House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I am delighted to see the enthusiasm for our reforms to school food. We want children to enjoy eating tasty, healthy food at school. That is why we are updating school food standards for the first time in a decade and putting young people’s voices at the heart of our plans. We will publish the new standards in September alongside our record expansion of free school meals, driving down poverty and delivering a revolution in school food.
Jim Dickson
Mr Speaker, I know that looking at me you would never guess that my children are now well past school age, but when they were at school—long past Jamie Oliver’s campaign against turkey twizzlers—the school food served was still not as healthy as it should have been, so I am delighted by the Minister’s assurance that the Government have consulted on the first update to school food standards in a decade. I am, however, slightly puzzled by the phased approach to improving the drinks served in secondary schools until September 2028. Will the Government consider speeding up the timetable and moving towards alignment with primary schools, so that we do not miss a crucial opportunity to improve the health of our young people?
Olivia Bailey
Alongside updating the standards, we also want to support schools to implement them. That is why, alongside developing new governance and compliance proposals, it is right that we give schools the time they need to prepare and embed the new standards, including phasing some changes in secondary schools. The consultation on our proposals closed just over a week ago and we will consider all responses carefully.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I recently visited Ralph Allen school in my constituency and saw how students were leading the way in improving the standard of their food. They have created a vegetable bed in an empty space, and are now offering vegan and vegetarian choices. How will the Department support schools in pupil-led improvements to their food?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for that really important question and I am really glad to hear of the fantastic example in her constituency. It is really important that our approach to food is embedded right the way across the school curriculum, whether that is children planting their own vegetables in schools or designing their own menus. That is why, as part of our consultation, we have been listening to young people’s voices. Young people will continue to be at the forefront of our new school menus.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
Through the national consultation and local special educational needs and disabilities reform plans, we are ensuring that multi-academy trusts play a key role in SEND reforms. New national inclusion standards will create shared expectations for all schools around inclusive education, and the SEND reforms make clear our expectations that all multi-academy trusts and schools work in partnership with local authorities to ensure the needs of every child in an area are met.
Clive Jones
I thank the Minister for her answer. Without clear levers, accountability cannot be guaranteed and the Department cannot ensure that SEND reforms translate into consistent, high-quality support for children and their families on the ground. Will the Minister clarify what specific and enforceable powers local authorities will have to ensure that multi-academy trusts play their full part in delivering local area SEND plans?
Georgia Gould
The Government will be setting national standards for all schools, including multi-academy trusts. National inclusion standards will be developed by an independent expert panel and all schools will need to ensure they are delivered. We are also introducing new inspections for multi-academy trusts that will focus on a range of levers, including the importance of inclusion in education. Through our focus on area partnerships, we are really clear that every player, whether schools, health services or local authorities, needs to work together to deliver for children.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Special needs specialists in schools in my constituency have raised with me their concerns about the shortage of educational psychologists. A mum of a profoundly disabled child, who I met on Saturday, raised concerns about the shortage of occupational therapists. What are the Government doing to address the additional needs of that specific group of people?
Georgia Gould
I really appreciate that question. Making educational psychologists, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists far more accessible for students in mainstream education is at the heart of our reforms. We are investing £1.8 billion in the new Experts at Hand service, which will start from September. As part of that, we are also investing £40 million into training new educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, developing the workforce to ensure that all children have access to an inclusive education.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Under this Government, apprenticeship starts by young people are up. We are going further and investing an additional £1 billion to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships with the new foundation apprenticeships, and providing £2,000 for smaller employers when they hire young apprentices.
Jerome Mayhew
There is no correlation between what the Minister says and what is happening on the ground. In Broadland and Fakenham, in the last year the number of apprenticeships has dropped by 20%. It has not gone up; it has gone from 150, down to 120. If the Minister thinks that more apprenticeships are a good idea, why does he not sign up for 100,000 new ones, and support the Conservative new deal for young people?
Josh MacAlister
I think we should look at what people do, not what they say. This is a Government who are reversing the decline; apprenticeship starts by young people reduced by 40% under the previous Government. We are taking a range of steps, including supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, and giving greater flexibility in the apprenticeship system, all to create an extra 50,000 opportunities for young people.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a governor at two educational institutions, and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education. My question is on access to the apprenticeship register, because in Stoke-on-Trent, great companies such as the Spark Group are struggling to get the registration they want in order to grow their offer to young people. They are limited by the £100,000 de minimis for subcontracting, but they have young people who want to take on the apprenticeships they are offering. Will the Minister set out what this Government might do to change that, and will he agree to meet me and the Spark Group so that we can look at ways it can give young people the opportunities they want?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is a fierce champion for apprenticeships and technical education. I am happy to meet him to discuss those matters further. The Minister for Skills, my noble friend Baroness Smith in the other place, has taken a whole series of actions with the Secretary of State to reform our apprenticeship system, opening it up to create tens of thousands of additional opportunities for young people.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I am pleased to say that this Government are driving record investment in our schools, with the core schools budget increasing by £1.7 billion this year. That includes funding that allows us to reform the special educational needs and disabilities system, training our teachers, making our schools more inclusive, and ensuring that every child can achieve and thrive.
Sarah Coombes
Eaton Valley primary school in West Bromwich has enthusiastically embraced net zero, and the Government have supported it by putting solar panels on the roof, providing a battery to store the power, and installing electric vehicle charge points in the car park. Those measures are already saving the school hundreds of pounds in energy bills every week. Will the Government look to roll out similar schemes, which reduce carbon emissions and allow more money to be invested directly into teachers and pupils, across further schools in the Black Country?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, we will. We a rolling out the GB Energy solar programme to around 350 schools and colleges. We are also unlocking private finance investment in solar and energy efficiency for schools and colleges, with pilots planned for later this year. I am pleased to hear about the impact of the scheme in my hon. Friend’s constituency. A school local to me in Sunderland recently shared that they had saved £4,000 this year through being part of the scheme, which they are using to put on more school trips and activities. We are saving schools money on their energy bills, which will allow them to invest more in driving up standards and teacher quality.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
St Andrew’s primary school in Shifnal in my constituency is about to see a multimillion rebuild—or a new build in phases. Most of that money, but not all, will come from the Department for Education. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that the funding is delivered, so that the school continues to offer the extra 25 places, as well as the 26-place nursery, that are part of the scheme? We have had false starts before, but this needs to be delivered—we need commitment from the Government.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising what is obviously a very important case in his constituency. I will ensure that I look into the concerns he has raised and, if it would help him to meet a Minister to discuss it further, I will ensure that that is arranged, too.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
With the growing obesity and mental health crises among our children and young people, quality physical education has never been more important, yet annual funding for PE will be slashed by a staggering 22% under the new PE and school sport partnerships network, with primary schools hit particularly hard. To make matters worse, these cuts are being hastily rammed through midway through the school year, leaving teachers, parents and sports co-ordinators completely stranded. Can the Secretary of State look parents and teachers in the eye and claim that cutting sports budgets mid-term is giving every child the opportunity to get on?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with where the hon. Lady started, which is that PE and sport—call it access to high-quality sports coaching, provision and resourcing in terms of capital investment in schools—are incredibly important. Alongside the work we are doing on school food to ensure that children get a great meal at lunch time in particular and our huge expansion of free school meals, we have committed more than £1 billion of investment into the work to establish that new PE and sport partnership. We are ensuring that primary schools are supported through that process with transitional payments and support, as well as working closely with leadership organisations to ensure that schools have all the information they need as we move towards the new system, which has been widely welcomed by sporting bodies and other organisations as opening up opportunities for more young people. I would be happy to discuss the subject further with the hon. Lady, because I think there has been some misunderstanding about the approach we are taking around transitional protections and support for primary schools.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
We are deeply grateful for the service of military families and recognise the additional pressures that military life puts on the education and family life of those families. We are working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to address this area. Schools receive service pupil premium funding to address challenges including mobility and family separation, and we are improving special educational needs and disabilities support for families who move frequently, including proposing new digital individual support plans and education, health and care plans to make those moves easier.
Mr Forster
Brookwood primary school in Woking educates a significant number of military children because Army Training Centre Pirbright is nearby. Those children have their education disrupted because of the nature of their parents’ vital work in the armed forces. In this Armed Forces Week, will the Government look at what further support they can give, including by increasing the service pupil premium, which has gone up by just £20 in two years?
Georgia Gould
I am visiting a garrison in North Yorkshire in similar circumstances soon to talk to families and schools about the particular pressures they face in supporting children with that high level of mobility. We are working closely on this matter, as I have set out, particularly through the SEND reforms. Time and again, I hear from military families that one of the biggest barriers for them, where there is an additional need, is how hard it can be to move from place to place. I have set out some of the changes we are making, but it is an area that we are looking at closely, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it further.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
This morning I had the honour of taking part in the flag raising ahead of Armed Forces Day in Thurrock in my home patch. I reflected that while the impact of service is one of pride, there is also a big impact on the families of the men and women who bravely serve our country, and particularly on those with special educational needs and disabilities. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that when a child with SEND follows their parent due to their military service, they are not adversely impacted?
Georgia Gould
As I have set out, it is far too hard to move SEND provision from place to place in the country at the moment. The changes that we are making—introducing national inclusion standards, national specialist provision packages and digital individual support plans and EHCPs—will make a massive difference in making it far easier to move provision. We are absolutely consulting on this; I continue to talk to military families and welcome their engagement on this important issue.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
In this Armed Forces Week, I want to draw the Minister’s attention back to the issue she has just been discussing. I have heard too often from the service families in my area that when they need to move, their child’s EHCP, which they have spent some time arguing for, does not automatically follow them. That not only disrupts the child’s education but makes it much harder for the family to move together; often the person serving has to move first. I implore the Minister not just to come up with digital solutions but to work closely with the Ministry of Defence to address this crucial matter.
Georgia Gould
Last week, I met a Minister from the Ministry of Defence and we discussed exactly that issue. I have heard from service personnel who have turned down jobs as a result of being worried about provision for their child if they move. This issue is a massive priority for the Government, and we are working on it.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for all her work on SEND issues, particularly in relation to service families, and for meeting me, service families and personnel through the work of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. Those service families took so much strength from the fact that the Minister was there to listen to them. Will she make a commitment that service families will be recognised within the work on all future SEND reforms?
Georgia Gould
I would really like to thank my hon. Friend and the chair of the APPG for organising that meeting; it was an impactful conversation. Members have spoken today about service families really struggling to navigate the SEND system. The people I spoke to welcomed some of the changes I have set out today, but they also set out new ideas, which we will be looking at as part of our response to the consultation.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Government recognise the essential role that small schools play in their communities, many of which are in rural areas. The national funding formula for schools accounts for the challenges faced by small schools in rural areas by providing additional funding through the lump sum and the sparsity factor.
Steff Aquarone
I was deeply saddened last week to receive from the Minister the news that Corpusty school will close from September. Across North Norfolk there are small rural schools just like Corpusty, and they are worried that they might be next to face closure. The Department for Education’s research and guidance about running a small rural school was conducted eight years ago and published in March 2019. That is about to be six Prime Ministers ago. Will the Minister commit to undertaking new research and publishing up-to-date guidance so that small rural primary schools can be protected in future?
Georgia Gould
I welcome the hon. Member’s taking the time to meet me to discuss the situation in his constituency and the pressure that falling birth rates are having on small schools. I have subsequently followed up on our conversation by meeting his local council about how we can work in partnership to support his constituency and the wider Norfolk area as it faces those pressures. I am happy to continue conversations about the Government’s work to support rural schools, which we are prioritising and funding, as I set out.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Small rural schools in Suffolk all face an uncertain future. I met with the brilliant Stephany Hunter, head of Barningham school, who explained the difficult problem of per-pupil funding in her very small classes. I would like to see more affordable housing in villages for young families by changing the rural exception sites. Does the Minister agree that village schools have a very special place in the heart of our rural communities?
Georgia Gould
I wholeheartedly agree with my good friend, who is a great champion for rural schools; they have a very special place at the heart of our communities. The national funding formula allocates funding based on a consistent assessment of need. The lump sum is particularly beneficial to small schools, which are most reliant on the element of funding that is not driven by pupil numbers.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We inherited the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—crisis and years of decay in the school estate. Labour is investing almost £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme to rebuild over 750 schools across England. Over 500 schools are already in the programme, with well over half already in delivery. We will select a further 250 schools by early 2027.
Bill Esterson
Hudson primary school in my constituency does a brilliant job. It is a family hub, it specialises in support for children with SEND and autism, and it has a nursery, but its building, which is 80 years old, suffers from a high water table that brings damp, mould and structural problems for the building—as does occasional flooding. Will the Minister give Niki Craddock, the excellent headteacher at Hudson primary school, her team and all the children they serve the news that he will look favourably on—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, come on. I have a lot of people to get in, Bill. Do not take complete advantage.
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Hudson primary school. He has spoken to me before about the excellent performance of the school and its headteacher. We will be selecting the 250 schools for the school rebuilding programme by the end of the year and announce them at the start of next year. It will be based on those schools that have the most acute need in terms of their building state. I am happy to discuss that further with him.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
Children with special educational needs and disabilities have been let down for too long. We are determined to transform their experiences and outcomes. We are working with young people, parents and professionals to create a system where needs are identified and met early and schools have the training, resources and physical environments to be inclusive for all children. We will end the postcode lottery for children with complex needs, with stronger national standards for specialist provision and a new role for the best specialist schools as centres for excellence.
Max Wilkinson
Recent events lead me to believe that we will have an in-depth discussion about regional funding inequalities in this country. With that in mind, may I draw Ministers’ attention to the f40 group of local authorities, and in particular Gloucestershire, within which my constituency falls? In the last couple of weeks, I have met Caroline Parker from Gloucester Road primary and Rachel Penney from St Gregory the Great school, who told me that there is a particular problem with the provision of SEND in the f40 area. Will Ministers meet me so that I can tell them in more detail about that problem?
Georgia Gould
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member to discuss funding. As he knows, it is an area that we are heavily investing in, with £4 billion going into early intervention to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. We will be consulting on how we fund special educational needs and the formula in the future, and I would be happy to discuss that.
Sarah Green
Like local authorities across the country, Buckinghamshire council submitted its SEND improvement plan on 19 June, but it will not receive a decision on deficit relief until 21 September, after the school year has started. With a cumulative deficit of over £45 million already on the books, it is being asked to plan blind. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what support will be available to councils like Buckinghamshire if such applications are rejected, and to discuss bringing forward the decision timeline?
Georgia Gould
Many hon. Members across the House have talked to me about the issues with local authorities’ delivery on SEND. The Department is determined to hold local authorities to account and ensure that they are all doing everything they can to support children and young people. We are putting in significant funding and support, but it is critical that that support really transforms things for children. We are carefully looking at all the SEND reform plans that have come back from local authorities and ensuring that they are of sufficient quality to turn things around, but we will be working with local authorities who need more support.
Tom Gordon
I have been campaigning for a number of years to get the special school at Bilton Woodfield open. It was first set to open in September 2024, then it was delayed to September 2025, and we have now been told that it will open in September 2026. It beggars belief that a school that has had millions of pounds spent on building and funding it is sat empty when we have a SEND crisis in Harrogate and Knaresborough, and across the country. Will the Minister meet me, apply pressure to the school trust and the local authority, and ensure that no further delays are made to the opening of the special school so that we get it open on time in September and do not fail a further generation of SEND kids?
Georgia Gould
I would be happy to meet the hon. Member, and I did not get a chance to say that I am also happy to meet the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green). These are critical issues, and we want to see provision come forward.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Can the Minister provide an update on the Experts at Hand offer, and in particular how the £2.1 million that will be given to my local authority, the London borough of Bexley, can be used to support disabled children across Bexleyheath and Crayford?
Georgia Gould
We have set out guidance on investment for local authorities and I know that local authorities around the country are busy building that offer. I was in Rochdale last week, where the amazing work going on with speech and language therapists in schools has seen a more than 80% reduction in waiting lists for children. We are really excited about the opportunity to bring these vital experts—specialist teachers, speech and language therapists and many others—directly into schools, and as we have heard, there is work going on to start this in September.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I am delighted that St Martin’s primary school in Scarborough is establishing a brand new targeted mainstream provision centre, backed by funding from this Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that our plans to deliver more TMP places will mean that the many children in my constituency who are currently not in school due to unmet needs will be able to return to school and resume their education?
Georgia Gould
Absolutely. We are investing £3.7 billion into creating 60,000 new specialist places, and I have heard from families how life-changing it is to have that provision in their community. Children who have been out of school, sometimes for years, are now back in education. Earlier we were talking about the issues affecting rural schools, and there are real opportunities to create inclusion bases in schools around the country.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Just a few months ago, the TES reported that the Government had frozen the high needs funding block, which special schools rely on. Headteachers are warning that the Government’s decision means that children will not get the support they need due to a lack of funding. The Minister may well point to the Experts at Hand service, but it is not the same and does not come close to meeting what each school will have lost. How can she justify freezing the high needs funding block when the demand for special schools is rising, the demand for education, health and care plans is rising, and the Government’s reforms are years away?
Georgia Gould
When we came into Government, we made a significant increase to the high needs block, precisely because we knew that investment in special educational needs and disabilities was desperately needed. Hon. Members across the House will know that the current system has been failing for a long time. We are acting to reform the system, but we are also investing £4 billion into early intervention, £3.7 billion into capital places and £200 million into teacher training and supporting local authorities with their deficits. This is something we are taking absolutely seriously. It is at the heart of our agenda, and we are acting where the previous Government failed.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As a former teacher, I know that these SEND reforms are not just necessary but vital for young people in my constituency of Harlow and beyond. Does the Minister agree that reforms in Harlow will be strengthened by multi-academy trust-level inspections and Ofsted’s welcome of the new focus on inclusion?
Georgia Gould
I very much agree that Ofsted inspections of multi-academy trusts are a really important lever in ensuring that inclusion is part of the decision making of all trusts and all schools.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
First, we heard that Ministers were trying to rig the SEND consultation with pre-written responses. Now it has emerged that the Department for Education-funded charity Contact, which supports local parent carer forums, has issued guidance stating that parents may be blocked from these groups if they dare to publicly criticise Government policy. Why are Ministers so determined once again to stifle any criticism of their reforms by silencing the very families whose opinions matter the most? Will the Minister ensure that this outrageous guidance is reversed?
