutiny whatever. But, since these rules have been made by statutory instrument and similar in the past, a question arises: why should they not be made in that fashion in the future?
The Minister said—or I may have read this somewhere in some of the supporting documentation—that there is a backlog of 100 or so of these that have to be got through, and that using parliamentary time for this purpose is not appropriate. It is disturbing to think that there is a backlog, but that is not an excuse in itself. After all, we are all being made to sit here in Grand Committee for five hours rather than four, and for three hours on a Tuesday morning. There is no lack of parliamentary time for considering statutory instruments. We are all being held to the last, and we work very hard. There is no excuse that there is no room for them when the Chamber is full of debates on subjects such as tackling child poverty, rather than legislating, which is what it should be doing while we are in here. We will carry on in here; we will do the statutory instruments and put the time in, so there is no problem there.
At an earlier stage—I cannot remember whether it was on our first day in Committee or at Second Reading—the Minister said he had a trump card. He said that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee thought that it was appropriate for this regulator-led rule-making approach to be adopted. But he did not read the next sentence:
“Inherent in the proposition is that CAA made rules would be highly technical in nature”.
But this Bill does not limit the CAA to making rules that are highly technical in nature. It does not limit it simply to implementing ICAO powers.
In fact, this has caused concern to another committee of your Lordships’ House: the Constitution Committee. The chairman of that committee, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, has written to the Minister saying among other things that:
“This Bill strengthens the secondary law-making and rule-making powers of both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State”
and that this
“will, by the nature of negative parliamentary approval of secondary legislation, be subject to minimal parliamentary oversight. We are concerned that this will result in a scrutiny gap”.
We will wait to hear, but so far the Minister has had no answer to that.
So my first question is: why should we make such a dramatic change at all? Secondly, if there is going to be a rule-making power of this character, the Secretary of State should publish the underlying principles. It is not all given to the Secretary of State: it is for the Secretary of State, following the enactment of this Bill, to decide which rule-making powers are given over. There is no limit in the Bill on what those powers are. The second amendment, Amendment 77, would require at least a statement of principles, in advance of enactment of the Bill, as to what basis the Secretary of State is going to use for deciding which powers should be transferred over into this new process. Amendment 79 would require consultation by the Civil Aviation Authority when making rules. There is no requirement for consultation in the Bill.
Amendment 81 in my name probes why the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives statement is described as a “document” rather than “guidance”. As I said at Second Reading, this is the oddest part of the Bill. It says that the Secretary of State is allowed to issue a document that gives guidance to the CAA on what the Government’s priorities are in relation to rule-making. The word “document” is used and the word “guidance” is avoided. I fear that that is a deliberate choice. The word “guidance” has a legal weight to it; we understand what guidance is in relation to the action of public bodies and how they are bound to it, but we do not understand what obligation a public body has to pay attention to a document issued by the Secretary of State. Does it have the weight of guidance? What weight does it have? I am trying to replace it with the word “guidance” so that we have clarity.
Then we come down to this further point: the Bill prohibits the Secretary of State from issuing this “document”, which I would change to “guidance”, without the agreement of the Civil Aviation Authority. This is truly remarkable. I do not think that I have ever come across an example where a regulated body acting on behalf of the Secretary of State can refuse to accept the document or guidance that the Secretary of State is going to issue. I raised the point at Second Reading, and the Minister made no defence, although no doubt he is better prepared now—but what could it possibly be, and how could your Lordships possibly agree to such a thing?
There are other matters here. For example, on Amendment 98. The Bill states that the Civil Aviation Authority “may” publish a consolidated set of rules so that people can look at them. That is a good idea, but it would be a better idea if the Bill said that it “must” publish a set of consolidated rules. How could this be left to the discretion of the Civil Aviation Authority? Then the Bill has the cheek to say that anybody who is so impertinent as to ask for a printed copy of that set of rules can be charged a fee, with no limit placed on the fee or on how that might be used. My amendment would take away the fee.
This whole section gives new and unprecedented powers. There is no justification given for them and it is very difficult to understand why the Government would want to do this. I have respect for the Civil Aviation Authority because, as a safety regulator, it is of the highest quality. It is in the box of good regulators; there are bad regulators, but the CAA is not a bad regulator. I do not like to say something disobliging about the CAA, but it seems that this Bill has been written as an enormous power grab by the Civil Aviation Authority. It muscled its way into the digital markets Act in relation to consumer protection, and now it is taking over a whole swathe of rule-making powers. I just remind the Minister that, when we voted for Brexit, one thing we voted for was that rules should not be made by unelected bureaucrats. This Bill moves from a system where there is some scrutiny and understanding of the process and some parliamentary scrutiny of how these rules are made, to one where they are all being made by unelected bureaucrats, without supervision. It is a retrograde step, and not one that we should support. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 78 in this group. I shall only say a few words, and I suppose the very few words I could say are that, if we are to get new powers that may affect pilots, we wish to be consulted. In many ways, it is as simple as that. Hopefully, the Minister can give us a better feel for what this piece of legislation will be used for. I find myself almost agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. If we are to have powers where we are not clear what they will be used for and what their extent will be, there are two sensible outcomes: either you do not bother with the powers, or you have an appropriate set of checks and balances to make sure that the powers are sensible.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Moylan has done the Committee a service by bringing to our attention some of the conflicts within the Bill in terms of rule and regulation-making powers. I should add that I am a member of the Delegated Powers Committee. I have previously been a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, but I was not a member at the time that its report on this Bill was made, for reasons that I explained on Tuesday—I was not a Member of the House at the time.
This a highly complex subject and complex field, and it is very easy to get tangled up in it. Some of the principles that my noble friend has elucidated are extremely valid. The other point is that one perhaps needs to be careful what one wishes for, because I could see hundreds of very technical regulations—technical in the technological sense of the term—coming before your Lordships’ House for scrutiny. None the less, my noble friend has made the particular point around the Government choosing which regulatory process to utilise, and I think there are some real difficulties in that.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I shall speak to Amendment 96 in my name. It rehearses an issue that we discussed in Committee on Tuesday, but it is pertinent to this section. Essentially the point at issue is this: we have a Government who have stated that they have no desire to legislate or regulate cross-sector or cross-economy for artificial intelligence and that a domain-specific approach is preferred. I suggest that that is a suboptimal choice, but it is still a legitimate choice.
The difficulty is that every time we come to some such domain—this Bill is about aviation—the Bill is silent on AI. I appreciate that there are data protection provisions in other legislation, but that is but one specific element of artificial intelligence. I believe that when one considers the role and functions of the CAA and the positive role it could take when it comes to artificial intelligence, all the people who are subject to the CAA’s powers would greatly benefit from an AI aviation standard to deal with transparency, explainability and bias and to look to the systems that not only the CAA uses, may use or, indeed, it could be said, must use in the very near future and to AI systems that are already in use across the aviation sector.
A specific AI aviation standard could bring clarity and coherence across this industry, across the roles and powers that the CAA is responsible for and across actions. It is imperfect because it would be far better to have AI legislation and regulations that could be understood by the public, business and all of us wherever we happen to come across AI, because those flexible, agile regulations would be cross-domain, cross-sector and cross-economy, so they would deliver the clarity, consistency and coherence that you require whether you are an aviator, an investor, an innovator or a citizen. However, that is not the choice the Government have made, so I suggest it would be worth considering an AI aviation standard at least to deal with this domain. The issues go far beyond data protection, which is but one part, albeit an important part, of this, but AI is already impacting in this sector. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by recording my registered interest as the president of BALPA. I strongly echo the point made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the importance of engagement with the pilot community on many of the key issues in the Bill. I very much welcome the recognition that I have heard from just about everyone in the Room of the vital expertise that BALPA members can bring to the consultations required by both the Government and the CAA in key provisions in the Bill.
I will speak briefly to Amendments 89 and 95 in my name, which are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Amendment 89 seeks to remove the apparent veto given to the CAA over the document to be issued by the Secretary of State setting out their priorities and objectives for the exercise of the CAA’s rule-making functions; the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, touched on this point in his remarks. It seems a curious piece of drafting in this part of the Bill. The amendment also strongly emphasises the importance of consultations on these issues with organisations and persons with relevant interests and expertise who would be affected by the new or amended proposed rules; that will clearly include pilots.
Amendment 95 would require the Secretary of State not only to publish any directions issued to the CAA, as the Bill currently requires, but to lay any such directions before Parliament, thus allowing parliamentarians the opportunity to probe and scrutinise them. This would provide greater openness and transparency without being overly burdensome. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has conducted a forensic examination of many parts of the Bill, to which I am sure we will return at a later stage.
I shall commence by referring to Amendment 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I agree entirely with the substance and strength of it but I will apply the same remarks to it as I did to a previous amendment he tabled, in that it is not appropriate to specify a particular trade union when it does not necessarily have a monopoly—never mind now; who knows whether it would in future. However, the sentiment is right, and I support it.
I have tabled Amendment 118. Perhaps the Minister could write to me on it before Report. We have here a situation where the CAA is getting a lot of powers and, if I interpreted one part of the Bill correctly, is almost in a position to veto a decision made by the Secretary of State. I might have picked that up wrong, but it seems to be accruing an exceptional amount of power.
One issue—it is a health and safety issue, apart from anything else—is flight-time limitations. A number of years ago, there was a major change to the relevant European directives that apply here, but, of course, flight-time limitations apply not only to airlines that operate or are based in the United Kingdom but to airlines in other jurisdictions that carry UK passengers and use our airspace. That is important. There are international agreements but, with all the changes taking place around who is regulating this area, it would be most helpful if the Minister could write to me before Report clarifying what his department believes the situation to be. This is one of the most difficult issues to deal with because safety is vital. At the same time, there is competition between the desire to have the safest possible environment and airlines pressurising for the maximum amount of efficiency. There is an in-built tension there.
Circumstances arise, be they weather-related or incident-related, in which an airport has to close and crews overshoot their time. We understand the practicalities of flying, but I want clarity on who is setting the rules for the operation of flight crews of not only UK-based airlines but airlines that use UK airspace. Those of us who fly have an investment in ensuring that the right conditions apply. We know that fatigue is a regular cause of accidents and fatalities: it has been well documented in reports, and air crash investigations frequently come up with it as a major issue. So it is important to know precisely where we stand now, given that our rule-making regime is undergoing so many changes and the CAA is accruing so many powers. We had a European arrangement prior to our departure from the European Union. I would be grateful to ensure that we have clarity on who does what and who sets the regulations.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan in two of his amendments.
On Amendment 76, my noble friend made some very good points about making sure that we have a proper parliamentary process. From a combination of listening to him and looking at the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, I am not against his argument that very technical rule changes should be done by the CAA, but that distinction is not made in the Bill. Clearly, rules that have more impact than that should remain with Ministers—obviously, with the CAA advising them—so that they are made through parliamentary procedure and receive appropriate scrutiny in the House. If there is a backlog of non-technical ones, we can put processes in place, even for a limited period, to deal with it, if that is required. That has happened before: it happened when we were putting through the various changes that were required as a result of Brexit. Both Houses set up processes to deal with the one-off process of changing our legislation. It can be done.
What I want to hear from the Minister is: what powers do the Government intend to give to the CAA, and what powers do they intend to keep for themselves? How will they make a judgment on which powers to make rules it is appropriate for the CAA, which will have no parliamentary oversight, to have? Where Ministers will retain parallel powers, what will they be used for? As far as I can tell, that is not set out anywhere; it would be helpful if it were.
My final point is small but important. My noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 91 deals with the extraordinary idea that, when the Government are issuing guidance to the CAA, the CAA somehow has a veto over whether the Government can issue the guidance. That does not make any sense to me at all. It is clear that, although the CAA rightly has operational independence in its regulatory and safety responsibilities, the Secretary of State sets out its objectives—she did so as recently as 20 April—in the letter that she sends to the chair of the CAA. Ultimately, she has the ability to hire and fire members of the board.
So it is clear who is in charge here. It seems very odd that, with this drafting, the CAA will be able to stop the Government issuing the guidance. I do not understand why that is there. It might simply be a drafting error, in which case the Minister should bring forward an amendment on Report to deal with it. If not, he should give us a clear explanation of what it is there for; I genuinely do not understand it. My noble friend Lord Moylan has done us a service by spotting this and highlighting it to the Committee.
With that, I draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in due course.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 80 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Although this amendment sits in this group, there is considerable overlap with the amendments that I had on day one in Committee. This amendment would require the CAA to publish a disability impact assessment before implementing significant new regulations. The thought behind the amendment was to put disability rights higher up the priority list, while ensuring there is a better understanding of the needs of disabled people and that they receive both equal and equitable treatment. I am very interested in the Minister’s view on this amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this is a substantial group that touches on the constitutional and regulatory framework at the heart of the Bill. Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, would change the power in Section 61A(7) of the 1982 Act to the affirmative procedure, in line with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. This House takes those recommendations seriously and I am sure the Government do as well. When Parliament is being asked to delegate significant rule-making powers to the CAA, the least we should expect is meaningful parliamentary oversight of that delegation. I hope the Minister can support this.
Several of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in this group probe the curious decision to describe the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives as a document rather than guidance. He made some interesting points in that it has implications for the enforceability of the Bill. Amendment 83 asks that this document address connectivity between the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, which we strongly support.
Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, would require a disability impact assessment before significant new regulations and speaks to obligations that should be automatic—these are not optional. We should not have to say, in this day and age, that disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility deserve to have their needs considered systematically before regulations are made, not just retrofitted as an afterthought once a problem emerges. Yet the experience of disabled travellers tells a very different story. We have seen wheelchairs damaged or lost in transit, and passengers left on aircraft without explanation or assistance, long after others have disembarked. We have seen accessible services withdrawn or downgraded, with no prior assessment of the impact on those who depend on them. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect a culture in which the needs of disabled travellers are treated as a secondary consideration, rather than an absolute core service.
A disability impact assessment requirement before significant regulatory change would begin to change that culture. It would require the CAA to ask the right questions at the right time, to engage with disabled people and their representative organisations and to put on the record its assessment of how proposed rules will affect those with protected characteristics. This is not just a bureaucratic issue. It is the minimum standard we should expect of a modern regulator. We on these Benches strongly support the noble Baronesses in pressing this point, and we look forward to hearing a response from the Minister.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this group concerns Civil Aviation Authority rule-making. I begin with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would require aviation safety regulations to continue to be made by the Secretary of State, and on which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, also spoke. That would prevent the delegation of technical rule-making to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is a central purpose of the Bill. As I said at Second Reading, the current process risks the UK falling behind its international safety obligations. Delegating technical rule-making to that authority will allow the regime to keep pace with international standards and industry change, while retaining robust safeguards, ministerial oversight and parliamentary accountability. As I will say on a number of amendments in this group, the Bill is designed to create a quicker, more responsive regulator-led system, without removing proper democratic controls.
The words of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe at Second Reading strongly resonated with me then, as they do now, but I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee clearly recognised a case for such an approach. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the letter from the chair of the Constitution Committee, which as yet I have not seen but will obviously fully consider when I do. I will reply to it as soon as I can and take on board all those matters that need to be considered in the Bill before Report.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The argument is that these rules have to be made by the CAA because parliamentary scrutiny slows things down and there is a risk that we fall behind meeting our international obligations. That is the case for change, but how often in the past have we fallen behind our international obligations using the existing system?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will certainly consider what the noble Lord says and respond to him. I am sure that what I have said is correct, but I will produce an answer for him as soon as I can.
Amendment 102 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 77 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, respond to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations. Amendment 102 would move the relevant regulation-making power to the affirmative procedure, while Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to publish principles explaining how the power to prevent CAA rule-making in certain areas would be used.
I am grateful to both noble Lords for seeking to address the committee’s concern. The power is important because it helps to define the boundary between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State. We are considering these points carefully, and, as I said at the previous Committee hearing, I fully intend to return before Report. I strongly note the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Goshen, to be careful about what we wish for, given the possibly hundreds of technical amendments. On that basis, I hope the Committee notes that I will fully answer the points of the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and that noble Lords will not press those amendments at this stage.
My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe’s amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, would require the CAA to consult the British Airline Pilots Association. The Bill already requires the CAA to consult. The Secretary of State will expect it to consult appropriately with all relevant stakeholders, and the British Airline Pilots Association will of course be able to respond to consultations. However, a specific duty to consult that organisation in all cases would not be appropriate, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out, the British Airline Pilots Association is not the only trade union representing pilots, and pilots are not the only people affected by CAA rules. Nor would it be proportionate to require that trade union to be consulted on every rule, including matters unlikely to affect pilots. I hope that reassures my noble friend. I will, of course, be happy to meet him to discuss how consultation will work in practice.
The next amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would give the Secretary of State a power to direct the Civil Aviation Authority to consult specific persons. As with the previous amendment, I recognise the importance of appropriate consultation. However, new Section 61G, inserted by Clause 8, already enables the Secretary of State to direct the CAA in how it uses its rule-making functions, including by requiring consultation with specific parties. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the noble Lord not to press it.
Amendment 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would require the Civil Aviation Authority to prepare a disability impact assessment for significant rule changes. Accessibility is a priority for the Government, and we are committed to ensuring that anyone who wants to fly can do so without barriers. The Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to the public sector equality duty and must have due regard to equality impacts when making rules. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, remarked, that should be considered automatically where appropriate. It includes careful consideration of the impact on disabled people and people with reduced mobility. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment, but, as I said on Tuesday, I am considering the many powerful points raised about disabled travellers and what we can and should do further in this Bill.
I will deal next with the 10 amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would replace references to a document setting out the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives with references to guidance. As he notes, the distinction matters. This is not statutory guidance; it is intended to be an agreed administrative framework and work programme for the CAA’s functions. That approach allows Ministers to set clear expectations, maintain appropriate oversight and secure visibility of future rules, while respecting the CAA’s statutory independence. Labelling the document as guidance would weaken that intended effect. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press those amendments.
Amendment 83, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the Secretary of State to explain how the CAA’s new rule-making function supports regional connectivity. The Government fully recognise the importance of strong air connectivity across the United Kingdom. However, most technical safety rules will have no direct bearing on that policy. Those wider objectives are more properly addressed through aviation strategy and policy, rather than through technical safety and operational rules. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment.
I will speak to Amendments 89 and 91 together, as both concern the governance of the priorities and objectives document. Amendment 89, from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, would replace the requirement for agreement with the CAA with a broader duty to consult stakeholders. Amendment 91, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would similarly remove the CAA’s role in agreeing the document.
Here, I return to a common point in this group: the Bill seeks to create a streamlined, effective system with clear roles, while preserving regulatory independence. Replacing agreement with broad consultation would duplicate consultation that already takes place on individual rule changes and would slow the process. Removing agreement would also undermine the CAA’s ability to stand behind the programme it is asked to deliver. Agreement is not a veto; it ensures the programme is credible, deliverable and consistent with the Civil Aviation Authority’s statutory duties. If agreement cannot be reached, the Secretary of State retains existing powers, including the ability to make regulations directly. I will further explore the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on this. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press Amendments 89 and 91.
The next amendment, also from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, concerns parliamentary oversight of the priorities and objectives document. I recognise the importance of transparency. However, Ministers must retain clear backstop powers to direct or intervene quickly where appropriate. Where directions are issued, they will be published, and the Secretary of State will remain accountable, including through the Transport Select Committee. In that context, laying the document before Parliament may not add significant transparency. We will continue to reflect on the points raised but, meanwhile, I ask the noble Lord and my noble friend not to press the amendment.
I turn to Amendment 96 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on AI technical standards. Artificial intelligence and automation are already important to aviation safety, and automation has contributed significantly to the high levels of safety achieved over recent decades. The Civil Aviation Authority takes developments in AI seriously and has a developed AI strategy, which it will continue to review as technology evolves. The Civil Aviation Authority already scrutinises technology used in safety-critical systems, including AI, through expert, system-specific certification and oversight. A single framework for all AI use would not be workable, and mandatory human intervention in every decision could undermine safety by introducing avoidable human error. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I will take Amendments 97 and 98, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, together. They would require the Civil Aviation Authority to republish the entire rulebook whenever a new rule is made, or an existing rule is updated. The CAA rulebook runs to many thousands of provisions. Republishing it in full for even minor changes would be disproportionate, costly and time-consuming, and would frustrate the aim of an agile, consolidated rulebook. The Civil Aviation Authority will publish new rules and updates to existing rules in a timely way. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 97 and 98.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Can the Minister give a commitment that the Civil Aviation Authority will maintain an up-to-date rulebook on its website at all times? Any changes made could simply be inserted on the website. That is what I am asking for; I am not asking for a book. The amendment says “publish”; it does say “publish a book”. At the moment, the Bill does not require the CAA to do that; it specifically exempts it from doing so.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a reasonable point; I will take it away.
Amendments 99 and 100, also from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the Civil Aviation Authority to provide a free paper copy of the rulebook to anyone who asks. As I have just noted, the rulebook is extremely large, so requiring free paper copies would create a significant cost and administrative burden and, frankly, could be open to abuse. It is right that the CAA may charge for that expense, while ensuring that rules remain available to view for free on its website. I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 99 and 100.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for Amendment 101. The provision he seeks to remove is needed to ensure that the transition to CAA-led rule-making works coherently, including by enabling necessary consequential changes to existing legislation and enforcement provisions. Without it, gaps could arise that would require further primary legislation, which would not be proportionate or efficient. This is not an unfettered power. It is limited to what the Secretary of State considers necessary to facilitate or give effect to CAA rules, and it is subject to parliamentary procedure—affirmative where it amends primary legislation and negative in other cases. That provides proper oversight while allowing the new regime to operate effectively. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 101.
Finally, Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, concerns flight time limitations. The CAA is responsible for ensuring that operators comply with those regulations. It already has powers to audit and enforce compliance, and is currently reviewing flight time limitations and enforcement. That review will be published later this year and will inform the CAA’s future approach. I will write to the noble Lord on the points he raised. I hope that that reassures him, and I ask him not to press Amendment 118.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I note and am grateful for the assurance from the Minister that he will return on Report with an amendment—or amendments—that will address the points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and I will study that carefully, to see whether it will allow us not to press our own amendments. Beyond that, I am afraid to say that the Minister has, I think, disappointed the Committee with his response.
I will briefly comment on the relationship between the Secretary of State and the CAA. In normal circumstances—we might take Great British Railways as an example, as it is being created at the moment—we expect the Secretary of State to issue a document setting out the Government’s priorities and to impose them on the body being regulated. However, in this case, the Minister seems to envisage a partnership arrangement—a contract of some sort—between the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, in which the CAA can say, “No, we don’t accept that part of the contract. We want something else”.
That seems to be unprecedented, although it is possible that the Minister can find precedence for it elsewhere in the regulatory environment in which we exist. It seems unprecedented, but it also seems to requires its own supervisory structure. In the end, if the Civil Aviation Authority can decide what it is willing to do, and the Secretary of State does not have the power to issue guidance requiring it to do those things, then we have created a monster that is totally outside of our control. I hear the Minister’s justification, but, as far as I understand it, it seems to raise more questions than it answers. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Harper
“(g) set out how the CAA will have regard to the seventh carbon budget in exercising its functions under this Act, including any implications for aviation demand and consumer access to air travel.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes whether the CAA will be required to have regard to the seventh carbon budget in exercising its functions and what that would mean for aviation demand and consumer access to air travel.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, let me explain what the amendment would do and the rationale for why I have tabled it. It goes back to the famous document of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that will be issued and seeks to add one thing to the list set out in the Bill: for the Secretary of State to set out to the CAA how it will have regard to the seventh carbon budget in exercising its functions, specifically
“any implications for aviation demand and consumer access to air travel”.
The amendment’s purpose, if I am being frank, was to make sure we could discuss this issue, because it is important and connected. A number of noble Lords have talked about the environmental impact of aviation.
Before I get on to my specific questions about the seventh carbon budget, I want to put this in a little context to make sure—although no one in this Committee would do so—that no one outside misrepresents me. I am a strong supporter of decarbonising aviation. I chaired the Jet Zero Council when I was Secretary of State, working with government, industry, airlines, airports, manufacturers, suppliers of fuel, academia and representatives of the Climate Change Committee looking at how we develop technology to ensure that we can continue flying but in a way that has less impact on the environment. As I said in our debate on the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, I had the great pleasure of being on the VS100 Virgin flight to the US, which was the first flight that had 100% sustainable aviation fuel, showing that it was technically possible to deliver that with a significant reduction, in the order of 70% to 80%, in emissions. I am a strong supporter of decarbonising aviation.
I want to flag, though, the real challenge for government and the question of who makes these trade-off decisions. The current position, which I was operating under when I was Secretary of State and which the current Government have no plans to change, is this: with the net-zero target due to be hit in 2050 in statute, and the Climate Change Committee making its reports on carbon budgets, which the Government accept—Parliament will have the chance to vote on the seventh carbon budget shortly—there is a hard stop for the impact of carbon emissions. A clear path is set out by the Government for the technologies that will be needed to make sure we can decarbonise aviation and those are explained by the Climate Change Committee. But what happens if those technologies do not proceed at the pace that we hope and expect they do?
I am a strong supporter of ordinary people being able to continue to fly. The danger, which I will come on to in a minute, is that, if the technology does not go fast enough and the legislative position remains unchanged, the Government will be forced to use what is euphemistically called demand management—that means jacking up the price of flying so that ordinary people cannot fly any more. Wealthy people will continue to be able to do so because they will be able to afford it, but ordinary people will no longer be able to take their reasonably priced holidays and businesspeople will not be able to fly for essential economic activity. Those sorts of trade-off decisions should be made by Ministers, who are democratically accountable, rather than, as would actually happen, judges, when people judicially review decisions and so they would be made in the courts. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I want to test where the Government’s thinking is on that.
The Committee will be aware that the Climate Change Committee published the Seventh Carbon Budget, which covers the period from 2038 to 2042, on 26 February 2025, which, coincidentally, was my birthday, for completely random reasons. The committee recommended carbon budget 7 and the Government are required to legislate for it by the end of this month. The Climate Change Committee supports the various technologies that are needed to decarbonise aviation; it specifically sets out in the budget that the primary tool in that timeframe is sustainable aviation fuel. A number of Members of this Committee were also involved in the debates on that, so I will not rehearse this at length. There are also other technologies such as the development of hydrogen-powered aircraft for smaller and shorter-haul flights and battery-electric planes. There will also be the necessity, which the Climate Change Committee sets out, to do direct capture of carbon from the atmosphere and then store it. That is how you reach net zero.
The problem is, as I said, that the Government’s current view—it is the view I took when I was Secretary of State and I do not disagree with the Government at the moment—is that the technology the industry is developing will get us on a path to hitting the targets and all will be well and good. But there is risk involved in this process. My view is that Ministers should make the judgments about risk and should balance those things. That is why, while being a very strong supporter of decarbonising aviation, I support the position my party has reached that we should not legislate the net-zero target. If you do that, these decisions—I think my noble friend Lord Moylan talked about the judicial challenge to the Airports National Policy Statement—get challenged and end up being made by judges, not democratically elected and accountable Ministers. In the end, because Ministers are democratically elected, decisions are made by voters.
Given that we are in a position where this is in law, I just want to test the Government’s view. It is set out very clearly in the Explanatory Notes to this Bill, the Minister has said on a number of occasions and it is in the policy statement published today, that the Government support the aviation sector and understand how important it is to economic growth. On a number of occasions, Ministers have made it very clear, rightly, that they support people being able to fly to see family and friends around the world and take holidays, and all those sorts of things, and business. We talked on day 1 of this Committee about the real importance of UK trade and the amount of valuable cargo that is shipped by air, which is particularly important for an island nation such as the United Kingdom.
There are trade-offs here. If the net-zero line is legislated for, it becomes the most important thing, as opposed to one of the things you have to balance. I just want to test Ministers and listen to what they have to say. If the technology does not move quite as quickly as we would hope, are the Government planning to use the demand management measures? To be clear, those are taxes and charges that make aviation more expensive. Are they proposing to give the CAA direction in its regulatory decisions? For example, the CAA has a number of airports that have regulated asset bases and are allowed to pass on a certain amount of charges to consumers. I would not want to see the CAA making aviation and flying more expensive to reduce demand because, inevitably, that would mean that the burden would fall on people who are less well-off, and I do not think that would be reasonable.
I just want to hear from the Minister, when he responds to my amendment and the other amendments in the group, which are obviously on the same theme of the environmental impact on aviation, about where the Government think that these lines should be drawn, given that the Government say that their number one priority is economic growth. If they start slamming the brakes on aviation, they are not going to deliver economic growth and that is not really their number one priority. That is what I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister when he winds up. I beg to move.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I meant to stand up at the start of the group, but the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was a little too quick on his feet. I just want to point out that we now have bang on an hour to finish the remaining groups, which I think that we can achieve, if we have concision in our remarks. That would be very helpful.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I note the comment just made. I welcome the probing amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper. That is useful in the Bill, so I thank him for that.
I will speak to my Amendments 106 and 107. Together, they seek to form a coherent case for environmental accountability in the regulation of civil aviation. Amendment 106 asks the Secretary of State within 12 months of the Act passing to lay before Parliament a report assessing its impact on passenger information, on low-carbon travel choices and on emissions from civil aviation. The Bill contains important consumer protection measures, but a consumer framework is only as good as the information that it generates and the behaviour that it manages to change. The amendment asks a simple question: once the Act is on the statute book, how is it actually working?
My amendment calls for a report, which must address four things. First, it must address whether consumers are receiving clear and consistent information about the carbon emissions associated with their flights. Currently, there is no standard for presenting that, and the report would help to establish whether the Act drives progress. Secondly, it must address whether consumers are genuinely comparing aviation and rail options at the point of decision. At present, they largely cannot and booking platforms are entirely siloed. The integrated comparison of journey time door to door, total price and carbon footprint and the whole booking simplicity just barely exist for people who want to be able to do that. For short-haul routes, where rail is a credible alternative, this is a serious market failure. Thirdly, and relatedly, it must address whether consumer awareness of lower-carbon alternatives to short-haul flights has improved. Evidence from France and Sweden shows that better information helps to shift consumer behaviour. Fourthly, it must address the overall emissions trajectory of civil aviation, which, as we know, is one of the most difficult to decarbonise. Demand management, through better information, has an unavoidable role to play while sustainable aviation fuels and zero-emissions flight technology continue to mature.