Georgia Gould
That is just not true. In considering this issue, I have spent time with MPs from across the House and the families that they represent, and I cannot put into words the thought and care that so many MPs have put into holding surgeries and bringing groups together. I have talked to families with Liberal Democrat MPs, with Labour MPs and with many Conservative MPs. This is an area that everyone is taking really seriously. We have talked to families from all parts of the country with very strong views, and we are continuing to do that as part of our consultation.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Since entering Government, we have turned the tide on the teacher retention and recruitment crisis left behind by the Tories. We have achieved over 70% of our 6,500 additional teachers target. There are now over 4,600 more teachers in our secondary and special schools, as well as our colleges, compared with when Labour entered Government. We are also keeping our brilliant teachers in place, with the latest statistics showing one of the lowest leaver rates on record.
Sarah Olney
A Public Accounts Committee report published last summer found that the Department for Education not only lacked a plan for recruiting the additional teachers that Labour pledged in its manifesto, but did not understand why teachers are leaving the sector. Despite the Secretary of State’s saying that the Department is on track to meet an already revised and narrower target, this month’s DFE report found that there are 1,907 fewer teachers overall since Labour came to power. What further steps is the Secretary of State taking to recruit and retain our teachers?
Bridget Phillipson
We have published the delivery plan that the hon. Lady referred to, so I suggest that she goes away and reads it. When she does so, she may also be interested to know that primary pupil numbers have fallen by more than 84,000 since last year, and that that is set to continue until at least 2030, because of the historically low birth rate in our country. This Labour Government are improving teacher pay, improving workload and addressing the wider pressures that schools face, especially on child poverty. I am incredibly proud that this Labour Government will lift more children out of poverty than any Government ever.
Ian Lavery
The working lives of teachers and leaders study last year showed that almost three in 10 teachers were expecting to leave the profession in the next 12 months, and 90% of the people who have left or are intending to leave cite high workload and stress as the most common reason. There are more teachers leaving the profession than coming into it. What is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to ensure that we retain as many of these fantastic, critical workers in the profession as possible?
Bridget Phillipson
I know that my hon. Friend values the contribution of our teachers as much as I do. High-quality teaching is the single biggest factor in good educational outcomes for our children. We are improving pay and taking action on workload. I am also proud that we are doubling maternity pay—the first major change in maternity pay for teachers in more than 25 years. That is essential in a profession that is primarily female. By ending the Tories’ two-child limit and lifting half a million children out of poverty, we will ease the strain on teachers, who for too long have had to step in where Governments have failed.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that the figure she has quoted to the House excludes primary schools. The Labour party manifesto promised to increase the number of teachers by 6,500, funded by the party’s education tax, yet this morning the DFE website says that there are now 1,900 fewer teachers than in 2024. Daniel Kebede, the general secretary of the National Education Union, says that the overall fall in teacher numbers makes a mockery of this Government’s promise to increase teacher numbers. He is right, isn’t he?
Bridget Phillipson
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes away and has a look at the pledge that we made in our manifesto, which is that we would recruit the teachers where we needed them most. I am afraid to say that the birth rate in this country is at an historic low. There are more than 80,000 fewer primary school children across our country. It would be madness not to take that into account. I would suggest that he had a word with his boss about how the maths and logic stack up, but given that she was in government when the Conservatives crashed the economy, I am not sure that I should recommend it.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
As detailed in “Post-16 pathways: implementation plan”, we are creating coherent pathways, aligning learning with the skills that employers need and improving progression. New V-levels, the expansion and improvement of T-levels, and clearer level 2 pathways will support young people’s progression to higher study, apprenticeships or employment.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
Every time I have been to Buckinghamshire College Group in Aylesbury I have met fantastic staff who bring decades of professional experience to their roles and have a deep commitment to the young people. However, many further education colleges, including ours, are struggling with staff recruitment and retention, in part because staff pay is higher in schools. As we do this brilliant work to expand technical education opportunities through FE colleges, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that FE staff salaries are competitive and that FE colleges can continue to attract the best talent out there?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to Bucks College Group and the work it does in her constituency. FE colleges have autonomy over staff pay. We have provided an additional £190 million for colleges and 16-to-19 providers for this financial year, which is broadly equivalent to the schools pay award. We have also set out positive new developments on FE teacher training support.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I recently met Alex Miles, managing director of Yorkshire Learning Providers, and heard a worrying tale that differs greatly from what the Minister has told the House today. I heard that established apprenticeship standards are being defunded and that new product foundation apprenticeships that no employer in Yorkshire has asked for are being rolled out. Yorkshire Learning Providers has no partisan points to make; it just wants to ensure that young people can get into work with an apprenticeship standard that works for them and for employers. Does the Minister accept that the Government are not getting this right and that he needs to look at this again?
Josh MacAlister
I thank the right hon. Member for the question and the serious spirit in which he asks it. We are providing £9 billion of funding for 16-to-19 programmes in the 2026-27 academic year. We are making a wider range of changes to further education support, qualification routes and apprenticeships to directly respond to the kinds of criticisms from providers and employers that he refers to, and I genuinely believe that the Government have got that right. If there are particular aspects that Alex Miles wants to write to me about, I will be happy to take a look.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
We are committed to prioritising early intervention and making major increases in investment in SEND, investing £4 billion more over three years. That includes £1.8 billion so that every community has experts on hand, £1.6 billion to settings for early intervention and over £200 million to train every teacher.
Bradley Thomas
Looking out to 2028-29, there is a £2 billion gap between what the Government say they will be spending on SEND and what the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that SEND spending will be in that period. That will risk children across Worcestershire being forced to fit into a box that does not fit their needs. What steps will the Government take to address that?
Georgia Gould
The Government are investing in special educational needs and disabilities, as I have set out. We have set out substantial investment over the next few years. We are currently consulting on special educational needs and disabilities reform. We will set out final plans on that reform after we have carefully looked at all the considerations.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Many parents rely heavily on SENDIASS—special educational needs and disabilities information, advice and support services. We know that these services are free, impartial and vital for parents. Given that we expect demand on these services to increase, how will the Minister ensure that local authorities have the necessary financial and practical resources to maintain the independence and quality of SENDIASS?
Georgia Gould
I have heard from many families how critical SENDIASS is. We are continuing to fund SENDIASS, and in our consultation on SEND we included a question on how we can better support parents and on what investment we need to put in to do that, so it is an area that we are looking at.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We are investing almost £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme to rebuild over 750 schools up to 2034-35. Some 500 of those are already in the programme—we have a further 250 to select, which we will do later this year.
David Smith
Young people in Berwick in my constituency have been taught for over a decade in a crumbling high school—the only high school in the town in a wide surrounding area. Following sustained calls from families in Berwick, the Conservative county council promised five years ago to rebuild Berwick academy. A planning application has now been submitted after missing the 2022 round. The school applied for the school rebuilding programme in April. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that Berwick academy will still be considered for the SRP funding, even as works are scheduled to begin later this year?
Josh MacAlister
Despite those delays, I can confirm that the school will be considered for the school rebuilding programme, despite those avoidable delays. I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy, both raising it personally with me on a number of occasions and writing to me on multiple occasions.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Tiverton high school has been on various lists for a rebuild since 1999. I am genuinely grateful to the Department for Education for the work that has gone on behind closed doors since my election in 2024. However, there is still a worrying lack of commitment in public from the Department. Will the Minister give a commitment in the House to have the Department write to me, to Mid Devon district council and to Devon county council with a full update on the specifics of the school rebuilding programme for Tiverton high school, to provide the certainty that my constituents require.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Antisemitism has no place on university campuses or in our society. Universities must take strong action to tackle antisemitism, including by enforcing disciplinary measures and improving transparency. More widely, we are taking action across the education system, investing £7 million across schools, colleges and universities to combat antisemitism, ensuring for the first time that every child learns about the Holocaust, and I have commissioned an independent review into what further action we can take to tackle this poison in our schools and colleges.
Bob Blackman
The fact is that antisemitism and anti-Jewish hatred is rife in campuses across our country. The Secretary of State is right that it is up to vice-chancellors and principals to ensure that Jewish students feel safe on campus, but the sad reality is that a recent survey shows that only 3% of Jewish students feel safe to report antisemitism. Will the Secretary of State take prompt action to ensure that vice-chancellors do their job so that those committing antisemitic attacks are expelled from universities, and indeed if they are foreign students, they should also be deported?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Gentleman has long campaigned on this issue and has a strong record in making clear his commitment to tackling antisemitism wherever it is found, and I share that commitment. I want to thank the Union of Jewish Students for its “Time for Change” report. I spoke recently at a launch event attended by vice-chancellors, where I made it clear that I expect universities to take action against antisemitism, which is completely unacceptable. Too many Jewish students on campus have been subject to harassment and intimidation. That is unacceptable and vice-chancellors must act.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) rightly highlights the scourge of antisemitism on our campuses. Against that backdrop, is it not extraordinary that the Government have chosen to deny students access to the Office for Students free speech complaint scheme while extending it to everybody but students, which I raised with the ministerial team on 20 April? The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education—the body to which students are directed instead—is nothing but a legal dead-end for students who are subject to discrimination because of their beliefs. What message does it send to Jewish students facing intimidation and harassment that their complaints are treated differently from those of academics and visiting speakers? Will the Government introduce meaningful sanctions, including funding consequences, for universities that repeatedly fail to protect them?
Bridget Phillipson
I recognise the very real issue that the hon. Gentleman identifies, and I think there is a commitment across the House to tackling antisemitism in all its forms wherever it arises. But there is a fundamental point of misunderstanding here: students do have clear routes of redress and of complaint where things go wrong, and I am absolutely clear with university vice-chancellors and others that there can be no place for antisemitic hate speech on our campuses. Freedom of speech matters in our institutions, but antisemitic hate speech is not freedom of speech.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
We are determined to reverse the declining rates of activity for children and the stark inequalities we see across the country. We have confirmed £1 billion in funding for PE and school sports over three years to create stronger local partnerships to revitalise PE and school sports.
John Glen
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I visited Woodlands primary school and Matthew Kitley 10 days ago. He has been there for 17 years and works extremely hard to make very limited resources work for the pupils, 60% of whom receive the pupil premium. He tells me that £17,000 has been taken off the budget that he has set for this coming year, a really difficult settlement, and that is all taken from the PE budget. So can the Minister explain what is happening for this immediate financial year, where there is a shortfall for numerous schools across the country, including many in my Salisbury constituency?
Georgia Gould
At the moment, too many children do not have access to sport and are not meeting the recommended 60 minutes of daily activity, so it is critical that we build something that supports schools, like the one the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, with national bodies to provide those opportunities. The funding breaks down into £580 million to build the new PE and school sport partnerships network, £200 million for improved facilities, and the rest for transitional support for schools through the year before we build the new service. There will be transitional support in place, but we will build something that is better for schools. I am happy to have a discussion with him to clarify matters.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I say to the Minister that the Government cannot do more if they are making a 22% cut to funding. The whole nation is watching the world cup and millions of children have recently competed in their annual sports days, yet the Government snuck out this massive cut to PE and sport funding during the recent May half-term. The Secretary of State said that this is a misunderstanding, but it is not; it is a 22% cut that will have serious consequences for millions of children and it will hit the disadvantaged the hardest. Senior headteachers describe it as
“a funding cut dressed up as an initiative to boost PE and sport in schools”.
It is hastily rolled out and will hurt the poorest children, so why are the Government doing it?
Georgia Gould
Only half of children meet the chief medical officer’s recommendation of 60 active minutes a day. Although well intentioned and despite huge efforts from primary schools, the current system is not doing what it needs to do to turn the situation around. We know through talking to national bodies that a partnership model that brings our huge national resources, the energy from the world cup and the different clubs that are out there together with local schools is going to transform that investment. We are investing £1 billion over three years. I was in local government when the Conservatives cut youth clubs and community sports facilities, but we are investing.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The safety of our youngest children is of the utmost priority to this Government. Early years settings should be places where children receive the best start in life, and where they are safe and happy. That is why we will provide Ofsted with additional funding to strengthen safeguarding measures, with over £4.5 million this financial year and at least £8 million in future years. That will mean an additional 3,000 unannounced visits a year, an increased number of inspectors for larger settings and more face-to-face registration interviews before providers open, alongside accelerating modernisation of Ofsted digital systems. This builds on recent changes on whistleblowing so that staff can share concerns quickly and with total confidence. I will be setting out further changes shortly, because nothing is more important than keeping our youngest children safe.
Ian Roome
This year, two of Devon’s school food providers have shut down due to rapidly rising business and food costs. The Government school food standards consultation closed on 12 June, so will the Secretary of State now ensure that funding for school meals is sustained and that procurement supports healthy, fresh and local food?
Bridget Phillipson
That is exactly our intention. The plans on which we are consulting represent the first time in over a decade that this has been properly looked at, to ensure that when our children are at school, the food is of the highest quality and it is healthy and nutritious. I am grateful to all those who shared their thoughts through that consultation. I am also delighted that from September this Labour Government will be delivering a huge expansion in free school meals, ensuring that all families in receipt of universal credit will now benefit.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
A new Best Start family hub is opening in Cotmanhay, bringing together support for families in one of the most deprived communities in my constituency and across Derbyshire. As the Government roll out the hubs nationwide, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that they improve school readiness and help close attainment gaps before children even reach the classroom?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I thank my hon. Friend for all that he has done to secure that new hub in Cotmanhay. All the evidence shows that children who start school on the backfoot find it much harder to catch up. The Conservatives gutted Sure Start and let school readiness flatline, but this Government want the best start for every child. That is why we are setting a stretching target for record proportions of children to be ready for school, and why we are transforming early education and family support services with record investment and a strategic focus that has long been lacking.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
The resignation of the Prime Minister this morning was a damning indictment of the record of this Government over the last two years. Part of the Prime Minister’s legacy will be teacher morale at an all-time low. New data from the National Education Union today shows that 72% of teachers believe that the Government have performed badly on education. Why does the Secretary of State think the country and so many teachers have lost faith in this Government?
Bridget Phillipson
It is a funny old world in which the right hon. Lady prays in aid the National Education Union, but there we are.
I am proud of the action that this Labour Government are taking on pay and workload and in addressing all the many challenges that our teachers and leaders face, which were left behind by the Conservatives. Under them, we saw a shocking rise in child poverty and major social failure. The only policy that the right hon. Lady has is to cut state school budgets to give private schools their tax breaks back.
Laura Trott
Well, that is a load of rubbish.
The Secretary of State says that she is proud of the action that the Government are taking on pay. May I suggest that one of the reasons teachers are angry is that they still do not know their pay? When the Conservatives had to delay the teacher pay awards to this point in the year, the Education Secretary described it as a “complete dereliction of duty”. Why does she think it is one rule for the Labour party and one rule for everyone else?
Bridget Phillipson
The right hon. Lady left behind a pay award and zero funding to pay for it. One of the first things that I did as Secretary of State was to deliver that award in full and fully funded; when she was a Treasury Minister, she was totally derelict in her responsibilities. This Labour Government will drive up school standards and make change happen for teachers and leaders.
The right hon. Lady says it is nonsense that she has only one policy, which is to cut state school budgets to invest in tax breaks for private schools, but it is true. That is all the Conservatives have. They have nothing to say on education and nothing to say on how they would tackle the major challenges we are dealing with, especially on special educational needs and disabilities.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend. Campaigners have shown remarkable courage, bravery and persistence in bringing this shameful period in our country’s history out of the shadows. Their voices have been central in ensuring that that history is recognised. It is for that reason, and because of their tireless work, that this Government will soon make a full apology on behalf of the state to all those affected. I pay tribute to the campaigners; it is impossible to listen to them and hear their testimonies and not recognise that a wrong was done to them and that we have a responsibility to address that.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Olivia Bailey
That is a critical question. This Government are determined to give every child the best start in life, and we are backing that commitment with record investment of £9.5 billion in early years. We have a huge ambition for the whole early years infrastructure, including Best Start family hubs and our early education and childcare review.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
Officials are meeting with Kent county council to understand the model. We are in favour of schools pooling resources to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, but there have to be safeguards. I would welcome the opportunity to speak further to understand my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Georgia Gould
Every year we review the bursaries across the system—there is a limited pot, so we look at where the need is highest—and we will review bursaries this year. We are also setting up a national centre for the arts, which will support teacher training for music as well as wider arts, because that is so critical to our agenda.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question, and pay tribute to the amazing work she has set out. I thank Devon for her leadership and extend my heartfelt condolences to the family. It is so critical that we keep young people safe, and I hope we can continue to work together to do so.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Bridget Phillipson
Since coming into government, we have reformed the regulator to make sure there is a sharper focus on financial sustainability, and there is a new chair who is taking that work forward. The case that the hon. Member refers to covered many years. He will appreciate that there are limitations on what I can say about it, but he should be assured that we want strong regulation of our universities that is most effective in ensuring they can uphold their responsibilities while remaining financially viable.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I recently visited the Chances family hub—[Interruption.] It is indeed a very fine hub, one of several set up by Cumberland council to fill a need left by the Conservatives’ short-sighted decision to abolish Sure Start. Will the Minister please assure Carlisle families that this Government will ensure that all family hubs receive the support they need to give children the best start?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for all of her hard work on behalf of her constituents, and join her in congratulating her council on its work. She is right to condemn the outrageous cuts to Sure Start under the Conservative party, and she is also right that councils and voluntary organisations have stepped up to fill the gap. This Government will have their back, not just through our £900 million investment—£3 million of which will go to Cumberland—but by driving the reforms needed to link up services and reconnect our communities.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Bridget Phillipson
We recognise the need to make sure that, as we refurbish and rebuild schools across our country, they are well placed to cope with some of the fluctuations in temperature we are seeing, including the hot weather we are experiencing at the moment. Of course, how to manage that best is a matter for headteachers and school leaders. For example, schools can consider relaxing uniform rules during hot weather to make sure that pupils are comfortable, and the Department of Health and Social Care recommends that pupils should not take part in vigorous physical activity when the weather is exceptionally hot, but I trust school leaders to do the right thing to maintain the wellbeing of both staff and students.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I recently joined a class of year 5 pupils from St Peter’s school in my constituency on a visit to the National Holocaust Museum in Laxton. I saw at first hand that places such as that are vital to ensuring that young people absorb lessons about the Holocaust. Will the Minister therefore commit to visiting that museum with me and a local school?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy of the National Holocaust Museum, which plays a critical role in ensuring that children are educated about the Holocaust. That is a key priority for the Government, and I can of course commit to visiting that museum with him—I really welcome his work.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Georgia Gould
We are working with experts nationally to develop new national inclusion standards and specialist provision packages and to set out how we want to see children supported in mainstream schools and specialist schools. I would be happy to discuss that further with the hon. Member.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Some 40,000 children each year acquire a brain injury, which are recorded, if at all, under a broad range of categories. Will the Minister meet me and the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum to look at how we can better record acquired brain injuries in a special category to deal with their specific neurological needs?
Georgia Gould
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue. We have been talking to families of children with neurological issues, and it is an important area.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Schools in North Shropshire received an average of £6,460 a head last year, compared with a national average of around £7,910. Outcomes at GCSE and key stage 4 are consistently lower than the national average. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what resources can be put in place to improve outcomes for children in North Shropshire?
Georgia Gould
We are increasing investment in schools, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss their concerns.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I know that Members across this House will have been sickened and devastated to hear reports of the abuse suffered by baby Preston Davey prior to his murder at the hands of his adoptive parents, in whose home he should have been safe. It is of concern that Preston was seen by several different professionals in the weeks and months before his murder. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 legislates for stronger safeguarding arrangements, including the introduction of multi-agency child protection teams in every local authority area. In the light of the serious safeguarding failings in Preston’s case and in other recent cases of children who should have been safe in the care of the state, will the Secretary of State set out the expected timetable for implementing these reforms? How quickly can we expect to see stronger safeguarding practice consistently nationwide?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for raising this shocking case. Our thoughts must be with all those who loved and knew Preston, and it is right that the evil abusers who committed those sickening and shocking crimes are now behind bars. The House can be assured that we take this extremely seriously. I have asked for independent experts to look at Oldham council, Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS trust and the regional adoption agency to consider carefully all the issues and concerns that have been raised through this process. The child safeguarding practice review is commencing, led by the local safeguarding partnership with the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel working closely alongside to make sure it is of the highest quality. In response to the question that the Chair of the Select Committee asked, it is our intention to roll that out by March. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act represents the biggest upgrade to child protection legislation in a generation, and it is through those changes that we will make sure we keep all our children safe from harm.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
The horrific sexual abuse and murder of baby Preston Davey has shocked the nation. It has been reported that Adoption Now, the agency that placed baby Preston with his murderer, and Oldham council, the agency responsible for his safety, missed several safeguarding reports and potentially neglected to stop what was a preventable death. My question for the Secretary of State is simple: among the army of health visitors, social workers and medics who saw baby Preston, why did nobody raise the alarm? What action is being taken now to safeguard the welfare of those children under the care of Oldham council?
Bridget Phillipson
I have just described the action that we are taking. This is extremely serious, and it was an urgent priority for the incoming Government to update legislation to ensure that we do everything in our power to keep children safe. I have described the action that will follow, and I am glad that justice has been served. We cannot bring Preston back, but we can ensure that we do everything within our power to stop this happening to other children in future.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The St Ralph Sherwin Catholic Multi Academy Trust, which runs a number of schools in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, is facing extreme financial difficulties despite the considerable extra support that it has received from the Department for Education. We east midlands MPs have written to the Department, but perhaps Ministers could find out whether there is anything else that we can do, and also look at the academy funding model more generally, because the built-in financial risk undermines the education of our children at times.
Bridget Phillipson
Many colleagues in the region with local schools served by the trust have raised similar concerns, and I would be more than happy to ensure that my hon. Friend and any other interested Members of Parliament can meet to discuss the issue further. It is clear that, across the system, there have been a number of failings in respect of financial oversight and accountability, which is why we are taking action on MAT-level inspection and will take further action to ensure that public money that is intended to benefit children in their schools and in their education is not wasted in some of the shocking ways in which we have sadly seen it wasted by the Conservative party.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Members of a mini-Parliament from Town Farm primary school in Stanwell, in my constituency, visited me here this morning and asked me some very good questions. I was, for instance, asked for my view of the new right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), but we will leave that one where it is. The school’s head, Mr Bhatti, has just been given the OBE in the King’s birthday honours. These things do not come up with the rations. Will the Secretary of State please put on record her thanks to Mr Bhatti and all the team at Town Farm primary school for the outstanding job that they do?
Bridget Phillipson
I am happy to extend my congratulations to Mr Bhatti and the brilliant team at Town Farm primary school, and I hope that all the pupils had a wonderful visit to Parliament. This is an opportunity that we, as Members of Parliament, can encourage our schools to take up, because funding is available to make it happen, and I hope that more children will be able to benefit from the investment that has gone into Parliament and the Parliamentary Education Centre.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is aware of the challenges caused by the drop in population in my constituency, which is resulting in the closure of some schools. What work is being done to ensure that if there is a need to create housing on those sites for future pupils, the Department can move more quickly to change the designation of education sites for other uses?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to identify this issue. She has long argued in the House that we need both to manage declines in pupil numbers and to create more social and affordable housing for people including her constituents. There are a number of ways in which we are supporting schools at the moment, opening up space by expanding nursery provision in schools, inclusion bases and SEND support. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering very carefully how we can ensure that sites are used well, for educational purposes and, possibly, for other purposes that they may be able to serve in the future.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Primary school headteachers in my constituency tell me that, according to their budget calculations, the cut in funding for physical education will have a real impact on opportunities for young people, especially in rural areas. What assurance can the Government give me that young people, especially those in rural areas such as Waveney Valley, will not lose out on vital sporting opportunities?
Georgia Gould
We are investing £1 billion over three years to build new sports networks. That money will be used by many different partners to support schools, bring resources together, and put funding directly into school budgets. We will be setting out more plans to reassure primary school heads of our commitment to increasing activity for children and young people.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Like many other Members on both sides of the House, I have heard from countless families who have been let down by the existing SEND system. In one particularly upsetting case, a bright young boy was expelled from infant school owing to the mishandling of his complex needs. Thankfully, he was later re-enrolled as a result of his mother’s tireless work. Does the Minister agree that the reforms outlined in the Government’s SEND White Paper will support productive early intervention and create a fairer, more fulfilling school experience for every child?
Georgia Gould
I have spoken to families around the country who set out exactly that experience: watching their children fall further behind, and having to battle for the support that they desperately need. Our SEND reforms are about putting early intervention in place, supporting children at the earliest possible point, and transforming the system so that parents no longer have to battle to get their children the support they need.
G7 Summit
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr David Lammy)
I am making this statement on behalf of the Prime Minister. I spoke earlier today on the Prime Minister’s record across the country—stabilising the economy, driving down waiting lists in the national health service, and lifting half a million children out of poverty—but I want to start this statement by paying tribute to his record on foreign policy, which is second to none.
As Foreign Secretary when we entered government, I saw at first hand the Prime Minister rebuild our relationships across the world. The EU reset that we led put Britain at the heart of Europe once again. Embracing President Zelensky on the steps of Downing Street, on one of Ukraine’s darkest days, was symptomatic of the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown across Europe and in relation to the threats from Vladimir Putin—principled, courageous and on the right side of history. He drove investment for working people, with five trade deals in two years.
When it came to the most sober decision that a Prime Minister has to make—on a matter of life, death and war—and others were pushing for the UK to jump head first into another war in the middle east, Keir Starmer stood strong, stood firm and said, “No, this is not our war,” putting British soldiers and the national interest first. He made Britain safer, rebuilt Britain’s reputation around the world, and drove investment and growth that will support working families in Britain for decades to come. Regardless of their politics, everyone in this House owes a debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister on foreign affairs.
I turn now to the specifics of the G7 summit, and let me start with Ukraine. Once again, Russia chose to launch a huge attack on Ukraine on the eve of an international summit. In a show of its disdain for diplomacy, Russia killed innocent civilians in Kyiv and Kharkiv, and hit the 11th-century Pechersk Lavra, a sacred site at the very heart of Ukrainian culture. The G7 has a shared sense of outrage at Russia’s conduct, but we also have a shared sense that the situation is changing. Ukraine has a new-found momentum. It is increasingly able to push Russia back on the battlefield, and the mood in Moscow is turning against the war. Almost half a million Russians have now lost their lives. Each month Russia mobilises around 30,000 people, and each month it loses the same number on the battlefield, with no progress to show for it.
At the same time, the Russian economy is struggling and may already be in recession, so we will seize this moment by continuing our military support. We are providing more air defence missiles and our biggest package of drones to date, financed with the profits of seized Russian assets. We are providing vital export finance to help rebuild Ukraine’s energy system, and we are going further to increase the pressure on Russia’s economy, because we know the impact that this is having.
At the summit my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister announced 70 new sanctions, bringing the UK up to around 500 sanctions on Russia this year alone, aimed at breaking up its military procurement supply chains and the illicit finance networks it uses to circumvent sanctions and, of course, targeting the Russian shadow fleet. I am sure the whole House will pay tribute to the Royal Marines who interdicted a shadow fleet vessel in the channel last weekend alongside officers from the National Crime Agency.
This is the moment to ramp up the pressure, and President Zelensky is clear that he is ready to talk, but this must recognise the reality on the ground and Ukraine’s new-found momentum. Any negotiations would need to be on the basis of the current line of control, not on Putin’s unrealistic demand for territory that he has failed to win on the battlefield. Russia should note the level of unity shown on this point and the G7’s pledge of unwavering support for Ukraine that will continue until we reach a just and lasting peace.
Let me turn to the middle east. Getting to the deal between the United States and Iran has been bumpy, but it creates a moment of opportunity to bring down the cost of living for the British people and put the middle east on a better path, which is vital for global stability. We are now working to help implement this deal to ensure that the region does not go back to war and that the 60-day negotiation period ends in a longer-term settlement.
Negotiations are the best way to secure our aims: first, that Iran is never allowed to have a nuclear weapon; secondly, that it stops its attacks across the region; and, thirdly, that the strait of Hormuz is reopened to shipping, with no restrictions and no tolls. That is why, with President Macron, we have brought together an international coalition ready to help reassure shipping. We are in talks now about how to deploy this multilateral military mission in support of the deal and to explore immediate support for de-mining in the strait.
We should also place this in the broadest possible context, recognising the need to make progress across the region. The extremely fragile ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon must be implemented in full, and I call on the Israeli Government to show restraint to that end, including in their use of inflammatory language. The G7 agreed to work together in support of their process and to strengthen the Lebanese Government, so that they can regain the monopoly on the use of force in the country.
On Palestine, I want to speak very frankly. Israel must stop blocking aid into Gaza, stop settlement expansion in the E1 area of East Jerusalem, which threatens the viability of the two-state solution, and stop settler violence across the west bank. We have a precious opportunity now to move on from the violence of the last three years in the interests of innocent people across the region. This should be our aim, bringing all our partners together in that effort.
Significant progress was also made last week on migration, with a strong G7 statement outlining practical common steps on returns and sanctioning the criminal gangs. With President Macron, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister took a big step in our bilateral co-operation by agreeing to extend the groundbreaking Sandhurst agreement, which has already prevented more than 40,000 migrant crossings into the UK. Under this deal, new police units and riot squads will be deployed to French beaches to stop migrant boats before they take to the water. This is vital and important work. It is because of steps like that and the approach of this Government that we have removed 67,000 people with no right to be in our country. We have removed 9,000 foreign national offenders, and we are closing asylum hotels. We are turning the tide on these issues after years of failure. Under the last Government, net migration reached almost 1 million. We have reduced it by 82% in two years. UK immigration figures are the lowest today since 2012. Where the last Government failed, we are delivering.
The same is true on growth and investment. On the eve of the summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcomed the Prime Minister of Japan to Downing Street, to deepen our strategic partnership after they met in Tokyo in January. They agreed more than £18 billion-worth of investment in this country, creating tens of thousands of new jobs in infrastructure, offshore wind and financial services. That shows the value of building such bonds. This was followed, at the summit, with deals for a further £1.3 billion of investment from France and India in clean energy and artificial intelligence, creating more than 1,300 new jobs in Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed with India’s Prime Minister Modi the entry into force of the UK-India free trade agreement. This is the UK’s quickest ever turnaround from signing to entry into force, and it is one of the biggest deals either country has ever done. It will boost British GDP by £4.8 billion and boost real wages for British workers by £2.2 billion.
Finally, the House will note that tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum. We know the world has changed fundamentally since 2016. We know that Brexit has damaged the economy, so there is no doubt in our mind where the national interest lies today—in closer co-operation with Europe. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed to intensify work to deepen our economic ties. We look forward to a forthcoming second UK-EU summit at the earliest opportunity.
Unity on Ukraine to protect our collective security; unity on the middle east to bring down the cost of living and bring back stability; progress on tackling illegal migration, driving down the numbers day after day; and huge new investments in the UK, creating new opportunities and changing people’s lives—real results for the British people. At the same time, the Government have brought down mortgage rates and inflation to help with the cost of living, and have held them flat to fight what is happening globally.
We are supporting families with the summer savings package, so that they can spend time together this August. We are banning social media for children to keep them safe, lifting half a million people out of poverty, boosting workers’ rights and renters’ rights, and bringing down NHS waiting lists at the highest rate for 17 years. This Government are focused on what really matters: serving the national interest and delivering for the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Extra time was given because I thought we would have a lot more on the G7; I did not know the statement would be all policy. Not to worry. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. He is right when he says that everyone in this House owes a debt to the Prime Minister, but it is most certainly not a debt of gratitude; it is the other type of debt that we owe.
The right hon. Gentleman has come to the House to update us on a meeting that he did not attend. He stood in for the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions during the G7; now he is standing in again to tell us what happened at the G7. Where is the Prime Minister? He says he needs to stay in post for three months, but then does not come to Parliament to do his job. He wants to go on a farewell tour, while the new right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is asking for a summer holiday to work out what he thinks. In the meantime, no one is in charge, and Britain is not being governed.
The Prime Minister gave assurances at the G7 about military support to Ukraine. He gave those assurances after the Defence Secretary resigned because he was being forced to make decisions that would increase the risk to our armed forces. The Prime Minister gave assurances about sanctions on Russian oil and gas while, in this House, the Government were lifting those sanctions. The Prime Minister is saying one thing abroad but doing the opposite at home. Those are just some of the many reasons that he had to resign this morning, but apparently, for some mysterious reason, he must stick around until September. Given that he has resigned, why is he hanging around? The Deputy Prime Minister had to change his statement so that we all knew that the EU reset summit had been postponed. The summit is not happening any more, so what is the Prime Minister hanging around for? Why are we sending a non-Prime Minister to the most important NATO summit in a generation? It is because this psychodrama is about the Labour party, not the country.
Labour is still trying to tell us that everything is fine. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister was saying: “Everything is fine.” He has given us a statement about a G7 summit that he did not go to. The few Labour MPs who bothered to turn up to the Chamber were nodding along, pretending to be listening intently, but in a few minutes, they will all scurry back to their offices and focus on their real priority: lobbying for a job in the next Government. I take the opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Makerfield on his election, but I point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) is here; the right hon. Gentleman is not, because he is more interested in his leadership bid than Britain’s national security.
Two weeks ago, the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister quit the Government because Labour’s failure to fund defence is putting our national security at risk. That issue will not disappear from the right hon. Member for Makerfield’s in-tray just because he won a by-election. If he becomes Prime Minister, he will be briefed by the heads of our military about Britain’s reducing ability to defend herself, let alone Ukraine, which the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned. In order to fund defence, we need more money, not more speeches at summits. The right hon. Member for Makerfield will find that Britain is not able to borrow any more money, and that it has all been spent on welfare. He will realise that this Government are providing export finance to rebuild Ukraine’s energy system, while crippling our own, and are reducing sanctions on Russian oil, while sanctioning oil from Aberdeen.
Only one thing matters at the G7 and NATO summits, and that is our collective national security. [Interruption.] A Minister is chuntering. Can he say anything about why the Defence Secretary resigned? If Ministers are all living in la-la land, I am going to wake them up. They need to stop pretending that everything is fine, because it is not. Let me remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the Prime Minister is resigning because he failed on national security. He appointed a known security risk as our ambassador to Washington. He is destroying our energy security, which is national security, and he is refusing to fund the defence investment plan needed to keep our country safe.
The G7 summit reminds us that we are living in serious times, yet the Government are paralysed and our country is in limbo. It is time for Labour to start putting country before party, and to put Britain’s national interest first.
The Deputy Prime Minister
This is the first occasion that I have been opposite the Leader of the Opposition. We are actually friends, behind all of this. I thank her for her generosity and for her constructive suggestions on this occasion; it is always good to know that I can count on her support.
I remind the House that this is the same Leader of the Opposition who suggested that we should empty-chair the G20 and not bother turning up to the NATO summit. She wanted to jump into war with Iran without thinking through the consequences. I am proud to serve a Prime Minister whose hard work has made this country stronger and much fairer than the Britain we inherited from the Conservatives.
The Leader of the Opposition knows that the Prime Minister has rebuilt Britain’s international alliances. She cannot deny the five major trade deals struck under our watch—something that she failed to do. She knows that we have led the coalition of the willing in backing Ukraine, have renewed our partnership with Europe, and are delivering the biggest boost to defence spending since the cold war. I am proud of all that. She asks about defence. The work continues to finalise the defence investment plan. We are already investing £270 billion in defence over this Parliament, and the defence investment plan will deliver another unprecedented increase in defence spending. When it is published shortly, we will set out how every Department is contributing to defence.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about oil and gas; they will be part of our energy mix for many years to come. We are delivering enough clean energy products to power 23 million homes, led by Great British Energy—headquartered, of course, in Aberdeen. The PM secured £9 billion-worth of Japanese investment in offshore wind last weekend; of course, the Leader of the Opposition would rip all that up. She talks about Russian oil, but the Conservatives are wrong there: all sanctions on Russian oil remain in place, and we are imposing new sanctions that were resisted under the Conservatives.
I look forward to another opportunity to sit across from the Leader of the Opposition in the months ahead.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I echo the Deputy Prime Minister’s praise for the Prime Minister’s success in restoring the UK’s standing in the world, including with the EU.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has welcomed the G7 commitment to accelerating humanitarian efforts for Gaza and ending violence on the west bank, and Putney residents and I will support his and the G7’s efforts on that. Will he agree that Israel must stop the E1 Jerusalem and west bank illegal expansion, and that the G7 must rebuild serious momentum behind the two-state solution?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, yes and yes. My hon. Friend will be pleased that this issue was discussed at the G7 leaders’ summit. I encourage her to look at the statement that was put out, particularly as regards peace in the middle east.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I start by recognising the courage it took for the Prime Minister to make his statement today. Politics can be brutal, but although we rightly debate issues robustly in this Chamber, we can recognise that we are all human beings here, and can take account of that. However, after years of this chaos—we had multiple psychodramas and short-lived Prime Ministers under the Conservatives, and then under Labour—the country is impatient for real change. This moment shows once again how broken our political system is. It is only by fixing that that we can finally end this chaos and instability. There will be another moment to reflect properly, but for now, I simply thank the Prime Minister for his service.