The amendment would also require consultation with aviation, rail and consumer representatives. It would require the report to include recommendations, not merely descriptions. If the Act is working, the report will say so. If not, Parliament will have the information that it needs to act.
Amendment 107 addresses a related but distinct gap: the absence of any statutory environmental duty on the Civil Aviation Authority itself, particularly in relation to the new powers in the Bill. The duty that I am seeking is deliberately light touch. The amendment says that the CAA “must have regard to”. It does not override safety, does not prescribe outcomes and leaves the CAA to weigh its environmental responsibilities against its other functions. It would simply require those commitments to be present when decisions are made.
Three specific matters in subsection (2) are carefully drawn out: reducing greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts; supporting biodiversity and natural environment, consistent with the framework in the Environment Act 2021; and improving resilience in the aviation sector to the physical effects of our warming and changing climate. This would be in the form of an annual report, which would also be published to Parliament. It might be that the amendment is clunky and not acceptable because of how I have drafted it. I am more than happy to work with the Minister between now and Report. If there is a form of wording that could capture some of this in a better way, I am more than happy to discuss it.
Finally, I will speak to Amendment 115 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. This amendment is straightforward in its purpose. It seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations by statutory instrument to reduce carbon emissions from private aviation. These regulations could impose restrictions on private aircraft operations, impose changes on private aircraft movements, prohibit specific categories of movements and make different provisions for different classes of aircraft. This instrument would be subject to the negative procedure.
We have not talked about private aviation yet, but it is important. There is a compelling case here. Private jet movements in the United Kingdom have grown by over 40% since 2020. The carbon emissions per passenger of a private jet are on average five to 14 times higher than those of a commercial flight, yet private aviation sits entirely outside the consumer and environmental framework that this Bill seeks to create. That is a significant gap. The vast majority of private aviation growth is coming from short-haul flights and private aviation is a big part of that. It is in precisely these segments where we have the strongest leverage to change consumer action.
We cannot meet our obligations under the Climate Change Act, as have heard, without using some of those levers. Short-haul flights and private aviation are two of the matters that we need to move the dial on. On these Benches, we have considerable sympathy for the principles contained in this amendment and I welcome the challenge. However, I am not fully supportive of the drafting. The powers in subsection (2) of the new clause are substantial. They are broad, restrictive changes prohibiting entire categories of movements, yet subsection (3) subjects them only to the negative procedure. For powers of this reach, the affirmative procedure would provide more appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We would welcome a clearer policy framework sitting behind the regulation-making powers, rather than leaving it entirely to ministerial direction.
To conclude, I hope that the Minister can tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of private aviation emissions and whether a levy, perhaps proportionally hypothecated towards sustainable aviation, has been considered alongside perhaps a restrictions-based approach. How do the Government plan to regulate that sector, considering that it is not mentioned in the Bill?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments focuses rightly on the environment and climate impacts. My noble friend Lord Russell has set out clearly Amendments 106 and 107. They are modest, sensible asks and the Government should not find them difficult to accept, given that the aviation sector accounts for a significant and growing share of UK emissions and that it is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise. We strongly support my noble friend’s amendments and look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address this gap.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, between them, my noble friend Lord Harper and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have drawn attention to the unreality of this debate. Everything in this Committee and everything to do with this Bill is about growth—economic growth, building new airports, having a new runway at Heathrow and so on. However, elsewhere there are, as I mentioned, government policies and statutory commitments that are undeliverable unless that growth is restricted. It is a great advantage to the Committee that the two noble Lords between them have drawn attention to that.
My Amendment 111 asks for a review of the cost of sustainable aviation fuel and takes us back to the issue that we discussed when the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act was before your Lordships’ House.
Ministers have said that SAF costs are subject to fluctuation but are currently based on costs of £3.30 per litre for conventional SAF and approximately £4 per litre for power-to-liquid fuel. They have also set out estimated RAF market costs rising from £16.5 million in 2025 to £187 million by 2040 as a result of SAF. That has been reported as the RAF spending more than £1 billion over 15 years on switching to sustainable jet fuel. Wider commentary has suggested that sustainable aviation fuel can cost up to eight times as much as conventional jet fuel.
It matters because, as we know, the mandate requires an ever-increasing amount of SAF to be used by the commercial aviation sector. For passengers, it will mean higher fares, and therefore less demand. For airlines, it may mean higher operating costs, but also weaker competitiveness and a reduction in aviation activity. If the demand is falling, the number of planes in the air will be fewer, the number of destinations served will be fewer and the amount of regional connectivity that we can look forward to will be less.
If the Government are imposing this policy, they should be prepared to assess openly what it means for airfares, airline costs, public expenditure and national security for the UK. My amendment calls for the Government to make that assessment within two years—plenty of time—of the passing of the Bill and to publish it. It is the least they can do.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this group concerns environment and climate impacts. I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments. I will address each in turn, but first I will make two common points that apply across the group. The Government recognise the need to reduce aviation emissions and to ensure that environmental impacts are properly considered. At the same time, many of the amendments would duplicate existing statutory duties, reporting arrangements or wider decarbonisation policies. Where I refer to duplication, proportionality or the need to treat aviation as a whole sector, these are the common justifications I have in mind.
I begin with Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harper. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how the CAA should consider the seventh carbon budget when exercising the new powers in the Bill. I agree that aviation’s climate impacts must be properly considered, but the CAA already has statutory responsibilities in this area, including a legal duty independently to monitor, assess and report on the environmental protection performance of the UK civil aviation sector through the UK Aviation Environmental Review. Domestic aviation emissions have been within legally binding carbon budgets since the first carbon budget, and the Government have laid legislation to include international aviation emissions from the sixth carbon budget, beginning in 2033.
The Government are also supporting greener aviation through the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act, airspace modernisation and funding for low and zero-emission aircraft technologies. Most safety and operational rules are technical and have limited environmental impact. Where environmental effects are relevant, the CAA will consider them as part of rule-making. A blanket requirement would be disproportionate, add red tape and risk slowing the benefits of delegated rule-making. However, I hear the noble Lord’s question about a political decision on whether demand management might be required. This Government support the ability of ordinary people to fly, so I will consider this point further. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 84.
Amendment 106, on supporting low-carbon travel choices, was tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The Government agree that passengers should have clear information and that aviation policy should support environmental objectives. However, a further statutory review is unnecessary. The Civil Aviation Act 2012 already requires the Civil Aviation Authority to publish information and advice on the environmental effects of civil aviation, including measures to reduce, control or mitigate adverse effects. This is again through the annual UK Aviation Environmental Review. The CAA also works to improve consumer information so that passengers can make informed choices. The Government keep aviation policy impacts under review, informed by CAA reporting and wider climate work. I am afraid that Amendment 106 would add process without improving the evidence base, so I ask the noble Earl not to press it.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am mindful of the Whip’s injunctions on timing. Just very briefly then, before I seek leave to withdraw my amendment, my objective was to probe the Government’s policy, and particularly to make sure that aviation remains affordable for ordinary people to be able to use and that its cost does not rise significantly. Given that the Minister has given me a clear commitment to write to me on that specific point or those related points, I am content to seek leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Harper
“Assessment of impact of business rates revaluation on airport services and consumer protection(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the 2026 business rates revaluation on the provision and regulation of airport services and consumer protection measures.(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of the revaluation on—(a) the cost, quality and resilience of airport services provided to passengers and other users,(b) airports’ ability to meet consumer protection obligations and service standards,(c) airport investment in facilities and infrastructure used for the provision of airport services to consumers,(d) airport expansion and infrastructure development in order to meet regulatory requirements,(e) the financial sustainability of airports and the effects of that on consumers,(e) regional air connectivity, and(f) the regulatory stability of the airport sector.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the assessment before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the 2026 business rates revaluation on the provision and regulation of airport services and consumer protection, including its effect on passenger outcomes, service standards, investment, infrastructure, financial sustainability, regional connectivity and regulatory stability.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 108 in my name, I will also speak to Amendments 116 and 117, also in this group. I am afraid it is my group, I suppose. This seems an appropriate moment, given that it is about economic impacts and competition, to remind the Minister that when on Tuesday my noble friend Lord Moylan and I referred to the Government’s commitment to reduce the administrative burdens on business by 25% during this Parliament, he said he could not furnish us with the details immediately but confirmed that he would come back to us today with whatever information he was able to lay his hands on. Since this is effectively an economic-related matter, I thought I would mention that at the beginning of my remarks, and I hope that when he winds up he can give us what he was able to find. If he was not able to pull it all together comprehensively, if there is more to come, I am sure my noble friend Lord Moylan and I will be content for him to write to us with that further information. I wanted to give the Minister a bit of notice rather than springing it on him at the end.
Amendment 108 is distinct and Amendments 116 and 117 are effectively linked. I will deal with Amendment 108 first. If noble Lords are wondering why I have raised it, it is because part of the Long Title of the Bill is to:
“Make provision for the protection of purchasers and users of air transport and airport services”.
One of those protections is obviously to look at the cost of those services and what services people get. One of the things that is going to drive up the cost of those services is the 2026 business rates revaluation, which has had a particularly significant impact on our airports. Rateable values will increase more than sixfold at some regional airports. To be fair, the Government have put in place transitional relief, but all transitional relief does is delay things. Most airports are going to see their rate bills more than double in the next three years. I do not want to spend too long talking about rates in general, but they are a particularly bad tax because they are not linked to the profitability of a business. They are not like corporation tax, where you pay only if you make a profit. They are a cost that hits your business above the line. Given that the aviation sector in general is not a high-margin business, it is inevitable that the cost of that business rates revaluation is inevitably going to flow through to the customers of airports—that is, the airlines—and they will inevitably have to pass that cost on to consumers.
From the figures that I have managed to lay my fingers on, for example, Manchester Airport is going to see an extra £4.2 million per annum on its business rates bill. That is a significant percentage increase, going up to £18 million. Bristol Airport is going to see an increase of just over £1 million, taking its bill to just over £5 million. Those organisations have explained the consequences. Manchester Airports Group, for example, has said:
“Airports were already some of the highest rates-payers in the country and were prepared to pay significantly more. But increases of more than 100% mean we have to look again at our plans to invest more than £2bn in our airports across the UK over the next five years. It is inevitable air travel will become more expensive”.
I draw attention to that because the Government’s position is that aviation and airport expansion are an essential part of driving economic growth, and they keep telling us that economic growth is their number one priority. It seems to me that having a significant increase in your business rates bill of more than 100% over the next three years in a sector where margins are quite tight is inevitably going to increase the price to consumers, business travellers and those shipping cargo in a way that is not going to drive economic growth but do the opposite.
The purpose of my new clause is to say that the Secretary of State, within three months of the day that this Bill is passed, should publish an assessment—that is all; we are not telling her to change the taxes—of the impact of that business rates revaluation on the provision and regulation of airport services and specifically to look at the cost, the ability of airports to meet their obligations, the investment that airports have available to invest in the facilities and infrastructure, their ability to expand the financial sustainability of airports, the effect on consumers and, an important issue that has come up in this Committee before, regional air connectivity.
All the amendment does is ask the Government to assess the impact of that business rates revaluation on this sector. That seems to me to be a reasonable request. It would also have the benefit that if the amendment were accepted and that assessment was done by the Secretary of State for Transport and it showed that the business rates revaluation had a negative impact on the sector, it would give the Secretary of State the evidence base that she could use to have a good conversation with the Chancellor about changes that might be needed to reduce the burden on the sector. There seems to be no downside to producing that information. It might be a useful tool for the Secretary of State and provide some transparency for business.
The second two amendments that I have tabled, Amendments 116 and 117, are related to the conversations we had earlier about the role of the CAA and the cost of flying. The first is about adding to the CAA’s duties when it is exercising its economic regulation functions. It should have a primary duty to promote effective competition in airport operations, services and infrastructure where that competition can deliver benefits to passengers, airlines and operators. The CAA’s objectives are set out in the letter that the Secretary of State sends to the chair of the CAA. The six priorities for 2026-27 in the letter sent by the Secretary of State to the chair of the CAA on 20 April are growth and innovation, economic regulation, airspace modernisation, decarbonisation, modernising its consumer focus and efficiency, effectiveness and resilience.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I wholly support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Harper. I keep coming back—I must—to the absolutely cruel imposition of increased business rates on airports. They are a smash and grab of deliberate design; they can have no effect other than to make aviation less accessible to ordinary people, despite what the Minister has just said is the Government’s policy. Equally, if the CAA is to have these very substantial new powers, it is reasonable to ask why it should not also have a clear duty to promote competition. For that reason, I strongly support the amendments in this group.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank your Lordships for the debate on this group regarding economic impacts and competition, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, in particular for his amendments. I turn first to his amendment on the impact of business rates revaluation. At the Budget, the Valuation Office Agency announced updated property values from the 2026 revaluation. This revaluation is the first since the pandemic to result in significant increases in rateable value for some property, which includes some airports. The Government recognise the impact that these changes can have. We have considered this carefully and have put in place measures to ensure that the effects are manageable. We are delivering a support package worth £4.3 billion over the next three years, including a £3.2 billion transitional relief scheme. That provides more generous support to the largest ratepayers, including airports. It caps increases in airport bills arising from revaluations to just over double by 2028-29, before any supplements and reliefs are applied, preventing the much larger increases they otherwise would have seen.
The Government believe these arrangements strike the right balance, reflecting updated property values while ensuring a smooth and manageable adjustment for airports. Looking ahead, however, the Government recognise that businesses with decades-long capital cycles need stability and predictability to deliver capital investment plans. To provide this, the Government published a call for evidence around the receipts and expenditure valuation methodology and its impacts on long-term, high-value investments. This will allow the Government to work constructively with airports and other ratepayers ahead of the 2029 revaluation. I should also note that if an airport, or indeed any business, disagrees with their business rates valuation, they may challenge it with the Valuation Office Agency and, if that fails to produce a satisfactory outcome, the affected party may escalate the case to the independent Valuation Tribunal. As a result, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw this amendment.
I turn to Amendment 116. The Government agree that effective competition, where it can be delivered, plays an important role in improving outcomes for passengers, airlines and the wider sector. The CAA already has a clear statutory role in economic regulation and a duty to further the interests of air passengers, both of which it actively applies. The Civil Aviation Act 2012 provides a well-established framework designed to give the Civil Aviation Authority clear focus on furthering the interests of passengers. The framework ensures that competition is properly considered as a means of furthering those interests, while allowing the regulator to take a balanced and proportionate approach in markets where competition may not always be effective. It is important that the CAA continues to have discretion in how it regulates airports, including by balancing the promotion of competition with other ways to further the interests of consumers where those are more appropriate. Although the CAA’s competition remit is targeted, the Competition and Markets Authority is able to intervene when wider competition issues arise.
We recognise that there are arguments for looking more broadly at the CAA’s role in relation to competition, but so far we have seen no evidence that the current framework is not working effectively, although we will continue to keep it under review. If we consider it necessary, we will, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, suggested, add competition to the next letter to the Civil Aviation Authority chair.
Changes in this space could have wide-ranging implications for investment, passenger costs and regulatory independence, so it is important that those impacts are fully considered before any changes are made. Amendment 116 does not address those broader questions, and it risks cutting across a more considered approach. The proposed reporting requirement is unlikely to add significant value, given the CAA’s existing transparency and reporting obligations. For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord feels able not to press his amendment.
Finally, Amendment 117 seeks to enable the CAA to impose pro-competition remedies at Heathrow. As noted, the CAA already has a well-established framework of powers relating to economic competition. These enable it to act where competition is not working effectively. It can impose and enforce licence conditions on dominant airports and has concurrent competition powers alongside the CMA. In short, the tools to act are already in place, and competition consideration is already embedded in the statutory duties.
We note, as the noble Lord did, that the CAA is currently consulting on aspects of the future regulatory framework at Heathrow, including options, as he mentioned, that relate to competition and the delivery of airport infrastructure. In answer to his question, the CAA does not believe it needs further powers if it chooses a more radical option. On his second question, about whether the Government will take a view on the CAA’s choices, I cannot say at the moment, but since the Heathrow expansion national policy statement has been launched, we will no doubt be able to in due course. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is engaging with those processes and, for that reason, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
The noble Lord asked on Tuesday about the department’s role in reducing the administrative burden of regulation on business by 25% in this Parliament. I can confirm that the department is working closely with regulators and with the Department for Business and Trade to identify legislative and practical changes to deliver that. We have already made progress: for example, changes to rules for large vehicle licence holders with diabetes, which reduce costs by several million pounds a year; and there are some examples of Civil Aviation Authority initiatives that contribute to a reduction in the administrative burden incurred by businesses, including investment in systems modernisation, the recent update to the Airspace Coordination and Obstacle Management Service, and the general aviation licensing and training simplification programme. I am very happy to write to him further, and I will do so.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful. On Amendment 108, I am very pleased that the Government are consulting on the process by which business rates revaluations are done for airports, given the necessity for capital expenditure over a significant period. I will look carefully at the results of that consultation. I am sure airports will have been, and are, responding to that consultation to make the arguments that they need to, so that is welcome.
On the extent to which competition should be one of the CAA’s objectives, I accept that the CAA has to balance objectives, and that is very sensible. If it were added to the Secretary of State’s letter, which sets out a range of objectives for the CAA, then the CAA would be able to balance those objectives as it is taking its decisions. I think that that is perfectly appropriate. As I said, all I would ask is that, when Ministers are formulating the next letter, they think about whether an explicit mention of competition is set out as part of one of the economic sections of that letter.
Finally, the Minister has confirmed more explicitly than he was able to at Second Reading that the CAA has all the powers it needs to do any of the options, including the more radical ones. I am sure that, when we no doubt get the opportunity in the House to ask questions about the Heathrow document, whatever it will now be called—
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is the Heathrow expansion national policy statement.
Lord Harper (Con)
I thank the Minister for that prompt. When we get that opportunity, we can no doubt ask whether the Government will take a view. For very sensible reasons—and I am not trying to be mischievous—I was always very careful to let the CAA get on with their economic regulations, and there is a very strong argument; it is simply that, if the Government are very wedded to delivering the Heathrow third runway, they have to make sure that they are confident that the economic model will finance it. We will no doubt come back to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 108.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall briefly oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill. This is a wide-ranging Henry VIII power, and wholly unnecessary. In a letter sent by the Civil Service to the Delegated Powers Committee, civil servants identify every Act that this Bill interacts with and states that all amendments necessary are already made in the Bill. Why should the Government be seeking a Henry VIII power to amend even further legislation, yet unknown and undiscovered, when the case has been closed off already?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the Clause 10 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises a point of constitutional principle that the Committee will wish to consider carefully. I draw attention to subsection (6), which enables regulations to be implemented using the negative procedure. Have the Government considered whether the affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made under this clause, rather than only to those presently specified? Given that the power extends to modifying primary legislation, there is a reasonable case that every exercise of it should require the active approval of both Houses, rather than passing on the nod. Can the Minister confirm whether he is prepared to reflect further on that question before Report?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, opposes the inclusion of Clause 10 in the Bill. I recognise the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny where powers are taken to make consequential provision, particularly where those powers may be used to amend primary legislation. However, I reassure the noble Lord that this clause is both limited and appropriate. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not draw this clause to the attention of your Lordships’ House.
Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State a power to make consequential regulations so that the statute book properly reflects the changes made by the Bill. It is not a power to make substantive policy changes. The clause allows regulations to amend, appeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act passed before this Bill or later in the parliamentary Session, but only when that is consequential on the Bill. Importantly, where regulations made under this power amend or repeal primary legislation, they must be laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses under the affirmative procedure.
Such consequential powers are a common and practical feature of legislation used to ensure that the wider statute book works coherently once a Bill is enacted. In this case, the power is appropriately constrained and subject to the necessary parliamentary safeguards. Removing this clause would mean that the Government may need to rely on primary legislation to make minor changes and that, if there were delays, this could create inconsistencies in legislation and legal uncertainty.
I note the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to reflect on Clause 6. I will, of course, consider that further. For those reasons, the Government consider it necessary to retain this power, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition to Clause 10 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the fact is that the job has been done. The Minister did not address the point that all the relevant Acts have already been identified and that no further amendments are required. He did not explain—perhaps he cannot explain—what legislation this power should be used for. It is not constrained and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, some of its provisions, although not those that allow the alteration of primary legislation, can be processed using the negative procedure. It is not appropriate.
I will conclude very briefly. We started by identifying this Bill as a massive power grab. Our last discussion in Committee is yet more about massive power grabs. This is not the way to treat Parliament. I think many of these issues are going to come back on Report and there will be widespread opposition to the way the Government are conducting themselves. For now, however, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 10.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Grainger
Face-to-face Banking Services
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure communities have access to face-to-face banking services.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in wishing Garter King of Arms, this being his last Introduction, a very happy retirement and all best wishes.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The Government are committed to ensuring that people who need face-to-face banking can continue to access essential services. Therefore, the Government have commissioned an independent review into access to banking services to assess whether the change in branches is causing detriment, and to whom. The Financial Services and Markets Bill also includes a power to enable the Government to act, if necessary, to protect access to banking services should evidence from the review support intervention.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s reply, as well as the Government’s Access to Banking Services review and the powers they have committed to taking through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Everybody knows the negative impacts that the denial of face-to-face banking has on communities, small businesses and vulnerable people, and especially on many elderly people, blind people and those who cannot and do not use online banking. People in this country bailed out the banks at a critical time and are looking to the Government to ensure that the banks are there for them at their point of need. As the Government look towards the review at the end of this year, will they consider taking greater statutory powers to safeguard in-person banking face to face, as they have done with protecting access to cash? Will they also continue to encourage and facilitate the rollout of shared banking hubs—there are over 230 now across the country—which are very important in tackling this issue?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. We must take into consideration that 93% of adults now use online banking, but the Government still take access to face-to-face banking seriously. We have set a target of 350 banking hubs across the country through this Parliament, and 239 are already operational—including seven in Northern Ireland—with more in the pipeline. The figure of 350 is not a ceiling, and there is the potential for more to open, including in Northern Ireland. The Access to Banking Services review is currently in consultation, is open to the public and, I understand, is very popular. The consultation is attracting a lot of attention, and I therefore encourage the noble Lord to send comments to the review via the Government’s website. They would love to hear from him and, in fact, from every other noble Lord.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the tech companies are rapidly moving into the banking space—digital money, wallets, payments, payroll, savings and investments. Will the Government insist that these tech players contribute to the costs of interoperability, inclusion and face-to-face services, and not get a free ride?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a valid point. We must wait for the results of this review to see what it says. It is important that we have an enabling clause in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and that we are able to implement the recommendations of that report as soon as possible.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who has had two bad experiences with banks recently. The first was in a personal capacity when ringing the Barclays call centre. No one would give their name or number, and so they lost the business: it was frustrating. The other experience was as chairman of an SME, which was going through its KYC for the directors. We had to go through Revolut’s automated bots and software, and it cost the company a vast amount of money. No real person would talk to us; five or six emails were never replied to. That too was a bad experience. What more can the Minister do to persuade these banks to take small businesses more seriously?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I refer back to the review that has taken place into access to banking services. We are encouraging small businesses, and the business sector that will use the review, to get involved with that consultation and raise the issues the noble Lord has mentioned.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is aware of the recent Age UK survey. It notes the relatively large number of elderly people who do not like using digital access for banking, but who are using it for shopping. The international evidence is clear: the more you make banking and other digital access to public services safe and easy, the more people will willingly participate. Is that not the message the banks need to understand?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very valid point. We need to encourage the banks to look at what their customers require. Some 93% of the adult population who have a bank account do their banking online, while 26% of UK adults used a bank branch in the 12 months to May 2024. We need to have an open mind about what else we can do to access and reach out to people. We have more than 10,500 post offices that can be used, and we can use ATMs in areas where there is no banking. There is a whole host of things that we can do. We just need this review to come up with recommendations for the Government to implement as soon as possible.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, the closure of bank branches presents a case study in increasing regulation and declining service. The regulations were put in place to preserve access to retail banking. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the overarching settlement for banks in the UK to ensure that retail banking does not decline any further?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We do not want to see retail banking declining further. We need to take into consideration the changing way in which people use their banks. A lot of banking is now online, but a lot of people still need access to a banking hub, a bank on the high street, or a post office. We need to make sure that all the points the noble Lord raises are taken into consideration.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the banking review, can my noble friend the Minister outline what help can be given to credit unions? They are a form of banking that provides face-to-face services, particularly to those in disadvantaged communities. I note that there is a section in the Financial Services and Markets Bill that could help their further development.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the part of the Financial Services and Markets Bill that refers to credit unions. We want to expand the use of credit unions. About 1.5 million people across Great Britain use credit unions or financial co-ops. Our reforms will make it easier for the 220 credit unions in Great Britain to attract more members, allowing millions more people to potentially benefit from the expansion. This supports the Government’s ambition to double the size of the mutual sector, as credit unions are deeply embedded in their communities. I know that the role of credit unions is devolved in Northern Ireland, but I also know that the Treasury has been speaking to the Executive about what we intend to do in the rest of Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, there are over 100 credit unions.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for indicating that there may be further banking hubs in Northern Ireland. Rurality is a big issue in Northern Ireland. When we tried to attain a banking hub in my local town, the answer that came back was that there were not enough customers, but that is because we live in such a rural area. Has the Minister had any thoughts about rural proofing what comes forward in relation to banking hubs?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
As far as rural banking is concerned, as I have said, 99% of the population are within three miles of a post office. We need to expand the role of banking hubs, but we also need to look at credit unions and at where we can display ATMs. We need to look at a whole range of issues, a lot of which will be taken into consideration by the review into access to banking. Some of the points that the noble Baroness has made will be taken into consideration, and she can also take part in the consultation.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Face-to-face banking may be a lost cause, but we should at least be able to put in place a system that enables customers to speak to a human being rather than face a bot. This review could benefit from widening its terms of reference. Can the Minister take away what he has heard today with a view to making sure that the terms of reference cover the points that have been made? While he is at it, can he make sure that the role of competition can be considered? Even now, it is extremely difficult to get a banking licence, despite many efforts to make it easier. There will be new entrants into this market that are prepared to offer a customer the option of talking with a human being, but to secure that, competition must be made easier by the regulators.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Noble Lords have made some very pertinent points. There is a great element of consensus in the Chamber today, and all the issues the noble Lord has just raised are ones we need to take into consideration. The consultation is already taking place. It ends in July, and we will have the recommendations in due course. We have an enabling clause in the Bill that is currently going through Parliament. Again, I say to the noble Lord that if he wants to take part in the consultation, he is more than welcome to do so.
Transnational Marriage Abandonment
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gohir
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prevalence of transnational marriage abandonment cases since 2024; and how many perpetrators have been prosecuted for this type of domestic abuse.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare an interest as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government monitor data on applications under the transnational marriage abandonment route and publish quarterly data on GOV.UK under the “Settlement VDA” section. The latest data shows 82 applications in 2024 and 69 in 2025. Transnational marriage abuse behaviours are covered by a number of existing offences. As part of our work to tackle violence against women and girls, we are working with policing partners so that perpetrators are pursued and victims are protected.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, transnational marriage abandonment has devastating consequences. It separates mothers from their children—a form of gender-based abuse. Australia has made it illegal, so perpetrators who abandon their wives and children abroad are charged with exit trafficking. Will the Government bring in similar legislation? At present, perpetrators are not held accountable, and it has been going on for decades. My father abandoned me, my mother and my brother abroad, and it took us years to get back. It is still going on, so please can the Minister give this serious thought?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I understand the noble Baroness’s personal experience and her commitment to resolve these matters. The Government are keeping all matters under review, but, in essence, we are looking at prevention through existing legislation. In January 2024—this would have helped the noble Baroness in her circumstances—we expanded the victim of domestic abuse category to include transnational marriage so that individuals can apply to the United Kingdom, without a fee, and get these matters treated quickly. As I said in my Answer, a large number of people have taken this route: there have been some 203 applications since 31 January, and we encourage others to do so.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, women and children who are repatriated often rely mainly on charities. What support do British embassies give, and will they help with repatriation to lift the burden on charities?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is an important matter. Without repeating myself, let me say that we have waived the fees that would be expected in normal applications for victims of transnational abuse. That is a big commitment. Obviously, there are other costs, and the individual or charities can potentially cover them, but the Government’s contribution is to say that, if you are a victim of transnational abuse, you will not have to pay the expected fee that would normally need to be paid for consideration, which is around £3,200. That is a significant government contribution.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, in recent months, I came across a very strange case in my community. A couple who had lived here for about three or four years had a child, and they were working and paying their taxes and so on. They then went on holiday to India and took their child with them. On their way back, they were told at the airport that they could enter the country, but their child could not, so they had to take their child back to India and leave them with their parents before coming back. Is that government policy?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I would be grateful if my noble friend would write to me with the specifics of that case. I cannot comment on the reasons why any particular entry was refused at that time. Self-evidently, the Government want to see families reunited, and I am not aware of the circumstances of that case. That is not transnational abuse in the way in which the noble Baroness raised it, which is a deliberate act of malicious behaviour. This may be an issue that I will have to investigate, and I am happy to do so.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, just two nights ago in Parliament, there was a two and a half-hour session organised by one of the all-party parliamentary groups at which a number of women and girls gave evidence. Evidence that was given by Professor Javaid Rehman and Professor Mariz Tadros is germane to my noble friend’s Question, and I hope that the Minister might be willing to meet both those reputable academics to talk about some of these associated issues as part of the review that he has said is under way.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always happy to meet when possible external bodies via Members of this House, and I will ensure that is arranged accordingly.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, a recurring feature of these cases is that the victim’s passport is taken by the perpetrator before or during travel, leaving them unable to return to the UK independently. Improperly obtaining another person’s passport is already a criminal offence under Section 4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010. Can the Minister say how many prosecutions have been brought for that offence in the context of transnational marriage abandonment cases and whether the Government will issue clearer guidance to the CPS on charging this offence in such circumstances?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the main causes of transnational abuse is where the passport is taken from the person so they cannot travel. We have tried through the new visa route to ensure that issue can be addressed locally so that travel can happen—free of the fees, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness a moment ago.