Turning to the statement, progress on providing more support for our brave Ukrainian allies is indeed welcome, and the Deputy Prime Minister knows that he has cross-party support on that. At the G7, did the Government raise the proposal of using frozen Russian assets around the world to support Ukraine, and if not, why not?
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is boasting about his ceasefire with Iran, but “The Art of the Deal” it is not. His and Netanyahu’s idiotic war, backed by the Conservatives and Reform, has achieved absolutely nothing; instead, it is wreaking havoc on the global economy and on our economy, as the Deputy Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister was right to keep us out of it. Given how determined Netanyahu seems to undermine any ceasefire, what discussions did the Prime Minister have with allies at the G7 to put real pressure on both Netanyahu and Hezbollah to end the fighting?
All this shows how important it is for Britain to strengthen our defences and deepen our partnership with dependable allies, especially our neighbours in Europe. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm whether the defence investment plan will be published before the NATO summit? The Liberal Democrats think that is vital if we are to start to repair the damage done by Conservative defence cuts, and are to have real leverage and influence at the NATO summit. Will the defence investment plan go to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) for his urgent sign-off?
Finally, the Prime Minister promised a crucial summit with the EU next month to start repairing the damage done by the Conservatives, but reports say that this summit has been postponed because of his resignation. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this is a disaster? Fixing our relationship with Europe is far too urgent for these discussions to be postponed yet again. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to urge the right hon. Member for Makerfield to reject the Government’s current timid reset, and instead push for our growth and defence partnership, which would include single market membership, free from the out-of-date red lines that the Prime Minister imposed five years ago.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he put his remarks and for his tribute to the Prime Minister for his public service. I will relay that to the Prime Minister when I see him later.
On Ukraine, I am pleased to confirm that I hope to go to the Ukraine recovery conference later this week to continue to discuss these issues. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of frozen Russian assets, which remain a long-standing item of discussion across G7 nations. He recognises that some European countries are more exposed than others, and I hope that we can break the deadlock soon.
The right hon. Gentleman also raises the deal in the strait of Hormuz. It is a fragile deal, and the continued bombardment of Lebanon, which is affecting the fragile ceasefire in relation to Lebanon that is holding as of this morning, particularly pertains to that. We call for restraint from Israel particularly. It is important that we maintain peace across the region at this time.
I can confirm that the defence investment plan will be published before the NATO summit. I think it is important that the Prime Minister is in post for that NATO summit. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I was the first Foreign Secretary to return to the top table of Foreign Secretaries in Europe, and I hope that the EU summit takes place as soon as possible.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his update on a range of issues from the G7 summit. Could he set out how the Government’s work to de-escalate things in the middle east will help families in Britain and my constituency, specifically when it comes to protecting shipping routes, reducing energy pressures and keeping prices down?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and our National Security Adviser for their determination to keep the strait of Hormuz open and their work with partners to bring together a coalition to achieve that. We stand ready to help, particularly with de-mining. We all want to reassure industry and get back to freedom of travel down the strait of Hormuz. All of that will affect the cost of living in this country and stabilise our economy and the global economy.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my concern, and that of many of my constituents, about elements of the Iran deal, in particular that the early sanctions relief, access to frozen Iranian assets and $300 billion of economic reconstruction development aid could find its way back to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, further strengthening an organisation that has done so much damage to regional stability and global stability, both directly and through its proxies?
While I am at it, will the Deputy Prime Minister sit down with the police and find some way of stopping the ridiculous heckling and disruption of Prime Ministers on the steps of Downing Street when they are trying to make statements, which further adds to our considerable international embarrassment right now?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We have sanctioned the entirety of the IRGC. Since coming into office, we have imposed 240 sanctions on Iran, and we will bring forward legislation to implement full and further sanctions and sectorial measures, including targeting finance, energy, software and other industries that are advancing Iranian nuclear escalation.
The right hon. Gentleman has stood in my shoes on the steps of Downing Street. There are moments where the country is watching, and people want to be able to hear Prime Ministers of the day speak, so I recognise his point.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister reiterated support for Ukraine, but for that we need the defence investment plan. Could he explain what conversations the Prime Minister had at the G7 about defence investment, particularly through the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the multilateral defence mechanism? Both could be important to Britain. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what is happening?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will be reassured that defence, and increased defence spending across the G7, was a topic of discussion. We support attempts by the European Union and by our Canadian friends to ensure that the funds and different mechanisms are available to increase that defence spending. As I have said, we will set out how we will do that before the NATO summit.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the meeting between the Prime Minister and Sanae Takaichi, the Prime Minister of Japan, with reference to £18 billion of investment coming into the country. Some of that will no doubt be for the global combat air programme, for which a funding deal needs to be in place by the end of this month—next week. Last week, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Procurement mentioned that that funding deal has been agreed. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm how much that deal is worth and whether it is a multi-year deal, or whether it is a three-month interim deal that runs out at the end of September?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I recall being in Japan as Foreign Secretary and discussing that deal, and I was pleased to see the signing of the £18 billion deal, which incidentally will create 11,000 jobs. I will ask the Defence Secretary to update the hon. Gentleman in the usual way.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
After decades of Conservative Governments who preached isolation on the international stage, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have shown through their work the value of being in the room to get agreements that make positive changes for our national interests. He will therefore understand the concern of many of us that the EU-UK summit planned for 22 July, to make progress on repairing the damage done by Brexit to our economy and agreeing sanitary and phytosanitary and youth mobility deals, has been delayed. Every month of delay in the summit is a month of delay in implementing any deal, so will he assure those of us who recognise the need for a salvage operation to address the damage that Brexit has done to our economy, that this is a pause, not a stop, in that process?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her leadership on these issues. I assure her that the summit will take place as soon as possible. We are having ongoing discussions with the European Union on SPS, youth mobility, steel and a range of issues on a day-to-day basis.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
A week ago, the Prime Minister said that the UK would support the deal between the United States and Iran by standing up a “defensive, independent, multilateral mission”. At the planning stage, that was designed to restore freedom of navigation to the strait of Hormuz. In May, the UK was supposed to deploy drones, Typhoon fighter jets and HMS Dragon to such a future mission, whereas today the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of “immediate support for de-mining.” What will the deployment involve, and what might trigger it, please?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course, HMS Dragon should be ready for any mission to secure the strait of Hormuz, with the advanced British military mine clearance specialists I referred to, Typhoons ready to conduct air patrols over the strait, and the Royal Navy’s modular Beehive system, which can deliver high-speed autonomous Kraken drone boats to track and identify potential threats and defeat them.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
May I also associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s remarks about the Prime Minister and his service to our country? Despite the agreement with Iran, as he highlighted, the attacks on Lebanon have continued. Can he say more about what will be done to ensure that the truce agreed is sustainable, and what action will be taken to support the more than 1 million people who have been displaced and for the reconstruction of that country?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We strongly welcome the ceasefire but recognise that it is fragile. It must be fully implemented, including withdrawal by the Israel Defence Forces from Lebanon and the deployment of the Lebanese armed forces from the south, and Hezbollah must end its indiscriminate rocket fire. We have announced an additional £20 million-worth of humanitarian funding, taking UK support up to £30 million, and Baroness Chapman, the Minister of State for International Development and Africa, was in Lebanon last week discussing these issues with our French counterparts and the Lebanese Government.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I really am quite impressed that the Deputy Prime Minister knows more about defence spending than the former Secretary of State for Defence. He was able to stand in for the Prime Minister at questions and also know what was going on in the G7. And apparently the Prime Minister did such an amazing job that the way forward is to sack him.
May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this question? If the demands to go into closer trading relationships with Europe by those who are pushing that in his party—including the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), according to what he has said recently—are to be met, do those five trade deals that the Deputy Prime Minister has boasted about stand up?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We have been very clear about the red lines in our manifesto and about delivering on our promise to reset our relationship and put Britain at the heart of Europe. We absolutely stand by the ability to implement, enact and see our economy grow as a result of those five trade deals, all of which I have been involved in.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I, too, want to echo the tribute that my right hon. Friend has paid to the Prime Minister. There is much of which he can be proud, particularly on the international stage. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s strong words about what is happening in Gaza and the west bank, but my constituents frequently write to me in despair that Israel seems to be able to act with impunity when it comes to illegal settlements, the blocking of aid and many other examples. What reassurance can he give them that there is some hope that Israel will be held to account, and that the people of Gaza and the west bank will be helped in the face of such oppression?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am proud that we took historic steps to recognise the Palestinian state. We oppose settlements that undermine a two-state solution. Settlements are illegal under international law. We urge Israel—as I have continued to do—to take greater action to hold violent settlers to account and strongly condemn the massive increase that we are seeing in settler violence against Palestinian civilians. That is why we have announced further sanctions—the fourth package in recent times—against those who are sustaining that violence.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Deputy Prime Minister has just said that we are all in the Prime Minister’s debt. Well, that would be the £300 billion of debt that he has racked up. Of all the G7 countries, we now pay the highest borrowing costs. Given that Labour was elected on an express pledge not to raise taxes and not to borrow beyond our means, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if the right hon. Member for Makerfield wants to hike taxes even more and max out our national credit card, he should call a general election?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Reform is in no position to ask questions or make demands when its leader is refusing to own up about his £5 million donation and whether he lobbied the Bank of England about cryptocurrencies.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I also echo the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks about the Prime Minister and his service to our country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Israel must allow aid into Gaza, stop settlement expansion in the E1 area of East Jerusalem and tackle settlement violence, and that the G7 must use this moment to ensure that Palestinian people have the resources they need to rebuild their country?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all want to see peace maintained in the middle east, and we look with horror at the settler violence in the west bank. I condemn the inflammatory language that we hear once again from members of the Israeli Government.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister was right to say that Iran must never be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, but history teaches us that the Iranian regime ignored the deal that was in place—the joint comprehensive plan of action. Can he be clear with the House about what the Government are doing to make any future deal meaningful and prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring the level of enriched uranium that would make a nuclear weapon?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have stood at this Dispatch Box and discussed these issues over several years. I remember negotiating with the Iranians in Geneva and hearing some of their mendacity regarding their nuclear ambitions. I was pleased to see the G7 statement on Iran, to which I would refer the hon. Gentleman if he has not already read it. As he would expect, the United Kingdom stands ready to support that deal and hold Iran to the obligations it must necessarily have in relation to its nuclear ambitions and uranium enrichment.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to the exceptional work of the National Crime Agency and the Royal Marines—who have a special bond with Exeter, being housed just down the River Exe at Lympstone—in their action on the Russian shadow fleet. Will he commit to the Government and this country taking further action against the Russian shadow fleet and continuing to be at the forefront of enforcing the sanctions we put in place?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Let me thank again the Royal Marines and National Crime Agency officers for their bravery and professionalism. The vessel is now held off the south coast at a UK anchorage. A live criminal investigation is ongoing, so I cannot comment further, but my hon. Friend has heard us talk again and again about the Russian shadow fleet and seen us corral much of the international community into action.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
About the only thing of note and real consequence in the statement was the Deputy Prime Minister’s reminding us that tomorrow it will be 10 years since the disastrous decision to leave the EU—a Brexit that Scotland overwhelmingly rejected but that has left us as the most impacted nation in the UK, with a bill of £30 billion. Does he agree that is it not just us, but the whole UK that has suffered from Brexit? It has made the UK virtually ungovernable, as we see now, as we are about to get our seventh Prime Minister in the 10-year Brexit era.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right: the Leader of the Opposition and her party delivered a botched Brexit, and we must hold them to account for that. That is why we have sought, day after day, to reconnect with our European friends and partner with them where we can. We held the first summit, and I look forward to the next summit. We have made progress in repairing the damage that was done together with our European friends.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the serious topic of the impact of steel tariffs on companies and jobs across the country. The Deputy Prime Minister gave me a rather evasive answer—I suspect because he did not expect to be addressing the House of Commons today. He did say that the Prime Minister would be raising the issue at the G7, so can he update the House on what was discussed with regard to steel tariffs? Will he take the opportunity once again to try to answer the question as to what steps the Government are taking to avoid this economic disaster, which will occur in less than two weeks?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Protecting primary steel production, which is critical to UK national infrastructure, is the No. 1 priority. From 1 July, overall quota levels for steel imports will be reduced by 60% compared with current arrangements, with steel coming into the UK above those levels subject to a 50% tariff. Measures are targeted at steel that could be made in the United Kingdom. We continue to engage with the industry and trading partners on our steel measures, and we will confirm final quotas shortly ahead of 1 July. We will monitor the impact closely, including through a review after 12 months.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Ten years on, Brexit has cost the Welsh economy £4 billion, raised the cost of living and narrowed the life chances of young people. If the next Labour Government are serious about change for the better, rebuilding relationships with European members of the G7 and with the EU must be front and centre. Given that the Brexit reset summit due to be held a month from now has been postponed, with no date, surely the definition of stability would be for the next Government to campaign to rejoin the single market and the customs union and to be up-front and forthright with the British people on the advantages of doing so.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady and I have discussed these issues—indeed, we did so before we came into Government. There is no change to our manifesto red lines, and I will not pre-empt what our next manifesto might say, but I look forward to the next EU summit and am quite sure that it will take place as soon as is possible.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Can I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he is looking even more prime ministerial than he did on Wednesday? I wonder what has changed since then. This is the end of an era, because the love-in between the Deputy Prime Minister and myself could be coming to an end, as he may not be at the Dispatch Box much longer—I hope that is not the case.
Is it not clear that Paris is not a place for British Prime Ministers? When Margaret Thatcher went to Paris for a security conference in 1990, she was gone as Prime Minister within four days. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has gone as Prime Minister within five days of visiting Paris for a security conference. In the communiqué from the G7, there is a reference to Ukraine and energy. When will the UK end its temporary licences for the import of Russian diesel and jet fuel through third countries? It is scheduled to end in 2027. Could the Deputy Prime Minister bring that date forward?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question—I expect to be here for a few days yet. We did publish a statement on that issue, and it will be 1 July.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
We have been waiting for the UK-EU reset for two years, and today we have just more warm words after the UK-EU reset summit was postponed because the Labour party has decided to change its leader. On the anniversary of the Brexit referendum, when we are all poorer and our economy has taken a 6% to 8% hit because of it, what assurance can the Deputy Prime Minister give this House that the next Prime Minister will be bolder than this one and will actually positively reset the relationship with Europe, supporting our calls to join the customs union and the single market?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am proud of the work we have done to reconnect with the European Union. Alongside the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my dear hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) who is on the Front Bench, we have put a lot of work into the run-up to that EU summit. I was pleased to sit around the table with Foreign Secretaries across Europe for the first time, and that momentum will continue not just for the next year, but right up to the general election many years ahead.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his statement an £18 billion investment from Japan. What he did not mention was that earlier this year, the Government turned down a £17.5 billion investment from oil and gas companies when they decided not to end the energy profits levy. He also mentioned Russian sanctions, but did not mention that they have not sanctioned Russian-derived oil products nor Russian liquefied natural gas. Can he not see that this Government’s policies on the North sea oil and gas sector are bad for national security and that whoever is leading the Government next must end the ban on new licences, end the EPL and get Jackdaw and Rosebank permitted?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I just remind the hon. Lady that in the past decade, 70,000 jobs were lost in the North sea because of her party. We have headquartered Great British Energy in Aberdeen, we have established the Office for Clean Energy Jobs to help create jobs, and there are already 105,000 jobs in renewables in Scotland. We are committed to jobs and that is why we have provided an extra £1.2 billion in support of upskilling the workforce.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The G7 summit took place in a country in the grip of an extreme heatwave—a heatwave that is now hitting the UK this week—yet climate change was not on the agenda, despite the fact that the climate crisis has huge impacts on human health and economic security. Why are the G7 asleep at the wheel with their heads buried in the sand? Could it possibly be that they were appeasing one Donald J. Trump, and have we not already learned that appeasing Trump never works? Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that, whoever the next Prime Minister is, the UK will show the leadership needed here in the UK and on the global stage to tackle the climate crisis?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is great to hear the Greens talking about climate again, frankly—more, more, more! I am very proud of our record on climate, on renewables and on nature. I was very pleased to deliver my Kew lecture on this subject, and the great work continues not just in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to ensure that Britain once again is at the leadership table on climate and nature.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
This is a joke, right, Madam Deputy Speaker? We have got the Deputy Prime Minister here giving a statement on a G7 summit that he was not at. I am embarrassed to point that out in front of the Public Gallery and the world. Can the Deputy Prime Minister name a single Prime Minister who has gone to a G7, a G8 or a G20 and not come back personally to make a statement to this House?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Despite the repartee, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that in our constitutional system, just as I deputised for the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions last week and answered questions on a range of issues on behalf of the Government, I deputise today to update the House on the G7.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
“For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!”
Those are the appalling words of Israeli Minister of National Security Ben-Gvir, posted three days ago. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister will stand up and condemn this genocidal and, frankly, psychopathic language. Considering the very fragile ceasefire with Lebanon, does the Deputy Prime Minister see any version of lasting peace in the middle east with Ben-Gvir continuing to serve in Netanyahu’s Cabinet, and are further sanctions on him possible?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Ben-Gvir’s words are reprehensible and of course I condemn them. I was very proud to sanction him for all that he continues to do to destabilise the middle east and undermine the prospect of a two-state solution.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Government lauded the EU-UK reset deal as potentially delivering a modest yet none the less material 0.2% uplift to GDP per annum. That equates to about £6 billion per year, or £500 million per month. Given that the EU has announced a delay to that summit, does the Deputy Prime Minister consider £500 million to be a price too high, a price too low, or about right for the latest palace coup within the Labour party?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I expect that the EU summit will happen as quickly as possible. He knows our constitutional arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) won a massive victory in Makerfield, and I look forward to working with him over the coming weeks and months.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
There are massive death tolls in the wars in Ukraine, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran. Last year, global arms expenditure reached $2.7 trillion, a third of which came from the United States of America, and this year it will be well over $3 trillion. What consideration did the G7 give to the direction in which the world is going, with greater global poverty, greater inequality, greater climate injustice and greater danger for the whole world? Did the G7 have any thoughts about greater diplomacy, ending the wars and bringing about peace around the world, or was it all solely about spending more and more money on weapons?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The G7 was a great act of diplomacy and I commend President Macron for a successful G7 summit. In relation to the terrible geopolitical environment that the right hon. Gentleman describes, the summit was successful in part because President Macron chose to invite India, Kenya, partners in the Gulf and others to talk about the very same issues that I know have dominated much of the right hon. Gentleman’s career.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
Some 10 years on from the Brexit referendum, the Government want to align more closely with the European Union, but does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise as a statement of fact that in the sectors from which the growth of the future is coming—life sciences, agritech, defence tech and, most of all, artificial intelligence—the UK far outstrips the EU, and it would not do so if we had spent the past five years in the EU’s regulation regime. Whenever the EU summit happens, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that we need to maintain absolute sovereignty and regulatory divergence in those vital areas?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We must always do what is right for the country. I do not recognise the either/or that the hon. Gentleman is positing. Of course we are global leaders in areas such as AI, digital and tech, but with the EU as our biggest trading partner, it is vital that we continue to work in partnership with it, and I am proud of the Government’s record in that regard.