One problem we have—and I encountered it in preparing for this Question—is that some offences, for example of passport theft, will not be broken down in relation to the number of individuals who have had their passport stolen in the context that the noble Lord mentioned. We need to examine that as an issue. I cannot give him figures now, and I suspect I will not be able to do so in writing for that reason, but he raises an important point, and we need to get the whole picture of how transnational abuse works.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Can I raise with the Minister another group of very disadvantaged women: those who come from overseas to marry somebody in this country? They go through a religious marriage, very often a nikah, but they never have their marriage registered. The husband then abandons them, and they have no right to remain in this country. That seems to me an issue which the Government ought to consider.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, in the context of transnational abuse, passport theft, abandonment abroad or abandonment in this country are issues where we have those potential difficulties. We are trying to ensure that we treat the individuals—almost always women and children—as victims and not as people who need to be tested by the state as to their validity to stay. That is why the transnational visa route we introduced in January 2024, which was not there before, is an important measure to help support those individuals.
Prostate Cancer Screening: AI
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Warwick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to use artificial intelligence in prostate cancer screening pathways to reduce late diagnosis of that disease.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we are committed to looking for opportunities to implement AI in cancer services, investing £113 million in the AI in health and care award. As AI in screening is still in a trial phase, it will not be used in the targeted prostate cancer screening programme when this is introduced. However, we are maintaining the model used to develop this screening recommendation so that any emerging evidence that supports using AI in screening can indeed be considered rapidly.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. A few months ago, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. I want to thank the NHS for the excellent treatment it has been giving me, but it made it clear to me, after my first biopsy, that early detection was vital in the context of my treatment. I would also like to thank high-profile personalities, such as broadcaster Jeremy Clarkson, former soccer player John Barnes and, of course, Olympic cyclist Sir Chris Hoy, for making the same point about early diagnosis.
Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK and there is still no national screening programme. The UK National Screening Committee has admitted that its model does not look at artificial intelligence within the diagnostic pathway, but the model remains open to being updated. Can the Minister clarify how the evidence will be collected in relation to artificial intelligence? It is moving at pace in trying to sort out this terrible illness. How can the stakeholders engage with the committee?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I wish the noble Lord well as he deals with the diagnosis. I am sure that many would associate with his kind comments about the NHS care he has received.
I very much agree that early diagnosis is key. That is why we have introduced the first targeted prostate cancer screening programme. It will roll out next year and will focus on those at the highest risk. To the noble Lord’s question on AI, there is a whole range of ways in which we will gather the information necessary—for example, developing a new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical knowledge summary. That will support discussions for those men who are not eligible for this programme. Also, through the cancer programme innovation open call, we will pilot the use of AI to assist radiologists using MRI to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. There is much scope in this area, and indeed our 10-year plan confirms that.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, while artificial intelligence may improve the interpretation of diagnostic tests and support earlier identification of prostate cancer, does the Minister agree that technology alone will not reduce late diagnosis unless it is embedded within a wider prevention and early detection strategy? What steps have been taken to ensure that AI tools are integrated into primary care pathways, with targeted outreach to high-risk groups, particularly Black men, and equitable access to different communities?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, I agree with the noble Lord. While we are ambitious about the benefits of AI and wish to embrace them, we are equally clear that safety, fairness and public trust have to come first. That means that the National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare, which was established by the MHRA, will review the current regulations and provide the recommendations for a new regulatory framework. I assure your Lordships’ House that AI always will support professionals, not replace accountability.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, AI has the potential to significantly improve options for patients, but this will be possible only if NHS staff have the right skills, time and infrastructure to be able to test and use such tools. How will the Government invest in staff to help drive this innovation and improve outcomes for patients?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is why we are publishing the workforce plan fairly soon, why we are building our cancer workforce and why we are creating new opportunities across multidisciplinary teams. Certainly, the use of AI is absolutely key, and we are, not least, working closely with the Royal College of Radiologists.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, at the other end of the scale of artificial intelligence is canine intelligence. The wonderful charity Medical Detection Dogs has had wonderful results in early and accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer. Are the Government looking at this as one of their diagnostic tools? If the Minister does not have labradors and spaniels in her brief, perhaps she can write to me.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am so grateful to the noble Baroness, because I do not. However, I am aware of the great contribution being made to cancer detection, and the department is looking closely at that. I thank her for raising it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government’s £42 million investment in the TRANSFORM trials, and I am extremely grateful. AI MRI tools are often trained on populations that underrepresent Black men, and they are at double the risk of prostate cancer. Will the Government require AI diagnostic tools to be independently validated on diverse populations before wider NHS use?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We always take into full account my noble friend’s very important point. She referred to the TRANSFORM trial, which will enable all eligible Black men to be invited to stage 2 of the trial. It is worth saying that Black men are historically underrepresented in clinical trials, and we are working closely with Prostate Cancer UK to work alongside and draw in communities from across the United Kingdom.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will follow up on that reference to the TRANSFORM trial. Black men are around twice as likely to develop prostate cancer and to die from it, yet historically they have been underrepresented in many screening and research programmes. The Minister mentioned the TRANSFORM trial, which hopefully will transform that inequality, but what assurance can she give that AI tools being developed for prostate cancer screening will reduce as much as possible any bias against higher-risk populations, such as Black men, and will not inadvertently widen health inequalities?
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, several trials are assessing the use of AI for prostate cancer screening and diagnostics, as well as testing the accuracy of digital imaging and histological imaging of biopsies to understand better the progression of disease. Some of them are well funded. For instance, the screening programme has £42 million of funding. Similar trials are conducted for lung, ovarian, breast and pancreatic cancer. The common issue that comes out is that we need digital transformation throughout the NHS to deliver any of these uses of AI for cancer. We need a workforce that is trained to use it, and I hope that the workforce strategy that the Government are about to publish will specifically include how the workforce will be trained to use AI in healthcare.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I said, your Lordships’ House will not be waiting too long for the workforce plan, but I certainly recognise the noble Lord’s points. He describes the transformed service set out in the 10-year health plan, and the workforce plan will support that.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, although I very much welcome the programme for Black men, who are at greater risk, does the Minister not accept that very many of us who are not Black—I am one—have benefited from early diagnosis? Does she not accept that, going forward, it will not be sustainable to have testing available only to one ethnic group? It needs to be universal.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Perhaps I can clarify that the TRANSFORM trial is not exclusive to a particular group. We are looking at people who have susceptibility to prostate cancer because they carry the gene and there is family history. I simply point that out because I hope it will be a reassurance to the noble Lord.
Livestock Grazing on Dartmoor National Park
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Roborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consultation took place between Natural England and commons graziers before announcing plans to reduce livestock grazing on Dartmoor National Park by 75 per cent.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my interests as a commons owner and non-grazing grazier on Dartmoor.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, Natural England has not announced plans to reduce livestock grazing on Dartmoor by 75%. However, we recognise that changes to grazing regimes need to be carefully and sensitively handled and agreed to collectively, in order to address declines in wildlife and biodiversity. We expect Natural England and commons graziers to work collaboratively to develop more adaptive grazing arrangements, working with the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the latest ELMS agreements require a 50% reduction in grazing effort on the moor to be compliant, and that follows a historic 50% reduction. So I believe that the 75% figure is correct if farmers want to access the funds available. Natural England may not have been targeting the ponies on Dartmoor, but it should have known that a cumulative 75% reduction in grazing would impact pony stocking rates disproportionately, given their limited commercial value. That is a massive blunder. The Government’s arm’s-length body is trying to impose its centrally determined will over the legal rights of the graziers on Dartmoor and creating disastrous consequences for public acceptance of nature recovery efforts. What is the Minister doing to bring more control and accountability to Natural England’s performance? Will he step in and save the ponies?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The obvious answer to the noble Lord’s last question is, of course, yes. I want to be absolutely crystal clear: Natural England has not recommended a cull of Dartmoor ponies. It does not have the power to do so, and it has not advised one. As a Government, we are clear that Dartmoor ponies have an important part to play in Dartmoor’s heritage and in continuing to support the habitats of Dartmoor. As the noble Lord referred to—indeed, the Fursdon review also referred to this, and we agree—Dartmoor is in dire ecological health, in part because of decades of inappropriate grazing. Our agrischemes are designed to fix the situation through changed grazing patterns. The Natural England chair, Tony Juniper, said that ponies are central to that approach, and he is right. The Dartmoor hill ponies are part of that solution, not the problem. They are safe under this Government.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest: I live on Dartmoor. The publication within the local and national newspapers has caused real concern. We cannot measure natural habitat against the other advantages to Dartmoor of the ponies, particularly tourism. Dartmoor prison is currently shut and, in my opinion, unlikely to reopen. There is huge rural poverty in many parts of Dartmoor, and it is absolutely essential that decisions about livestock are related to the total needs of the community. Can the Minister explain whether he agrees with my premise?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a number of important points. As I have said, no cull of the ponies is under consideration. The fact is that the ecological health of Dartmoor is in a dire state, because one factor that does not get talked about is the preponderance of sheep on Dartmoor, as well as cattle and ponies. We have to get the right mix of grazing. She is absolutely right: Natural England has been working with all stakeholders in the area, through the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group. I am sure it is listening to all the stakeholders’ concerns, including those who are interested in promoting Dartmoor in its totality, as a community in which people live as well as a tourist destination. I am sure it will continue to take that into account.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, a brief search of the internet reveals considerable anger among graziers and farmers on Dartmoor at the proposed culling of ponies by Natural England. Farmers are at a loss to understand how Natural England could believe that farmers would choose to reduce cattle and sheep numbers, on which their businesses rely, rather than reducing pony numbers. We have seen the result of a lack of meaningful consultation in the Malvern Hills. Will the noble Lord agree that this issue on Dartmoor could have been handled much better?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I absolutely re-emphasise that there is no planned cull of ponies or other any other livestock. It is about getting the right mix in the right parts of Dartmoor. Those who know the area well—probably much better than I do—know that there is not one landscape or one habitat. It is a wonderful ecological mix, and we want to protect and promote the biodiversity there. Natural England is in regular contact with all agreement holders where they have agreements with Defra to support their grazing and other activity on Dartmoor. It works with farmers and commoners to agree proposed management plans on specific sites and their compatibility with the management of nature on those sites. I am sure that Natural England has listened to the real concern voiced about this issue on Dartmoor, but we and it are clear: it is a member of the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group and should work with everybody in the area to get the best outcome.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, could not some of these ponies be sent to the South Downs National Park, where I declare I live, so that they could eat the tussocky grass, thus allowing the natural grassland to regenerate? This has been done in the past and it has been very successful.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I will not direct the movement of ponies or any other livestock from this Dispatch Box, but it is an interesting idea. I am sure that Natural England and lots of people on Dartmoor—commoners, graziers and others—would like to keep all their ponies there. But it is an interesting idea.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I ask the Minister to reflect on the importance of balance in the countryside between the interests of farming and conservation. One of the lessons I think we should take from this is that there has not been proper co-ordination of the impact on rural communities of this proposal. I hope that, within the Defra family, there will be a much greater concentration on co-ordination of the impact. The noble Baroness spoke about the importance of the pony in dealing with Molinia, an invasive grass. This is a key part of why this endangered species, the Dartmoor pony, should be cherished by everyone, rather than a potential reduction in numbers even being thought of.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, as I would expect from his long experience and interest in these matters, about the importance of tackling that invasive species, Molinia, and the role that both ponies and cattle have in tackling it. That is why Natural England is looking at the best way to get appropriate grazing in the appropriate parts of Dartmoor. To go to his wider point, though, we recognise the important role of countryside stewardship that commons graziers, farmers and indeed people who live in the countryside take. That is why Defra is bringing together partners from across Whitehall and beyond, through its Defra-led Rural Taskforce, to make sure that all its policies are rural-proofed from the get-go, rather than there being a patch-and-mend approach to policies after the event.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I live in Devon, partly, and I have owned Dartmoor ponies, although I do not, unfortunately, live on Dartmoor. Is not one of problems that Natural England wants to reduce the grazing on Dartmoor, and the farmers understandably want to protect their cattle and sheep, rather than protecting the ponies that do not give them any money or very little?
Lord Katz (Lab)
As I said in response to previous questions, the point is getting the appropriate mix of grazing by the appropriate animals in the right spot.
I did not properly address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, around ELMS. The ELM offer for moorlands is made up of a number of different actions for different livestock stocking rates with supplements for grazing with ponies, cattle and native breeds. We recognise that in some areas, an increase in the proportion of cattle and ponies may well be required to secure the outcomes needed, rather than a decrease.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I set up the Fursdon review for Dartmoor and, in terms of the recommendations, it would be helpful for the Government to update the House on what commitments they continue to have. It was set up because of a clash and a lack of trust, so it is important that trust is re-established as quickly as possible. That would be helped if the Rural Payments Agency had not said to commons landholders across the country, “Computer says no”, when they were trying to apply for SFI and ELMS grants this year. Will the Government get a grip of the Rural Payments Agency, but more importantly, Natural England?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right to identify the issue at stake in terms of access for common graziers groups to SFI and other payments. The Rural Payments Agency has been tasked to work on a solution to this issue and to assess how commons land applications can be made in the schemes. Once this is complete, the agency will communicate its planned approach. We are on the case, with the RPA, and hope to develop a solution as soon as possible.
Short-term Leases (Disclosure of Information) Bill [HL]
National Security (State Threats) Bill
Steel Tariffs
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, yesterday there was cross-party concern in the other place, including from government Back-Benchers, that these steel measures risked doing real damage to downstream businesses. Of course, we all want to protect British steel-making, but the Government have designed a regime that risks penalising British manufacturers for importing specialist steels that are not made in this country, or not made here to the grade certification or volume that is required. That is not protecting British industry; it risks pushing value-added manufacturing jobs and contracts overseas.
The Minister in the other place said that this was necessary to respond to overseas tariffs and job losses, but the Government have had plenty of time to reduce the structural costs facing steel and manufacturing businesses, from energy and carbon costs to business rates and employers’ national insurance. Will the Minister therefore accept that the Government need not only emergency tariff measures but a proper, comprehensive steel strategy? Will they now revise the proposed quotas so that specialist steel products desperately needed by downstream manufacturers can be imported tariff-free where there is no realistic UK supply?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. While calls for delay are totally understandable, our existing steel safeguard will expire and cannot be extended under WTO rules. Without replacement measures, the UK risks becoming a destination for diverted, subsidised steel, as other jurisdictions act. We have carefully designed the regime and we are consulting extensively with producers and downstream users. Ministers are considering changes based on downstream feedback. We will continue engaging with industry and finalise the measures ahead of implementation on 1 July.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in responding to the last point made by the noble Lord, today I forwarded to the Minister a very detailed list of the categorisations of steel that will not be available in the UK but which will be subject to tariffs, and I would appreciate a response on that. Further, he mentioned 1 July. Most of the steel under consideration is imported from the EU, and negotiations are under way with the EU around a mutual tariff system. It is unlikely that those negotiations will be concluded before 1 July. It makes no sense to implement a tariff regime and then come to an agreement with the EU which will necessarily change that regime, so will the Minister go back to his colleagues and suggest that no change is made to the UK tariff regime until the EU agreement has been concluded?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I will address the noble Lord’s first point. Following extensive engagement with downstream importers, we have introduced a transitional arrangement, as the noble Lord knows, so that the new tariff will not apply to goods contracted before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September of this year. Quotas will be administered quarterly, with unused allocations carried forward within a quota year to provide greater flexibility.
To address the point about the EU, the United Kingdom and the European Union share a unique trading relationship, with highly integrated steel supply chains that support jobs and industry on both sides. We are, as all noble Lords know, engaging closely with the European Commission to secure a solution that protects the vital EU-UK steel trade. While I cannot comment on live discussions, we have made it clear that restricting UK access to the EU market would disrupt supply chains, increase costs and harm businesses in both the UK and the EU.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note and welcome the recent agreement reached by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of India, on the FTA and its commencement date in July. However, there is another issue on the horizon when it comes to steel tariffs, which is the imposition from 1 January next year of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, particularly on steel which is imported into the country, and which relies on coal. Bearing in mind India’s heavy burden on coal manufacturing, will we need to look at the FTA again?
Lord Leong (Lab)
First, I thank the noble Lord for all his work when he was a Minister in having conversations with the Indian Government. We should be celebrating and we should all be delighted that the landmark UK-India trade deal will now finally take effect from 15 July, delivering benefits for businesses and working people across the United Kingdom. This agreement, which is the most comprehensive India has ever concluded, is expected to boost UK GDP by £4.8 billion, increase bilateral trade by around £25.5 billion annually and raise real wages by £2.2 billion. Key sectors will benefit from this substantial tariff reduction, including exports of whisky, automotive products and cosmetics. I will write to the noble Lord on CBAM.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government are consulting on this, and therefore that some of the suggestions made in this House and in the other place can be taken into account by the Government and amendments made? Can he also tell us—despite the rather theatrical intervention from the Front Bench opposite—what would have been the state of the British steel industry if the Government opposite had continued?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I always agree with my noble friend. We have listened carefully to downstream steel users and designed these measures to balance manufacturers’ needs with the imperative to protect domestic steel production. Imports will continue to play an important role, and transitional arrangements will provide flexibility for some of the contracts that I have identified earlier. Delaying implementation would leave the UK exposed to damaging global overcapacity while our international partners act. We will continue to engage closely with the European Union as discussions progress.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the French economist Frédéric Bastiat said that the distinguishing feature of a good economist is looking beyond the visible and seeing the secondary consequences. There are some 34,000 people employed in the steel sector in this country; one can argue about whether protectionism will help even them. Let us look at the numbers in the steel-using industries: 183,000 people work in the automotive sector, 452,000 in agriculture and 2.8 million in construction. These sectors either cannot buy the kind of steel they need other than through imports, or cannot get the volume from the UK alone. Will the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the impact of pushing up the cost of these imports, especially in the north-east and the West Midlands, which are hubs for the aeronautic and automotive sectors?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord that the steel sector is a very important part of our industrial strategy. That is why the Government are taking steps to protect the steel industry. It is not just another commodity; it underpins everything we do, including in the defence, infrastructure, manufacturing and energy sectors. We are intervening to protect our domestic production and we are protecting jobs up and down the country; whether it is in the Midlands or elsewhere, we are doing what is required of a Government to protect jobs.
Lord Redwood (Con)
This is a very large increase in costs for steel processors, so what is the Government’s estimate of the job losses and business losses that are sure to follow such a comprehensive, large increase in a major cost to these businesses?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, we have to recognise how important steel is to thousands of workers and families and the wider supply chain. Our objective is to secure a viable long-term future for steel-making in the United Kingdom. Maintaining domestic steel capability is essential for jobs, investment and economic resilience. Whatever we do, flexibility is needed to explore future options not only for British steel but for other sectors which use steel, while safeguarding an industry that remains strategically important for the nation.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the British Chambers of Commerce has said that the changes
“could add millions of pounds to manufacturers’ costs”.
Why do the Government want to add more costs to UK industry, which is already reeling from the increased national insurance costs?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I do not know whether the noble Lord listened to the response that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We have been engaging extensively with downstream importers. We have introduced transitional arrangements that I set out earlier for contracts made before 14 March and for any imports between 1 July and 30 September. We are listening to end users, and we will continue to listen to end users. As I said before, Ministers are consulting with users and, if needed, changes will be made.
Jo Cox Civility Commission
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
That this House takes note of the Government’s steps to strengthen communities and implement the recommendations of the Jo Cox Civility Commission 10 years on from her murder.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, like many in this House, I had the privilege of knowing Jo. Ten years on from that devastating loss, I pay my respects and send my condolences to her remarkable family, who have shown such strength and courage. We know that this week will be particularly challenging for them.
Jo was petite in stature but a giant in so many ways. She had a remarkable zest for life. She was a catalyst for action in her constituency and the wider world, where she worked in international development, witnessing at first hand the impact of conflict and inequality. Jo was a courageous campaigner against injustice and bigotry in this country and the wider world. She was a feminist and a humanitarian, who loved her fellow human beings. She believed in service. Most importantly, she was a mother, a daughter, a sister, a wife, and a fantastic friend to many.
Jo inspired love and hope, and it was for that reason that, following her appalling murder, there was an outpouring of love as well as grief. Jo’s murder was an act driven by extremism and division, but people responded not with fear but with something that Jo believed in: connection. In December of that year, friends and family set up the Jo Cox Foundation to pursue the issues about which Jo was passionate, guided by her values and principles.
It is an immense honour to serve as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. Our vision is a society underpinned by her enduring belief that we have far more in common than that which divides us; a society where our communities and our democracy are strengthened by connection and respect across difference, with decency and civility in public life.
A decade on, our work is more important than ever. Sadly, despite the collective promises made 10 years ago to address hate, foster unity and bridge divisions, our society is more fractured and communities are more divided. Loneliness remains a profound public health crisis, and the abuse and intimidation of elected representatives have intensified. This 10-year mark is not only a moment for remembrance; it is a call to action. Social connection is not just a “nice to have”; it is the bedrock of a safe, resilient society, and it is fundamental to the healthy functioning of our democracy.
The heartening news is that the desire to connect is fiercely alive. New research by the Jo Cox Foundation, in partnership with More in Common UK, shows that while many feel community ties have weakened, one in three people actively want to improve their connection to those around them. Crucially, those who are currently the least connected are the ones who want to connect the most. The issue lies in the systemic barriers to that connection: financial hardship, anxiety among young people, online interactions replacing real-life communities, and deepening political polarisation. We must act—we have a duty to act. We urgently need to bring people together, in person wherever possible; to support our young people to access places, relationships and opportunities to belong; to give communities the resources and power to take forward community-led social action themselves; and to remove the barriers to connection, whether that be by creating accessible and affordable places to connect, or more intentionally addressing loneliness by adopting our joint call to action for a new cross-government action plan on loneliness and connection.
Jo was dedicated to combating loneliness and formed an independent, cross-party commission of MPs and charities. This led to the appointment of the first Minister for Loneliness, Dame Tracey Crouch, whom I am delighted to say is now on our board. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May, for having drawn Tracey into the Government. As we are all aware, we now have an epidemic of loneliness, especially among young people, which is having a profound impact on individuals, society, the NHS and productivity. When lonely people are isolated in their rooms, they are sometimes prey to social media algorithms that exacerbate divisions and can lead to violence, and sometimes political abuse and aggression.
We understand the importance of meaningful social connection so, together with other members of the Loneliness Policy Action Group, we have launched a cross-government call to action—a set of policy calls aimed at embedding loneliness prevention and promoting connection more deeply across government policy and public services. I warmly welcome the Government’s report, published earlier this week, Loneliness, Isolation and Social Connection Among Boys and Young Men in England, but I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister agreed to meet me and my colleagues to discuss much needed cross-government action.
I do not suggest that the recent horrendous murders in Southampton and Belfast were the result of loneliness, but I have no doubt that the violence that ensued was whipped up by social media in toxic online spaces, algorithms, anger and division in our fractured society. Fear of the other was weaponised. Yet, there are extraordinary examples of generosity in words and deeds, such as from the father of Henry Nowak and those who gave shelter to those in fear of racist thugs in Belfast. There is much work to be done to bring people together, break down barriers, nurture understanding and heal divisions, enable people to listen, talk to each other and disagree agreeably.
Polarisation in our politics adds to the ferment. Politics face a crisis of connection, confidence and safety. Both Jo and Sir David Amess were murdered by extremists while carrying out their democratic duty in their constituencies. Since then, the abuse and intimidation of elected representatives and candidates has intensified. The political atmosphere is becoming increasingly hostile. Reported crimes against MPs have more than doubled since 2019. Some 96% have experienced threatening behaviour, with threats of sexual violence disproportionately targeted at women, minority and disabled MPs. In a Question for Short Debate two weeks ago, we heard of the intolerable abuse suffered by councillors, both online and in person. Our political system is under attack and our democracy undermined.
The pressures fall disproportionately on women and those already under-represented in our democracy—the very people whose participation make our institutions more representative and resilient. This risks a reversal of progress on political diversity. A Girlguiding survey found that a third of girls and young women are deterred from pursuing careers in politics because of the hostility that high-profile women face online. We are moving towards a culture where abuse is dismissed as “part of the job.” It is not, and we must reject the growing normalisation of abuse and intimidation. This is a systemic problem, rooted in wider inequalities and pressures across the political ecosystem. It is a direct threat to our democracy. Talented people are stepping down, not standing in the first place, and self-censoring.
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. Language matters, and we must ensure that we never return to the toxic public discourse we endured during the Brexit debate. We must not allow our country to be dominated by extreme voices. We must deplore the racist voices and policies of Restore, which is backed by Elon Musk and would welcome Tommy Robinson as a member. We must choose hope over hate.
The Jo Cox Civility Commission has successfully advocated for improvements such as expanded police support and security co-ordination for elected representatives, making security costs exempt from election spending limits, ending the requirement for councillors to publish their addresses on council websites, and improving specific guidance for families of MPs. It is outrageous that families of MPs and councillors are targeted and subjected to abuse. However, we must go further. We call for further change, including for political parties to enforce higher standards of conduct, for social media companies to make their platforms safer, and for improved media, digital and political literacy for all ages.
I want to end on a positive note—a note of hope. For every act of division, there are hundreds of acts of connection and community up and down the four nations. We see this every year during the Great Get Together, which takes place this weekend. Thousands of people across the country reject division and step out of their comfort zones to get together with friends, neighbours, people whom they have never met before, in parks, at picnics, in community halls and gardens, to eat, drink, bake, sing, run or merely sit in the sun and talk over a cup of tea. It is the living embodiment of Jo’s belief that we have more in common than that which divides us.
I thank the many friends in this House who have engaged, and continue to engage, with the important work of the Jo Cox Foundation. It is the responsibility of every one of us to foster community and connection, and to build a more respectful political culture. We should be guided by Jo’s words but, rather than repeating them, we should act on them.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and her introduction to this important and timely debate. I agree with everything she said, and I congratulate her on her work as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation and on this report, which I wholeheartedly support.
Jo’s core belief, as we have been told, is that we have more in common than that which divides us. This is an important challenge, because often we emphasise our different identities and forget to celebrate what we have in common: our British identity. We obsess about the relatively small number of things that go wrong and forget to celebrate the millions of things that go right across our country every day. It is like players and fans leaving the England game in Dallas last night and demanding an independent inquiry into who was to blame for Croatia’s two goals and forgetting to mention that we scored four and won the game comfortably. Jo’s sister, Kim Leadbeater MP, said yesterday:
“We’ve got to make sure the voices of positivity and perseverance and resilience are the ones that are amplified”.
I agree.
We call ourselves the United Kingdom, but united is not only an adjective, it is a verb. I will use my time to remind us of the amazing things this country, which we are privileged to call home, has done and is doing. We have given the world its most widely spoken language, with 2.3 billion speakers. It is the language of the internet, international trade and navigation. William Shakespeare perfected the language in the greatest literary works of all time. We are in the mother of parliaments. We are surrounded by statues of those who witnessed the signing of Magna Carta, which established basic human rights and set limits on government. English contract law is the basis of international trade—even time is measured from the Greenwich Meridian, which established longitude and opened up the oceans for navigation. We were home to the first industrial revolution and are the birthplace of the railways. We are a G7 nation and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We play a leading role in the Commonwealth; we are a nuclear power; we are a cornerstone of the NATO alliance. The first meetings of the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Security Council took place just a few hundred yards from here, 80 years ago this year. We have stood alone against tyranny, stood up for freedom, stood by our allies, led the abolition of slavery and offered sanctuary for those being persecuted.
This year, the UK overtook India to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. London is consistently ranked alongside New York as the world’s leading financial centre. The UK is recognised as being a world leader in fintech, medical research and AI—the industries not of the past but of the future.
The world wide web was invented by a Brit, Tim Berners-Lee; Alan Turing was the father of AI; Geoffrey Hinton was the father of machine learning; and Demis Hassabis is the brain behind Google DeepMind. We have more unicorn businesses—billion-dollar tech companies—in this country than Germany and France combined.
On the day on which we welcome into your Lordships’ House another great Olympian—the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger—we should remind ourselves that we gave the world so many of its great sports: football, cricket, tennis, rugby and, of course, the Paralympics, all invented here. The Premier League is the most watched sports league in the world, broadcast to more than 200 countries. Formula 1 is the most technical of all sports, and seven out of the 10 teams are based here. When Lewis Hamilton won in Barcelona on Sunday, he stood on an all-British podium as our national anthem played.
This is the land of the Enlightenment: Hume, Smith and Locke. Newton’s laws of motion and Darwin’s theory of evolution continue to shape our understanding of the world. It is home to the National Health Service, the envy of the world. We are home to some of the greatest medical innovations: Fleming’s penicillin, IVF, CT and MRI scans, and Crick, Watson and Franklin’s discovery of the structure of DNA, the building block of life itself. We are now at the forefront of vaccine development around the world. We are home to four of the top 10 universities in the world. We have won 148 Nobel prizes, second only to the United States. Cambridge University alone has been awarded more Nobel prizes than Germany.
It is time for us to celebrate who we are and what we have in common, and to drown out the voices of pessimism and division, which have had their day. It is a privilege to live in this country, but that privilege comes with duties and the responsibility to contribute to it and to make it even better. That will require us to come together, to be united not just in name but in nature and purpose. That is what Jo Cox stood for, and that is what we must now work for.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, what an honour it is to follow such an amazing tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Bates—I thank him very much. I am going to take that speech, print it out and stick it on my mirror to have it as an affirmation in the mornings.
It is a real honour to take part in this debate, and I pay tribute to my noble friend for her work as chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. As we reflect on the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission, we are reminded, as we have already heard, of Jo’s values, of how she lived her life and of her unwavering belief that a kinder, fairer, more tolerant society is within our reach. She understood, as we have heard, that connection is not an abstract ideal but something practised daily—through listening, through respectful disagreement, and through recognising our shared humanity. Her words, that we have
“more in common than that which divides us”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
are an aspiration, but they are a challenge to us all, and we must keep them in mind as we go forward in our work in this House.
This challenge feels especially urgent today. The national discourse has become increasingly strained. Polarisation, declining trust and a harsher tone in public discourse are not simply political concerns; they affect how people relate to one another and how resilient our communities can be. The commission’s findings make it clear that the health of our democracy, as we have heard, depends not only on strong institutions but on strong relationships between citizens—between us.
If we are serious about rebuilding trust, we must recognise the essential role of our civil society. Across the country, charities, voluntary groups and community organisations create those spaces we need, where people meet not as opponents but as neighbours and collaborators. They foster belonging, participation and shared purpose.
I see this every day in the work I do with the Youth United Foundation. All these youth organisations, such as the Scouts, the Guides, about which we have already heard, St John Ambulance cadets, and the police and fire cadets, bring young people from all backgrounds together. They learn teamwork, service and responsibility. They form bonds that transcend difference and build the foundations of active citizenship.
Each week, in communities up and down the country, more than a million young people are supported by over a quarter of a million trained volunteers. These local groups give young people a shared identity rooted in service, teamwork and belonging. They also create opportunities for young people to build mutual understanding and enhance community cohesion. Their impact is strongest because local delivery is supported by national organisations which have the evidence, oversight and safeguarding frameworks to give young people the safe places they need to ensure that these programmes are effective.
When young people come together in these settings, differences begin to recede. They learn to lead, to listen and to support one another. They discover that citizenship is not merely a concept but something to be actively lived. This is how community identity and resilience are fostered—through shared experience and participation.
Yet, despite our Government’s best intentions, funding for these groups is shaky. The uniformed youth fund has come to an end, which jeopardises many of the new places that were created through that work, particularly in areas of social deprivation. I get that the Government need to review funding streams to align with the new youth strategy, which I wholeheartedly welcome. But we cannot afford a hiatus, and our communities need better.
Civil society’s contribution extends well beyond youth provision. With over 170,000 charities and millions of volunteers, it plays a significant role in both our social fabric and our economy. Yet its true strength lies in the trust it commands. These organisations are deeply rooted in the communities they serve, reaching individuals who may feel disconnected from formal institutions, or who experience loneliness, as we have heard, creating opportunities for meaningful engagement across differences. Yes, we saw this during Covid, but we also saw it through moments of unrest, such as in Southport, and in Belfast only very recently, where local people came together to repair the damage that had been done to their community—physically, with brooms, but also with support for other community members. By doing this, these community groups give us all hope, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bates.
However, we must also acknowledge the growing tensions that exist. Demand for services provided by civil society continues to rise, while funding and stability have not kept pace. We are asking more of these organisations at a time when many are under strain. This is especially true for youth services, where the work being done is not short-term programme delivery but the shaping of confident, resilient citizens. Will the Minister investigate the hiatus I have talked about and look at what can be done to stabilise the funding for the youth strategy?
Government has a crucial role to play here. I welcome the civil society covenant, which is an important step. The work being done there is very important and essential to the health of our democracy. Again, I welcome the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. We remember her today with love and with sadness.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, first, it was a wonderful list from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, which I will also be printing a copy of, because it was very uplifting.
I did not know Jo Cox. I never had the privilege of hearing her speak. But in the years since her murder, I have come to understand her through the words of those who did, and they describe somebody who believed with total conviction that politics could be a force for good, that public life could be conducted with decency, and that you could argue hard but still treat your opponents as human beings worthy of respect.
It is in that spirit—Jo’s spirit—that I support the work of the Jo Cox Foundation and the Jo Cox Civility Commission. There are two recommendations in particular that I wish to speak on today: the urgent need to regulate social media platforms, and the responsibility of all of us to model the behaviour that we want to see.
I have spoken before in this Chamber and in this House about the abuse and intimidation of elected councillors. I have described cars being set alight, candidates stalked, and a candidate punched unconscious on a doorstep. There are brilliant councillors, such as Stockton council leader, Councillor Lisa Evans, whom I spoke to earlier, who experience horrendous online abuse, including doctored AI images of herself being published online. She now says the abuse is something she is used to.
This normalisation is unacceptable in our democracy. Over the past few weeks, many of us from many minority communities have begun to question whether we are truly welcome in this country any more. Something has shifted in our discourse, and there seems to be permission to say whatever we want and to behave without boundaries, regardless of the impact, from both the left and the right. I said then that we are failing the people who make local democracy work, and I say the same again today.
I know from speaking to colleagues, councillors, MPs and activists that the scale of the problem has significantly worsened. Through the Jo Cox Civility Commission, we have a clear, cross-party, evidence-based framework of what needs to be done. First, on social media, the commission calls on platforms to acknowledge the dramatic significance of local politicians—not just MPs and Peers but councillors—and to provide better and faster routes for reporting abuse and misinformation. It calls on Ofcom to address specifically the abuse of elected representatives. The evidence of what happens when platforms abandon that responsibility is now stark and quantified.
The House may be aware of the work of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Its report, Safety Off, published just this month, should be required reading for anyone who doubts the scale of what we face. In January 2025, Meta rolled back its content moderation policies, cutting proactive enforcement of rules against violence, incitement, hateful conduct and bullying. The CCDH predicted a surge in abuse. When it analysed nearly 8 million Facebook comments directed at Members of Congress, it found that abuse did not merely surge; it skyrocketed. Overall, abuse comments tripled and violent threats and hate quadrupled—and it was not directed only on one side of the political aisle. The CCDH named its report Safety Off because that is precisely what Meta did: it switched off safety. When a platform with billions of users removes guardrails against violent conduct, violence surges. That is not correlation; it is causation. The platforms know it and they choose it anyway.
I am mindful that we are speaking in a British context, and there are benefits to social media, but the platforms and algorithms are the same, and the business model that rewards engagement is the same. This crosses borders: it shapes the environment locally, nationally and globally. Research makes it clear that the majority of councillors who experience abuse experience it online. It is targeted and co-ordinated, and disproportionately affects women, people of colour and those from minority communities, precisely the people whose presence in our politics makes it more representative and more reflective of the country it serves. When abuse drives out people, we are not just losing individuals; we are making our politics narrower and, in doing so, making it weaker.
The commission’s second recommendation is harder. It asks all of us involved in politics to model respectful behaviour—in the Chamber, online and in public life—and it asks us to consider carefully the impact of our words on public discourse. I think of Jo Cox here again. Those who knew her speak of somebody who, by instinct, was a builder of bridges; who did not mistake loudness for strength or contempt for conviction; and who understood that the way you argue matters just as much as what you argue for. We live in a political moment that rewards the opposite: when outrage drives engagement; when inflammatory language spreads further and faster than measured argument; when the easiest path to a news cycle is to treat your opponent not as somebody with a different view but as an enemy to be destroyed; and when jokes are made about an arson attack on the Prime Minister’s home. Politicians at every level are not merely victims of this culture but, sometimes, the architects.
When a public figure uses demonising language, it does not stay within the walls of Westminster—it travels, it gives permission and it is heard by the councillor chairing a planning meeting or by the activist sending a message at midnight. Online and offline abuse feed each other. What is said in public life shapes what is considered acceptable online, and what is permitted online shapes what happens on our streets. The commission asks us to take responsibility for that: not to be silenced or to abandon robust debate—Jo Cox herself fiercely believed in that—but to recognise that there is a difference between challenging an argument and degrading a person and between holding a power to account and making public life uninhabitable.
Ten years on from Jo Cox’s murder, the threat to our democracy has not receded; it has changed shape, moved online and become faster and more persuasive, and it is actively enabled by the choices of the wealthiest companies in human history. The response that the commission calls for is, yes, to do the practical things—regulate the platforms, protect the candidates and resource the police—but also to do the harder thing of being the politician that you want others to be. I truly believe that we can, and I remain defiant against hate and division. We
“have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
That remains one of the most important sentences in modern British politics—and, a decade on, it remains work that we still have not finished.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, Jo Cox will always be remembered for the belief that we
“have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
In today’s often angry and fractured political climate, those words feel as important and necessary as ever. They are a reminder of the kind of politics and society that many people want to see.
I was profoundly shaped by the inaugural Jo Cox Women in Leadership Programme, established in her memory to support more women into public life. Many women from the first cohort have gone on to serve in leadership roles across public life. I am proud to sit on these Benches with my noble friend Lady Hyde of Bemerton, who was part of our first cohort. That experience reinforced how important it is that politics feels open to people from every background, especially those who are too often excluded from leadership or unheard in various institutions. The lived experience, insight and perspectives that we bring to the table matter. They make our politics stronger, our decisions better and our democracy more representative.
The commission recognises that abuse, intimidation and hostility are not simply unpleasant features of modern politics; they silence voices, drive good people away from public service and weaken democratic participation itself. If people feel unable to engage in public life because of fear, intimidation or abuse, our democracy is poorer for it.
We also know that this abuse is not experienced equally. Women, people from ethnic-minority backgrounds and younger representatives are too often subjected to particularly vicious abuse. If that becomes normalised, we risk creating a politics where only the most privileged or thick-skinned feel able to participate. That cannot be acceptable in a healthy democracy.
Civility does not mean avoiding disagreement. Democracy depends on debate, challenge and scrutiny, but there is a profound difference between disagreement and dehumanisation. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but so are responsibility and accountability. Words can inspire and unite, but they can also wound and divide.
Too often, anger now travels faster than understanding. Social media can reward outrage over reflection and division over dialogue. Hostility and misinformation are amplified in ways that deepen division rather than understanding. That is why the commission’s focus on political and media literacy is so important. In an age of misinformation and polarisation, helping people develop the confidence and critical thinking skills to question and challenge what they see online or hear has become more important than ever. If we are honest, that lesson may not be limited to young people.
In Lewisham, I have seen the value of bringing people together across differences and generations through interfaith work, libraries, community spaces and civic participation. The more that people from different backgrounds, communities and cultures can learn from one another, share experiences and listen with openness, the stronger understanding, respect and trust between us become. That is why strengthening civility and strengthening community must go hand in hand. There must be stronger codes of conduct and higher standards of behaviour at all levels of public life.
In public life, language and behaviour that would be unacceptable elsewhere are sometimes dismissed as simply a part of politics. Those in public life at every level must lead by example through the tone they set, the respect they show and the standards they uphold.
One of the greatest tributes we can pay to Jo Cox’s memory is to build a politics where more people feel able to step forward and contribute, where different voices are welcomed and where we recognise that our differences need not divide us, because when people are encouraged to participate rather than pushed away, our democracy, communities and country are stronger for it. That is a responsibility we all must share.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I cannot disagree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, just shared with us. Particularly, I think that this House and the other place have welcomed many women who have come through the Jo Cox programme, and that has made our politics much better and richer.
“We are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; cols. 675-76.]
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the murder of Jo Cox MP, we are reminded of her profound legacy and the enduring power of those words. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for bringing this important debate before the House. I have been deeply moved by the many thoughtful contributions we have heard today.
While I did not have the privilege of knowing Jo personally, I have, in a small way, come to know her through her sister, Kim. Most recently, we found ourselves on opposing sides in an interparliamentary tug of war, raising funds for Macmillan. It was a light-hearted moment but also a powerful demonstration of what can bring us together, even across lines of difference.
The Jo Cox Civility Commission’s recent report, A Renewed Call to Action for the devolved nations, offers a series of important and practical recommendations which deserve careful consideration. The findings are striking: some 75% of Senedd Members and Welsh MPs reported that there are times when they feel unsafe in their role. Many elected representatives across the devolved nations do not feel able to participate in public life fully and freely. Abuse and intimidation, we are told, are driving people away from politics altogether. This is deeply concerning. A healthy democracy depends on participation and on people from all backgrounds feeling able to step forward, serve and speak without fear.
The report’s recommendations are constructive and grounded in collaboration between elected representatives and civil society. They include calls for the devolved Parliaments to provide clearer guidance and support to Members and their families; for adequate resourcing of Operation Ford, the police support mechanism for elected representatives; for political parties to enforce robust codes of conduct; and for all of us in public life to model respectful behaviour.
I particularly commend the recommendations specific to Wales. They are practical, clearly articulated and directed to the appropriate institutions. At a time when political discourse can feel increasingly divisive, such clarity and focus are especially welcome.
I have always believed that disagreement is both natural and necessary in a democracy. At its best, it sharpens thinking and leads to better outcomes, but tone matters. We are seeing with growing frequency forms of political discourse that are unnecessarily abrasive and, at times, that seek to demonise entire communities. That does little to advance understanding and risks deepening division. We all, individually and collectively, have a responsibility to set a better example.
Turning again to the report, its publication in the lead-up to elections in both Wales and Scotland may, understandably, have meant that some of its messages were lost amid the pre-election debate. However, even in the months since, there have been welcome signs of progress in Wales, thanks to the report. The Senedd has begun piloting a social media monitoring scheme to support Members, and has published its report, A Senedd for All: Report of the Family-Friendly and Inclusive Parliament Review, which includes proposals to address abuse, including the establishment of a safe participation in politics taskforce. Further, the Welsh Government have taken important steps, including exempting safety-related expenditure from campaign finance limits and introducing voluntary diversity and inclusion guidance for political parties—guidance that my own party, Plaid Cymru, has engaged with actively.
During the recent Senedd election, the Jo Cox Foundation also contributed to the development of a digital safety guide for candidates, working alongside organisations such as Shout Out UK, Glitch and Elect Her. I know that many candidates found this resource not only practical but reassuring, at what can be a particularly exposed moment in public life.
These are all positive developments, but there is clearly much more to be done. I would therefore be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, could provide an update on the responses received from institutions and bodies in Wales to these recommendations and on whether she anticipates any barriers to their full implementation. I would also like to ask the Minister a specific question relating to the recommendation directed at His Majesty’s Government; namely, what consideration has been given to expanding the remit and resourcing of the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre to cover Members of the devolved Parliaments, in addition to its existing responsibilities for Members in the other place and First Ministers?
If we are serious about honouring Jo Cox’s legacy, we must ensure that public life remains open, safe and respectful. Civility is not a constraint on political disagreement; it is a condition that makes healthy disagreement possible. So, we must ask: what kind of politics do we want to model for those who come after us and for the communities that Parliament is here to serve?
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Lab)
My Lords, Jo Cox was a dear friend, and it is so hard to realise that 10 years have passed since her tragic murder. I thank my noble friend Lady Royall for tabling the Motion for this important debate and for her continuing brilliant work chairing the Jo Cox Foundation. We commemorate Jo’s memory best by holding fast to what she said in her maiden speech in the House of Commons, which every single speaker so far has quoted; namely, that
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; cols. 675-76.]
We need surely to relearn that lesson now more than ever.
The Civility Commission and the Jo Cox Foundation help us to do so. Their focus is particularly on the abuse and violence directed at elected representatives. They are about promoting a respectful and inclusive politics. We need only to think of Jo Cox herself, David Amess, Stephen Timms, and the levels of abuse directed at many other politicians, at both national and local level, especially abuse directed towards women representatives and towards political representatives of colour. This can never be right. Respectful disagreement is what democracy and democratic politics ought to be all about, but it goes further than this.
All too often at the moment, the response of some voters and some political figures to issues and challenges is to resort to hatred and violence. The scenes we saw in Southampton and elsewhere in the aftermath of the tragic death of Henry Nowak and what happened in Belfast following the assault on Stephen Ogilvie are obvious recent examples. What happened to Henry Nowak and Stephen Ogilvie was, of course, unimaginably awful, but there are some political figures in our country who will turn tragedy into a political opportunity for rage and hatred and violence.
Such a response, however, diminishes them, undermines our community and society, and does huge damage to our country. It stems ultimately from fear of difference, fear of otherness and the prejudice that follows from that. It is what gave us, nearly 40 years ago, the wretchedness of Section 28. It is what has fuelled much of the rise of the far right around the world. It is what leads to manufactured, whipped-up protests about migrants and asylum seekers. There are, of course, good and bad migrants; there are good and bad members of society more generally. But manufactured outrage is primarily something fostered by bad actors.
Let us instead listen to the families of Henry Nowak and Stephen Ogilvie, who have bravely asked us all not to turn the tragedies that have affected them into weaponised division and violence. Let us listen to the wise words of Jo Cox, reminding us that we have so much in common. Let us celebrate the richness and diversity of our communities. Let us hold fast to the idea that we make progress only when we unite, when we do things together, when we do not foster division and hatred. Let us do better.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate and to remember the amazing Jo Cox, whom I met when she was chair of Labour Women’s Network and I was starting my political journey spending a weekend together in Bristol on a Labour Women’s Network training course. She shone brightly, and we heard many testimonies last Thursday in the other place about how being in Jo’s presence changed people for the better and how she drew people together, creating connection.
In my maiden speech, I spoke about my preoccupation with how we live well together, and five months on I am more preoccupied than ever. The three interconnected priorities of the Jo Cox Foundation, set up in her memory, are, sadly, unrelentingly relevant to us today: addressing loneliness; civility in public life; and grass-roots community work bringing all kinds of people together. There is a need urgently and comprehensively to address and think through on-the-ground solutions as well as legislative policy levers that create spaces and places—physical and otherwise—that enable everyone in society to thrive. There are some brilliant suggestions in the civility commission recommendations, some of which have been adopted, and we have heard about the excellent work today of the youth sector from my noble friend Lady Morgan.
This desire is born not out of utopian idealism but, as my noble friend Lady Dacres pointed out, out of living and working in diverse settings. My experience in Islington taught me similarly: from community centres to the council chamber, it is possible to build community, to build empathy, to increase understanding and to seek the common good. Connection with other human beings is essential to this; listening is essential; being open to learning is also essential. Kae Tempest says this better than I can in the song “People’s Faces”:
“But it’s hard to accept that we’re all one and the same flesh
Given the rampant divisions between oppressor and oppressed
But we are, though
More empathy, less greed, more respect”.
The last several decades have seen our social fabric stretched thin and to breaking point. In an often atomised and individualistic world, there is an urgent need to renew communal life, to renew solidarity, to commit to being together in spaces with people who do not look or sound like us and to challenge ourselves to listen well and ask questions.
Human beings are amazing. We are constantly evolving, continually being made and remade, and every day becoming and emerging. No one is fixed in their identity. No one is complete. Because of that ongoing evolution, there is always hope, and there is always the possibility of change and of shift. I have seen that in my work in prisons, in my work with people in addiction, and in my own life day by day. Sometimes it is little by little, and sometimes it is all at once in this giant wave. People can and do change; communities can and do change, through connection with other humans, a sense of belonging and doing something to meet the need of another.
The great, late Archbishop Desmond Tutu knew a thing or two about helping people to live together well, and his whole work was grounded in the concept of Ubuntu: “I am because we are”. My humanity is caught up and inextricably bound up in others, and because my humanity is bound up with others in this nation, I cannot ignore the pain and rage spilling out in Belfast and Southampton. Neither can I ignore the fear and terror expressed by my friends who are people of colour about going about their daily lives. Moreover, I cannot ignore the survivors of trafficking, whom I met last week with the Sophie Hayes Foundation, telling me about the failings of so-called safe houses and the failings of the national referral mechanism. My humanity is caught up and inextricably bound up in others.
On connection and listening, I do not know what that looks like in every community up and down our great nation. I know that, in my community, it looked like the Arsenal parade. It looks like an interfaith meal or the community homework club. We have a responsibility, as others have pointed out in this House today, to foster community; to foster connection, to share a meal and to be careful how we speak.
The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas took the “face of the other” as his foundational ethical concept: encountering another precious and totally unique human being face to face. We need human connection, seeking to understand and, as legislators, a commitment to listen, learn and collaborate with communities to find answers so we can live together well. I am not afraid of hard work, so let us go, with rolled-up sleeves, sharp minds and soft hearts. The common good must be sought, because we have far more in common than that which divides us.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to pay my respects to Jo Cox’s family and all her friends. I thank my noble friend Lady Royall for arranging to have this debate today and the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, because without the work that it has been doing, we would not be here today, communities would not be in the situation they are in, and we would not be training women to come into public life. More and more we need to do this, and more and more we need to work with schools and other institutions so that young people know, like the Girl Guides and others, that every door is open to them—and I mean every door is open to them.
I was lucky to be brought up being told that every door was open to me, but not everybody has that opportunity. They might be bullied in every way: being bullied at school, being bullied at work, being bullied somewhere. When somebody is bullied, they go into their house, they go into a room and they never come out of it again. That is where we have all these problems, in many ways, in the community. It is part of our role to stop that happening.
I first met Jo when she was working at Oxfam and then, when she came to the House of Commons and I was here, she introduced me to the work they were doing on Syria and the White Helmets, on which we worked together. I still work with them, but we miss Jo deeply. I also went, just after Jo died, to Trafalgar Square when we had a memorial outside and I brought home, as my noble friend Lady Royall has seen, one of the placards that we had that day. I brought it home, got it cleaned and had it framed. I have that on my desk, and it reminds me every day about what we should be doing and why we should be doing it.
It is so important to ensure that women, who make up 50.7% of our population in this country, are in public life. What percentage of them are not in public life because they are not persuaded to be there or, when they have thought about it, they are told it is not for them, or they try and they are bullied? We have to insist that women are selected at every level. Otherwise, we will not have the right form of communities, and their children will not do this either. For example, there should be more women magistrates. There is a big shortage of magistrates, and women and young girls should be taught about the magistrate system so that in later life they apply to be trained.
The situation for MPs, councillors and other people in public life has now gone beyond the question of being bullied due to the rhetoric that we are seeing outside. We have not taken it seriously enough, and we now have to take it seriously. If necessary, as the Jo Cox Foundation has said, we have to pass stronger legislation. Councillors should not have stuff thrown at their doors, eggs thrown at their cars, their children interfered with or taunted at school and university, and so on. It is vital that we follow the recommendations of the recent report by the Jo Cox Foundation and More in Common, because we want a society that is together and is going to thrive. If we do not thrive, our country will not thrive.
That is why it is important too that we encourage women in public life to apply to be on boards at every level, whether it is at local or international level. We need to take men with us as well. This is about men and women working together in communities to stop what we have been seeing over the last couple of years, including what we are seeing in the media and on the web. It is disgraceful, and we must do everything we can to stop it happening. This abuse must cease. Thank you again for having this debate on the report; we must continue to build on it and to have further reports.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for introducing this debate and raising the importance of community, of respect, of getting involved, and of the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. I need to declare that I am still a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates. I thought this debate might be a bit of a downer but he really uplifted it, and I think we are all feeling much better for that. I think that is the right legacy for Jo Cox and others: for us to feel good, not bad. We should look up, not down, and recognise what a wonderful country we live in, and that the vast majority of people are good.
We need to cherish and protect that which makes our country great. We need to rely on our politicians to lead and develop our country. We want the best politicians. Politicians should not need to continually look over their shoulder for threats when they inevitably have to make what will be difficult decisions—because there will be difficult decisions for all politicians.
I particularly want to focus on councillors—I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association, so noble Lords might not be surprised. Councillors are embedded in their community, and in many ways they face greater risks because they are well known. It does not matter whether your address is published; most people know where you live as a councillor because you are part of that community. The LGA survey in 2025 showed that 72% of councillors had faced abuse, 50% were subject to misinformation and 25% had received threats of violence.
We want the best councillors. Traditionally, many councillors were not particularly politically driven; they basically just wanted to help their community and do what was right. Maybe it was to try to get a leisure centre built, or maybe, like me, they were fed up with too many potholes. Whatever it was, it was not because they were saying, “I am definitely a strong Labour person”—or a strong Conservative person, or whatever it was. They just wanted to do good.
That was why, when I was chairman of the LGA, I launched the Debate Not Hate campaign—which, to be topical, is about playing the ball, not the player. As the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, said, we need to recognise that what we say matters. In the age of social media, comments made will inevitably be exaggerated. They will be misquoted and distorted and frequently will snowball.
One of the reasons I like door knocking is that I get the chance to talk to somebody for five or 10 minutes. I have pretty much never walked away from a door and had somebody say, “You’re a terrible person”. They may still disagree with me, but at least we had the opportunity to realise that we were coming from different angles. We could be wrong but we were not bad. That is really important when we have our debates. We should not imply that somebody is wrong because they are bad. They are wrong because we may have a different set of values or because we do not agree with their analysis, but it does not make them bad. To say so is a shortcut that causes huge problems.
The risk—or the reality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, said—is that you get only the people who are thick-skinned, to which I add the highly motivated, standing. That is not good for our country or for our local communities. It is not enough to talk about community; we need to live it, be comfortable with our actions, respect each other and not give the opportunity for this foul abuse.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, as many of your Lordships know so well, Jo Cox had only 13 months as a Member of Parliament before the tragic, horrific end to her parliamentary career. It is a huge tribute to her legacy, epitomised by today’s debate, that her impact has been far greater than, frankly, that of many people who have served for rather longer. It is a huge tribute to her.
My own path in politics never crossed with hers—although, like her, I spent some years in politics in Yorkshire—but I know that other members of the Liberal Democrat Benches speak very fondly of their memories of working on a cross-party basis with her. Her legacy is an important one because her work, beliefs and commitments are, 10 years on, still so relevant, both to strangers to her like me and to those who have the privilege of happy memories of working with her and of the friendship they experienced. They are of course happy memories tinged with the sadness of knowing what has since been missing in their lives.
An important part of her legacy is of course carried forward by the Jo Cox Foundation, and I pay tribute to its scope, its ambition and its necessary persistence. There is a positive side—a happy upside, as so neatly epitomised by the noble Lord, Lord Bates—to the challenges that the foundation tries to help us see through, but there are also some grimmer ones.
To focus on just one aspect of those, I think we have heard both in today’s debate and in our recent debate a few days ago, focusing on abuse and intimidation in local government specifically, just what a serious challenge that is. It is quite shocking that the LGA survey of councillors involved in the May elections this year found that 70%—nearly three in four—had faced at least some form of abuse or intimidation. We quite rightly worry about the safety and security of parliamentarians, but councillors often have far fewer security provisions and far less support available to them. Those threats and that danger can feel just as real, damaging and corrosive to our democracy as it does to parliamentarians.
In a way, we also saw the importance of the Jo Cox Foundation’s work on civility in our politics with the news at the beginning of this week of the conviction of two people for arson offences relating to the Prime Minister. An important part of that story, which no doubt we will return to in one of the debates next week, is the Russian links of those people. But foreign powers can incite violence in our politics only if people within this country are also willing and able to be enticed into violence themselves.
We are reminded also of one of the challenges that the Jo Cox Foundation rightly faces up to. Frankly, every time we look at our phones or turn to see what is new on social media, we have to battle against the temptation that those algorithms deliberately create to try to pull us into extreme emotions and to secure our time and our engagement, but that often also means inciting and encouraging our anger and even our dislike of others. Although there are many positives of social media, which we should not forget, so often it pulls us towards division, anger, even hatred and, in the worst cases, violence.
We have heard in the speeches today a broad understanding and shared commitment to face up to these challenges. However, while it is welcome that the Government have been listening on many of the issues that have been raised, I think it is fair to say that there is a general concern that more needs to be done—and quickly. I will give two simple examples. I mentioned the importance of the safety of local councillors and those involved in local government. We heard in a debate a few days ago about the very mixed reputation of Operation Ford: the police activities to protect councillors. In some cases, rightly, it has been very highly praised, but often people feel it is frustratingly short of what is needed to properly protect them.
We have also seen the importance of a continued commitment to action, and I hope an acceleration of action, in the continuing controversy over the ability to create non-consensual nudes using the Grok tool. That is a problem that affects many people in many different ways, but people who are prominent in public life, such as those who put themselves forward to stand in elections, are particularly vulnerable. We have seen a sequence of claims by Grok about how it is dealing with those issues, so far always followed by more journalistic investigations showing that the issue has not ended.
So, as we remember Jo Cox and others such as Sir David Amess, and, in my own party, Andrew Pennington, who lost his life protecting Nigel Jones, then a Member of the other House and later a Member of this House, their memories should prompt us to do more, to move more quickly and to honour their legacy.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate today and thoroughly embarrassing and humbling to hear the contributions of many Members.
It is with a deep sense of duty that I rise to address the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission and the broader imperative of safeguarding those who participate in public life. The murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess were not merely acts of violence against individuals but profound violations of the democracy that binds our society together. They also remind us of the values that Jo Cox lived by: working together, respect for others and a belief that we have far more in common than that which divides us. Every speaker has mentioned that, so it is a really good testament. Those values must shape not only our response to rising hostility but the kind of political culture that we wish to build. However, despite the clarity of the commission’s recommendations and the urgency of the threat, the Government’s response has been insufficient to meet the scale of the challenge before us. The commission issued 28 recommendations, yet only seven have been adopted so far, and I think we all would encourage the Government to look at the others very quickly.
It is particularly troubling for people like me that none of the recommendations relating to local government has been implemented. As has been said, local councillors, who often serve without staff, without security and without the institutional protections afforded to Members of either House, remain acutely vulnerable. As the former leader of Bexley council, I know this vulnerability all too well. My colleagues and I have ourselves been subjected to sustained abuse, often anonymous, often from keyboard warriors, often deeply personal and mainly inaccurate, simply for carrying out the responsibilities of public office.
The fallout has impacted both officers and members: their health, their families and their lives. It is an experience that is shared by councillors across the country and underlines why the commission’s recommendations on local government cannot be treated as optional. The commission’s call to expand Operation Bridger to support local councillors was clear and unambiguous. The Government’s inaction leaves a significant gap in our national resilience. It is entirely proper to ask how we will ensure that local democracy is not treated as a secondary concern.
The Government frequently cite the Online Safety Act as evidence of progress, yet the lived experience of elected representatives tells a very different story. As has been mentioned, the 2025 survey of Members of Parliament revealed levels of threat and intimidation that should trouble every Member of this House. Women and Members from minority ethnic backgrounds face disproportionate levels of abuse. Candidates in the 2024 general election were twice as likely to face abuse if they were women and three times as likely if they were from minority ethnic backgrounds. The commission’s recommendation that social media companies provide enhanced support to candidates, particularly during election periods, remains unimplemented.
The dangers of social media are no longer abstract. They influence who feels able to stand for office, who feels safe to speak and who feels welcome in public life. A third of girls and young women now say that they are deterred from entering politics because of the hostility they see online. If we do not address this, we risk losing a generation of talent.
Furthermore, the commission identified the absence of a central government unit as one of the principal obstacles to progress. Without such a unit, efforts across police forces, regulators, political parties and tech companies remain fragmented and inconsistent. The renewal of the Defending Democracy Taskforce is welcome, but it is not a substitute for a dedicated, properly resourced co-ordinating body. The commission was unequivocal: this is a systemic challenge that requires a systemic response. The Government must provide one.
The commission’s call for impartial political and media literacy to be embedded in the curriculum is timely and necessary. Yet the Government’s proposed reforms will not take effect until 2027, with the teaching beginning in 2028-29, five years after the commission’s first call to action. In a digital environment where misinformation spreads in seconds, this delay has real-world consequences. We must recognise that civility is about not only how we conduct politics but how we sustain community cohesion. Loneliness and social disconnection remain significant challenges. They weaken trust, reduce civic participation and increase vulnerability to polarisation. Jo Cox understood that democracy is strengthened when communities are connected. That is why the Great Get Together, now marking its 10th year, matters. It is a reminder that respect is built locally through the simple act of bringing people together.