East Midland Railway Collision
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the tragic collision between two passenger trains on Friday 19 June.
I realise that hon. Members will be aware of some of the details, but today I would like to set out the facts as we know them so far. At approximately 5.15 pm on Friday evening, two East Midlands Railway passenger trains collided at Elstow, near Bedford. The 16.40 service from Corby to London St Pancras struck the stationary 15.50 service from Nottingham to St Pancras. Within minutes, emergency services were on the scene. A joint response then followed, including fire and rescue services, the ambulance service, the national police air service, British Transport police, Bedfordshire police and railway staff. They evacuated passengers safely, provided medical assistance, secured the railway and began recovery operations. By 11 pm, all passengers were clear of the scene.
It deeply saddens me to confirm to the House that the driver of the Corby to London St Pancras train died in the collision. His family have asked for privacy at this horrendously difficult time, but I am sure I speak for the whole House when I offer them our deepest condolences.
According to the latest information I have from the BTP, at least 33 people were taken to hospital, with a third of those in a serious condition, and at least 56 other people were treated for injuries. A number of the injured remain in a critical condition today. We are thinking of all of them and their families.
All responders, to a person, acted quickly, professionally and bravely in the most challenging circumstances, which many of us will never experience or quite understand. Chief Constable Lucy D’Orsi of the British Transport police told me over the weekend that the teamwork between emergency services, railway staff and the rail accident investigation branch was the best she had ever seen. Let me take this opportunity to thank every single one of them. I also thank the NHS staff, who are still providing care to the injured as we speak.
Often, in the hours and days after events such as these, small acts of compassion and selflessness start to emerge, whether it was members of the local community, who lived near the stranded trains, providing bottles of water to stranded passengers; the Salvation Army’s food truck, which has been on the scene since the incident; or station staff along the route, who supported passengers amid the disruption. I was particularly moved to hear of a ticket inspector on the Corby train who, despite being injured, radioed in to close the rail line while checking that everyone else was okay. As I have said before, I truly believe the best of us show up in the worst of times, and that was the case here.
This is news that no Transport Secretary ever wants to deliver. Although I completely understand the strength of feeling out there and hear the clamour for answers and the need to understand the cause of this tragedy, I must ask everyone for some patience, as hard as I know that will be. I am determined that we get all the answers we are looking for and that lessons are learned. The rail accident investigation branch, whose inspectors were on the scene within hours, has already launched an independent investigation and confirmed that there will be an update in the coming days. It and it alone will identify the cause and will make recommendations, which I will consider with the utmost care and diligence. Meanwhile, I urge everyone to await its findings and to hold off on speculation.
Those most affected by this tragic incident will continue to receive the support they need. In addition to direct care provided by the emergency services, East Midlands Railway has a customer care and welfare support team to provide assistance to passengers. It has also set up a dedicated care line that anyone affected can contact. Throughout, my Department will remain in close contact with the British Transport police and local emergency services, Network Rail, East Midlands Railway, the rail accident investigation branch and the Office of Rail and Road.
The Rail Minister has already spoken to the general secretaries of the RMT and ASLEF, as well as to hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), and my hon. Friends the Members for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen) and for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting).
Now that investigators have gathered evidence from the scene, Network Rail will recover the trains and restore the infrastructure. This will be a complex operation, involving lifting and removing damaged trains, repairing the rails and removing and replacing overhead lines. That is why the railway is expected to remain closed between Bedford and Luton for the rest of the week. However, services will be running between Luton and London St Pancras.
Rail replacement services were already in place along the midland main line, due to planned engineering works over the weekend. Those works were cancelled, but the replacement services continue to offer passengers alternative routes to travel. I have also instructed train operators to accept tickets from customers using alternative routes. However, my message to passengers who would normally use this route is that if their travel is not essential, they should please make alternative arrangements.
I realise that the following words may ring hollow to those affected by Friday’s events, but they remain important none the less. Britain has one of the safest railways in the world. Thankfully, incidents such as this are extremely rare and, when they do occur, they are taken very seriously. Safety remains the absolute priority across our rail network—of that, there should be no doubt. In addition to the railway’s own safety experts and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, we have an expert independent safety regulator. I expect all of them to be studying the investigation’s findings, and I will ensure that the right steps are then taken.
I would like to close by reassuring the House that we will provide updates as more information becomes available, and by offering my sympathies again to everyone affected and expressing my heartfelt thanks to those who responded so heroically in the aftermath. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
First and foremost, I offer my condolences to the family of Shaun Burton. In addition, our thoughts are with all those injured, some of whom are still in hospital with very serious injuries. I and all my colleagues on the Conservative Benches wish them all well. I agree with the Secretary of State, and wish to put on record the grateful thanks of Conservative Members to those first responders—the emergency crews, including those from the British Transport Police—who attended the scene. I also thank the Rail Minister in the House of Lords for his call with hon. Members, including Conservative Members, over the weekend, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and for coming to the House at this turbulent time. Given the seriousness of this accident near Bedford, it is welcome that, despite all that is going on, we have this statement.
From the accounts and video footage released in the aftermath of the incident, we can clearly see that this was a serious collision. The images from within the train and the reports from passengers depict the scale of the incident. At this time, it appears that there are few confirmed details about the reasons for the crash. There has obviously been considerable online commentary trying to explain what may have happened, with remarks about various different systems that are in place. However, given our lack of knowledge, it would be deeply irresponsible to speculate about the causes of the incident. Historically, as the Secretary of State has said, our railways have a very strong safety record. However, that safety is predicated on learning from incidents and ensuring that they do not happen in future, so I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could give some further clarity about the investigation to date, if at all possible.
Although initial investigations by the rail accident investigation branch take place within a few days, full reports can often take about a year to complete. Given the substantial questions raised by this incident, will the Transport Secretary work to ensure that the investigation delivers answers swiftly and clarifies whether any more fundamental issues are at stake? Furthermore, are the Government ready to ensure that any findings can be acted upon quickly by Network Rail or the rail operators, so that any issues can be very quickly addressed?
The Secretary of State is obviously absolutely right that the rail accident investigation branch needs time and space to establish what happened. Confidence in our railways depends on both avoiding incidents and, where they do occur, learning from them as quickly as possible. What has occurred in this case is clearly a tragedy, but the best way to pay tribute to those injured and to Shaun’s tragic death is to ensure that the lessons are learned.
Heidi Alexander
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the tone in which he has expressed himself. I share in the condolences he has expressed to the driver of the Corby train, Shaun Burton—as I said in my opening remarks, the thoughts of the whole House are with his family at this awful time.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the RAIB needs to be given space to complete its investigations. It was on the scene within about an hour of the collision, and it has indicated to me that it will issue an update on its investigation in the coming days. He is right that the full investigation will take longer, but as facts emerge the RAIB will be sharing them with the public in the next few days. I agree with him that it would be wrong—and potentially unfair to all those involved—to speculate on the causes of this collision before all the evidence has been properly examined, and I am confident that the RAIB will establish what has happened and why. I also assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will act quickly on its recommendations. It is important that the RAIB independently assesses the facts of the matter and makes recommendations to me as the Secretary of State for Transport.
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that our immediate priority is all those who have been affected. We are supporting those who have been injured and their families, and providing all the assistance that is needed to all those who have been caught up in this terrible incident.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I endorse, as I know does everyone in this House, the comments by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden). He asked all the questions that I had lined up to ask. In particular, I thank those who responded so quickly after this terrible incident in support of those who were injured. Our thoughts are with all those who are so severely impacted. In addition to those other questions, will support be put in place for those who drive trains and work in other roles on that route when it reopens, because that could be fairly traumatic?
Heidi Alexander
I spoke yesterday to the managing director of East Midlands Railway, Will Rogers, and the Chair of the Transport Committee is completely right to say that support must also be provided to the staff who were caught up in this incident. One of the things that Will Rogers explained to me is that he is receiving support from other train operating companies. The whole of the railway family has come together to ensure that support is put in place for individuals who could have experienced significant trauma. That will obviously apply to passengers who were caught up in this terrible incident, but it will apply to the staff of EMR, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
May I start by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? I wholly associate myself with her remarks. Our thoughts have to be with the driver who lost his life and the many passengers who were injured, particularly those still in hospital, and all their families. From my past railway management experience, I know that the railway family as a whole will be in a state of shock. I pay tribute to the on-train staff, signalling centre staff and control centre staff in Network Rail and East Midlands Railway for their excellent initial response. That led to emergency services being on the scene within 10 minutes. I also pay tribute to the emergency services for their work and to investigatory staff, station staff, customer service personnel along the line of route, the community organisations and the Salvation Army, as the Secretary of State referenced.
I do not have a question for the Secretary of State; I think her statement was spot on, and I just want to reiterate what she said. It is so important that we do not succumb to the temptation to speculate, however well-intentioned that may be. We must give the investigatory teams and the site recovery teams the time and space that they need. I never had to deal with anything as horrible as this in in my railway career, but I know from that time that speculation is the most unhelpful thing that can be done.
Heidi Alexander
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his responsible remarks, and I thank him for raising the response of the emergency services, as well as the response of the railway staff who ensured that swift action could be taken once the collision had happened. It is worth saying once again how quickly, bravely and professionally our emergency services responded in these most challenging of circumstances.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I express my deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Shaun Burton. As a train driver, he carried enormous responsibility and we should remember his dedication and service. I also wish a full recovery to those who are injured. This was a tragic incident, but it was genuinely moving to witness the extraordinary response from our community. I saw at first hand the professionalism and compassion of rail staff, emergency services and NHS staff, alongside the many local businesses, community groups and individuals who stepped forward to help. From distributing water and food to transporting stranded passengers and supporting these superb emergency operations, Bedford and Kempston came together as one community, and I am immensely proud of everyone involved.
Given that thousands of commuters rely on these services, can the Secretary of State confirm that replacement services are operating effectively, and can she tell me what support is being provided for rail staff who are working in challenging conditions during the rare red heat warning period, while also coping with the impact of this tragedy?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impressive and selfless response from so many people, including some in his own constituency, as well as the railway staff. He mentioned Shaun Burton, and it strikes me that it would be appropriate to read the comments of Will Rogers, the managing director of East Midlands Railway, who said:
“Shaun was known for his quick-wit, kind, generous, and intelligent nature, and for always having a smile on his face. He was a well respected colleague both in his role as a Driver, and in his previous role as a Train Manager, often acting as a trusted advisor and available to share his wisdom, support and guidance to others. He will be greatly missed by all who knew him.”
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I thank Ministers for briefing me over the weekend on this tragic event. I also thank all the emergency services, railway staff and volunteers in Bedfordshire who worked so tirelessly and professionally in response to the collision in my constituency. I send my condolences to the family of Shaun Burton, the train driver who tragically lost his life, and wish those who were injured a full and speedy recovery.
Some of my constituents still need to travel, particularly to London. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give my constituents who rely on Flitwick and Harlington stations—which, as she knows, are closed at the moment—that the contingency timetables and rail replacement capacity will be sufficient in the days ahead? Has any consideration been given to the possibility that trains on the east coast main line could make additional stops at Arlesey in Bedfordshire to increase capacity during this recovery period?
Heidi Alexander
I will ask the Rail Minister to respond in writing to the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about diverting stopping services from the east coast main line. We are working closely with all train operators to ensure that adequate service is provided. While no services are operating between Luton and Bedford, there are currently rail replacement buses. GTR is still operating between London and Luton and also north of Bedford, and EMR is still operating a limited service into Bedford. However, I will respond in writing on the hon. Gentleman’s specific point.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
This was a hugely tragic incident, and my thoughts are with all those affected. The Secretary of State was right to say that we should wait for the investigation and not jump to any conclusions. Will she join me in thanking the local residents who heeded the calls not to visit A&E at Bedford and Luton and Dunstable hospitals unless there was a real emergency, and in praising the independent coach operators—the ones of which I am aware are Johnsons, Tates, Britannia and Angie’s Tours—which, as ever, have jumped in and quietly put all hands to the pump?
Heidi Alexander
I do, of course, join my hon. Friend in thanking those independent coach operators. She is also right not only to draw attention to the incredible work of NHS staff at the three hospitals where people were sent, but to recognise the patience and forbearance of the local community in ensuring that the hospital staff can focus on those who have been most seriously injured. Through her, I thank her community for their co-operation in that regard over the weekend.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and her ministerial team for the support they have given Members of Parliament in affected constituencies since the collision, and add my voice to the many who have praised the response of Bedfordshire emergency services immediately following the collision, the brilliant work of the Thameslink staff at the stations, who redirected passengers who were not on those trains but had journeys to make, and the tremendous work being undertaken right now by Network Rail to move the carriages off the track. My condolences go to the family of the deceased driver, and my thoughts are with those in hospital.
I spoke to one of my constituents, who is in hospital, at the weekend. He faces two very serious operations, and I ask this question on his behalf. We want the RAIB to complete its investigation thoroughly and without speculation. When it is complete, will the Secretary of State give her assurance that she will work tirelessly and fully to implement the RAIB’s recommendations as speedily and effectively as possible, so that this rare incident becomes ever rarer still?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman and I were in direct contact on Friday evening, and I thank him for his recognition of the railway staff, including those from Thameslink, who provided assistance on the evening. I can give him a guarantee that as soon as the RAIB makes recommendations to the Government, we will act swiftly if there are matters on which we need to act. We will consider the recommendations with the diligence that a tragedy of this nature deserves.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and wholeheartedly agree that all our thoughts should be with the loved ones of Shaun Burton, his colleagues and those who have been seriously injured. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the emergency services, including the NHS staff at the Luton and Dunstable hospital in my constituency, who will no doubt have gone above and beyond for all those affected? What support is being offered to the emergency services personnel who have attended the scene in the days that have followed? Many will take this in their stride, but many will have been impacted by what they have seen and experienced, and they also deserve our support.
Heidi Alexander
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who have responded to this horrific incident. I know that the Samaritans and the International Red Cross are involved in providing support to individuals, and that East Midlands Railway has set up a contact line for anyone affected by this incident. She is absolutely right to highlight the outstanding bravery of the many people involved in responding to this incident. Many people will have sustained horrific injuries, so it is important that we support those who dealt with the horrific moment in the immediacy of the incident. I will leave no stone unturned in making sure that those individuals are supported.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I extend my thanks to the emergency services, railway staff, the NHS and community volunteers, who showed enormous bravery and humanity. My thoughts are with the family of Shaun Burton and all those who are injured.
My constituents are shocked and shaken that such a tragic accident could happen so close to home. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Thameslink line south of Bedford is likely to breach capacity within five years. On a separate occasion, I will press her on the question of investment in capacity. My constituents are very concerned that our lines are getting busier and busier. What assurances can she provide that, as our train lines get busier, safety will always remain paramount?
Heidi Alexander
I said earlier today that we are fortunate to have some of the safest railways in the world, but as I said in my statement, I know that that will not provide any consolation to anyone who was impacted by this incident. As we set up Great British Railways, safety will remain absolutely central to everything that the railway does. When I worked at Transport for London, we often talked about the fact that everyone should be able to get home safely at the end of every day, regardless of whether they are working or travelling on the railway, and that is completely the culture that we will take forward into Great British Railways. We will make the right investments to ensure that the right maintenance is done, because everyone needs to be assured that they are travelling on a safe railway whenever they get on a train.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Train drivers keep our country running and help contribute billions to our economy; they get people to work, to their holidays and to see their friends and family; and they deliver the food for our supermarkets and the materials to build our houses and infrastructure. No one should go to work and worry they will not come home. This incident has been shocking, and as chair of the ASLEF parliamentary group, I would like to share my solidarity and thoughts with Shaun’s family, friends and colleagues, with ASLEF the trade union and with all the rail and emergency workers who dealt with the situation with such professionalism. What is the Secretary of State doing to support drivers and to maintain and improve safety for everyone who uses and works on our railways?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the vital role that train drivers play. I would like to put on record my thanks to Dave Calfe, the ASLEF general secretary, for his statement over the weekend. The Rail Minister has spoken with the general secretary, and we will continue to work to ensure that drivers are safe. This has been a horrific incident, but such incidents are thankfully very rare on our railways. I will make sure that we continue that close collaboration to ensure that everyone—staff and passengers—is safe when they are on our trains.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and her Department for their constant communication over the weekend, and the emergency services, which responded so quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen) is no longer on the Front Bench, but we have been in constant communication about how we can support our constituencies over the last few days. My thoughts are with everyone affected and the loved ones of the driver who so tragically lost his life.
This crash has been felt acutely in Kettering. Both trains stopped in Kettering before the collision, and it feels as though everyone knows someone who has been impacted. To add the real human element of this tragedy’s impact, I want to mention the story of one of my constituents, who was injured with a broken nose and extensive injuries to her back and neck. Following the crash, she and her friends had to walk through a hedge and over fields and then arrange private transport to Kettering general hospital. Understandably, it was a traumatic experience, and she has shown great strength since. Can the Secretary of State reassure those involved, such as my constituents, that the Government will work with the Department of Health to offer them support following this tragic event?
Heidi Alexander
I can reassure my hon. Friend of that, and she is right to highlight the very human impact of what happened. The trains were busy trains coming into London on a Friday evening. It concerns me to hear that her constituents had to organise private transport. Would she write to me in more detail about those circumstances, because I would like to look into that? I know that wraparound support was provided at the scene, and if anyone did not experience that, I would like to know so that we can be in contact with them and learn any lessons.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
As the Member of Parliament for Corby and East Northamptonshire, I agree with everybody about the emergency services, the NHS, the community who came together, the guards, the staff and the passengers as well, who did not go through the panic that can sometimes happen in situations like this. The 16.40 London train from Corby to was involved in this fatal collision. No worker should ever go to work never to return home, and I am sure all our thoughts are with the dedicated Shaun Burton, who lost his life, as well as with his family and his friends, and the family and friends of all those impacted and affected—a lot from my constituency —including those with injuries. I spoke to Ministers over the weekend, and I thank them for that. I have also spoken to the ASLEF and RMT unions, and I know that they are offering support.