Within the Representation of the People Bill, we welcome the measures that protect candidates from harassment and intimidation. However, we remain vigilant against any drift towards the policing of legitimate political expression. Democracy must protect those who serve within it, but it must also preserve the right of citizens to criticise those who hold power.
At the heart of this debate lies a simple truth: democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires care, vigilance and a willingness to confront the uncomfortable realities. The Jo Cox Civility Commission has provided a thoughtful and comprehensive blueprint for strengthening the integrity of political culture. It is now for the Government to act: not with selectivity or delay but with the seriousness that this moment demands. If we fail to protect those who serve, we risk diminishing the very institutions on which our freedoms depend. If we fail to foster respect, we risk losing the trust that holds our society together. If we fail to work together, we risk forgetting the message that Jo Cox gave us: that we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, that was an incredibly thoughtful and well-informed debate, and I am very pleased to respond for the Government. I would like to thank my noble friend Lady Royall for opening the debate and all noble Lords who have spoken for some truly outstanding contributions today.
I want to start by paying tribute to all those who have worked to preserve Jo’s legacy. Tuesday marked 10 years since Jo’s tragic murder. My thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, will be with her family and friends: with Brendan, Cuillin, Lejla and, of course, our wonderful colleague in the other place, Kim Leadbeater, Jo’s sister. Last week, my colleague, Minister Ali McGovern, led a debate honouring Jo and her legacy. Members spoke of her civility, courage and determination and how she was a fierce advocate for those in need. I want to take a moment now to echo these sentiments in this House.
The hatred and violence which led to this senseless act has no place in our society. I am grateful to those who have worked tirelessly over the last decade to counter violent extremism and to bring our communities together. My noble friend Lady Royall mentioned Sir David Amess, and I have an abiding memory of working in Southend Council on a peer review on the first anniversary of Sir David’s murder and feeling the enduring impact of his loss.
Even in the wake of tragedy, the number of people who seek to come together greatly outnumbers those who aim to divide. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we build stronger and more resilient communities. This is the key to bringing people together: restoring pride in place and repairing social cohesion across the UK. It is the core priority for our Government. However, in today’s uncertain and changing world, community resilience has also become a matter of national security. We all know that hostile actors, at home and abroad, now seek to sow division and undermine local resilience as a means to pursue their own agendas and undermine our national interests. We know that a strong nation demands strong communities and we will prevent subversive forces undermining the community bonds that are the very foundation of this country.
Despite the threats we face, I am confident in the foundations we are building on. When people think of resilience or community strength, they often invoke images of the Blitz spirit and are nostalgic for a sense of defiant community that they fear may be lost. But this resilience endures, as we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I see this every day in my own community, not least when around the people who are there every single day in my community. Just last Sunday, I met with 25,000 people and hundreds of community groups and organisations, including musicians, dancers, sportspeople, politicians of all stripes, local businesses, who were all gathered together to celebrate our town on Stevenage Day. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for the fantastic reminder he gave us of our history and our legacy. We all celebrated Scotland’s World Cup win on 14 June and England’s fantastic win over Croatia last night. The noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, said she was not going to mention the Arsenal parade. I am not going to mention the Arsenal parade, either, but it was estimated there were 1 million people there, all celebrating together.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, and celebrate the first all-British podium in Formula 1 since 1968. I am only wheedling that in because, of course, Lewis Hamilton was a Stevenage boy. In relation to Lewis Hamilton, he has invested very heavily in ironing out some of the inequalities in STEM through his Mission 44 project, and I am really grateful for that.
My noble friend Lady Morgan reminded us of the veritable army of volunteers out there who support our young people in sport, in scouting and Guides and in myriad other activities. Their work often goes unrecognised and we should celebrate what they all do. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, we should celebrate the enormous good in every community: as ex-councillors, many of us here saw this every day in our work. This resilience endures. We saw it at the height of the Covid pandemic when neighbours came together to support each other. They shopped for the elderly and delivered prescriptions for the vulnerable. In the face of sickness and isolation, communities united to make sure no one was left behind.
More importantly, in the wake of the unrest that gripped Southport in 2024, local residents came together to rebuild their neighbourhood. I had a real lump in my throat when I saw that young man helping to rebuild the wall that had been knocked down the day after that happened. Amidst the grief of community tragedy, people took a stand against prejudice, clearly saying that this violence was not in their name. I am going to use Jo’s words too, and say
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/15; col. 675.]
When building strong, resilient communities, it is important to remember that we are defined not by our lowest moments but by how we respond to them. To this end, the Government are taking tangible action to support community resilience across our country. In March this year, I presented the social cohesion action plan to the House. Cohesion is not about suppressing differences—we should embrace and celebrate our diverse communities—but about renewing a shared social contract rooted in our fundamental British values: democracy, the rule of law, on which my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer has spoken so powerfully, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance. Our plan, entitled Protecting What Matters, sets out our cross-government approach to building confident, cohesive and resilient communities. Of course, this agenda necessitates a whole-of-society approach, and it does not fall within the remit of just one department.
To build resilience, we are resetting our approach to counterextremism, focusing on ensuring a consistent understanding of extremism across government, countering extremist influence in the UK and abroad, and strengthening measures against extremist abuse of our institutions. The plan also supports resilience to online harms, building on the Online Safety Act to provide greater platform transparency, stronger media literacy, protections for children, and better crisis response during periods of heightened tension. More widely, MHCLG’s common ground resilience fund will help deliver targeted cohesion and integration interventions and support local authorities and grass-roots organisations to run practical initiatives that bring people together. But, as my noble friends Lady Shah and Lady Dacres said, we must all show the leadership our roles enshrine. Words matter: we must watch our own and we must call out those who forget how language can divide and intimidate.
In relation to the Civility Commission recommendations, earlier this month I stood before the House and responded to a debate on the intimidation of councillors. The examples of abhorrent behaviour councillors have been subjected to that we heard from my noble friend Lord Forbes and others were seriously disturbing: a stark reminder of the scale of challenge that faces us. Harassment and intimidation of candidates and elected representatives must not be treated as an inevitable part of public life but recognised as a direct threat to our democracy and to democratic representation.
I am also aware of the vulnerabilities of some of our front-line workers. I was very pleased that the Crime and Policing Act introduced new protections for retail workers, and I have started a dialogue, from my own department’s perspective, with the planning profession, whose members are often in public meetings and at the front line of people’s frustration with the planning system. It is unacceptable that they or anyone else doing their job should be subject to intimidating or threatening behaviour. The Civility Commission has made a range of recommendations across sectors for national government, Parliament, local government, police, the courts, political parties, politicians, regulators and social media companies. Clearly, we all have a role to play in creating a stronger, more resilient society. This must be a joint effort: a joint responsibility. I am pleased the Government have made progress in this space.
As part of the Defending Democracy Policing Protocol, we have committed to funding Operation Ford, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned. This provides 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 heightened risk is identified. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised the somewhat inconsistent application of Operation Ford; I heard that as well in last week’s debate, and I will feed that back and see what can be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me about the fixated threat assessment; I will write to her on that issue.
We are also taking decisive action to tackle 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 holding or seeking 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.
On publishing anonymised data on protected characteristics of election candidates, the Government are committed to commencing Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, and we are exploring when and how we can do so. Careful consideration needs to be given to how it might be implemented, the necessary supporting regulations and whether a phased implementation might be needed.
I turn to some of the specific issues raised by noble Lords. There were some very powerful speeches, which included speaking about loneliness, from my noble friends Lady Royall, Lady Morgan and Lady Hyde. We are working very hard to ensure that improving social connection and tackling loneliness are embedded in government policy-making, including the Pride in Place strategy, backed by £5.8 billion over 10 years, the men’s health strategy, and the national youth strategy. There is a particular issue around young people and loneliness, and that strategy is backed by £500 million over three years. It will provide safe spaces, fun activities and trusted adults to mentor and support our young people. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for her welcome of the report, and I am very happy to meet with her.
My noble friends Lady Shah and Lady Goudie, the noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, all referred to the harassment and intimidation of local councillors. The noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Jamieson, referred to some of the startling figures in the LGA survey. Of course, I share these concerns. I am very glad that the LGA is doing that survey, but I am alarmed by some of the figures it is showing us. We need to take decisive action on this issue and ensure that people are not put off campaigning and standing for public office. That is one of the reasons why we are changing the law and why the Representation of the People Bill, by introducing a new statutory aggravating factor, will empower courts to give tougher sentences to those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke about work going on across the recommendations. Although some are formally approved, there is work going on right across the recommendations, so I can assure her that we are taking them very seriously.
My noble friends Lady Royall and Lady Dacres talked about local government standards. We intend to strengthen the current standards and conduct regime to make sure all local authority members embody the highest standards of conduct, which the electorate have a right to expect, and which greater devolution will certainly rely on. We published a government response to a consultation in November last year, and we intend to legislate on whole-system reform. Those reforms will provide the tools needed to deal swiftly and fairly with misconduct in every type and tier of local government.
My noble friend Lady Dacres raised the important issue of media literacy. The Government agree that media literacy helps people develop the skills needed to question information, judge credibility and build resilience to misinformation and other forms of harmful content. On 16 March, DSIT published its media literacy action plan, a whole-of-government plan for media literacy that sets out clear priorities for the next three years. By 2029, the action plan aims to improve critical engagement with online content, including recognition of misinformation and disinformation, and access to trusted information supported through schools, libraries and local services. There is a great deal more going on in the updated national curriculum, following the independent curriculum and assessment review; there is active work going on in that space too.
My noble friends Lady Royall and Lady Shah, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the very difficult issues of online harassment. The Online Safety Act 2023 establishes a framework of duties, overseen and enforced by Ofcom. In an electoral context, this framework means that in-scope services must tackle illegal content where it amounts to existing offences, including offences such as incitement to violence, undue influence, foreign interference and false statements about a candidate’s character. Where anonymous abuse does not meet the threshold for illegality, the Act’s user empowerment duties, which are expected to come into force from 2027, require the largest services to make sure they manage their interactions, including the ability to filter out content from non-verified users. It is simply not acceptable for platforms to shrug their shoulders and shrug off their responsibility to tackle this, and our Government are determined to tackle it.
On supporting women and minorities in politics, issues raised by my noble friends Lady Dacres and Lady Goudie, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the current UK Parliament is the most diverse on record and sees a number of firsts. The number of women elected to Parliament and in local government elections has risen: 40% of Labour members are now women. We do not have the overall figures on the ethnic diversity of the House of Commons, but available estimates suggest that there has been significant progress with that. The Government’s plans will further strengthen women’s role in public life, breaking down barriers to opportunity, tackling misogyny and creating more equal workplaces. We will encourage better political representation, including by ensuring political parties publish diversity data through commencing Section 106 of the Equality Act. But this is a whole-system issue: we have to tackle the intimidation and the online abuse that people face, or we will just not encourage people to come into political life.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, issued a challenge to me about leadership of this project. The Government will not tolerate the harassment and intimidation of those who serve in public life. That is why the Defending Democracy Taskforce is chaired by the Security Minister, with a mandate directly from the Prime Minister. She is bringing together departments, the Electoral Commission and our intelligence agencies to drive forward a co-ordinated and determined response to protect candidates and elected representatives from threats. Harassment and intimidation of candidates and elected representatives must not be treated as an inevitable part of public life, so we need to make sure that this action goes forward.
This Government are committed to strong, cohesive and resilient communities, and this will continue to be a priority for the remainder of this Government. I thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions to this important debate, and I hope that noble Lords will continue to engage and work with us as we bring people together to restore pride in place and repair social cohesion.
I want to close by thanking all those who worked so hard to honour Jo’s life with this indelible legacy of protecting, promoting and strengthening our democratic freedoms. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friends Lady Hyde and Lady Goudie said powerfully, the Jo Cox Foundation has become a unifying force for good in our public and political life. I want to end by thanking Jo, our sister. Her life, too short though it was, truly made a difference.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, what a glorious way to finish; I thank my noble friend the Minister. To think that we are a unifying force—that is a wonderful way to finish; I thank her so much. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate for sharing their experiences, but also for expressing their hopes and fears. I am grateful too for the work of the Jo Cox Civility Commission and for our wider work, because strengthening our communities, addressing the epidemic of loneliness and nurturing respect and civility in politics are all inextricably linked. These are the ways to address the challenge of making a more resilient society.
Still, notwithstanding the divisions and difficulties in our communities and our country, there is always hope. There are many great things and so much positive action in our communities. Like everyone else, I love the catalogue of positivity, which is going on my wall as well. In fact, I might print it out and circulate it to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. That is real, positive action.
It is also uplifting that across the Chamber, where quite often we disagree agreeably—and that is fine; that is as it should be—today we have agreed on all the points of this debate, and I think that is a matter of strength. We have all shown a great determination to bring about change where it is needed, and it is needed if we are to ensure a healthy democracy and a resilient society in which everyone feels safe to participate. We must hold firm to Jo’s words, and we must act.
I will end on a lighter note. I encourage all noble Lords to participate in the Great Get Together this weekend and, perhaps in the next 10 days, to go and raise a glass to Jo in one of our bars where they are serving Great Get Together beer.
Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their policy towards the (1) treatment of, and (2) research into, severe myalgic encephalomyelitis.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to have secured time for this debate on the treatment of and research into severe ME. I am particularly grateful to Action for ME, whose work with those living with ME and advocacy to improve care, treatment and understanding has been tireless. Someone very close to me has ME, and I know from our personal experience what so many other families know: that ME is not just a matter of policy documents, clinical pathways or departmental responsibilities; it is about lives changed beyond recognition. It is about people who were active, engaged, ambitious and full of plans who suddenly find that the most ordinary of tasks become impossible.
ME is a complex, chronic and disabling condition that affects multiple systems in the body, characterised by debilitating fatigue that does not improve with rest, cognitive dysfunction, pain and hypersensitivity to light, sound and movement. Even the most minimal activity can cause a serious worsening of symptoms in some people. Around 1.35 million people in the UK are estimated to be living with ME, although the true number may well be higher because of underdiagnosis and limited research. Around one in four of those with ME are severely affected. To be clear, that means they are housebound or bedbound, unable to carry out daily independent activities and totally reliant on others for personal care. Those with very severe ME may have extreme symptoms and are dependent on full-time care. Many are unable to process or tolerate food and are dependent on nutritional and hydration support. We need to be clear about the scale and the seriousness of this issue.
There have been some welcome developments recently with regard to ME. The Government’s ME/CFS delivery plan, published in July last year, was an important step. It finally recognises the needs of people with ME and has signalled a greater willingness to address an illness that has been neglected for so long. However, that recognition, welcome though it is, is not delivery. In March this year the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed that work to explore a specialist NHS service for people with severe ME will not begin until at least April 2027. That is not delivery of the service; it is simply the exploration of one.
For many illnesses a delay of a year would be troubling, but for people with severe ME it may be devastating, leading to further deterioration in their health and, crucially, signalling to them that once again their illness is being forgotten. In practice, the delay will mean that patients continue to be passed between services that simply do not know what to do, or, even worse, continue being harmed by care that is totally inappropriate to their needs. Recent prevention of future deaths reports into the deaths of Maeve Boothby O’Neill and Sarah Lewis raise serious concerns about the lack of specialist services, insufficient clinical understanding and failures to meet even the most basic care needs. These reports should weigh heavily on all of us and, I am sure, also weigh heavily on the Minister.
Those reports make it clear that it is not just a question of future improvement but of patient safety now. More deaths from ME must be prevented. I know the Minister will say the delivery plan is a starting point, and I accept that, but sadly it is a plan without funding, timelines or accountability, and it risks becoming just another document that people living with ME are told to welcome while their daily reality remains unchanged.
I would like the Government to set out what interim support will be available for patients with severe ME before exploratory work on a specialised service begins in April next year. We need clear interim measures, dedicated accountability within the department and within the NHS, and proper co-design with people with severe and very severe ME, along with their families, carers and the charities that support them.
There is also the question of research. I welcome the Government’s recent announcement to invest £4.75 million to enable the Sequence ME and Long Covid study to completely sequence the whole genomes of the 6,000 ME patients already collected. However, ME remains significantly underresearched when compared with its prevalence, severity and economic impact. For comparison, the UK spends 20 times less on ME research compared to multiple sclerosis, despite the fact that ME is twice as prevalent. Private investment has historically been limited because of the lack of established biomarkers and an underdeveloped clinical research pipeline, and this is precisely why the Government need to act. There is an opportunity here for the UK to lead in post-infectious disease research, with ME as a central part of that agenda. Along with Action for ME, I call on the Government to commit to accelerating biomedical research into ME through the life sciences sector by 2027, and this should include targeted support for diagnostics, biomarkers, treatment development, clinical trials and research into severe and very severe ME. The proposed innovation and research duty in the NHS modernisation Bill provides a clear opportunity to strengthen that commitment.
There is a very practical problem with data. At present, poor coding and inconsistent diagnosis mean that the NHS does not have a reliable picture of how many people have ME, where they are, how severe their illness is or what support they need. This makes proper service planning almost impossible, and it makes it too easy for people with ME, particularly severe and very severe, to remain invisible to the system, and they are left without adequate and safe care. I am very conscious that there are excellent clinicians, researchers, carers and voluntary organisations doing everything they can to support people with ME. My criticism is not of those individuals but of a system that has not given those with ME, especially severe ME, the services and the care they need.
I want to finish with a number of questions for the Minister. First, can she outline what interim support will be put in place for people with very severe ME before April next year? Will she consider setting up an expert advisory panel on severe ME which can give guidance to hospitals when they admit severe ME patients? Will the department look at providing clear nutritional guidance for patients with severe ME? Perhaps it could think about establishing a remote, virtual ME clinic along the lines of virtual wards. Will the Government commit to accelerating biomedical research into ME, including research into severe and very severe ME? How will the Government ensure that the delivery plan is backed by clear accountability, funding, timelines and local commissioning duties? People with ME have waited far too long, first to be believed and now for research and treatment.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I want to make a very short intervention in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for introducing a very important debate. As she pointed out, an estimated 1.25 million people across the United Kingdom are living with ME. Many of those are suffering severely affected and unable to carry out the daily activities which others take for granted and therefore require significant support with personal care. The level of care services is inconsistent across the United Kingdom, leaving those in need with major gaps in provision, causing serious deterioration in their personal well-being.
I therefore join in asking the Minister whether she can tell the House what interim support will be provided for people with severe ME, bearing in mind the delay to the expiration of the nationally commissioned service until April 2027. ME remains significantly underresearched considering how prevalent it is within society. Therefore, can the Minister’s department take action to accelerate ME research, thereby gathering the necessary evidence base for better care? The dignity of many suffering from severe ME depends on appropriate services across the UK. I trust that this short debate highlights the importance of the issue, and I wholeheartedly support the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her debate today.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market on her very moving speech. She comprehensively covered the major issues that are before patients with ME.
The prevention of future deaths report into the death of Maeve Boothby-O’Neill emphasised that there is no known cure into myalgic encephalomyelitis—not only no cure but no known cause, no known reason why some are susceptible to developing ME and no known reason why one in four sufferers develop severe problems. It was clear that despite three periods in hospital, the NHS was unable to reverse Maeve’s malnutrition and sadly she died. One might think that apart from lots more research into causes, prevention, diagnosis and effective treatment, there is nothing that can be done to care for sufferers appropriately. But there is.
I note that in a recent survey by Action for ME, just 10.8% of respondents with severe or very severe ME said they felt supported by the NHS. I began to wonder what “good” looks like, so I looked at the NICE guidelines and there it was. But I recently heard from a carer of a patient with severe ME. She said: “There is almost no help available on the NHS for patients of this severity. We waited six months for an NHS specialist appointment. The consultation lasted 10 minutes over the phone. The consultant, whose primary speciality was diabetes, reviewed blood tests, said they were normal and suggested my partner take a multivitamin. The clinic was disbanded the following day due to the consultant’s retirement, with no handover to an alternative service. Our experience with primary care has been equally concerning. Most GPs we have encountered have little understanding of severe ME, how profoundly disabling it can be or best practice for care. To give one example, a GP recently suggested to me that my partner try ‘talking therapies’ when he was unable to tolerate sound”.
My first question to the Minister is therefore: do the Government know how many ME services are implementing the NICE guidelines? If not, what is being done to find out? What is being done to support those that are not implementing the NICE guidance to do so? Obviously, we need to take several steps back from the quality of care to find out how this disease develops. Clearly, the Government should commit to accelerating biomedical research into ME, including the severe and very severe conditions. This should include targeted funding for diagnostics, biomarkers, treatment development, clinical trials and other post-infectious disease research, as my noble friend demanded. But there are also off-label, low-risk interventions, including cannabis-based medicines, which patients may be willing to try but cannot access on the NHS.
As we have just heard, ME remains significantly underresearched relative to its prevalence. Severe sufferers often cannot work from an early age. Those who are bed-bound require constant care at home, which also limits the economic activity of their carers. Improving economic evidence is important as it encourages grant-making decisions. Better cost of illness data would help demonstrate the wider social and economic impact of ME, including costs to the NHS, social care, the welfare system, families and carers, and the wider economy. State-funded research into this would pump-prime investment by charities, academics and pharmaceutical companies. It sends a message that ME matters.
The condition is increasingly being understood within the broader field of post-infectious conditions such as long Covid, but we must avoid the danger of the two conditions being confused. However, I welcome the announcement of a £1.4 million NICE research programme to explore the cost effectiveness of existing healthcare for ME and long Covid to improve the quality of care. Major UK research studies, including DecodeME, LOCOME and Sequence ME & Long Covid, are helping to build momentum. As my noble friend said, there is now an opportunity for the Government to position the UK as a leader in post-infectious disease research, with ME right at the heart of it. Is there a coherent plan for a broad range of research to cover all aspects of ME, or is it a bit here and a bit there? Are we lagging behind other countries and losing an important economic opportunity?
We will also need targeted support to translate biomedical science into commercially viable diagnostics and treatments. In this context, a recent report from your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee into the need for more support for science-based companies trying to scale up is certainly worth a read. It is called Bleeding to Death: the Science and Technology Growth Emergency. In other situations, there has been successful repurposing of pharmaceutical interventions developed for other diseases. Dexamethasone was an example during the Covid pandemic, and it certainly saved lives. There is a new funding opportunity for an NIHR award focused on evaluating repurposed pharmaceutical interventions. I wonder whether these grants might be applied to treat post-acute infection syndromes and associated conditions, including ME. Can the Minister say whether there has been any progress on this?
We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something for ME patients now. The sensory overload suffered by some sufferers means that they must restrict their stimulus by lying in a quiet, dark room, and their care needs to be physically gentle. This means that the environment in which care is delivered is as critical to their health outcomes as the treatment itself. The current definition of patient information in the NHS modernisation Bill risks creating a significant safety blind spot. While the single patient record is welcome and designed to consolidate a patient’s medical history, current guidance omits the contextual clinical data providing accommodations to make services accessible to all patients. Without formal, recorded and transferable data on reasonable accommodations, these patients face preventable harm, wasted clinical resources—when no sensory adjustments mean that appointments fail—and having to re-advocate for their safety needs at every new touchpoint.
By amending the definition of patient information to include reasonable accommodations, we could ensure that the SPR acts as a true safety net, not just for ME patients but for those with learning or communication difficulties. Including this provision does not merely add data; it formalises the duty of care, ensures clinical safety and embeds equity into the very architecture of the future NHS digital infrastructure. Will the Government accept an amendment to correct this omission?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for securing this important debate. I join others in paying tribute to the patients, families, clinicians, researchers and charities who have worked tirelessly to improve understanding of myalgic encephalomyelitis. For too long, people living with this condition have faced scepticism and inadequate support.
While significant challenges remain, it is right to acknowledge that progress has been made. There is now a much greater recognition that ME is a serious and often profoundly debilitating condition requiring appropriate clinical care and support. We on these Benches welcome the publication of the ME delivery plan in 2025. Many of the origins of that work lie in the commitments made by the previous Conservative Government in 2022 to develop a cross-government approach to ME. It is encouraging that the plan contains a broad range of actions across health services and educational research. We also welcome reports that a substantial number of those actions are complete or in progress.
However, publication of a plan is only the beginning. What matters to patients is whether they experience tangible improvements in their daily lives. The plan contains 44 actions, but patients and charities have raised understandable concerns about how delivery will be monitored in practice, who will ultimately be accountable for implementation, and how responsibilities will be managed as NHS England functions transfer into the Department of Health and Social Care. I therefore hope the Minister can tell the House today when the promised progress report will be published and who will be responsible for ensuring delivery across government and the NHS.
Nowhere are these questions more urgent than for those living with severe and very severe ME. These are often the patients with the greatest needs and the least ability to advocate for themselves. It is therefore concerning that the only delayed action within the delivery plan relates to consideration of specialised services for this group, with the decision now not expected until April 2027. The evidence presented by charities and campaigners illustrates why this matters. Preliminary findings from Action for ME’s recent survey suggest that many people with severe and very severe ME are unable to access existing specialist services because they are simply too unwell to attend them. Large numbers report receiving little or no ongoing support from either specialist services or primary care, while many face serious challenges in meeting basic needs, including nutrition. This matters not only because of the immediate impact on the patient’s quality of life but because early intervention and appropriate support can prevent longer-term deterioration.
If people have access to advice, treatment, system management and practical support at an earlier stage, there is a greater chance of helping them maintain their independence and remain connected to education or employment where appropriate. Delays in accessing support can leave people becoming progressively more unwell, making recovery and participation in everyday life considerably harder. That is why timely and effective services are so important, not only for those who are already severely affected but for those at risk of reaching that point.
It is also important to recognise that ME disproportionately affects women. Evidence consistently suggests that women are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with ME than men. Can the Minister therefore say what assessment the Government have made of the reasons behind this disparity and whether the needs of women living with ME are being specifically considered as the delivery plan is implemented?
Recent prevention of future deaths reports have also highlighted serious concerns regarding the care available to some of the most severely affected patients. The Government have stated that integrated care boards remain responsible for commissioning appropriate services in the meantime. Can the Minister therefore explain what assessment has been made of the current provision for severe and very severe ME, whether significant variation exists across the country, and what interim support will be available before any decision on a nationally commissioned service is reached in 2027?
We must also not lose sight of the critical importance of research. We welcome the support provided for the DecodeME survey. Its early findings identify potential genetic links involving the immune and nervous systems, representing an encouraging step forward in understanding the biological mechanisms underlying this condition. Yet ME remains significantly under-researched relative to its prevalence and impact. The Government have rightly spoken about the UK’s ambition to lead in life sciences and post-infectious disease research. There is a strong case for ensuring that ME forms part of that agenda, including through support for research into diagnostics, biomarkers, treatments and clinical trials.
In closing, I ask the Minister three questions. When will the Government publish their next formal update on the delivery of the ME plan? What interim support will be provided for people with severe and very severe ME before April 2027? Can she assure the House that the decision on specialised services will not be subject to further delay? Those living with ME have waited a long time to be heard. They deserve not only recognition and promises, but delivery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for securing this important debate, which matters so much to so many, and for her clear introduction to these matters. I am also grateful to all the other noble Lords who spoke for their thoughtful and probing insights. The debate has certainly underlined the profound impact that myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME/CFS—has on those living with the condition, but also on their families, friends, carers and communities.
Noble Lords have spoken very movingly about the reality, and I am grateful for the welcomes across the House for a number of government actions. I recognise what noble Lords have described, which is—to pick up a few points—a lack of awareness, variability in services, the stigma faced by those with ME/CFS and the need to go further. We recognise all of that.
The fact is that the system has not worked as it should for people. But that is why, early on, the Government prioritised publication of our final delivery plan on ME/CFS, which we published in July last year. I assure noble Lords that we work closely with those most impacted by the effects of this debilitating condition, including those with lived experience. I add my thanks to charities and campaigners for their work, because they have given voice to this subject. We want to ensure that patients are truly heard by a system that can respond to those voices, because historically that has not been the case. So the plan sets out a clear direction for improvement, and it focuses on three key ambitions: boosting research, improving understanding and education, and strengthening the care and support people receive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, raised a number of questions about funding timelines and accountability. I confirm that the department has overall responsibility for progress against the final delivery plan, and officials are actively tracking progress. It is very much worth noticing that three-quarters of the plan’s actions have been completed or commenced or are currently ongoing. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that an update on the delivery of the final delivery plan will be communicated next month.
We know, as has been spoken about, that a lack of research has meant that those with ME/CFS have been left feeling undervalued, frustrated and overlooked. That is why the final delivery plan commits to stimulating research, including through new funding opportunities, better support for researchers and building capacity and research. We have gone beyond the actions in the final delivery plan, as all noble Lords were good enough to reference, by investing £4.75 million in SequenceME, which will create the first high-resolution genetic map for ME/CFS. I believe that this will offer new hope to patients and pave the way for better diagnostics and future treatment, which, after all, is what we need.
All noble Lords asked for further commitments. To the points I have just made, I add that the Government are investing in turbocharging clinical trials research. Key to this is enabling new treatments to get to patients faster; and the NIHR has funded projects to explore the feasibility of a clinical trial for treatments for ME/CFS and other post-acute infection conditions, as noble Lords have asked for. Of course, funding and support is available for researchers, and the Medical Research Council and the NIHR welcome funding applications for research into ME/CFS and other post-acute infection conditions. Addressing gaps in knowledge and awareness around this condition is also crucial, because people who live with ME/CFS have to be seen and feel seen. They need to be reassured, and they need evidence that they are going to be taken seriously. I am therefore glad to say that NHS England has developed an e-learning programme, which consists of four modules and seeks to improve the understanding of healthcare professionals, and to support them to provide the right care at the right time for those who need it, including those with severe ME/CFS.
Experiences of care vary widely—that should not be inevitable, but we recognise that they do—but I believe that those with ME/CFS deserve a high standard of care, no matter who they are or where they are. We will seek to improve that through the development of a new template service specification for mild and moderate ME/CFS, and that will expand to include the severe nature of the condition. The template will focus minds and demonstrate to integrated care boards the ways in which NICE guidelines can be implemented. Key here too is that it will provide good practice examples for ICBs, so they can model their own services on where it is being successful.
There is, as I said at the beginning, much more to be done. We are working at pace to implement this final delivery plan, and we will work continually with stakeholders to make sure that it meets the mark. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked about interim support. We are not just committed to considering a specialised service for those with a very serious version of the condition; we are also exploring what preparatory work can be taken forward ahead of April next year. We want to progress the work at pace once the transformation in respect of NHS England has been concluded. In the meantime, we are considering a range of potential interim measures to support those with severe ME/CFS, including further promotion of the e-learning modules that I referred to, making sure they span very severe and severe ME/CFS, alongside the recommendations that have been presented to government directly by patient groups.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked about setting up an expert advisory panel. We do not currently have plans for such a panel for those with severe ME/CFS, but I assure the noble Baroness that we engage very closely with experts from NHS England, clinicians and experts in the charity sector so that we can develop a much broader approach to supporting patients with ME/CFS.
In response to the question about exploring whether a specialised service should be commissioned for very severe ME/CFS, any decision on whether this committee would be convened remains at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that we recognise that ME is more likely to affect women and that early results in the DecodeME study have found that women with ME/CFS tend to have more symptoms and co-occurring conditions than men. That will be taken into account. Again, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her work and advocacy in this area.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I asked what support is being given to those services that are unable to fulfil the NICE guidelines, and about the Government’s attitude to including reasonable adjustments in the information on the single patient record.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be pleased to take those two points away and look at them, particularly the second, which is a very practical suggestion. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, as ever, and I will gladly write to her.
Child Poverty
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
That this House takes note of the Government’s actions to tackle child poverty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to introduce this debate on the first UK-wide child poverty strategy, and strategy for England, since 2010, during which time child poverty, particularly deep child poverty, has worsened. I am grateful to the noble Lords taking part, and I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity to highlight some of the strategy’s strengths and to suggest where it might go further in tackling child poverty effectively.
One of the strategy’s great strengths has been the taskforce’s wide engagement with stakeholders, including, in particular, parents and children with experience of poverty. Four of those parents, who were involved in the Changing Realities participatory project, said in the foreword:
“We have experienced genuine listening and collaboration, and it has been encouraging to feel that our lived experience can and should influence policy solutions”.
There is a commitment to continuing this engagement as part of the strategy’s evaluation and development, which I will return to.
Although the strategy document itself did not mention children’s rights, a subsequent child rights impact assessment, published alongside a child-friendly version of the strategy, emphasises:
“From the outset, development of the strategy has been guided by a children’s rights approach”,
and that this will continue by
“involving children in monitoring its impact”,
which is very welcome.
Another very positive aspect of the strategy document is its language and tone. It makes a very strong case for action on child poverty, starting with the Prime Minister’s foreword, setting out both the moral case and its importance as an economic and social investment in our future. Child poverty costs us, as a society. Moreover, the document recognises the key role played by social security and, indeed, uses that term rather than what has become the pejorative language of “welfare”. The tone is a far cry from the dominant false narrative of a “ballooning” welfare budget. A companion evidence pack spells out how previous cuts mean that basic benefit levels are worth “significantly less” than in 2010-11, and how this has contributed to the worsening of child poverty.
This lays the ground for the most important and welcome policy shift: the total abolition of the heinous two-child limit, which I will not dwell on because we have already debated it, other than to remind noble Lords that its abolition represents the single most effective means of reducing child poverty at a stroke, supported by modest real increases in the universal credit standard allowance for the rest of this Parliament. According to the latest published official estimate, abolition of the limit will reduce the number of children in poverty by 550,000 by 2030, and as many as 7.1 million children will be in gaining households, of whom 1.4 million are in deep material poverty.
Nevertheless, official projections suggest that there will still be around 4 million children—29% of all children—in poverty at the end of this Parliament, and Barnardo’s warns that the depth and severity of poverty could worsen further. The challenge facing the Government is a measure of the dire situation inherited from the previous Government. As the Resolution Foundation warns, the strategy is still working against economic forces and other policy choices that could weaken its impact.
One such policy choice is the retention of the benefit cap, which is a key driver of deep poverty, especially among single-parent families. I know that removal of the cap is not government policy, even though evidence suggests its impact on employment has been pretty minimal, while the hardship caused is considerable. However, at the very least, I ask, yet again, for them to consider ways of mitigating its impact, including annual uprating of the threshold limits. According to CPAG, of which I am honorary president, if they had been uprated in line with inflation since 2016, they would be 26% higher now.
The other main social security omission is the failure to end the freeze on housing allowance, which aggravates poverty among families living in the private rented sector. More generally, there is no hint of the further investment in social security that is needed if it is to provide for a decent life, genuine security and a healthy diet, as argued by the Food Foundation. Yet analysis suggests that, as the record of the last Labour Government shows:
“We can only get significant and lasting reductions in child poverty by investing in our social security system”.
The same analysis, published by CASE at the LSE, also shows that
“changes in parental employment, whilst important, will never deliver change to child poverty rates on the scale we need to see”.
We should remember that nearly three-quarters of children in poverty live in working households. Certainly, there are reforms that could ensure that paid work is more effective in tackling child poverty, as recent analysis by Action for Children and the IPPR demonstrates. However, it will never be the silver bullet that some politicians suggest.
One such reform that the Government are very aware of is childcare, which is again of particular importance to single-parent families. The IPPR and Action for Children research underlined just how important childcare is to both finding and progressing in paid work, especially for mothers, whose poverty is still inextricably linked to that of their children. Childcare is an important element in the holistic approach taken by the strategy.
Other important elements include action on homelessness and the use of bed and breakfast accommodation; reduction in some of the costs of education—which is crucial if every child is to achieve and thrive at school—including the very welcome extension of free school meals; improved maintenance provisions; and strengthened local services, especially those prioritising prevention. These are aimed as much at reducing the impact of child poverty as its incidence but are nevertheless welcome.
Here, I wish attention could have been paid to how services are delivered, as the experience of poverty is worsened when service users feel they are not treated with dignity and respect, thereby worsening the stigma which continues to hurt people living in poverty. This is something that a human rights approach to poverty would address, as recognised in Scotland and Wales. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, in warmly welcoming the strategy, argues that its
“implementation would be significantly strengthened by taking a human rights based approach”.
The strategy recognises the important role played by local authorities, but in the words of Resolve Poverty:
“It will need to give greater consideration to how localities in England will be supported to develop and embed strong strategic responses to poverty and in ensuring that all localities are properly resourced and supported to deliver strategic anti-poverty activity”.
It would like to see
“the introduction of a requirement on localities to develop anti-poverty strategies”.
Another hole in the strategy concerns migrant children in families with no recourse to public funds, which includes child benefit, the key bedrock of support for children. While its explicit recognition of this group of children and commitment to ensuring
“they receive the support they require, regardless of their immigration status”
are very welcome, it has ignored calls for easing the application of the NRPF rule, which can spell abject poverty for much of a child’s childhood. Moreover, proposed reforms to the asylum and settlement rules are likely to worsen poverty among migrant children, already at disproportionate risk of poverty. Sarah, a refugee parent, in a recent blog warns that any further limit on support for refugees
“would be devastating for my family”.
I look forward to the promised baseline report, which will give more detail about implementation and monitoring, elaborating on what looks like a well thought out monitoring and evaluation framework. I do not know how much my noble friend can say about that today, but could we perhaps have a few hints? I was very encouraged by the written evidence from the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions to the select committee inquiry, which stated the Government have
“committed to maintain a core, central child poverty team, with cross-government oversight by Ministers”.
That was not my original understanding, and I and others were a bit worried about whether future responsibility lay just with the DWP, so I wonder whether my noble friend could say more about this.
I hope the baseline report will say something about targets, or at least milestones, in the name of accountability and transparency, as called for by a wide range of organisations. That would be a way of demonstrating to the electorate the Government’s intent and their belief in the strategy, a point that I had hoped the noble Lord, Lord Bird, would be able to expand on—but he has unfortunately not got to his place, so he will not be able to.
With regard to monitoring, there was an exchange between the chair of the Social Mobility Commission and the Work and Pensions and Education Select Committees in an oral evidence session which reminded me that the Social Mobility Commission started life as the Child Poverty Commission. This made me think that perhaps the resurrection of the latter, with input from those with lived experience, would be the ideal independent body to monitor the strategy, with its reports published and debated annually in Parliament. I would welcome my noble friend’s thoughts on that.
The strategy document describes it as just
“the first step on our road to ending child poverty”,
emphasised by the Education Secretary, who presented it to the Commons as “a strong start”. This debate provides an opportunity to think about further steps—how we best build on that strong start. There is a lot of talk in politics at present about the need for hope, which we heard more of in the first debate today, particularly when so many are struggling with the cost of living crisis. When I hear senior Ministers talking about tackling child poverty as this Government’s moral mission, it gives me hope. More importantly, it offers hope to the millions of children and parents who remain in poverty, despite the measures already taken by the Government.
I will finish with more words from the foreword from the parents involved in Changing Realities:
“This strategy begins the work of lifting the weight of poverty off the shoulders of millions of families. With some of the changes, families like ours may start to breathe again. Not just survive but live with dignity. We’d all like to feel secure knowing that if something breaks, or a bill goes up, we won’t be pushed into crisis. More than anything, we want our children to have opportunities without us constantly having to say ‘no, not this time’ … But we must not get complacent and stop there. All of us owe it to the children who are relying on decision makers to put them first … and ensure we are doing everything we can to propel our children into a future filled with hope and not despair”.
I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate. It is very timely in recognising the ongoing challenges that families in this country face, including issues around inflation, the reduction in the number of jobs available and the increase in unemployment, as well as the need to tackle the strategic challenges around NEETs. While we are talking about children today, the increase in youth employment really worries me about the future of our country.
I agree with the noble Baroness on one issue, and that is childcare. I lost this argument with other Ministers when I was in government, but we need to look very carefully to try to increase significantly the number of child carers—not necessarily nurseries—to help people get into and stay in work, and to expand the number of hours they have. It is all well and good having 38 weeks a year when the schools are sitting, but that does not help when someone still has that job in the summer or over Christmas. They are the sort of strategic challenges that we need to face.
I am very proud of my three years at the DWP. Working with my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, we did a lot of good to try to help people get out of poverty. One of the battles I had was about the definition of poverty. The British Social Attitudes survey is very clear that people do not agree that getting 60% of the median income automatically means that someone is poor—as the noble Baroness said, they prefer the concept of deeper poverty. Lots of our big organisations will continue to try to use relative poverty as the only way to consider the definition. I was slightly bemused that, during Covid, relative poverty fell—it did so because it is a statistic—but it did not reflect how people felt.
As we learned in the message that today’s DWP Secretary of State exchanged with Lord Mandelson—I think that is still what he is called—too many MPs are asking what taxes can be put up to pay for more benefits for others. He said that they are asking the wrong questions, and he was right to do so. That is why I was somewhat concerned about the child poverty strategy, as it seemed to continue to focus on how more cash benefits or other benefits would address the statistical change but not the strategic change.
I think that 60% of the median income last year was £22,370. It is no surprise that a lot more single-parent homes are in relative poverty. We had a debate the other week about child maintenance; I do not want to rehearse all that, but I will continue to make one plea. For those parents—mainly men—who are not contributing to their children’s income, because they are either on benefits or just not paying anything, we need to make sure that they are a top priority in their local job centre when it comes to getting a job. I really need to stress that. In the latest British Social Attitudes survey, only 29% of the population was happy to increase taxes in order to do that, yet that is exactly what has happened with removing the two-child benefit cap.
I am conscious that, for many Peers, this has been a long-term campaign, and I accept that they disagreed with what we did. But we did that with a purpose of reflecting that the welfare system is intended to be a hand-up and to support people desperately in need. Yet, we are now in a situation where, due to other factors, everybody on universal credit who has children gets free school meals. That is difficult when there are 220,000 households with children on universal credit are actually getting over £40,000 in household income. It is difficult when the warm home discount has been expanded to every recipient of universal credit. It actually means that the smaller cohort that used to get the money, using more energy and more with children, now get less discount in cash terms as a consequence.
There are all these little changes start to happen, and all these extra things mean that, as used to happen with tax credits, you would be almost insane to work a minute more than 16 hours per week, unless you work full-time, because you would lose money. Now, families are, very carefully and perfectly rationally, adjusting their hours and not moving to full-time work, because they will lose out. These are strategic problems that we need to face as a country.
Finally, debt is a real challenge. I give credit to John Glen in the last Government, who introduced the breathing space approach. It was a good initiative, and I hope that it gets extended even further. One thing that happened in the child poverty strategy is that debt advice will be included in neighbourhood health as an approach to helping people. In the recently published framework, there is no mention of debt advice services to be commissioned. I hope that the Minister can go back to health and think about that.
I think that this House is united that we desperately want fewer children in poverty—ideally, we want no child in poverty but, given those statistics, there almost certainly will be. But let us do our best to make sure that every child has the best opportunity going forward.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on securing the debate and thank her for her tireless work in addressing child poverty. Like many others, I welcomed the publication of the Government’s child poverty strategy and was delighted by the Government’s decision to abolish the two-child limit on universal credit. Like others, I felt that the Government missed the opportunity to deliver some quick wins—measures that would not require legislation yet would make a tangible difference to children’s lives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, already mentioned a number of these measures, but I wish to focus on just one: auto-enrolment for free school meals. On the face of it, it is a very modest proposal, yet it would have profound positive consequences for some of the disadvantaged children in the country. Around 250,000 children in England who are eligible for free school meals are not enrolled to receive it. That is approximately one in 10 of all those who should be benefiting from this scheme; in the north-east, it is one in five.
The entitlement exists, but it is not making its full potential impact. There is a substantial body of evidence, including a major cost-benefit analysis conducted by PwC for impacts on urban health, which demonstrated that free school meals improve concentration in the classroom, boost attendance, raise attainment and improve long-term health outcomes. Yet, some of the children most in need of this benefit are missing out. This is because under the present system, families must apply for free school meals. They must navigate forms, eligibility checks and, in many local authorities, repeat the process each time circumstances change. This creates administrative barriers, stigma and confusion, particularly for parents with limited digital access, for those for whom English is an additional language or for families in unstable or temporary accommodation.
I previously spoke in your Lordships’ House about the poverty-shame nexus—a mutually reinforcing relationship between material hardship and the emotional experience of shame. This is particularly relevant as, time and again, researchers have found that shame and stigma are among the biggest barriers that prevent parents from applying for free school meals.
This is not only a question of feeding hungry children, though that alone would be a good enough reason to introduce it. Free school meal eligibility is the gateway to pupil-premium funding, currently worth £1,515 per eligible primary school pupil and £1,075 at secondary level. When five local authorities introduced auto-enrolment in October 2023, they identified more than 2,500 additional eligible children in their first cohorts, with opt-out rates of less than 1%.
The question arises: why, if local authorities have piloted this measure, does it now require government action? Last year, the charity Feeding Britain convened a working group of 29 local authorities to examine this question. I commend its report to the Minister. In brief, however, this approach reaches only those families who already engage with their local authority for other welfare support, which, again, because of stigma, not all do.
Most importantly, the managed migration of families from legacy benefits on to universal credit will, over the next few years, substantially reduce the number of families applying to local authorities for housing benefit and similar payments, so the window of opportunity for local authorities to introduce auto-enrolment is closing. The working group’s proposal, which I commend to the House, is to build automatic registration into universal credit itself, extending the sort of mechanism that already exists for council tax support and for the NHS Healthy Start scheme.
I know that this Government are committed to social mobility, and education is at the heart of achieving this. Can the Minister explain, therefore, why this measure—one which would help direct resources more accurately to schools serving disadvantaged children, with no changes required to the pupil premium framework—was not included in the child poverty strategy?
Lord Kestenbaum (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this vital debate. The Government’s strategy on child poverty should inspire the nation. It has mobilised us all in common cause around what is clearly the fight of our lives: to finally break the link between economic background and life chances, and in so doing, to lift our children out of the bleak, desperate world of crushing poverty, thereby giving them faith in the future.
The causes of 21st-century child poverty have been well documented. There has been much focus, and rightly so, on financial inputs and outputs that are, respectively, plummeting income and rising costs. However, amid the flurry of these high-impact interventions and initiatives that emerge from the child poverty strategy, there remains one of the most potent levers of all at our disposal to pull as vigorously as we can, and urgently so, and that is the role of inspired schools and inspiring teachers.
There is a simple formula for us to consider in this debate. Of all the levers at our disposal, education remains the single most effective way to genuinely attack that toxic link between background and success, and we know that, at the heart of that, are the heroes and heroines of the front line: our teachers. We know that it is teachers who are the most important in-school factor in improving outcomes for children, especially our poorest children.
In that regard, we would do well to reflect on a report published yesterday by Teach First, where I am proud to serve as a trustee. Entitled Class Dismissed, this new policy report shines a light on what has come to be termed “the persistently disadvantaged”—that is, deep poverty. That term is defined in simple ways. Persistently disadvantaged children are those who spend 80% of their school life eligible for free school meals. Often these proxy measures and technical definitions can seem remote, but, to be clear, that is more than 1 million children living in homes where often annual family income does not allow for the covering of the cost of basic essentials throughout the vast majority of a child’s life.
For these children, the lifecycle becomes painfully vicious. The report showed that, by the time they reach GCSE, the poorest children are nearly two years behind their non-disadvantaged peers in learning. Twenty-five per cent of the deeply poor, the persistently disadvantaged, will not be in post-16 education or training. From there, it is a steady decline, with meagre employment opportunities and lower earnings—and so it goes on. These bleak outcomes are not only the catastrophic consequences of child poverty but one of the clearest predictors of whether such poverty recurs in the next generation of children: the ultimate vicious cycle.
Yet we learned something else from the Teach First report that serves to inform this debate. These disastrous life outcomes for the persistently disadvantaged—the deeply poor—are not, and do not have to be, inevitable. We have seen pockets of real breakthrough, where strong school leaders and high-quality teaching can dramatically improve outcomes for our poorest children. These are schools which are not just feeding hungry children, as they do, not just buying them uniforms from their own school budgets, as they do, but vitally, and perhaps above all, creating for the deeply poor, the persistently disadvantaged, real beacons of hope, real aspiration, and a genuine sense—no cliché intended—that the opportunities which these children will pass to their own children will be immeasurably better than the life chances given to them. The cycle can be broken. Teachers, inspired and inspiring, can do that. They are doing it every day in classrooms up and down the country.
The Government have made one thing abundantly clear: they are absolutely determined to break the link between economic background and opportunity, and schools can be at the heart of that national mission. Yet we know from this report, too, and elsewhere, that schools serving the poorest communities find recruitment and retention of teachers exceptionally difficult. If we do not give that tangible attention, we will weaken one of the strongest levers at our disposal, which can lift children out of poverty permanently.
So, with that in mind, I hope my noble friend the Minister agrees that placing schools and teachers at the heart of our child poverty strategy gives us a fighting chance of breaking the cycle. It does not have to be an inevitable downward one.
This debate is clearly at times about financial allocation and definitely about policy choices. But, above all, it goes to the very heart of the society we wish to be and, in that sense, it is nothing short of a moral imperative.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for bringing forward this important debate.
Few issues test the conscience more directly than child poverty. Across the UK today, around 4.5 million children are growing up in poverty. In Wales, around 31% of children are living in relative poverty and 26% of children in working households are living in poverty. These are not just statistics; they represent children going without essentials, families under constant pressure, and opportunities limited before life has properly begun.
I speak about this not only as a Member of this House and a campaigner but from personal experience. I grew up in poverty on a council estate in Wales, and during that time I was also a young carer. I know what it means to take on complex responsibility early, to balance care with education and to live with the quiet strain that so often accompanies hardship at home. That experience simply does not pass. It shapes your outlook, your opportunities and your sense of what lies ahead.
Child poverty is not inevitable; it is a result of political choices, and it can be changed by political choices, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. That is why I want to focus on the approach being taken by the new Plaid Cymru-led Welsh Government, who have made a clear and deliberate decision to prioritise tackling child poverty. That commitment will soon be reflected in the draft Budget to be laid next week, because, if we are serious about addressing poverty, it must be reflected not only in words but in the allocation of resources.
At the heart of this approach are practical, targeted policies designed to ease pressure on families and give every child the best possible start in life. One such policy proposed is the Cynnal payment, drawing inspiration from the Scottish child payment. We have seen in Scotland that direct financial support can reduce poverty and improve outcomes for children. A similar approach in Wales has the potential to provide real stability and dignity for families who need it most. I ask the Minister whether His Majesty’s Government will support the Welsh Government in the delivery of the Cynnal payment.
Alongside this is a transformative commitment on childcare. Plaid Cymru has announced an initial £55 million investment to expand childcare provision, enabling thousands more two year-olds to access funded childcare. This is the first step towards an ambition at the end of the term of year-round support, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey: year-round universal free childcare from nine months, which at full rollout would be the most generous childcare offer anywhere in the UK.
This matters profoundly. Childcare costs in Wales are among the highest in the UK, forcing many parents, particularly mothers, to reduce working hours or leave the labour market altogether. Expanding affordable childcare is therefore both a social and an economic policy. It supports parents back into work, strengthens household incomes and improves outcomes for children. It is, in short, about breaking the cycles of poverty before they become entrenched.
However, while action in Wales is essential, we must also recognise the limits of devolved powers. Many of the most significant levers, especially welfare, taxation and employment policy, remain His Majesty’s Government’s responsibility, so I shall ask the Minister a number of questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to support the creation of higher-paid, more secure jobs in parts of Wales where low pay remains persistent? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact of UK-wide welfare policies on poverty levels in Wales, and what consideration is given to reforms that would better support low-income families? Thirdly, how do the Government intend to work in genuine partnership with the devolved Administrations, so that action taken in all parts of the UK is reinforced and not constrained by decisions made here when certain powers overlap.
Tackling child poverty requires action at every level of government. It demands investment, co-ordination and, above all, political will and prioritisation, but it also demands something more fundamental: that we recognise the lived reality behind the figures and act with the urgency that those lives deserve, because every child in every corner of these isles deserves not just the chance to get by but the chance to thrive.
This must be not a partisan endeavour but a shared mission across this House and beyond. We have a responsibility to work together constructively and with purpose to ensure that no child is left behind. If we truly believe that, we must be willing to match our words with action and resources until no child’s future is defined by the circumstances of their birth.
Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this debate. She talked about a “strong start” and my comments come in that context.
This is an important debate that speaks to what it means to be Labour: a determination to lift the most vulnerable children in the most difficult circumstances and to give all children, especially the most disadvantaged, the best possible start in life. The child poverty strategy is a strong and serious piece of work. It recognises the complexity of the challenges facing families and the need for a cross-governmental response, and I welcome its intent. If I may, however, I shall focus on an emerging dimension of child poverty that we cannot afford to overlook: the differing outcomes for boys and girls, even when they experience the same early disadvantage. I think the evidence is becoming clear that child poverty is not a uniform experience. It is shaped not only by low income, poor housing and food insecurity, but by gender, where different developmental patterns, expectations and responses to disadvantage begin to drive very different outcomes.
When we look closely, we see that while poverty harms all children, boys are often more likely to experience its most damaging and long-term consequences. Education provides the clearest examples. Boys from low-income households arrive at school less ready to learn, fall behind early and leave with fewer and lower qualifications than girls facing the same disadvantages. They are also twice as likely to be permanently excluded. This matters. When boys disengage early, the consequences cascade: lower attainment, reduced employment prospects and a far greater risk of long-term disadvantage. Exclusion is not just a disciplinary response; it is too often a poverty pathway.
We already have some insight into where this leads. Alan Milburn’s excellent interim report on young people and work describes the scale of the NEET problem and amplifies how this is not just a labour market issue but a deeper disengagement from education, work and the structures that support adult life. Within that, there is a clear and growing gender dimension. Some boys face a double disadvantage, being both poor and male. I am deeply concerned about this. I worry for the boys and young men whose life chances are constrained by that compounded disadvantage. I worry for their families too, who support them often without the tools to help. I also worry for our society, because the consequences extend beyond the individuals, their lost potential, their growing alienation and the weakening of our social fabric. We are seeing the growing consequences all around us. We must also recognise the role of social media. While it affects all young people, young boys are being drawn towards content that amplifies grievance, promotes damaging models of masculinity and often creates a false sense of belonging where one should not be happening.
This brings me to my central point. If outcomes differ, our response must evolve. A child poverty strategy that treats children as a uniform group risks missing those who are falling furthest behind. Equality of intention does not guarantee equality of outcome. We need a more targeted, evidence-based approach. That means recognising early literacy gaps and providing focused support for boys who fall behind in reading and communication. It means understanding why boys are more likely to be excluded, and intervening earlier, keeping them within the school system that best protects them. It means creating clearer and more engaging pathways into skills, training and employment—routes that connect them with those young men who are currently drifting away from that opportunity. It also means recognising the importance of positive male role models.
For many boys growing up in poverty, consistent male presence in family, school and communities is limited. Where that absence exists, it matters. I grew up without knowing my father, so I know how difficult it is to talk about this subject, but it is incredibly important that we do. Boys benefit from seeing positive, stable examples of adulthood—men who model responsibility, resilience and constructive engagement with work and society. Where else will they learn how to be a man?
This is not about creating division, nor is it about diminishing the progress needed for young girls and young women; it is about recognising where child poverty is deepest and responding with clarity and purpose. A strategy that works for most children but fails the most vulnerable boys is not yet a strategy that works. If we are serious about social justice, which I know we are, we must be serious about these outcomes. I want every boy, however difficult their start in life, to grow up in a country that sees them, nurtures them and helps them flourish. We cannot afford to look away from this. I ask the Minister to consider my thoughts when she responds.
Lord Babudu (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this important debate; she has spent decades making poverty visible when others preferred not to look. I declare my interest as executive director of Impact on Urban Health, a health equity funder. We fund organisations that work with children, such as Changing Realities, the Child Poverty Action Group and Save the Children. However, I am speaking today in a personal capacity.
Tackling child poverty and addressing its effects has been at the root of so much of my work over the last two decades. For much of that time, it has felt like trying to stop the tide going out. In my work, I have seen the poor-quality temporary accommodation that families get stuck in, to great expense for local authorities. I have seen the poverty that schools try their best to paper over, because the levels of need are such a barrier to learning.
I have heard stories of how families have unexpectedly found themselves underemployed and on universal credit. The numbers in this strategy bear that out. A child eligible for free school meals is already five months behind by the time they start school. One in four children from the poorest families gets five good GCSEs—the figure is three in four for children from the richest families.
In that context, I welcome this strategy. It is cross-government in design, it was built with families, and it has great policy content. Removing the two-child limit, as other noble Lords have said, is the most effective intervention the Government could have made to tackle child poverty. Extending free school meals to families on universal credit matters too, as do increases in the national living wage and rates of universal credit.
There are two less highlighted parts of this strategy that I want to name, because they point to things the Government are quietly getting right. The first is a plan to draw in private and social investment alongside public spending. Public money will not be enough. The Better Futures Fund has great potential: government paying for social outcomes, not activities, and using that commitment to pull in capital that would otherwise sit on the sidelines. It is already happening in Bristol, helping to finance affordable housing. We need more of these innovative solutions.
The second part is the commitment, repeated in the Child Poverty Strategy, to commence the socio-economic duty under Section 1 of the Equality Act. Nearly 16 years on from that Act’s commencement, it is beyond time for this duty to commence. I hope the Government can set a date for its commencement soon.
There are three areas where the strategy can and should go further. The first is binding targets. Child Poverty Action Group and Save the Children conducted research, funded by Impact on Urban Health, with 40 practitioners to help inform the strategy. On targets, those practitioners were unanimous. Binding targets matter not because they are magic but because, when there is no well-understood target to hit, it is easier for departments to deprioritise. With the baseline report on child poverty levels due this summer, now is a great moment to change that.
The second area is the benefit cap. The two-child limit removal is welcome, but the cap undermines it. The Government’s own impact assessment estimates that around 70,000 families subject to the benefit cap will see little or no gain from the two-child limit removal. The cap bears down on those in deepest poverty, especially sole-parent families, who make up nearly 70% of capped households. These are not people who can easily work more hours to escape it. They are often sole carers, many with young children. For them, the cap is not an incentive but a trap.
I have similar concern that the local housing allowance, which has long not kept up with the cost of housing in several cities and is currently frozen until 2027, will undermine the Government’s child poverty reduction ambitions, given that 1.7 million children living in poverty live in the private rented sector. I had planned to flag a concern about the child poverty unit’s closure and replacement by a team within the DWP, but it would be great if the Minister could clarify whether that will sit more centrally. Where accountability sits determines whether a cross-government strategy holds or quietly fractures. Scotland put its child poverty Act through its Parliament and set up a statutory independent commission to monitor delivery. That difference, if it exists, creates a risk.
This strategy was built in the right way: across government, with families, and taking evidence seriously. I want to see it delivered in the same way. That means targets set this summer, against which any of us can measure progress. It means a co-ordination function with real authority; and it means closing gaps like the benefit cap, the local housing allowance freeze and the socio-economic duty—still to commence—that will otherwise risk making the strategy land well short of what it could achieve.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Babudu, and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this very important debate.
I want to focus my remarks on what I know best: health. Child poverty is not simply a social issue; it is a public health crisis. Unless we address it, we will continue to pay the price for decades to come in poorer health, greater inequality and rising demands on our NHS.
As we have already heard, 31% of children in the UK are living in relative poverty after housing costs. In a classroom of 30 children, that is 10 children whose future health is already being shaped not by their talents, aspirations or potential but by the circumstances into which they were born.
Indeed, the impact of poverty on health begins even before birth. As a doctor, I find the evidence compelling. We know that the intrauterine environment plays a profound role in determining future health. The pioneering work of Professor David Barker of Southampton demonstrated that poor nutrition and deprivation during pregnancy can programme the developing foetus in ways that increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and hypertension in adult life. In other words, poverty leaves a biological imprint before a child has even taken their first breath.
In fact, the first chapter of a child’s health story is written before conception, through the physical and metabolic health of parents. Children born into poverty are more likely to be born with low birth weight. They are less likely to survive their first year of life. As they grow, they face higher rates of asthma, chronic illness, developmental delay and poor mental health. Nearly one in five children are not meeting their expected developmental milestones by the age of two. These outcomes are not inevitable. They are preventable, because they are the predicted consequences of deprivation.
What is striking, both from clinical practice and evidence, is how clearly the pathway runs from wealth to health. When families have sufficient resources, children are healthier. When families are poor, children are sicker. Poverty and ill health reinforce one another. It is a vicious cycle.