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that train drivers, who connect our communities and deliver the goods we need, work in a safety-critical environment and deserve to feel safe? Does she also agree that the passengers and staff affected by the trauma of such an accident really do need our support and that of the rail operators?
Heidi Alexander
I do agree with my hon. Friend. My thoughts are also with the driver of the other train and their family, as well as the on board train crew, some of whom were injured. It is absolutely vital that we in the Government do everything we can to make sure our railways are as safe as they possibly can be. We will be looking closely at the RAIB report when it comes, and I can assure him and his constituents that we will learn any necessary lessons and make any necessary changes.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in offering my deepest condolences to the family and friends of the driver, Shaun Burton. I thank her, the Rail Minister and staff at East Midlands Railway for keeping us updated in what I am sure were very difficult circumstances on Friday evening. As someone who represents the railway town of Wolverton, I know how such incidents have an impact on people right across the rail community. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the emergency services, including brave firefighters from Milton Keynes, who acted quickly and professionally in the aftermath of this tragic incident?
Heidi Alexander
I will, of course, join my hon. Friend in thanking the firefighters from Milton Keynes, who were very fast on to the scene. I would also like to thank all those from Network Rail who are involved in recovering the trains. Some Members may have seen the images of a road being built through a field, as we speak, to erect a crane to be able to lift the carriages off the tracks. This was a very serious incident, and I thank all those involved in responding to it and seeing the recovery through.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Recently, I was proud to join EMR driver Ross and driver manager Peter in travelling from Derby to St Pancras. From the cab, I saw at first hand the skill, dedication and immense responsibility that every single journey requires of our dedicated train drivers. Friday’s crash has tragically demonstrated the scale of that responsibility. My thoughts are with the family, friends and colleagues of driver Shaun Burton, alongside everybody injured and affected. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the brilliant work that our train drivers do day in, day out up and down the country?
Heidi Alexander
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Anyone who, like him, has been in a cab with a driver will understand the skills, attention to detail and alertness that drivers require. He is right to say that they often go unthanked, hidden away in the driver’s cab, but billions of journeys each year on our railway network depend on the service they provide, so he is completely right to highlight that.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
On behalf of my constituents in Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire, I express my condolences to the family of the deceased driver and to all those involved, and give my thanks to the emergency services. This was particularly poignant, as my officer manager’s 12-year-old nephew, Arthur, was in one of the middle carriages. He sustained injuries, but thankfully he has come out relatively unscathed. May I press the Secretary of State to confirm that those investigating the crash will be resourced appropriately, so they can ensure the investigations are concluded as quickly as possible?
Heidi Alexander
I give Arthur my best wishes, and I am pleased to hear that, while he sustained injuries, he is hopefully on the road to recovery. Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the RAIB and the British Transport police, who are involved in investigations, will be appropriately resourced and equipped to do their work thoroughly. As I said in my statement, we are anticipating an update from the RAIB in the coming days, and I will ensure that he is kept informed.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for keeping us up to date this weekend. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the family and friends of the driver, Shaun Burton, who sadly lost his life following this truly heartbreaking incident, and to send my very best wishes to all those injured on Friday. I would also like to pay tribute to the emergency services, railway staff and local responders for their swift response, ensuring passenger safety and providing urgent emergency care on the scene. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on the work required before services can be safely resumed and how passengers will be kept informed of progress?
Heidi Alexander
As I alluded to in my earlier remarks, it is a complicated process to finalise the investigations on site and remove the trains from the track. Some will have to be hoisted off the track by a crane, and we will need to move overhead-line equipment to do that, which will then need to be repaired. The track will also need to be repaired before services can resume. That is why we anticipate the line between Bedford and Luton being closed for the rest of this week. As soon as I have more information on service resumption, I will ensure that Members along the line of route get that information to share with their constituents.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in sending condolences to the family of Shaun Burton, who died in the accident, in wishing those who are injured a speedy and full recovery, and in thanking the emergency services for their prompt action on Friday. It is important that we have heard from the Secretary of State that a full investigation is ongoing and that all lessons will be learned in order to avoid a repeat. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that the disruption to Thameslink services south of the Thames, arising from the partial line closure, including temporary interruption of services from Rainham through Dartford to Luton, will last no longer than is necessary for the full investigation to take place?
Heidi Alexander
We are obviously keen to ensure that normal service patterns can be resumed as soon as possible, but there is extensive work still to be done at the site. We need to ensure that everything is in perfect working order before we resume services. I will keep my hon. Friend updated, as I will do other hon. Members, as soon as we have more information.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and associate myself with her comments on the sad loss of the train driver Shaun Burton and her thanks to the emergency services, staff and volunteers who helped at the scene. Many of my constituents in Amber Valley travel on that line regularly. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give them that everything is being done to ensure their safety once that specific line is back open? Can she reassure those worried constituents who are contacting me that the line will not be reopened until it is absolutely safe to do so?
Heidi Alexander
I give my hon. Friend the reassurance that the line will not be reopened until it is absolutely safe to do so. There are detailed procedures to be gone through in order to ensure that the railway is safe to resume services. We need to remove the trains from the track, as I set out, and repair the damage that will have been done to overhead-line equipment and the tracks. I assure her that Network Rail, the train operating company, and my Department will ensure that everything is done so that the line is safe when it reopens.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The thoughts and prayers of the people of Stockport are with Shaun Burton’s family and friends. East Midlands Railway serves Stockport and connects us to Sheffield, Nottingham and beyond, so I thank all EMR staff and the railway workers who support those services. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that British Transport police, the rail accident investigation branch, and EMR will have the support of her Department and the wider Government with the investigation?
Heidi Alexander
I can assure my hon. Friend of that. This weekend, I spoke to Chief Constable Lucy D’Orsi of the BTP, and to the managing director of EMR. This morning, I was briefed by the safety director of Network Rail. We will ensure that the investigation that RAIB and BTP do independently is appropriately resourced. I will look carefully at any recommendations that are forthcoming on how we can improve safety on the railways.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Long Eaton is a railway town. On Saturday, a train driver who lives in my constituency stopped me to say that he had known Shaun Burton, the driver who was killed in the incident, and that he himself had been driving one of the two trains involved earlier that day. Like many colleagues in the House and many of my constituents, my team and I are regular passengers on the line. While we should never speculate on causes, can the Secretary of State please elaborate on the steps that she is taking to investigate what happened and to communicate the findings of that investigation?
Heidi Alexander
As someone who also represents a railway town—Swindon—I understand my hon. Friend’s experiences in Long Eaton of being stopped in the street by members of the railway family. This will be a particularly challenging time for them, and I do understand that. I assure him that the RAIB, which was on the scene quickly, will be doing its work independently; as I say, an update will be forthcoming in the coming days. The BTP will continue its investigations as well. I will ensure that all MPs along the line of route are kept informed as we get more information about the incident and any recommendations that flow from the investigations.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for her statement. I associate myself with her condolences to the driver’s family and her remarks on those who were injured, and offer my thanks to those who responded from the emergency services, those in the NHS who continue to provide care and treatment and the railway staff. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s saying that she will heed the RAIB’s recommendations and consider them carefully.
Many of my constituents use that stretch of railway. I note that there is a recommendation not to travel unless it is essential, but some, including key workers, may have to use the railway and travel on alternative lines. I am conscious that there may be extra pressure on those lines and that, particularly in this hot weather, tempers sometimes fray on the railway. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could keep the situation on the neighbouring lines under review to ensure that there is capacity and that there is support for the staff working on those other operators, if they need it.
Heidi Alexander
I can assure my hon. Friend that the railway will act as one in these challenging weeks. We have made tickets available to be used on other operators, and we will, as always, keep in close contact with the train operating companies to ensure that there is collaborative working and that we keep the disruption and inconvenience caused by this incident to a minimum.
Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Pathways trial.
I know what a sensitive, emotive and difficult issue this is. I myself have wrestled with, and at times struggled with, the profound challenges that this subject raises. In all of my consideration and deliberation over this matter, my bottom line has been to protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. The way to do that is to follow expert clinical advice and take an evidence-led approach, which is what this Government are doing. As adults, we all owe a duty of care to every child and young person in the country. It is a responsibility that I—both as a citizen and as Health Secretary—bear with the utmost seriousness and sincerity.
I do not believe that children’s safety and wellbeing was being adequately protected just a few years ago. I think it would be helpful to remind Members how we arrived at that point. For several years before the turn of the decade, the number of children and young people being referred for NHS support around their gender identity increased rapidly. Stories subsequently emerged of young people struggling after undergoing radical and permanent transition surgery at a young age, children being rushed into taking medication without adequate therapy beforehand, and clinicians disregarding conditions such as neurodiversity and mental health conditions. As such, there was rightly deep concern about the vulnerability of these children and young people, the care and treatment they were receiving and the surge in referrals.
In 2020, NHS England commissioned leading paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass to carry out a review of NHS gender identity services for under-18s. What Dr Cass uncovered was shocking and scandalous, and she made a series of recommendations for how children could be better protected and supported. I remind the House that those recommendations were accepted in full by both the Conservative Government of the time and my party in opposition.
It was, in my mind, clearly wrong for children and young people to be routinely prescribed puberty blockers for gender dysphoria without any clear evidence on their benefits or risks. The situation was out of control, and I fully supported the indefinite ban introduced by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), which followed the temporary ban brought in by the previous Government.
I do not think there is anyone with more respect as a clinician in this space than Dr Cass, and my predecessors in this role recognised that too. Dr Cass identified treatment for gender incongruence as
“an area of remarkably weak evidence”.
She found that even clinicians working in the field were divided on the best way to support, treat and care for young people suffering gender dysphoria. Where there is strong divergence of medical opinion on treatment, the two possible responses are to continue with the uncertainty—and, with that, conflicting opinions and advice—or to undertake a trial, not just to resolve a dispute but to make sure that children with gender-related distress get the same standards of care as everyone else in the NHS.
As Dr Cass has said, the vast majority of children and young people who question their gender will resolve it without needing any support other than that of their friends and family. For many young people, questioning their identity on many different fronts is a normal part of growing up, and we should simply let them be. For a small number of young people, though, greater support is needed because of the level and longevity of the discomfort that they feel. That can often involve counselling or therapy. For a very, very small number of young people, it is possible—I emphasise the word “possible”—that medical treatment would help to improve their quality of life and mental health, and reduce their gender-related distress.
That is why Dr Cass, whose approach until recently commanded cross-party consensus, recommended a trial to establish how best to support children and young people suffering gender incongruence. That is the Pathways study. It has four main parts, one of which is the clinical trial to study the effects of puberty-suppressing hormones on young people’s physical, social and emotional wellbeing. The Pathways trial, which is being led by King’s College London and the South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust, was initially approved last November. The trial seeks to gain evidence on whether those potential benefits are real, alongside evidence on whether such treatment comes with the risk of harm.
It is right that this Government are guided by expert clinical advice and a clinical, evidence-led approach, but as this study involves children, and therefore comes with a particular responsibility, as Health Secretary I have sought the most detailed assurances possible from my clinical advisers about how children taking part in the trial will be protected. There are a number of important safeguards. Children can participate only with the consent of a parent or guardian, and the children themselves must consent or assent. They can participate only if they have had a diagnosis of gender incongruence for at least two years. They can participate only if they have received psychosocial support through the NHS. They can participate only if they are of stable physical and mental health. They can participate only if they are not subject to any safeguarding concerns. They can participate only if they and their parents demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the treatment, including its potential advantages and disadvantages. They can participate only if they have been deemed clinically appropriate by both the NHS care team and the national multidisciplinary team, and they can participate only if they are already accessing NHS gender services. So, when it comes to eligibility, we are talking about a very small subset of a very small group. The number of young people who would expect to quality for the trial will be low, and the safeguards to ensure their safety and wellbeing are rigorous. I have sought and had reassurance that once participants are on the trial, they may be withdrawn at any point.
As hon. Members will know, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency raised new concerns at the beginning of this year, and the start of the trial was delayed so that they could be fully scrutinised. On Thursday last week, the regulators approved an updated protocol that significantly strengthened the objective criteria for withdrawing children from the trial. I welcome that change. Signs of greater risk to participants will now trigger increased monitoring, clinical review or automatic withdrawal from the trial. All participants will be monitored before, at the start of, every three months during and after the trial. Before and during the trial, information will be collected about mental health, quality of life, self-harm and suicidality, body image, cognition, puberty stage, physical health and side effects.
On bone health, puberty is normally a time of rapid bone gain, so if changes in bone density are identified, that will lead to a reassessment of whether the participant should continue in the trial, with set criteria for automatic withdrawal. On fertility, there is no published scientific evidence of irreversible changes, but that will be proactively addressed, with every participant offered repeated counselling and a range of options to preserve their fertility. On cognition, while there are no established scientific reports proving a cognitive effect, the new protocol sets out strict definitions for investigation and automatic withdrawal of young people from the trial.
The new criteria for increased monitoring or withdrawing children from the trial will mean that, at the first sign of negative impacts, action will be taken. These criteria will stop short-term harm, and the view of the National Institute for Health and Care Research is that that means any long-term harm should not occur or go unnoticed. Those reassurances about preventing harm to the children who take part in the trial, and taking clear action if any risks appear to increase, are critical. After considering the matter closely over the past few days, I have requested monthly updates on the progress of the trial, including on any emerging risks.
Pathways is rightly one of the most scrutinised UK clinical trials of recent times—we should expect nothing less when we are talking about the health and wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable children in our country. Yet, as Dr Cass has made clear, we have to build the evidence base to show whether the treatments are safe and whether they produce the positive outcomes that young people and their clinicians want from them. My view is that proceeding with the trial is, on balance, the most appropriate way forward.
This has not been easy—I am sure many hon. Members are also wrestling with this dilemma—and, as we debate this issue today, I hope that we will keep in mind Dr Cass’s ask to consider the issues sensitively and cautiously. As she said:
“Polarisation and stifling of debate do nothing to help the young people caught in the middle of a stormy social discourse, and in the long run will also hamper the research that is essential to finding the best way of supporting them to thrive.”
I will not pretend that I do not continue to feel discomfort and unease, but I believe that the only way for us all to come to a fair and settled conclusion on this matter—to move forward as a country on this difficult and sensitive issue—is on the basis of clinical evidence in which we trust. Thanks to the strengthened criteria now in place for monitoring children’s wellbeing and withdrawing them from the trial, there is now intense scrutiny, and there are robust mechanisms to prevent harm from coming to the young people who take part. It is on that basis that I believe we should follow the advice of clinical experts and seek the clinical evidence that will give us the confidence to know that where we settle on this matter in the future is right. I commend this statement to the House.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. What does this trial do? Put simply, it takes physically healthy children with normal pubertal development and subjects them to powerful drugs that may weaken their bones, affect their ability to think, damage sexual function and make them unable to have children of their own. Serious stuff—and for what? To treat a diagnosis of gender incongruence that will probably resolve without treatment.
Let us look at this carefully. Gender incongruence is a subjective condition; it is how someone says they feel. There are no lab markers and no scans. That, of course, is not necessarily unusual. In fact, it is common in mental health conditions. Gender incongruence is often self-resolving; it gets better on its own. Again, this is not unusual in paediatrics. It is really common for children to be admitted to hospital for supported care for things like gastroenteritis and respiratory viruses. Puberty blockers are powerful drugs. This is a powerful treatment with significant long-term consequences. Again, this is not new to paediatrics. Some chemotherapy, for example, has substantial short and long-term consequences. But what is unusual and, I think, toxic is the combination of all three. Medicine is about balancing risk. Where else would we give powerful drugs with potentially serious long-term consequences for a subjective condition that is likely to get better on its own?
I understand that this trial has been approved, but time and again we have seen and heard how fear and hostility can distort priorities. We have seen tragedy occur when fears of accusations of racism limited mental health treatment. We have seen profound suffering when fear of accusations of Islamophobia limited inquiries into the grooming gangs. The healthcare of children distressed about their gender is another topic where there have been attempts to shut down debate with threats and accusations of transphobia.
Such attempts were reported in relation to the Tavistock.
When considering treatments for life, with lifelong implications, we have a duty to be careful and sensible, so I ask the Secretary of State: why are this Government funding a trial that will cause harm to physically healthy children? These children may be 11 years old, at Tanner stage 2. Some of them are primary school children with only minimal signs of puberty. This is far too young. The MHRA warned in February that the youngest patients are at greatest risk; they may end up on puberty blockers for a much longer period, and face a higher risk to fertility, because sperm and eggs have not yet fully developed at Tanner stage 2.
I am reminded of this point in the judgment in Bell v. Tavistock:
“There is no age appropriate way to explain to many of these children what losing their fertility or full sexual function may mean to them in later years.”
Yet as the Secretary of State confirmed, the children must consent or assent to being in the trial. Why did the Government not heed the MHRA’s recommendation of a minimum age of 14 years? This Labour Government think that 14 is too young to watch social media. Why do they think 11 is old enough for this trial?
What is the goal of the treatment? In the trial, the outcome is a short to medium-term effect on quality of life and body satisfaction. Does the Secretary of State believe this is proportionate to the risks of these medications? Is there any evidence suggesting that puberty blockers are safer than they were thought to be in 2024, when the Government banned them, following the expert advice from the Commission on Human Medicines? Some have suggested that the drugs help adults to pass as the opposite sex. Is the long-term damage really worth it for the cosmetic benefit of a few? And it is just a few, because we know that the vast majority will be better without any treatment.
The Secretary of State said that “when it comes to eligibility, we are talking about a very small subset of a very small group.” Even if we were to accept the premise that a very small number might benefit from treatment, how could the clinicians identify which those children might be? A study of clinical outcomes from kids treated at the Tavistock is due to be completed next year. That could help, so why is the Secretary of State not waiting until that report is completed before conducting an experiment on an unnecessarily broad group of children? Has evidence come to light since the Cass review that helps clinicians confidently work out which 11-year-olds will become adults with gender dysphoria and which will not?
The Secretary of State has said that the criteria will stop short-term harm, and that should mean that long-term harm will not occur or go unnoticed, but history is littered with examples of things that do not cause short-term harm but do cause long-term damage. He also suggested that the trial will resolve the dispute, but sadly, I do not think that will be the case, because, first, a single trial rarely resolves a dispute; and, secondly, the comparison group, who are not getting the puberty blockers, are not randomised and are an intrinsically different population. This is bound to be highlighted once the result is published. In medicine, we have a founding principle: primum non nocere—first, do no harm. I ask the Health Secretary to please cancel this trial before vulnerable children suffer unnecessary, irreversible harm on his watch.
James Murray
I agree with the shadow Minister that most children and young people who are questioning their identity and gender are likely to resolve those questions on their own, and I think Dr Cass would agree with that. As I said in my opening remarks, for the majority of children who question their gender, we should let them be; they will resolve the matter through their friends and family and their own development. We are talking here about a small subset within a small group of children who need further support. I also agree with the shadow Minister that the situation before Dr Cass did her review—the situation that had developed in the last few years before the turn of the decade—was totally unacceptable, and we should be clear that that was wrong.
The shadow Minister asked about protecting the young people involved in the trial from harm. As I set out, there is intense scrutiny, and there are robust mechanisms to prevent the children involved from being harmed. She mentioned the MHRA recommendation for the lower age limit. Initially, there was no lower age limit, but a scientific dialogue between the MHRA and the trial sponsor led to publication last week of the updated protocol, which recommended the minimum ages of 11 and 12.
The gateways to younger people and children becoming involved in the trial are significant. There must be not just consent or assent from the children, and consent from their parents or guardians, but approval from the NHS care team, the national multidisciplinary team and others before anyone can be involved. As I set out, I feel uncomfortable and uneasy when considering this matter, but I think that the right way for us to move forward is to have the clinical evidence on which to base decisions. I have received reassurances about there being the highest possible level of scrutiny and protection from harm for young people involved in the trial, and that is the basis on which, on balance, I think it is right for it to proceed.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The Conservative party committed to and commissioned the Cass review, and today’s statement takes forward Dr Cass’s recommendations in full—guided not by ideology, but by evidence. Some Members who are critical of that approach have said in this place that these young people just need love. I agree that we should show trans people and trans young people more care and compassion—far too often, those things have not been demonstrated in public discourse in recent months and years—but trans people and trans young people also need and deserve high-quality, evidence-based and timely healthcare. I therefore welcome today’s statement and the Secretary of State’s commitment. Will he say that this Government are still committed to rolling out gender clinics in every region?
James Murray
As my hon. Friend will know, the recommendations in Dr Hilary Cass’s review set out how to establish better services for young people in the future. The focus of today’s statement, the clinical trial, is just one part of the wider work on how best to support young people who need extra support in this situation. It was welcome that there had been, at least until recently, a cross-party consensus that Dr Cass was finding the right way through this difficult matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats have long highlighted the need for better access to specialist healthcare for children and young people struggling with gender identity. The closure of the Tavistock clinic and its inadequate rating by the Care Quality Commission demonstrated that urgent change was needed. Young people struggling with gender identity face serious challenges. They have been badly let down for years by low care standards and extremely long waiting lists. On top of that, they have to contend with a toxic public debate, which comes at a huge cost to their wellbeing at a particularly vulnerable stage in their life. The average three-year wait for a young person to see a specialist can be extremely harmful at such a vulnerable age.
We agree that treatment should first be based on talking therapies, so that patients are given the space and support that they need, but it is crucial that young people can start those therapies as a matter of urgency, not after years of delay. Decisions about these young patients’ futures should be made in an informed way, with expert clinicians and based on the best possible evidence, which the NHS must build up safely and effectively. We support prioritising clinical evidence, so that patients’ interests are put at the heart of decision making in all areas of healthcare. Guidance and decisions around puberty blockers must be led by experts and clinical evidence, and not influenced by ideological opinion. That is why we supported the decision of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to pause the Pathways clinical trial while concerns raised by the MHRA were thoroughly addressed. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the MHRA has confirmed that the concerns that led to the withdrawal of the trial have been substantially addressed, and how many children are expected to take part in the trial now that its parameters have been altered?
James Murray
I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady agrees with the Government that we should base our decisions about whether and how to provide support for children, particularly in the case of the treatment that is at the centre of this clinical trial, on clinical evidence and the expert advice of clinicians. There can be no one in this field more widely respected than Dr Hilary Cass, whose recommendations form the basis of the decision that we have taken as a Government.
The hon. Lady asked about the work of the MHRA since early this year to strengthen the safeguards for young people involved in the trial. As I said earlier, I welcome the changes that it has brought forward to strengthen the criteria, which will lead to greater monitoring and clinical reassessment, and to setting objective criteria for withdrawing children and young people from the trial entirely. The MHRA has been engaged in a scientific dialogue with the trial sponsors, and it was the outcome of that process that led the MHRA, as an independent body, to publish the updated protocol towards the end of last week. Now that that is in place, we have greater reassurance about the safeguards.
The trial is expected to involve around 226 children and young people over five and a half years, with each participant potentially being offered puberty blockers for up to 24 months. As I said, a decision to withdraw is triggered by the participant meeting set objective criteria related to the risk of harm.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the Health Secretary’s calm approach, which contrasts sharply with some of the language that is used around this very important issue. When it comes to the Pathways trial, does he agree that we must follow the science and avoid vilification, polarising language and politicisation for the good of young people and our communities?
James Murray
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of following clinical evidence and taking a clinically led and evidence-based approach to this decision. As I said, I have felt uncomfortable and uneasy about some of the challenges raised by this matter, but for me, the right way to move forward is to follow the clinical advice, and to base future decisions on clinical evidence, given that I have received the most robust assurances about the safeguards that are in place to protect young people involved in this trial from harm.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I welcome the statement and this approach. I thank the MHRA for engaging with the Committee when we asked it specific questions about this. It told us that the role of the regulator is to ensure that participants in any clinical trial are kept safe and are exposed to medicine only if there is a reasonable expectation of a positive effect, and that is what was foremost in its mind. It also reassured us that if it had not felt 100% assured, it would have not allowed the trial to go forward.
There was a lot of disquiet about the iterative process that the trial has gone through—that it was stopped, paused and then started again. Could the Secretary of State outline for the House how usual or unusual that is? What support can the NHS offer those families who might have hoped to be part of the trail but now find themselves excluded from it?
James Murray
I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that this is now one of the most heavily scrutinised clinical trials in this country in recent history, and rightly so—it is right that it is so heavily scrutinised and that we all seek assurances about the safeguards in place. It is right that, as Health Secretary, I made sure that I got those detailed safeguards before coming to the House to set out the Government’s position today.
The hon. Lady asked how usual it is for the MHRA to work with the sponsors of trials. My understanding is that the MHRA routinely works with trial sponsors to iterate the protocols in relation to those trials. Because this trial involves children and young people, for me, the bar should be exceptionally high, to ensure that those safeguards are in place. That is why, although my starting principle is that clinical evidence is the right way to approach such a matter, I wanted that extra reassurance. That is why I asked for the most detailed possible assurances from my clinical advisers, to ensure that those robust safeguards are in place in the way the trial is now designed.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Before my election, I was a scientist—albeit not in the health sciences. Using that background, however, can I agree with the Secretary of State that healthcare practices and medical trials, like all scientific trials, must be led by expertise and evidence, not politics? Therefore, what precedent is there for politicians, including Members of this House, intervening in a medical trial?
James Murray
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the relationship between politics and clinical evidence and clinically led decisions. Being led by clinical advice and clinical evidence is a decision that I and this Government stand behind. In this case, it is a matter where in considering some of the issues raised, I have felt uncomfortable and uneasy, but that commitment to clinical evidence, particularly recommended by someone as widely respected as Dr Cass, is the basis on which we can move forward. As I mentioned in response to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, because this involves children and young people, I wanted to receive extra assurances that the clinical advice was robust and that the safeguards would be as robust as possible. That is the assurance I have received, it is what I very much wanted to receive before coming here today.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. No child put on puberty blockers at the earliest stage of puberty and whose natural puberty is permanently blocked will ever have an orgasm or be fertile. No child can consent to that. Around 2,000 children have already been given puberty blockers for gender distress, so there is ample information available on impact and outcomes held by gender clinics. It makes no sense to experiment on even more children while this exercise remains incomplete. Why is the Health Secretary not prioritising the completion of this important data linkage study before experimenting on more children?
James Murray
The hon. Lady refers, apparently with some certainty, to what she considers to be the clinical outcomes of these puberty blockers on young people. I have to say, with all due respect, that I would trust Dr Cass’s conclusion more than the hon. Lady’s, which is that there is not evidence about the risks or benefits of these medications. That is exactly why Dr Cass was so clear in recommending a trial to find that clinical evidence, because that is the basis on which we can take those decisions.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his detailed and nuanced statement. Notwithstanding the risks of using puberty blockers on children, which he has outlined, and the inability to guarantee that they will not be harmed by participation in the trial, how can the trial determine long-term impacts of the use of puberty blockers when it lasts for only two years? Does that not show the inefficacy of the trial itself? If we really are committed to evidence, which I agree we should be, why are we not—as we just heard from the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul)—using the long-term data that already exists, which came from clinics such as the Tavistock and was gathered over many years?
James Murray
As a result of the work that the MHRA has been doing with these trial sponsors in recent months, there are now objective set criteria against which children and young people involved in the trial would be automatically withdrawn. Those criteria, as I set out earlier, will stop the short-term harm, and the view of the National Institute for Health and Care Research is that this means any long-term harm should not occur or go unnoticed. It is important that we ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place for this trial. That is why I welcome what the MHRA has done in recent months, because it strengthens those safeguards, which are important in any clinical trial but, in this trial, could not be more important.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Secretary of State has said that no child subject to safeguarding concerns will be considered for participation in the trial. Can he confirm, therefore, that no already vulnerable children currently in the care system will be accepted on to the trial?
James Murray
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to some of the gateways that children and young people will have to go through before being accepted on to the trial. That will involve not just the child assenting and the parents giving consent, but the NHS care team and a national multidisciplinary team, which will take into consideration all the different aspects of a child’s life that I set out in my earlier remarks about their health, but also the wider context that the children are coming from. The importance here is to ensure that there is an exceptionally high bar for children and young people taking part in this trial, and that is the process that has now been established.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the considered way in which he has delivered his statement. In December 2025, The BMJ reported that
“the Pathways trial should wait for findings from former patients treated by GIDS between 2009 and 2020”
and that
“A data linkage study of 9000 patients, now adults, has full HRA approval, and NHS England has encouraged gender clinicians to cooperate, describing it as an opportunity to gather ‘high quality evidence.’”
But The BMJ reported that the clinicians
“refused to share their data”.
Hilary Cass said that was “extraordinary”. Can he tell us whether all the data that is out there is available and whether it is being shared appropriately?
James Murray
My hon. Friend asks about the data linkage study, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who a few seconds ago also asked about that—I did not respond then but can now address both questions together.
It is important to understand that the information in the linkage study is much more limited than the detailed information that the research team will be able to collect about the relative benefits and risks of puberty blockers. NHS England is, however, committed to delivering the data linkage study. NHS England, since assuming responsibility for that study, has taken time to ensure that the data is shared by relevant organisations. Let me be absolutely clear, for the avoidance of all doubt, that the Government’s clear expectation is that all relevant organisations will provide the data required to complete the study.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I first raised the horrors of the Tavistock clinic in this House in 2019, having been provoked to do so by staff who said that they were often under pressure to refer for life-altering treatment children and young people who had experienced mental health difficulties, abuse and family trauma. Indeed, the Secretary of State will know that the Cass review found that childhood trauma, neglect and abuse featured heavily in the cohort of patients seeking gender changes. As many as two thirds of those referred had suffered neglect or abuse, with high levels of parental mental illness, substance abuse and exposure to domestic violence. So will the Secretary of State, even at this late juncture, abandon this trial? I have no reason to believe that he is anything other than a good man who wants to do the right thing. He has made it clear that he knows that this matter often sorts itself out through puberty and adulthood. I implore him to do so, for I fear that because he is a good man, he will regret this cruel experiment on harmless children.
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and although he and I come to a different conclusion on this, I do not doubt for a second the sincerity of his motivation in wanting to protect children and young people. I actually agree with him, as I said in my earlier comments, that most young children who are questioning their gender will resolve it on their own—let them be to resolve it. But there is a small subset of children who will need extra support, and within that there is a question about whether for a very small subset of them there might be a benefit to having treatment, and that is what this trial seeks to conclude.
I would add that the right hon. Gentleman refers to what happened in the Tavistock clinic and the stories that led to Dr Hilary Cass being commissioned. I think the right hon. Gentleman and I agree on how unacceptable that situation was, and I put on record my thanks to Sir Sajid Javid for commissioning the work by Dr Cass, because it has been such an important piece of work not only to expose what was happening before, but to provide a way forward.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Puberty suppressors have been used for many years for precocious puberty, but the evidence base for their use in gender dysphoria lacked rigour, so I welcome the news that the trial will go ahead, as recommended by the Cass review. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the medications are only one part of the research, and can he outline some of the other measures being looked at? Given the small numbers expected to take part in this trial, will research also be undertaken into the impact on young people who are showing gender distress but are unable to access a trial or, of course, be prescribed puberty blockers, in order to get a full clinical picture? Will he furthermore ensure that all young children showing gender distress will have some care and support?
James Murray
My hon. Friend rightly points out that the clinical trial—the Pathways study, which is the subject of this statement—is just one part of the wider work being done to make sure that the support is there for children and young people who are questioning their gender and who might, or might not, need support in order to feel well about themselves. The Pathways horizon is an observational study of all children and young people attending NHS children and young people’s specialist gender services. Pathways connect is a brain-imaging study. Pathways voices will interview young people. Horizon intensive is about making sure that there is a comparison group of 300 participants who are expressing gender incongruence but not receiving puberty-suppressing hormones, as my hon. Friend suggested.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome the statement and the Secretary of State’s tone, because it is important that we all acknowledge that we are dealing with young children and their safety is paramount. While many children will resolve the issues themselves, there is an important group of children for whom that will not be the case; they face enormous challenges and we must do everything we can. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s stress on the importance of talking therapies, but given the long waiting lists and the difficulty in getting access to those talking therapies, how will he ensure that children get the support they need and that there are adequate staff who are properly qualified to support them?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks, and for her tone and approach to this sensitive matter. Sadly, we have waiting lists across many different parts of the NHS. This Government are determined to deal with that so that everyone can receive the appropriate treatment. There are wider questions, which we could debate at another time, about the support that children who are questioning their identity might need. The focus of today’s statement is specifically on the clinical trial, and it is right that we let that happen. The trial will last five and a half years and it is right that we do that thoroughly, because I do not want this country to be taking decisions in future that are not based on the most solid evidence.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I welcome confirmation that the Pathways clinical trial will continue with the modified protocols in place; it was an important manifesto commitment for the trans community. Does the Secretary of State agree that it might help to reduce the risk in the long term of vulnerable young people seeking to access drugs online, which is currently happening in my constituency?
James Murray
Dr Cass has raised that point a number of times, particularly when she has spoken in public and been interviewed on her concerns about young people accessing equivalent drugs through an unregulated source—through online sources that are not carefully controlled and where there is no monitoring of the effects on young people. That is part of her motivation for recommending the approach that she proposes. As I said earlier, I and the Government want the decisions about what role, if any, such treatments play in the future to be based on the clinical evidence, with the highest possible safeguards in place for children involved in the trials.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I want to press the Secretary of State a little further on looked-after children in particular. At the beginning of his statement, he said that his bottom line is to protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. Given that parental or guardian permission has to be granted for the trial to take place, I am wondering who will give that permission for a child in care. Will it be himself, the Secretary of State? Will it be the foster parent? Will it be a social worker from a local council? We already know that looked-after children are overrepresented within the cohort of children with gender dysphoria. Ultimately, if we are going to protect them and make sure that their safety and wellbeing are at the forefront, we need some clear direction on what that is going to look like.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which highlights the importance we all place on making sure that vulnerable children are protected in the way that the trial proceeds. Perhaps I can offer her some detail which might reassure her by explaining who is on the national multidisciplinary team. As I mentioned earlier, the national multidisciplinary team will have to give permission for young people to be involved in the trial, as will the NHS care team. That national multidisciplinary team has an independent chair and its membership comprises senior clinicians from a range of clinical backgrounds: paediatric endocrinology, general paediatrics, child and adolescent mental health, clinical nursing, safeguarding, adolescent medicine, allied health and service leadership. Those are the specialisms represented in the national multidisciplinary team, which means that those aspects of the child’s wellbeing are all being considered in that process.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
On a quiet day in Westminster, I have had a chance to dive into the Conservative party’s 2024 manifesto, which promised:
“We will complete the implementation of the Cass Review”.
A similar commitment appeared in our own manifesto, which we are now cracking on with and delivering. Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns that the Conservatives seem to have abandoned their commitment?
James Murray
I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that the cross-party consensus that was in place about the way to approach the issue does not currently seem to be holding. I urge Opposition Members who are not aligned with that cross-party consensus to reconsider their position, because that is the best way forward for our country.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Secretary of State mentioned following the advice of clinical experts, but has he sought any meetings with whistleblowers, former clinicians at the now closed Tavistock clinic, detransitioners and psychologists such as James Esses and Marcus and Sue Evans, who are all campaigning to stop this trial and the testing of children as young as 11 years old, who are too young to access social media and certainly too young to give meaningful consent to taking banned drugs?
James Murray
I reassure the hon. Lady, as I set out in my responses to earlier questions, that while my starting point is that clinical evidence should be the basis for our way forward, I have taken the responsibility to interrogate that with the highest level of scrutiny in order to ensure that the conclusions are as robust as possible. That has involved my ensuring that my clinical advisers at the Department for Health and Social Care and the other bodies associated with the Department have provided me with the highest level of detail and reassurance about the safeguards in place. Although I stand behind the principle of following clinical advice and basing conclusions on clinical evidence, I feel that it is important for me, as Health Secretary, to have an extremely high bar for a decision of this magnitude.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has repeatedly told us that he feels uncomfortable and uneasy. If I am totally honest, I do not think that he believes that this is right at all. I think that in his heart, he knows that this is wrong. Of course it is wrong: stopping an 11-year-old—a primary school child—from going through the natural process that we must all go through to become adults by injecting them with drugs is wrong. We must think about the title of the statement: puberty suppression. People do not need a medical or a science degree to know that the suppression of puberty is wrong. This is a moral question and I am afraid that as it stands the Secretary of State is on the wrong side of it. He says “let them be”—if only they had let Keira Bell be. When she had the treatment, Keira Bell was much older than these children will be when they are given it. She regrets it all and now campaigns to stop this. There is huge public opposition to this—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I assume the hon. Gentleman is getting to a question.