The mechanisms are well understood. Housing sits at the top of the list. New data reveals that 104 children in England died between April 2019 and December 2024 with temporary accommodation identified as a contributing factor to their ill health or death, and 76 of those children were under the age of one. These are not simply housing statistics; they are the conditions in which children’s brains and bodies are developing.
I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling child poverty with their strategy, focusing on economic growth, the expansion of free school meals and breakfast provision, Best Start family hubs, and measures to increase the supply of social housing.
The forthcoming 10-year health plan presents an important opportunity to narrow health inequalities. Community health hubs could become a cornerstone of prevention. But they must be properly staffed, accessible, and equipped not only to diagnose illness but to support well-being, early intervention and family resilience, and they must take the needs of local communities into account.
If we truly wish to build a healthier nation, we must recognise a simple truth: child poverty today becomes adult illness tomorrow. Every child growing up in poverty represents not only a failure of opportunity but a future health inequality waiting to happen. The most effective preventive medicine we can offer is not found in a hospital or clinic, or on a prescription. It is ensuring that every child has enough food to eat, a warm home to live in, and the opportunity to thrive.
Tackling child poverty is not only a moral imperative; it is one of the most powerful health interventions available to us. If today’s child poverty is tomorrow’s adult illness, tackling poverty is one of the most powerful forms of prevention. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to urge the Government to place that principle at the heart of their strategy and to work with DHSC.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the clearly heartfelt remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund.
Child poverty is a scourge on society, and that it should be at such a high level in this country is truly appalling. The Government’s latest strategy to alleviate it is a positive move and shows some welcome joined-up thinking, but, with the exception of the two-child benefit cap being lifted, any real impact will be felt only over time and, however good the intentions, it is implementation that counts—and on that there must be some misgivings.
Currently, all good intentions have to be set in the realistic context that there is a dire shortage of cash, so it is essential that those seeking to address this issue should look beyond government resources to the local community. Take, for instance, the fact that more than one-third of children now start out in the education system unequipped to cope with the basics that are rightly expected. The strong risk is that this disadvantage will dog them throughout their lives. There can be many reasons why a four year-old is still in nappies and barely able to speak, sometimes unaware even of what their own name is, but a lack of cash cannot be the sole explanation. Inadequate parenting may be due to a lack of support and guidance, reliance by harassed parents on screen time as a substitute carer, or sheer despair at having to cope with myriad problems, from poor housing to ill health.
The best family hubs, as they become established, should begin to help those parents, but that will require the parents to engage with them, and they may prove hard to reach or even wary of things that they associate too closely with government. However, more practised and confident parents may be able to provide the back-up and encouragement that some parents need, and the most effective way of getting them together with those who need them is likely to be through the schools. One organisation that is pioneering this approach is the Parenting Circle. Its model is to use professional trainers to equip teachers and a core group of parents to work with those parents in need of support. Here, I must declare an interest: my husband was a chairman of this organisation, so I am very familiar with its work.
One small charity can reach only so many people, but it demonstrates just one way that the community could help achieve results without hefty government investment and intervention. Could the Minister say whether the Government are exploring or will explore such use of volunteers to help in this desperate area? Four year-olds should not be leaving their first year at school still in need of help in basic training. Unless we can improve the start that these children have in life, I am afraid they have little chance of climbing out of the trough that they did not intend starting out in.
That brings me to my next point. Just as damaging as financial poverty—in fact, probably more so—is poverty of aspiration. It is a killer. It numbs people. It is a dreadful affliction. It blights the lives of individuals and the prospects of the society they grow up in. It is a terrible condemnation of this country that so many young people should apparently have so little hope. It is a problem with deep roots—in some areas, it goes back to the loss of the industrial base—but it appears that a breakdown in family structures has contributed to leaving a raft of youngsters without positive role models.
At a secondary school I visited in Kent, the head teacher told me he saw his first priority not as educating the children but as providing them with some sense of stability. What does that say about our society? Government funding, even if it were available in bucketloads, could only make a contribution towards helping provide some of that stability and aspiration. Strong communities can help: there is much more that can be done, and the Government are, at least with their better communities pot, trying to reach them. But churches and business groups—everybody—could do a bit more to help these people. Schools must take care not to exacerbate economic differences. As we have heard, the free school meals stigma can really hurt.
My final point is that all children should have access to sport, dance, drama, art and music, each of which can open the door to new horizons for so many children, and in each of which individuals can flourish whatever their background—as we saw last night.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for securing it and for her comprehensive introduction. One could say that it left very little else to be said. My noble friend has campaigned on these issues for decades in this House, as an academic and through her work at the Child Poverty Action Group. She is dedicated and focused and has a formidable grasp of this complex area. I pay tribute to her for her life’s work. I know she felt as emotional as I did when, in April this year, the announcement was made ending the two-child benefit limit. I also thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock for all she has done, and for her dedication as a member of the Front Bench. With all the competing demands faced by government, I cannot think of a safer pair of hands.
When I was introduced to this House 16 years ago, my maiden speech was on the subject of poverty, so it felt right to take part in this timely debate. The late noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, was one of my sponsors. I worked with him on welfare and local government topics month in and month out. He was a modest man with huge ability, and I felt it right to mention him today.
When I was a member of the Low Pay Commission in 1998, we made the first recommendation for a statutory national minimum wage. The pressure was enormous, remember? A million jobs were going to be lost. It taught me two things about poverty. First, in 1997 there were no adequate statistics about women’s income because they did not record those who were paid too little to contribute to national insurance. There were no figures. Secondly, a minimum wage on its own would not help a single woman with more than two children: the figures would have to have been too high and would have been unaffordable.
The Government’s acceptance that poverty is a multifaceted issue is quite right. It involves education and housing, as well as social security and income. They have increased the national living wage and the basic rate of universal credit above inflation. There is support for childcare, the extension of free breakfast clubs and more investment in social and affordable homes. The Government are to be congratulated on all these measures, but unfortunately the beneficiaries do not own newspapers and are not normally influencers on social media, so these quiet measures do not get the credit they deserve.
I cannot forget that for 14 years before the Labour Government came in, poverty and homelessness were on the increase. If a child in poverty started school at the age of five in 2010, they would almost certainly have left education by 2024—a whole school generation deprived of the best opportunities. The excellent briefing sent to us by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists sets out its crucial work in tackling child poverty through helping to support children’s speech, language and communication skills, and ensuring that services are accessible to families living in poverty.
On the issue of accessing local services and support—I agree with everything that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said on this—the Government are launching the Pride in Place programme and Best Start Family Hubs, as well as launching the new crisis and resilience fund and increasing the early years pupil premium, which have already been referred to.
I have a question for my noble friend, having read the briefings from the ChurchWorks commission and Barnardo’s. Given their excellent work in communities to combat poverty, are they given sufficient credit by the Government, and how will the Government work with these organisations to ensure a successful strategy? That point was also picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in her contribution. As my noble friend Lady Lister said, we understand that there will be a report in the summer of 2026. I think we are all hoping that the Minister will show a bit of petticoat on the monitoring and evaluation framework, including updated findings from the latest poverty statistics publications. Can she give us an idea of when the summer of 2026 is?
Finally, although I understand the financial limits the Government are facing, if something could be done to raise the benefit cap so that larger families can enjoy the two-child benefit lift, that would be much appreciated.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all the organisations that provided briefings on this crucial subject. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister on securing this debate and pay tribute to her for the considerable and tireless work she has done in this area over, frankly, years. The impacts of child and family poverty are many. Tackling it is the morally and politically right thing to do for children and their families now and in the future, as well as for our public services and the wider economy. Why is that? Poverty not only blights the lives of children; it can determine their future in a wholly negative way. They do less well at school, they are likely to have much poorer health—as we have heard in detail—and, of course, they often die at a younger age than their better-off peers. Frankly, that is a disgrace in what is, after all, still a rich country.
On education, we know that the figure of 4.5 million children is the equivalent of something like eight to 10 in every class of 30, although child poverty is not equally in evidence in all schools or, indeed, in all areas nationally. Shamefully, as I think we have already heard, seven in 10 children who live in poverty come from a family where at least one person is working—I am sure we will hear more of that later. We know that, even in their early years, children who live in poverty are over 4.5 months behind their better-off peers, and this grows to approaching two years by the time they reach GCSEs, as recorded by the Sutton Trust and Teach First. It is no surprise, then, that four in five teachers report seeing children who are too fatigued and hungry to learn. Four in five teachers have bought food for hungry pupils, paying for this out of their own pockets.
Of course, breakfast clubs are very welcome. The rollout of free school meals to families on universal credit from September 2026 is also very welcome, although I believe that universal free school meals would do even more for us as a society. Particularly welcome is the raising of the two-child limit from April this year. However, even if these elements are in place, over 4 million children will still be living in poverty, even according to government figures.
So the challenge remains enormous. The Government are right to be ambitious about facing and rising to this challenge. Some steps that the Government could and should take include creating a child poverty unit to hold everyone across government to legally binding poverty reduction targets, and—as others have referenced—removing the benefit cap, which the National Education Union calculates would lift 300,000 children out of deep poverty, with minimal effects on work incentives.
In this country we pride ourselves on the fact that state school education is free. However, there is a cost for every child at school. Even with the changes in relation to the cost of school uniforms in England, families still face bills of over £300 a year for a primary school child’s uniform and over £400 a year for a secondary school pupil’s uniform. With other school-related costs—trips; curriculum resources in some subjects often leading to exclusion of the less well-off child; instrumental tuition, again, not being available to poorer children; and materials needed for home study and homework—families can find themselves paying over £1,000 a year per primary school child and approximately £2,300 for a secondary school pupil.
This has been ongoing for a very long time. I know that when I was at the National Union of Teachers, we worked with the Child Poverty Action Group on exactly this. Education is not free. These are not insignificant costs. While schools will seek to adopt a human rights- and poverty-sensitive approach, we all know that there is no spare cash in school budgets to provide any actual help. Many of us applaud the ambition to reduce child poverty—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The noble Baroness is making an interesting point, but of course the pupil premium is a source of funding. I wonder whether, based on what she has just been saying, that schools should think more about taking an element of the pupil premium, so that those young children are not excluded.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the intervention. I am sure that the pupil premium is being used as best as it possibly can be in every school. Often schools are having to top up their pupil premium because, frankly, there is not enough money in it, but I welcome the intervention.
Many of us applaud the ambition to reduce child poverty and clearly will do as much as we possibly can to monitor what I hope will be the Government’s success in this.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I too join others in congratulating my noble friend Lady Lister on securing this debate. Like others, I express my great gratitude to her for the lifetime of campaigning that she has undertaken on this front and the great successes that she has seen delivered latterly. I thank the Government and, in particular, our Minister for her commitment and the great work that she has done. I say that in the knowledge that there are many other things she would like to do and is still not able to do even in government. The Government have made some important steps forward, but we need more. I will not repeat what others have said about the changes that have been implemented. I was particularly interested in the quality of school meals, and the need to extend those over a wider front, as well as the breakfast clubs. The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, made a very powerful speech indeed, particularly from a health angle.
I sometimes wonder whether our definition of poverty is somewhat narrow, and this debate has ranged over a wider front. I too would like to say something more about children’s health and the worrying developments taking place with mental health. We really ought to broaden this debate to think about spiritual poverty as well as material poverty, because this poverty strategy is based primarily on the material rather than veering towards the spiritual. I feel—I guess, I sense—that some of the problems we are facing will take us into new areas. We need, if not new responses, to dust down some of the old responses and make sure that we have better communication with the children.
I became particularly concerned about children’s health after being on the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee. We went to Blackpool, which was quite an experience for me. My father told me I was conceived there, even though I am a Yorkshireman, and I had not been back to Blackpool for many years. It was a sorry sight, to some degree—I see people nodding in agreement—compared with what I had known of Blackpool before. We had intensive discussions with the public health officials there, looking particularly at children and the problems with housing: how the old hotels, or rather landladies’ places, have now been converted into residences for people on benefits. The scenario has completely changed compared with what I had seen previously.
Among the children, we found that there was a great difficulty with obesity. The public health officials were worried about obesity and how they could tackle it. I spent some time afterwards looking at the Government’s related policy on weight management and how we tackle people’s growing size. We have been doing this since 2008; the Labour Government introduced it then because they were worried about obesity coming along. I am sorry to say that our friends on the other side did little about it during the 14 years that they were in power. We found that, in spite of weighing and measuring children every year, the problems got worse. We now have a cohort of children in the UK who are probably the most obese in the whole of Europe. This links back to deprivation and poverty issues at home. But we also have a great problem with what we are feeding children at the moment: many of the people we would describe as being in poverty were children who were obese because of their diet—because of the cost of decent food, and so on.
The Government need to look again at why we are doing all this assessing and measuring, and getting all this data, but in fact are not taking many steps to do anything about it. What is the point in it? We get the data, but we do not do anything with it. The reason given to us in Blackpool was a shortage of public health resources: they just did not have the people available. I ask the Minister to explore whether, with the announcement we have made this week about AI and social media—that children will not be able to use technology in the same way as in the past—we are not going to miss a trick. AI, properly monitored and controlled, could possibly provide some assistance to children who have an issue with food, for example, 24 hours a day. They could refer to AI to find out what is good food for them and what is poor food. They could refer to it when they feel lonely—a lot of them felt lonely and neglected, and they were eating in those circumstances. Does the decision we have taken this week conflict with the opportunities to develop new resources, using AI, when we are not able to find the physical resources to meet the implementation of the worthy policy of weight measurement that we introduced back in 2008?
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness for securing this important debate. At a time when the cost of living continues to rise and so many families struggle to meet their most basic needs, children often feel these burdens most strongly. Along with voluntary groups and other faith groups, many churches and Church schools are already working to support children most impacted by this crisis. Legislative change is needed but, like other noble Lords, I highlight and recognise the vital role that voluntary groups play in bringing people together, promoting hope and engaging in acts of care—all means of supporting children in poverty.
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, food is now the most common essential that low-income households are going without. Children living in poverty report exclusion from social activities and feel embarrassed to invite schoolmates to their home. Without a secure roof over their head or a hot meal on their dinner table, daily life becomes a struggle for survival, one that children are least equipped of all to bear. Child poverty, then, is not just an issue of economics but a crisis of human dignity and a moral challenge to the kind of society we wish to build.
Social stigma around experiences of poverty can cut whole families off from their support networks, yet it is these very community institutions which have such great potential to help lift families out of poverty and to provide a sense of belonging. I draw attention to one charity in my diocese which has served on the front lines of this poverty crisis for several years. Woodford Halse, near Daventry, is a large rural village with higher deprivation levels than its surrounding neighbours. Much of this need is hidden, but the head teacher of the local Church of England primary school became aware that children and families were struggling and began to find ways to help. This led to the forming of the Community Larder, situated within the school playground and providing affordable food to families struggling to make ends meet, along with ensuring that all children had a good breakfast each morning.
Crucially, this enterprise provides dignity to people by offering them choice. Rather than preparing food parcels, quality food is sold at a fraction of supermarket prices, through £5, £10 and £15 shops. The larder operates within a network of community support, receiving referrals from local schools, GP surgeries, health professionals and other agencies. The service, in distributing food, is essential for keeping families afloat, but so too are the personal connections it is able to foster. One service user found himself a single parent after the death of his wife from cancer. Left to care for his two young sons alone, he was struggling with both grief and the practical challenges of feeding his family. As volunteers helped him select fresh food from the larder, they discovered that he had never learned how to use these ingredients to prepare a meal, so they prepared simple recipe cards for him, providing the ingredients to make each meal, and over time, he and his sons began to cook together. This demonstrates that effective community support is about far more than providing bare resources; it is about helping people to rebuild confidence, develop life skills and regain hope during some of the most difficult periods of their lives.
Volunteer groups work hard to bring isolated families back into community life, but they find their efforts stifled by lack of investment in infrastructure. I strongly welcome the Government’s child poverty strategy, especially its acknowledgement of the connection between poverty and place. I ask the Government, recognising current budget restraints, to commit to long-term investment in community institutions. Without this, services such as Woodford Halse Community Larder are less able to play their part in helping to alleviate child poverty at grass roots.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for bringing this debate to your Lordships’ House. I begin by congratulating the Government on taking the historic decision to remove the two-child benefit limit. This is a bold and compassionate measure that will lift almost 500,000 children out of poverty. It is a policy for which many have argued for many years, but it took a Labour Government to deliver it. It demonstrates that poverty is not inevitable; it is a result of a political choice, and it can be reduced through political action. It should rightly be recognised as a significant step forward in the Government’s child poverty strategy. However, while we celebrate this progress, we must also confront the uncomfortable reality that pockets of child poverty remain in some of our communities. Ethnic minority children continue to face disproportionately high levels of poverty. Recent figures show that around 63% of Bangladeshi children and 52% of Pakistani children are growing up below the poverty line, compared with much lower rates among other children.
Children from these communities are also more likely to experience persistent and severe poverty, limiting their opportunity and affecting their health, educational attainment and life chances. These figures should concern us all. They represent not just statistics but children whose talent and aspiration are being constrained by circumstances beyond their control. A truly successful child poverty strategy must address these entrenched inequalities and ensure that every child, regardless of their ethnicity or background, has the opportunity to thrive.
I also wish to draw your Lordships’ attention to asylum-seeking and refugee children, mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lady Lister. Many of these children have already experienced unimaginable trauma before they arrive on our shores. Yet, having reached safety in the UK, many find themselves living in poverty and uncertainty. Too often, asylum seekers and their families are placed in unsuitable temporary accommodation, living for months or even years without stability. Children are frequently moved from one location to another, disrupting their education, friendships and support network. Many children face delays in accessing school places and other essential services. This is simply unacceptable in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. No child should grow up without a secure place to call home. No child should be denied the stability that is essential for healthy development. No child who has already suffered trauma should have their suffering compounded by poverty and inadequate housing.
The Government have taken an important step by lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, but our ambition must go further. We must ensure that children from ethnic minorities, refugee children and asylum-seeking children are not left behind. The measure of our society is how we treat the most vulnerable. In this day and age, no child from any community should be forced into poverty, insecurity or unstable accommodation. It is morally wrong and economically short-sighted. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that every child, regardless of their background or circumstance, can share in the opportunity and prosperity of our nation.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for securing this debate and for her eloquent opening which, together with the contributions of other noble friends, identifies the appalling and, indeed, rising levels of child poverty in this, one of the richest countries in the world.
No one could disagree with the measures proposed in the government strategy paper and those raised during this debate. However, I will focus on another aspect of the problem, which my noble friend Lady Donaghy has touched on: the problem of low pay. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s UK Poverty 2026 report points out that 1.2 million children in poverty live in families with no adults in work. That is tragic, but not perhaps surprising among the grisly statistics on poverty. However, 1.7 million children in poverty live in families where at least one adult is in work. Worse still, 1.6 million children live in poverty in families where every adult in the family is in work.
This shows that, unemployment apart, workers do not earn enough to banish poverty. In this country, wages are, quite simply, too low. It must be remembered that, of our population of 67 million, over half—34 million—are in work, yet they do not earn enough to generate the demand that would grow the economy.
The latest ONS figures show that, for full-time workers, median earnings are £39,000 per annum gross and £31,700 net. This equates to a weekly take-home of about £610 per week. When part-timers are taken into account, the gross median falls to £31,000 and £26,000 per annum net. That equates to a weekly take-home of about £500. Since this is a median figure, one half of all employees—that is to say, 17 million—earn less than that figure each week. The median for each of the categories of women, disabled and ethnic minority workers is less still. The median self-employed worker, full or part-time, also earns less than the comparative median employee.
Low wages are the reason why the cost of living tops the concerns of working-class people in this country. The Government’s efforts to cap energy and housing costs have not so far succeeded, and, to a large extent, are caused by events outside UK control. However, wages can be increased. Increases to the national minimum wage are not insignificant, but the national minimum wage is not a minimum wage; it is a minimum hourly rate, and it does not enhance the wages of the great proportion of the workforce who earn something more than the national minimum wage. The value of real wages is much the same today as it was in 2008.
The only way to increase the real value of wages is widespread collective bargaining. That is the reason that the OECD, the IMF and the ILO all now advocate it, and why the EU’s 2022 adequate minimum wages directive requires member states with a level of collective bargaining coverage below 80% of the workforce to produce an action plan to achieve at least that level within five years. This is ironic, because in this country we had a level of collective bargaining coverage in excess of 80% from the end of the Second World War until the 1980s, when the Conservatives started to demolish it. Collective bargaining coverage is now around 25% of the workforce, and its absence for the remaining three-quarters of our workers is the principal explanation for low pay. That absence is also a key component of lack of demand in the economy and a major contributor to government expenditure on subsidising low wages. I recall that 32% of those on universal credit are actually in work.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will reconsider the Government’s opposition during the passage of the Employment Rights Act to a mechanism for the reintroduction of sector-wide collective bargaining across the economy, which I and some of my noble friends will be very happy to discuss with her. Such a measure would be a key component in the strategy for the relief of child poverty.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the debate on this vitally important topic is so far almost indistinguishable from a debate held in this Chamber in April 2024. We have had a depressing litany of figures showing how children living in poverty suffer throughout their lives from disadvantage. In effect, we continue to raise the next generation which may have less hope for the future than perhaps a couple of years ago.
Today, the number of children suffering poverty is above 4 million, as we have heard—although there is a prediction that current mechanisms could reduce that figure by 500,000 by 2030. Research by the Poverty Strategy Commission suggests that £36 billion—a huge sum, but not that huge in the context of reducing poverty—efficiently invested in mechanisms to reduce child poverty could actually eliminate it altogether.
Despite the welcome lifting of the two-child benefit cap, the expansion of free school meals and investment in family hubs, I fear there are cuts to come. Current national concern about defence expenditure is likely to further stymie any mechanisms to relieve poverty conditions. This is a genuine dilemma that the Government have to face—daily. What are the priorities, where is the money to come from, and, I would add, how can improvements in the allocation of budgets to the various departments be implemented?
It is the latter issue that I feel is the most productive avenue at present. It is widely acknowledged by all political parties and commentators that the Government continue to operate on a silo basis. For whatever reasons, information is not efficiently shared across other government departments, there are contradictory policies which often cancel each out, and there is fierce competition on access to budgets leading to less than collaborative programming. There is also failure to implement fully programmes that focus on reducing childhood poverty due to, among other factors, change of Ministers and/or senior civil servants, overspends, adverse media comment or simply the failure to plan beyond an initial phase.
We also know that any meaningful social or welfare programme works if it is treated as a public health issue; that is, with a commitment from all relevant partners to work together on a clear strategy. That is, as I understand it, why the programme to reduce knife crime in Scotland largely succeeded. It is not so much a question of budgets and funding, important though they are, as agreeing short, medium and long-term plans between, in the case of childhood poverty, the education, health, social welfare, housing and transport departments and civic society and, above all, with leadership. This approach would not cost more but would be much more likely to save considerable sums. Ideas, plans, monitoring and evaluation would not fall in between the gaps that silo departmental structures inevitably create.
This is by no means an original suggestion. The problem, as always, will be to set such a system up and maintain it over a significant period. It is not impossible for many government departments to adopt this approach, but it would be a new way of working.
In my consistent experience, whether talking to humanitarian agencies about the proper delivery of relief assistance or the reorganisation of management in NGOs, the standard answer is “We are already doing it”, and I guess the Minister might tell us what efforts are being made to adopt this public health approach. But so far, it does not appear to be working. I hope the Minister might commit instead to a programme of clear, co-ordinated approaches to what is after all perhaps one of the major ills of our time: children growing up in poverty.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this valuable debate. I welcome the Government’s child poverty strategy, breakfast clubs, free school meals for all children in households on universal credit and the abolition of the two-child benefit cap. However, such help is not permanent. We all remember that the party opposite opposed lifting the cap and the rise in the minimum wage, which would condemn millions more to poverty.
In a functioning democracy, no child should be condemned to live in poverty. The official total is that 13.4 million people, including 4 million children, live in poverty. Some 25.3 million people, including 7.7 million children, live below the minimum income standard. Too many are denied good food, housing and healthcare, and suffer from anxiety and insecurity from an early age. As a result, many do not attain their full educational, physical and mental-health development, or their employment and earnings potential. They are more likely to need support from health, welfare and public services throughout their life. Child poverty, over the life of the people involved, results in a loss of economic output of around £40 billion a year.
A recent study published in the Nature Human Behaviour journal shows that the effects of poverty alter human biology and accelerate ageing from a very young age. It also noted that adults who endured childhood economic deprivation continue to age at a significantly accelerated biological pace later in life, even if they achieve financial security decades after their initial childhood exposures. We now know that childhood poverty is a major cause of a declining healthy life expectancy, and there is a near 20-year gap between those in wealthy and deprived areas.
Millions every year are sacrificed to the gods of fiscal rules, who set absolutely no target for poverty reduction. Child poverty cannot be eradicated without addressing parental poverty, and parental poverty is deepening. In 1975, workers’ share of gross value added was 71.9%. After 50 years of economic growth and rises in the minimum wage, which the party opposite opposed, that has now declined to 59.3%. Since 2008, the average real wage has hardly changed. According to HMRC data, the annual median wage of payrolled employees is £31,524, and their take-home pay is £26,217. Try surviving on that.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that, for a socially acceptable minimum living standard, a couple with two children needs to earn £74,000 a year between them. Even with both parents working, the majority of families cannot hit that standard, and institutionalised poverty remains. Can the Minister say how the Government will increase workers’ share of the wealth created with their brains and brawn? What will they do to increase the median wage?
Trickle-down economics was clearly one of the biggest hoaxes of all time. The tax system hits the poorest the hardest. Wages are taxed at higher rates than capital gains and dividends. Paupers and the super-rich pay council tax at the same rate. Altogether, the poorest 20% of today’s population pays a higher proportion of its income in direct and indirect taxes than the richest 20%. Income tax personal allowances have been frozen at £12,570 a year since April 2021. If increased in line with inflation, the number would stand at £16,048 for 2026-27. As a result, somebody earning £17,000 a year, which is not a lot, will pay £696 in additional income tax this year alone. How is this aiding any fight against poverty? This will not eradicate child poverty or parental poverty. Can the Minister explain whether she thinks this policy is compatible with the Government’s child poverty strategy in any way whatever?
Poverty could be reduced by tackling the cost of living crisis, but there are no curbs on profiteering. In the last three years, the average rental cost has risen by around 28%. Unite scrutinised the accounts of 17,000 companies and found that profit margins since the pandemic had increased by 30% on average. Yes, social security benefits help, but they do not keep pace with inflation and, in any case, they are often measly. So can the Minister somehow persuade the Government to produce a joined-up strategy for reducing child poverty?
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I add my name to the list of those commending my noble friend Lady Lister on bringing this debate? I also welcome the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, because the nature of the issue of child poverty is such that we should be striving for cross-party consensus on it. It is in our national interest. I have said before in a debate in this House that a Labour Government are about nothing if they are not about tackling child poverty. So it is welcome to be able to reflect again on what the Government have achieved so far and to think about what else needs to be done.
It is important to acknowledge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned at the outset, that, for the first time since 2010, we have a child poverty strategy, which has at its heart the three pillars of boosting family incomes, driving down the cost of essentials and increasing local support. While it does not solve all problems, I was pleased to support the ending of the two-child benefit cap, which came into effect in April. It is a singularly significant measure, which will help us reach that target of lifting over 500,000 children out of poverty. In fact, there is an impressive list of measures, from raising the national minimum wage to the introduction of school breakfast clubs and extending free school meals, which will all play a part in the mission of reducing the inequalities caused by poverty.
I want to mention the Milburn review on young people and work, as the recommendations from that review will massively improve the life chances and outcomes for young people who otherwise risk being left behind.
When we last debated child poverty in the context of lifting the benefits cap, I spoke about two policies that we introduced in Southwark: universal, free healthy school meals for all primary school children, initially as a response to childhood obesity—my noble friend Lord Brooke should note—and free swimming pool and gym use for all residents. Both of those were specifically aimed at breaking down barriers and ensuring that young people have the best start in life.
I also mention, by way of our greatest hits, our Southwark scholarship programme, which each year paid the tuition fees of a dozen academically gifted young people from low-income households, and the Nest, our mental health hub for children and young people, which aimed to ensure that 100% of those who needed mental health support received it in a timely manner—against the then Government’s target of 35%.
All these policies, in their own way, were aimed at reducing inequality and ensuring that a child’s background or poverty did not determine their path in life. But the reality is that these programmes are possible only because of the economic growth that Southwark achieved over that period, which meant that, although we were losing central government funding, we boosted our income by over £500 million over 10 years, through increased council tax and business rates, the new homes bonus and Section 106 contributions, not to mention the 46,000 more Southwark residents who found work. We all know that the greatest measure that any Government can take to tackle poverty and reduce the problems that accompany it is helping people into work. It is the easiest solution, but the greatest challenge.
Above all other measures and actions that this Government take during this Parliament to tackle child poverty, however, I urge them to place economic growth as the absolutely central mission—
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
Sorry, I was not expecting that cheer.
We have spoken about it over the past two years, and we have seen some modest growth, but we have to be honest that it is not enough. We must show renewed urgency in demonstrating that the UK is open for business and is the genuine incubator for growth. If we can do that, we can be confident that this Labour Government are the Government who will end the scourge of child poverty, perhaps for a generation and beyond.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on securing this debate. I am a long-standing fan of the noble Baroness. I worked with her quite a lot when I was a Member of the other place. I have huge admiration for her fearless and courageous advocacy on behalf of, often, children who are otherwise forgotten. I have collaborated with her on many, many issues over many, many years.
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to this debate today on behalf of the Lib Dem Benches, and to have an opportunity to debate with the Minister, who, I recognise, has very deep knowledge and commitment in this area. This is an issue that I feel very passionately about. It is the reason why I made my maiden speech on the issue of child poverty just a few months ago.
There are a number of us here who have, in government, attempted to tackle child poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, outed herself in her early remarks, and I know she mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. When I made my maiden speech, I spoke about the challenges of wrangling a child-poverty strategy across government as being a cross between cat wrangling and giving birth, and requiring an equally miraculous level of commitment to actually bring that to fruition.
The range of contributions today—highly knowledgeable contributions covering such a wide variety of topics—has brought that to the fore. We have heard many noble Lords speak about the moral imperative to tackle this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, spoke about the role of schools. Language came up, and tone was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The importance of childcare was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Smith of Llanfaes. Free school meals was an issue raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, and I will return to that in a minute.
A number of noble Lords spoke about how child poverty falls disproportionately on a number of different groups. The noble Lord, Lord Sahota, spoke about ethnic minorities and asylum-seeking families. The issue of families—single-parent families and families that have a disability—was raised by others. The noble Baroness, Lady Paul, spoke passionately about boys and how boys often fare least well. It was a very welcome contribution, I thought, to this debate today.
The noble Lord, Lord Babudu, spoke about the role of private investment, and a number of noble Lords spoke about health from different perspectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spoke about mental health and obesity; the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, spoke about the impact on ageing. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, spoke about the multifaceted nature of poverty, and she was one of a number of noble Lords who raised the issue of low pay. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, spoke about the cost of education, which is something I want to pick up in a moment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough spoke about rural poverty, which, again, I think is often missed out from this debate, where we focus particularly on urban areas. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, spoke about the need for an integrated approach and integrated programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, talked about the scale of the challenge, and the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, opened his remarks by speaking about the need for some cross-party consensus. I suppose I will kick off there, on the need for cross-party consensus.
I hope the Minister finds me a kind of encourager. I have some areas where I want to say I would like the Government to go further. However, as I said, having had the experience of wrangling a child poverty strategy, I am hugely sympathetic to the challenge involved, so I hope that she will find me an encourager on these issues. I want to begin, like other noble Lords, by acknowledging progress and welcome facets in the child poverty strategy: the tone, for example, as well as involving families who experience poverty. That is hugely important and I want to return to that at the end. I gave my maiden speech in the debate on the Bill to abolish the two-child limit in universal credit, which is hugely welcome, and for which Lib Dems have been arguing for some time. Some 450,000 children will be lifted out of poverty as a result of that.
However, while the child poverty strategy is a welcome direction, it is not an adequate destination. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that even after the measures in the child poverty strategy, the DWP’s own forecast suggests that 4 million children will still be in poverty in 2029-30. There is some disagreement about the number of children who will be lifted out of poverty as a result of the strategy—the Resolution Foundation suggests that it is probably around 300,000—but, either way, it is not enough to celebrate slowing this rise; the country needs to reverse it. There is a question about what we do from a big-picture perspective, there are areas where I hope we might go further and some other areas where I hope the child poverty strategy might be brought into conversation with wider cross-government work, where the child poverty strategy may be the key to our thinking about what else we need to do as a nation.
It seems to me that the single biggest hole in the strategy is that there are no binding targets. Whatever you might think about Scotland’s delivery, in Scotland the statutory child poverty targets have provided a framework to hold Ministers to account. My first question to the Minister is therefore: why are there no binding targets? Are the Government willing to be held to account on this, and will they think again?
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke about a need for a human rights approach. I would argue that child rights impact assessments would be hugely helpful, for example, in helping us understand what is happening.
A number of noble Lords spoke about the benefit cap. I had long-standing prior form on the benefit cap in making myself distinctly unpopular in government. I was not sure whether you are supposed to admit to when you lose battles in government, but the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, began by speaking about battles that she lost in government, and I think it was pretty on the record that I lost that one. I use this opportunity to urge the Government to think again on the benefit cap; otherwise, the good work that has been done with the reversal of the two-child limit in universal credit risks being undone. At the very least, we could lift the rate and raise it in line with inflation.
I just want to talk about free school meals. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester devoted all his speech to this topic, and it was a very welcome and informed contribution. I very much welcome the expansion of free school meals to all families on universal credit, but, again, underregistration risks leaving people behind. The September expansion is a perfect moment to switch to a national opt-out or auto-enrolment system using data the Government already hold—for example, the warm home discount. So my next question to the Minister is: will they think again and introduce a national auto-enrolment alongside this September’s rollout so that no eligible child slips through the cracks?
The child poverty strategy has some measures around school uniform, but I would argue again that we could go further; we could agree a cap on the cost of school uniform, which would make such a difference to so many families.
Lastly, as I read the child poverty strategy, the thing that occurred to me most of all was how so many of these topics feel very similar to the things that we were trying to address in 2010, 2011 and 2012, and yet we are facing into a very different world. I suppose it left me a little nervous about whether the child poverty strategy is being brought into conversation with the big strategies and challenges that as a country we are facing now, around food security, the impact of global conflict and the impact of climate change. All these are going to fall disproportionately on the poorest families, and my view is that it is their perspective that might hold the key to helping us to understand how we as a nation might tackle those bigger challenges. I urge the Government to use what they have already done in their strategy, bringing in the perspectives of those affected by poverty into conversation with a much wider strategy.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I, also, thank the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for this important debate today. I think we all agree that eliminating child poverty is an important aim. I went into education 25 years ago because I wanted to take forward the education approaches that are most effective with the most disadvantaged children, so I know how much work already goes on in all stages of education to support children in poverty. It was good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, recognize this.
I have studied the Government’s child poverty strategy and its publications on deep material poverty. The first thing I notice is how hard it is to measure child poverty. Much effort has gone into the new measure. It gets closer than the relative measure to children’s actual experience. Do they have three meals a day, fresh fruit and vegetables, somewhere to do homework, games, toys, and outdoor equipment? Do they live in decent and warm housing? Can they get around on public transport? Can their families cope with an unexpected bill?
First, the measure suggests that there are just over 2 million children in deep material poverty. That is, of course, a concerning figure, but, startlingly, it correlates poorly with the Government’s preferred poverty measure of having less than 60% of median household income after housing costs. More than 70% of children in families below the 60% line are not in deep material poverty and, conversely, more than 40% of the children in deep material poverty are not in households falling below the 60% threshold. This clearly needs more examination and suggests that it is time to retire that arbitrary 60% number. It is good for political point-scoring, but is not very helpful for actual children and their lives.
We know the main risk factors, which the strategy acknowledges. Work, family structure, family size and geography all matter, and there are some striking ethnic disparities. All this is acknowledged, yet so much is ignored or glossed over in the strategy, and I will follow on from the points made by my noble friend Lady Coffey and several others.
First, I must talk about fatherlessness. I am not denigrating single mothers, most of whom make every effort for their children. Yet it is undeniably the case that, on average, children who do not live with their father have worse life outcomes on many fronts. It was good to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, touch on this. More than half of children are now born outside marriage. Most have cohabiting parents when they are born, but cohabitation is less stable than marriage, so too few children are growing up with both natural parents, and it is obviously unrealistic to believe that state support, however good, can entirely compensate for a parent-shaped gap in a child’s life. There are countries that have significant incentives for parents to marry and remain in stable unions. We have disincentives in tax, welfare and social housing, so it is worrying that the strategy does not even mention marriage, let alone set out policies to reverse a damaging social trend that is directly responsible for a lot of child poverty.
The strategy skates fairly lightly past at least 500,000 children—although published estimates vary—in families that have no recourse to public funds. Almost certainly, these children make up a hefty slice of the 2.1 million in deep material poverty. Some families will get leave to remain, in which case the full range of benefits and support will become available to them, and some will not and will leave. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, noted, these children’s interests are surely best served by resolving their cases swiftly. It is none the less a puzzlingly large number of children affected.
Linked to this, there is no mention of cultural differences that contribute to making some ethnic groups much heavier users of welfare than others and making their children more likely to be poor. Relatively few women of Somali origin work. Estimates range from 10% to 24% compared with over 70% of white women. Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are also far less likely to be earning. For balance, I point out that Haredi Jewish households are also particularly likely to depend on benefits. The strategy is silent on a real issue of fairness. Is it reasonable to expect families where both parents work to provide for their children to pay taxes to support families where at least one parent may be choosing not to? If not, how will the Government adjust the relevant incentives?
Improving parent skills should be a much bigger piece of the jigsaw. The labour market values mathematical competence, so improving numeracy helps. For many families in poverty from immigrant backgrounds, it would be hard for the adults to earn a decent wage until they speak better English. Many parents who have grown up in countries with more limited education systems will need some good vocational education to help them move beyond insecure casual work. As the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, noted in his excellent speech, a child poverty strategy is ultimately self-defeating if it ushers children of poorer families into adult lives of worklessness and dependency. Making sure that these children move from education into proper jobs and stay in sustained employment is critical.
I do not want to dismiss the Government’s measures, but I think I have shown where the real differences lie between these Benches and the Government. Too many current policies are sticking plasters to treat symptoms, not cures or preventive measures. They do not solve the underlying problems—the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, made some important points here. In essence, child poverty arises when a child’s parents cannot or do not earn enough to provide for their child. Of course, there will always be a small proportion of families who, for good reason, will not be able to achieve this, but most could. By definition, anyone over 21 working full-time on the national minimum wage will be earning 60% of national median income. Therefore, there are an awful lot of children in families that do not have the equivalent of even one full-time wage coming in.
If we are serious about eliminating child poverty, we need to focus more on better skills and a growing economy that generates better jobs and higher real wages, plus the kinds of support that help families become more secure and independent—such as the debt advice service mentioned by my noble friend Lady Coffey and the parenting service described by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft—I think I was the first person to talk publicly about the problem of children starting school in nappies, almost a decade ago during my time at Ofsted.
Economic growth is the most powerful lever to reduce poverty, but, sadly, the Government’s current policies are increasing the welfare burden while disincentivising work for an increasing proportion of the population—which in turn constrains economic growth and hence the capacity to fund benefits. I warn the Government here. The social contract that underpins the welfare system requires mutual trust and cohesion, which is more than a little frayed, especially in relation to disability-linked benefits for adults and children. The collective willingness to fund a comprehensive welfare system depends on those paying having confidence that all but a small minority will contribute to the system through most of their working lives, that claims will be genuine and that decision-makers will be effective in gatekeeping the system to prevent abuses.
I remind noble Lords that the benefits bill this year will be about £330 billion, which is around £11,000 per household. Since more than half of households are now net recipients of benefits, the annual bill paid by the minority of households who make a net contribution is higher still. We simply cannot afford fraud. So I was not reassured by the reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, to a recent Written Question asked by my noble friend Lady Coffey about the number of prosecutions for benefits fraud since July 2024. All it said was:
“The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost”.
I will finish by asking the Minister four questions. Will the Government set clear targets for moving families that are dependent on benefits towards independence, including parental employment rates and earnings progression, and report regularly against these? Will the Government set targets for successful labour market entry and continuing employment for all young people who grow up in benefit-dependent households and report regularly against them? Will the Government commit to publishing regular comprehensive information about children and families with no recourse to public funds, including their nationalities, how and when they came to Britain, how they are being housed and helped, at what cost, and how their temporary status is being resolved? And linked to my earlier point, will the Government commit to publishing regular updates on the incidence of benefit fraud, on the perpetrators and on the cost to the taxpayer, together with reporting on the effectiveness of steps that are being taken to deter and minimise fraud?
I will end by thanking everyone who has spoken today for recognising that there is a moral imperative here to do what is right for all our children and, above all, to do what is right for them in the long term, as well as in the short term, so that children live the best lives they can for themselves and as parents in their turn.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, let me add my words of appreciation to my noble friend Lady Lister, who must at this point be blushing from the compliments showered upon her, but they are very well deserved. I am thrilled that she got this debate and introduced it so well. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the great encouragement from around the Chamber, especially from my new encourager on the Lib Dem Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, whom I welcome to the Front Bench. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, to her role on the Front Bench, and I look forward to taking issue with her later.
As we have heard, there are 4 million children in poverty in the UK. That is 700,000 more than there were in 2010. Almost 2 million children are in deep material poverty—a term I will come back to—lacking even the most basic essentials like a warm home or healthy food. We know that growing up in poverty has a devastating impact on children and their prospects. It affects their attainment at school, their future earnings, and their mental and physical health. They are more likely to grow up to become NEETs. Right now, we have more than 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. That is what happens when funding for services is cut, when wages flatline, and when people are trapped in the system.
As my noble friend Lord Kestenbaum said, this is indeed the fight of our lives. We have to break this link between a child’s background and their future success. I should digress for a moment. In 2000, I was running a charity working with single parents when Gordon Brown, then the Chancellor, hired me to work for him to advise on child poverty and how we tackled that, on Sure Start and on all the work that that Labour Government did. I was hugely proud to be part of that effort, so to be back here now with another child poverty strategy and a Government committed to it is something which I am hugely privileged to be part of. It is the fight of our lives, and we have to intend it or it will not happen.
The consequences of poverty impose heavy costs on the taxpayer through lost productivity and added pressure on public services. That goes to questions of economic growth and economic success—tackling poverty is also vital for our economy, as well as for the lives and opportunities of our children. This Government are correcting course. We want every child to have the chance to fulfil their potential—hence our child poverty strategy, which will lift 550,000 children out of poverty, the largest expected reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament. We are now focused on delivering the commitments in the strategy, monitoring its impact and the trajectory of poverty to ensure we build momentum and sustain our progress. I shall try to answer the very many questions, and when I fail, I will write and answer the ones I do not get to, with apologies ahead of time.
Let me start with the worries about the Child Poverty Unit, which I hope I can assuage. The unit has moved to the DWP, as the strategy set out that it would do. Many of the officials are the same officials who worked there right the way through. They have retained the same strong relationships that help deliver the strategy inside and outside government. We have some brilliant officials working on this and I really enjoy working with them. We also have the interministerial group chaired jointly by the DWP and the DfE, which met formally for the first time yesterday, involving 13 government departments. We are determined to make sure through this that child poverty remains a priority across government. I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, whether or not I can get all the way with her, that that kind of cross-government working is the only way we are going to make this work. I will read her words of wisdom again carefully when I come to read Hansard, but she pushes us in a really important direction.
My noble friends Lady Lister and Lady Donaghy asked whether I could share any information about the baseline report ahead of time. I regret to say to my noble friend Lady Donaghy that my petticoat must stay firmly where it is. I am sorry that I cannot offer any spoilers at this stage, but it is due out this summer, so they will not have too long to wait.
My noble friend Lord Kestenbaum raised questions about education, which I will come to in a moment. I will touch briefly on targets, raised by my noble friends Lord Babudu and Lady Lister, the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, and others. I think the most important thing is that what we are doing is visible. We already have a statutory duty to publish poverty statistics annually. As well as that, we are going to hold ourselves to account through the monitoring and evaluation arrangements put in place from this year and in future years, so the progress we make is transparent for all—and if we fail to make progress, that too is transparent for all. I think that will make the big difference.
My noble friend Lady Lister asked about migrant children, raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, and, in a rather different way, by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. Within the immigration system, the Home Office determines eligibility for benefits, and most migrants with temporary visas cannot access the benefits system. Access to public funds and benefits is usually at the point of settlement, although the Home Office, as has been noted, is consulting on changing the rules on that and will respond in due course. Migrant children who are subject to the no recourse to public funds condition have access to initiatives in place across the UK to support disadvantaged children, including free school meals, subject to certain eligibility thresholds, and support for children with special educational needs or disabilities. We are also looking to develop our understanding of that and its impacts for new questions in the Family Resources Survey.
Free school meals were raised by many noble Lords and Baronesses across the debate. Extending free school meals to all children in households on universal credit is a really significant step in tackling child poverty. I recognise the desire always to go further, but let us not just bank this and move on; let us look at this and see what a significant step it is. This expansion will lift around 100,000 children out of poverty and put money back into the pockets of families who need it most. We all know that children who are not hungry are more likely to attend school, to get better results and to improve their long-term life chances. That is one of my answers to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about who should get them and who should not.
I am afraid I will not be able to do all that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester would like, but I can tell him that the DfE is updating the eligibility checking system, which will make it easier for local authorities and schools to check whether children are eligible for free school meals and to ensure they receive a healthy, nutritious meal during the school day. I take his point about changes in the system, but local authorities are already taking innovative approaches to maximising take-up. For example, Sheffield runs an annual data-matching exercise using pupil records and housing benefit data to identify eligible children, which it can justify under its duty to support eligible children. I will undertake to make sure that the right reverend Prelate’s remarks on this are shared with my colleagues in the Department for Education, because he gave a lot of attention to it. I will make sure it is looked at carefully.
On the matter of free school meals, as a word to my noble friend Lord Brooke, we propose to make changes related to increasing fibre, reducing sugar and further restricting foods higher in fat, sugar and salt in free school meals, in line with the nutritional advice set by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.
The question of employment was raised repeatedly, and it is incredibly important. It is one of the places I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, who mischaracterised the child poverty strategy as being about trying to get people to stay on benefits. I hope I have made clear that growing up in poverty makes children less likely to be in work, get skills and achieve as adults, so our job is to make sure we help lift them out of poverty to give them the best chance. We also want to get parents into work, so our new jobs and careers service will give tailored employment support, taking into account their circumstances, to get them into work.
Although parental employment is high, we are also aware that almost three-quarters of children in poverty live in working households. My noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Sikka raised the question of in-work poverty and low wages. The Government are clear: work should be a route out of poverty. That is why the strategy takes action to support people into work and to improve incomes for working families. We have increased the national living wage, and I should pause to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Donaghy for all that she did in making sure that we had a national minimum wage in the first place—another achievement of hers but also of a previous Labour Government. We will also look to increase access to affordable childcare so that more parents can take up and progress in employment; I will come back to that if time permits. We are improving universal credit to make sure that families keep more of what they earn, including reducing deductions, and we have increased the basic rate for the first time, but we are also tackling the cost of essentials.
We are doing a lot to invest in childcare. We are investing £82 million in over 600 school-based nurseries, creating 11,000 new places by September next year. For those on universal credit, we are improving the process for claiming support for childcare costs, removing cost caps so parents can get more money if they have more than two children; and there is a lot more out there for supporting families.
I turn to some of the questions that have been asked. The subject of education was raised by a number of colleagues, including my noble friends Lord Kestenbaum and Lady Blower. On the point about inspiring teachers, when my noble friend Lord Kestenbaum said that, I bet that every one of us thought for a moment of an inspiring teacher from our childhoods. I certainly think of Miss Scriven and Mrs Scriven—both in my school but, weirdly, unrelated—both of whom inspired me. I pay tribute to all those who are teaching now and to organisations like Teach First, bringing people into teaching to inspire the children so that we have people there enabling them to have a future.
Child poverty impacts all aspects of education. As I said, children who are hungry or living in unsuitable accommodation struggle to learn, but the fact is that schools also end up diverting energy and time to dealing with hardship rather than just teaching children. Again, getting the child poverty strategy right can help to free that up.
I am advised there are 4,654 more teachers—approximately—in 2025-26 than a year earlier, and our delivery plan was published in February to show that we are setting out to recruit 6,500 teachers in secondary and further education over the course of this Parliament.
My noble friend Lady Nargund made some important points about health inequalities. I cannot respond to all of them, but I will pick them up and talk to my noble friend Lady Merron, who is sitting next to me, about these matters from a health perspective.
In our 10-year health plan, we are expanding mental health support teams to cover all schools by 2029, an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Brooke. We are increasing the value of Healthy Start vouchers so that more families can buy the nutritious food they need. We have detailed the rollout of a supervised toothbrushing programme; it is shocking that tooth decay is the most common reason why children are admitted to hospital. Through the 10-year health plan, we are committed to expanding funding for healthy babies to cover all areas over the next decade.
A number of noble Lords asked about homelessness and housing. Homelessness levels are far too high, and we recognise the devastating impact that has on children’s lives, so we are taking action across the system to prevent homelessness and support families who are affected. We are investing £1 billion this year in homelessness and rough sleeping services, alongside further funding for local authorities to prevent families entering temporary accommodation in the first place. We are also making the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in a generation, alongside measures such as the Renters’ Rights Act to strengthen security for tenants and help protect families from losing their homes.
I was asked about the local housing allowance. The Government had to take difficult decisions at the Autumn Budget and prioritise measures that had the biggest impact on reducing child poverty, such as the removal of the two-child limit. It is difficult, because we already spend around £37 billion a year on housing support, including some £13 billion in the private rented sector. However, we are doing the most important thing to attack the gaps in and levels of rents, which is to address the underlying problem of a lack housing supply. That is why £39 billion is being invested in the Social and Affordable Homes Programme.
We continue to support households that are struggling with housing payments, through the Crisis and Resilience Fund housing payments in England and discretionary housing payments in Scotland and Wales. We also need to address the quality of homes, an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Nargund and others. The Government are introducing stronger standards and protection, including Awaab’s law, to tackle serious hazards, putting in new electrical safety regulations and a future decent homes standard.
My noble friend Lady Nargund raised the terrible situation of the death of children linked to temporary accommodation. The death of any child is devastating, and it is imperative that we prevent deaths caused by unsuitable accommodation or gaps in care. So we are taking a cross-government approach to strengthen protections and improve the experience of families in temporary accommodation, including eliminating the use of B&Bs for families except in emergencies. We are acting to prevent harm by introducing proactive health outreach for families, improving data through a new clinical code for children in temporary accommodation and ending the practice of discharging newborns into unsuitable housing.
My noble friend Lord Brooke raised questions around children and obesity. There are complex issues around obesity and poverty, as I know he understands very well. We are taking decisive action on the crisis of childhood obesity. We are restricting the advertising of junk food; we have consulted on proposals to ban the sale of high-caffeine drinks to children; and we have given local councils stronger powers to limit schoolchildren’s access to fast food. Defra is also taking important steps to address the whole issue of food, including developing good food neighbourhoods and working with local authorities to support community-led initiatives such as food clubs, community kitchens and nutrition programmes. I will return to the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough in a moment.
I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Paul raised the question of boys, and disadvantaged boys in particular. I recently attended an interministerial group chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister on the question of men and boys. We were talking about this very issue. The evidence about school attainment and the outcomes for boys is shocking. It will continue to be a focus in how the Government consider groups at particular risk of poverty, and their outcomes in childhood and later life. I will share my noble friend’s comments on this matter with my right honourable friend.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the benefit cap, including my noble friends Lord Babudu and Lady Lister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Teather. The Government believe that, where possible, it is in the interests of children to be in working households. Being in work substantially reduces the chance of poverty. The poverty rate of children living in households where all adults work is 16%, compared with 60% for children in households where no adults work. The benefit cap limits the total amount of benefits a working-age household can receive. But people who are working and earning at least £881 a month are exempt from the benefit cap, and there is also protection for the most vulnerable, as those in receipt of care or disability benefits are exempt from the cap. I know my noble friend Lady Lister knows that there is a statutory obligation to review the levels of the cap at least once every five years. They were last reviewed in November 2022 and, as such, they will have to be reviewed by November 2027. That will happen at a time the Secretary of State believes appropriate, but by that date.
The question was raised about partnerships and working with voluntary organisations. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, gave a really interesting example. I would be grateful if she would let me have some more information about the charity: I like the sound of what was being described there. The point that she and others made—about the importance of children arriving at school at least ready to learn, or ready to engage with other children—is incredibly important. It is one of the things that I found so important when we developed Sure Start. The question of how to engage families is really important. In the Sure Start days, it was the very universality that reduced the stigma and therefore made it easier to get engagement. You could go along for a dental check-up and while you were there, other things could get picked up. But we are doing really important work with Best Start Family Hubs, which are reaching out, and that will be a way in which we develop this in the future.
We also recognise more broadly the voluntary and charitable work done by so many charities, and we are, for example, establishing the £500 million better futures fund, and the world’s largest social outcomes fund—a point raised by my noble friend Lord John—to support vulnerable children and families, and unlock up to £1 billion in total funding through collaboration with charities.
I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough for describing what was happening at the Woodford Halse Community Larder. I recognise some of that: I visited some community larders, which are wonderful. I loved her point about the importance of dignity. This is about human dignity and attacking poverty is fundamentally about human dignity. On Monday I was invited by another bishop to visit a brilliant charity in Grimsby working with local, very disadvantaged families, supporting children and young people in a brilliant way. I found it inspiring and I was very pleased to hear more about it. I am always interested to hear examples of good practice, so I encourage anyone to let me have them. I am always happy to go and visit projects, so if noble Lords have things they would like me to go and visit, do please get in touch.
We are looking forward to engaging continually as we go forward. We had wonderful engagements with voluntary, community and faith organisations in developing the strategy, and those will carry on. I know that my honourable friend the Minister for Employment was very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for bringing together a multi-faith group to meet her. That is an engagement she looks forward to carrying on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised questions about metrics. I recognise that these are Labour debates, so I thank her for taking the time to come and do this, especially late on a Thursday afternoon. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, raised questions about metrics. First, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, that “relative low income” is not some random measure that this Government came up with. It is the internationally recognised measure of poverty which reflects changing living standards over time. The reason we put in more than one measure is to get a rounded view, so we are going to use that. But deep material poverty is a new measure which is based on material deprivation, and together they will help give us a more rounded picture of what poverty looks like in the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also raised the issue of debt. The Best Start Family Hubs are designed to be a gateway to the full range of support that families need. Every hub will connect families to debt advice where it is needed, and that is something that can be really important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the question of how we will work with Wales. We are committed to continued collaboration with the devolved Governments to tackle child poverty across the UK. Specifically, we are committed to making sure that the UK-wide strategy complements their efforts and does not detract from their own work on poverty reduction. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness’s colleagues on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Babudu asked about the commencement of the socioeconomic duty. This Government are committed to ensuring that everyone can thrive, no matter their background, and we will commence the socioeconomic duty on public bodies soon.
My noble friend Lord John made some important points about NEETs. We commissioned Alan Milburn’s report; we welcome it, and we are already acting, and are going to act even more strongly, on it. I welcome my noble friend’s points about growth. As a Government, we are completely committed to expanding growth. However, I would also say that growth in itself does not mean that child poverty will improve. We have to be determined to tackle it, and this Government are determined to tackle it wherever we find it, including in ethnic minority families—an important point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Sahota.
I am running out of time, so I simply want to say that this Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity, deliver growth and raise living standards. We will invest in children and families because we believe in the value of every person and the contribution that they can make to society. Every pound we spend lifting children out of poverty invests in the future health, education and social security system of this country. We can save children from the consequences of poverty. A good childhood is in all our interests, and we owe it to the children of our country to give them the best possible start in life.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this most important of subjects. It is not only the fight of our lives but a source of, and an opportunity for, real hope for the future. Let us work together to do it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know where to start. It has been a fantastic debate, and I thank all noble Lords. I thank my noble friend, and I echo the very positive things that have been said about her. I cannot do justice to everything that has been said, but I am grateful for the passion, commitment and knowledge that people have brought to the debate. As I say, I cannot do justice to it all, but the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, who I think of as my noble friend, has done a very good job of summarising some of what has been said, as has my noble friend the Minister.
I echo what my noble friend the Minister said about the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I appreciate the fact that she has made the time to attend and contribute, although she will not expect me to agree with much of what she said. On the question of what happened during Covid, I take her point. It had something to do with the extra £20 that was paid on universal credit. From the evidence given to the Covid inquiry, I gather that the noble Baroness herself said that she pushed for an increase in universal credit. I welcome that; it was needed. I very much welcome what the noble Baroness said about debt advice services. She spoke about something that I should have mentioned: the importance of advice services more generally. We think of groups such as the Trussell Trust as providing food banks, but a lot of their work is providing advice. I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester was one of many people who emphasised the importance of education from different perspectives—free school meals, teachers, and so forth—as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Teather, and my noble friends Lord Kestenbaum, Lady Paul, Lady Donaghy, Lady Blower, Lord Brooke and Lord John. Education clearly came up in lots of different ways, so its importance was recognised.
I very much appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, bringing her personal experience to bear. We talk about lived experience, but we forget that there may be people on these Benches who have that lived experience and can bring it to our debates, and that is really important. I thank her too for mentioning the Scottish child payment and what is happening in Wales. Sometimes in England, we do not do enough to listen to what is happening in Wales and Scotland and what we can learn from that. A children’s rights perspective is certainly something that we can learn from experience in Wales.
My noble friend Lord Babudu mentioned the socioeconomic duty—soon. “Soon” is one of those wonderful government words, is it not? What does it mean? Let us hope it means what we would all like it to mean. It is not long until the Summer Recess, so I hope it means before then.
As well as education, a number of noble Lords made important points about health and public health. My noble friends Lady Nargund, Lord Brooke, Lord Sikka and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, all referred to health in different ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, talked about the politics of poverty of aspiration. A lot of people said, “Yes, yes”, but I absolutely take the point. Children have lost aspiration. They have tried. It is not that they start with a lack of aspiration; it is just drummed out of them. They keep facing these hurdles, which they cannot get across because of all the different factors against them. Sometimes there is a danger that we think of aspiration as a kind of individual thing.
That is probably my main difference with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, because she is coming at it very much from the perspective of individual responsibility, family and so forth, whereas I see poverty as a structural issue: I think it is the structures of society that are contributing to that. So there is a fundamental difference there, but I appreciate her contribution to the debate.
I am glad to say that a number of noble Lords supported what I said about the benefit cap. My noble friend said that it has to be reviewed next year. But, really, between this year and next year, families are suffering. I really hope it is not just the kind of review that looks at this and thinks, “Perhaps we should put it up this year”. What I am asking for is a fundamental review of the policy towards the thresholds, rather than simply the annual review. The annual review does not mean you cannot look at it more frequently than every five years.
A number of noble Lords made the important point about targets. I am glad that a number brought up families with no recourse to public funds from different perspectives. This group is suffering very real poverty.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Donaghy, Lord Hendy and Lord Sikka, brought up the problem of in-work poverty. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough and others emphasised the importance of the contribution voluntary groups can make. That, importantly, links in with advice services as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, made an important point about listening. People in poverty may be able to help us think about some of the big challenges we face as a society, and that is forgotten.
What it comes down to is something a number of noble Lords mentioned: we are talking about political choices, and a moral imperative underlies them. A number of people talked about how we are in the fight of our lives—it is not our lives but the lives of children in poverty. As a number of people have said, we must always remember that they lie behind those statistics. More than one noble Lord made the point that we are talking about the kind of society in which we want to live.
I hope that what has been said today, which has been immensely valuable, will be helpful to the child poverty team or unit—whatever it is now called—and to the Government. I quite like this label of being an “encourager”: if the noble Baroness does not mind, I might take that on board and be my noble friend the Minister’s encourager. I am not sure she needs much encouragement, but perhaps she needs support. I hope that what has been said today will give her the support that she and the rest of the Government need. With that, I thank everyone very much for giving up their afternoon and for their immense contribution to the debate.