Jonathan Hinder
There is huge opposition to this among people who vote Labour, including many of my constituents, so I implore—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question is far too long. I call the Secretary of State.
James Murray
Despite our different conclusions on this matter, I respect my hon. Friend. Part of taking decisions as Health Secretary involves sometimes approaching issues where one might feel uncomfortable on a personal level, but none the less being guided by the right principles in order to take decisions for other groups of people in the country and for the country as a whole. I am not in any way disputing how difficult a matter this is; it is one where I, as Health Secretary—and my predecessors—have had to carefully consider how we ensure that the clinical basis for any future decisions is robust and that we can point to it as a foundation for where this matter settles.
Before Dr Cass did her review, the situation at the Tavistock clinic was totally unacceptable, as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) recognised, and we must never go back to a position where the situation is out of control in the way that it was then. In working out how to move forward, I believe that, as uncomfortable as it may make myself and others on an individual basis, focusing on the principle of following clinical evidence, demanding the highest possible safeguards and protections for the children involved, and setting objective criteria for them to be withdrawn or for action to be taken if the risk of harm increases, is the balanced and correct way to proceed.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Despite all the safeguards and precautions that the Secretary of State has listed, we must be clear about what this trial actually does: it proposes to give puberty blockers to children as young as 11 that may well make them sterile for life, all to treat something that the Secretary of State also says is likely to get better by itself. I accept that this trial may well create clinical evidence, but at what price? How can this damage to children ever be justified?
James Murray
Although the hon. Gentleman comes to a different conclusion from the one that I and the Government have come to, he poses the right question when he asks what harm do we need to protect against while getting clinical evidence. If we are to be led by clinical evidence, it is important to have that evidence in a way that we can rely on, but particularly because it involves children and young people, it is incumbent on us to ensure that the level of protection against the risk of harm is exceptionally high. That is why the strengthening of the protocol announced by the MHRA last week provides that higher level of assurance that I have sought to interrogate and to ensure is there in as robust a way as possible. That gives us the confidence that those safeguards are in place as the trial proceeds.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I agree with the Secretary of State that we should come to this subject matter with care and compassion given the age profile of the children affected. He majored on the small number of people who would take part in the trial. In fact, he said that
“we are talking about a very small subset of a very small pool.”
If that amounts to a couple of hundred people as he said, it is unlikely that there would be universality of outcome, either positive or negative, because in that size of pool there are obviously going to be mixed views. If it is a small number of people who benefit, as he believes, but a much larger number who do not, what then?
James Murray
The number of expected participants in the trial is 226. That is not a firm target—it does not have to be exactly that number—but that is the number at which statistically significant conclusions can be drawn. The 226 will fall into two camps: one will access the medical treatment immediately and the other will access it after one year. In that way, we will have clinical evidence from which we can draw conclusions and on which we can base future decisions. The number has been chosen so that the evidence can be relied on in the future to take decisions about whether, and if so how, to continue the use of these treatments.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
A parent cannot consent to their child engaging in sexual activity and soon they will not be able to consent to their child having a social media account, so why does the Secretary of State think that a parent should consent to drugs being administered to their child to supress their puberty and alter their sexual development?
James Murray
We are following clinical advice. We are ensuring that there is a triple lock on the consent for children and young people to be involved in this trial, involving the consent or assent of the young person themselves, parents or guardians, and the NHS care team—the national multidisciplinary team that I mentioned earlier. That is how this trial ensures that there is a high bar for being involved in it and that all aspects of a young person’s life are considered before they are approved.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for the manner of his responses.
Four years, three-and-a-half years, four years, six-and-a-half years, four years, three-and-a-half years, four-and-a-half years, five-and-a-half years, three years and nine months—those are the waits faced by young people in Dorset supported by Space Youth Project between their referral to the gender identity service and their very first appointment. None of them will qualify for this trial, and many will have gone into adulthood still waiting, despite commitments of more treatment and clinics. While I support the criteria for the trial as detailed in the statement, there is an inadequate capacity in the system, which is leading to even more distress for these children and their families. Will the Secretary of State update us on this issue? Most teenagers will be excluded from the trial, so they need to hear how they will be supported.
James Murray
There is a fundamental difference of approach between me and the hon. Lady. The reason for the trial is not to ensure that young people on the waiting list can get access to treatment; the trial is to find an evidence base on which to take future decisions about whether young people should be offered treatment and, if so, in what way. Talking about waiting lists and the trial combines two things that, in my view of the world, really do not have a relationship in this context.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
No child is born in the wrong body. The scandal of thousands of children being put through irreversible medical intervention such as puberty blockers causing infertility, among other harms, has gone on for more than a decade, and it will go down as one of the worst examples of state failure in our history. Officials advise and Ministers decide. Why does the Secretary of State not use the considerable executive power vested in him personally to overrule his official advice, pause the puberty blockers trial and put child safety first?
James Murray
This trial has been paused since earlier this year while the MHRA worked to strengthen the safeguards. Those stronger safeguards are now in place, which gives greater protection to young people who are involved in this trial. As I mentioned in my remarks earlier, one of my responsibilities as Health Secretary is to interrogate the detail to ensure that safeguards are adequate. I take that responsibility particularly seriously when it involves children and young people, and that is to ensure that we have the highest possible safeguards against harm of anyone involved in this trial.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Health Secretary told us that his bottom line was to protect children, but he also conceded that puberty blockers can affect adversely bone density and brain development, so why is he taking the risk? Our 11-year-olds are not guinea pigs; they are children entitled to grow up without state-sponsored harm. Surely that should be the starting point.
James Murray
The reason for having this trial is to establish whether there are in fact benefits to this treatment for some children and young people as well as what the risks of harm are. I believe it is right, on balance, to proceed with this clinical trial to get clinical evidence on the basis of having the highest possible protections against a greater risk of harm to children and young people involved in this trial.
Point of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a point of order in relation to my answer to the urgent question on 15 June in this House. In my answer, I said that the Defence Secretary was
“currently with His Majesty the King”,
as that was my understanding from the Defence Secretary —[Official Report, 15 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 571.]
Although the Defence Secretary was indeed summoned by His Majesty on Monday 15 June, he arrived back in London from Windsor earlier that day, prior to the UQ. I was unaware of this fact when I spoke in the Chamber; I believed him to be with the King and therefore unable to take the question himself. However, at the time of my answering the urgent question, the Defence Secretary was no longer with His Majesty. I wish to correct the record on that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for prior notice of his point of order. He has now corrected the record and put his remarks on the record.
Bills Presented
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
As the House can see, we have many Bills to be presented today. To save time and get on with today’s main business, for Members presenting more than one Bill consecutively I will accept private notice of the Second Reading dates. The dates will be recorded and published accordingly in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings. Members presenting individual Bills will name the date for Second Reading as usual.
Mobile Homes Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the law relating to mobile homes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 33).
In-Person Banking Services Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Alan Mak presented a Bill to make provision about the delivery of in-person banking services; to require the Financial Conduct Authority to set standards for the provision of in-person banking services; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 34).
Dementia (Specialist Support) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rachel Gilmour presented a Bill to make provision about a minimum standard of support for persons with a diagnosis of dementia; to require that minimum standard to include access to dementia specialist nursing and end-of-life care; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 35).
Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jeremy Corbyn presented a Bill to make provision for establishing an independent public inquiry into UK involvement in Israeli military operations in Gaza; to require the inquiry to consider any UK military, economic or political cooperation with Israel since October 2023, including the sale, supply or use of weapons, surveillance aircraft and Royal Air Force bases; to provide the inquiry with the power to question Ministers and officials about decisions taken in relation to UK involvement; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 36).
Gambling Act 2005 (Mandatory Conditions of Lottery Operating Licences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Chamberlain presented a Bill to remove monetary limits on proceeds from the mandatory conditions of lottery operating licences; to make further provision about the mandatory conditions of lottery operating licences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 37).
Battery Energy Storage (Planning and Regulation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mike Wood presented a Bill to make provision about the construction, use and decommissioning of battery energy storage systems; to provide that fire and rescue authorities must be consulted in relation to planning applications relating to battery energy storage systems; to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the safety and risks of battery energy storage systems and to lay the report of that review before Parliament; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 38).
Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Maria Eagle presented a Bill to increase the minimum required height of guarding in multi-storey car parks; to make provision about the height of guarding in existing multi-storey car parks; to require 24-hour staffing of multi-storey car parks; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 39).
Telecommunications (Fixed-term Contracts) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Luke Evans presented a Bill to prohibit the increasing of charges payable under certain fixed-term telecommunications contracts within the duration of those contracts; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 40).
Electricity Works (Small Business Compensation Proposals) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gregory Stafford presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a scheme to compensate small businesses affected by road closures resulting from electricity works; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 41).
Public Sector Equality Duty (Repeal) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Joy Morrissey presented a Bill to repeal section 149 and schedule 18 of the Equality Act 2010; to make provision consequential on that repeal; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 42).
Environmental Impact Assessment (Downstream Emissions) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Harriet Cross presented a Bill to make provision about the assessment of environmental impact of developments involving the extraction of fossil fuels; to provide that downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion or other end use of extracted hydrocarbons are not required to be assessed as part of the environmental impact assessment of such developments; to make provision relating to decisions in respect of the grant of consent and planning permission for certain such developments; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 43).
Pets (Microchips) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rebecca Harris presented a Bill to make provision regarding pets with microchips; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 44).
UK Food Labelling (Country of Origin) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Aphra Brandreth presented a Bill to make provision about the use of UK country of origin indicators in the labelling and marketing of food products; to prohibit the use of such indicators unless products meet specified criteria; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 45).
Chalk Streams (UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Pippa Heylings presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to take the necessary steps to nominate the UK’s chalk streams as a serial UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 46).
Scotland (Independence Referendum) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Graham Leadbitter, supported by Dave Doogan, Kirsty Blackman, Pete Wishart, Chris Law, Brendan O’Hara, Seamus Logan and Lara Bird, presented a Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to transfer the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 47).
Heritage Trees Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir John Hayes presented a Bill to make provision about the protection and stewardship of heritage trees in England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 48).
Hospitality (Value Added Tax) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Seamus Logan, supported by Dave Doogan, Kirsty Blackman, Pete Wishart, Chris Law, Brendan O’Hara, Graham Leadbitter and Lara Bird, presented a Bill to reduce the rate of value added tax for certain supplies relating to hospitality; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 49).
Domestic Building Works (Consumer Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mark Garnier presented a Bill to make provision about consumer protection in relation to domestic building works; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 50).
Ponds (Permitted Development) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rebecca Smith presented a Bill to extend permitted development rights to include wildlife ponds under 0.2 hectares; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 51).
Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bambos Charalambous presented a Bill to make provision for or in connection with the relief of debts of certain developing countries.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 52).
Welfare Reform Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
David Simmonds presented a Bill to make provision to restrict eligibility for the Personal Independence Payment for those with certain mental health conditions; to require that assessments for certain welfare benefits are conducted face to face; to make provision to restrict the eligibility of persons who are not British citizens to claim welfare benefits; to make provision about fit notes in connection with welfare benefits; to provide for a two child limit on the child element of universal credit; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 53).
Non-Domestic Rating (Retail, Hospitality and Leisure) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Gagan Mohindra presented a Bill to make provision about non-domestic rating in respect of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 54).
National Police Chiefs’ Council (Guidance) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by presented a Bill to require parliamentary approval for the issuing of advice or guidance by the National Police Chiefs’ Council; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 55).
Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (UK Covid-19 Inquiry) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the implementation of Recommendation 5 of Module 4 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, relating to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 56).
Climate Change Act 2008 (Repeal) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to repeal the Climate Change Act 2008; to make provision consequential on that repeal; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 57).
Hospitality Services (Value Added Tax Exemption) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt providers of catering and accommodation services from VAT for fees and charges made in respect of the provision of those services; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 58).
Sporting and Physical Education Services (Value Added Tax Exemption) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope, supported by Gregory Stafford and Greg Smith, presented a Bill to exempt providers of sporting and physical education services from VAT for fees and charges made in respect of the provision of sporting and physical education services, in cases where no existing exemption applies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 59).
Employment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision about the employment of foreign nationals; to make provision about the national minimum wage; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 60).
Tax Reliefs Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision about the relief of taxation in respect of private education, private healthcare, mortgage interest payments for primary residences, certain transport costs relating to employment and private pension contributions; to make further provision relating to the relief of taxation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 61).
Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the effectiveness of the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, with reference to the application of that Act in individual cases; to make provision about the recording and retention of information relating to voided motor insurance policies on the Motor Insurance Database; to make provision for a review in cases involving inadvertent or voluntarily disclosed misrepresentation; to provide for the correction or removal of such records in appropriate circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 62).
Vehicles (Registration) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to provide that a registration document issued in respect of a road vehicle must contain the permanent address of its keeper; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 63).
Meat (Information About Method of Killing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require producers, suppliers and retailers of meat to indicate clearly whether the animal has been killed in accordance with religious rites without prior stunning; to require the Secretary of State to collect and publish specified information relating to meat slaughtered in accordance with such practice; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 64).
Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to limit exit payments made by some public sector organisations to employees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 65).
Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to provide that a draft statutory instrument which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure may be amended by either House of Parliament before it is approved; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 66).
Anonymity of Suspects Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to create an offence of disclosing the identity of a person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of the alleged commission of an offence; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 67).
Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Government to conduct a review of every Arm’s-Length Body in existence on 22 June 2026 and to publish the results of those reviews within four years; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 68).
Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for Arm’s-Length Bodies to be directly accountable to Parliament.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 69).
Bailiffs (Warrants of Possession) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to set maximum time limits within which a bailiff’s warrant of possession appointment date must be granted; to make provision for alternative methods of executing warrants of possession; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 70).
Bank of England (Inflation Targets) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for penalties against the Court of Directors of the Bank of England for failure to meet inflation targets.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 71).
BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to de-criminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee by persons aged over seventy-five; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 72).
British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 73).
Caravan Site Licensing (Exemption of Motor Homes) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt motor homes from caravan site licensing requirements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 74).
Children’s Clothing (Value Added Tax) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope by presented a Bill to extend the definition of children’s clothing for the purposes of exemption from VAT; to extend the VAT exemption to further categories of school uniform; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 75).
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish an independent review of disablement caused by Covid-19 vaccinations and the adequacy of the compensation offered to persons so disabled; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 76).
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to make provision about financial assistance to persons who have suffered disablement following vaccination against Covid-19 and to the next of kin of persons who have died shortly after vaccination against Covid-19; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of a no-fault compensation scheme to provide such financial assistance, on whether there should be any upper limit on the financial assistance available, on the criteria for eligibility and on whether payment should be made in all cases where there is no other reasonable cause for the death or disablement suffered; to provide for a special time limit under the Limitation Act 1980 for actions in respect of personal injury or death following a Covid-19 vaccination; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 77).
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to provide that, before making any order to designate a type of dog for the purposes of section 1 or 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation and publish a comparative review of data showing the incidences of fatalities resulting from bites of dogs of that type in the last three years.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 78).
Domestic Energy (Value Added Tax) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt from Value Added Tax supplies of electricity, oil and gas for domestic purposes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 79).
Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt from Value Added Tax repairs to listed places of worship; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 80).
Exemption from Value Added Tax (Public Electric Vehicle Charging Points) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt from Value Added Tax the supply of electricity at public electric vehicle charging points; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 81).
Green Belt (Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to establish a national register of Green Belt land in England; to restrict the ability of local authorities to de-designate Green Belt land; to make provision about future development of de-designated Green Belt land; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 82).
Health Insurance (Exemption from Insurance Premium Tax) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to provide for exemptions from insurance premium tax in respect of health insurance; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 83).
Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 to restrict the defences available to highway authorities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 84).
Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to create offences in respect of persons who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 85).
National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for co-funding and co-payment in the National Health Service; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 86).
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision about arranging alternative non-NHS England treatment for patients who have waited for more than one year for hospital treatment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 87).
Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make provision about Parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under that Act; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 88).
Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require a Regulatory Impact Assessment to be published for all primary and secondary legislation introduced by the Government; to make provision for associated sanctions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 89).
Rule of Law (Enforcement by Public Authorities) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require public authorities to exercise their statutory powers to investigate and take enforcement action for breaches of the law; to make provision for sanctions for failing to take such action; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 90).
Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 (Review) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to review, and publish a report on, the merits of increasing the relevant statutory sum under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 for all claims since 1 January 2020 by an amount representing the amount of inflation since 2007.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 91).
European Convention on Human Rights (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mike Wood, supported by Sir Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 58 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the Convention.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 92).
Planning Application Consultations (Mobile Network Operators) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gregory Stafford presented a Bill to make provision for the consultation of mobile network operators in relation to certain planning applications; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 93).
Leisure and Fitness Facilities (Value Added Tax) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gregory Stafford presented a Bill to exempt from VAT the supply of certain services by independent leisure centres, gyms, health clubs and fitness facilities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 94).
Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996 (Repeal) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gregory Stafford presented a Bill to repeal the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996; and to make any necessary provision consequential on that repeal.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 95).
Lobular Breast Cancer Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Milne presented a Bill to make provision about research into lobular breast cancer; to place duties on the Secretary of State in relation to such research; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 96).
Civil Aviation Authority (Ombudsman) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Milne presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment and functions of an ombudsman to investigate regulatory decisions made by the Civil Aviation Authority; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 97).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Mr Andrew Snowden is unable to present his Bill today, so we will move on to the next item of business.
Armed Forces Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 104 / Noes: 391 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Dual nationals serving in foreign armed forces: war crimes risk—
“(1) This section applies to a person (‘the individual’) who is—
(a) a British national or a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and
(b) a member of the armed forces of a foreign state.
(2) Where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has participated in, ordered, or failed to prevent conduct that constitutes a war crime within the meaning of Article 8 of the Rome Statute, the Secretary of State may—
(a) refer the matter to the Attorney General for consideration of proceedings under the International Criminal Court Act 2001,
(b) direct that the individual’s British travel document be suspended pending investigation, subject to section 41C, and
(c) notify the International Criminal Court of the individual’s British nationality and last known address in the United Kingdom.
(3) A suspension of a travel document under section 41B(2)(b) must not exceed 90 days without renewal.
(4) The individual to whom section 41B applies must be—
(a) informed as soon as reasonably practicable of the grounds for any action taken under section 41B(2), and
(b) afforded a right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
(5) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance to the armed forces, relevant intelligence agencies, and border authorities on—
(a) identification of British nationals serving in foreign armed forces,
(b) information-sharing arrangements with the International Criminal Court and relevant foreign jurisdictions, and
(c) the circumstances in which action under subsection (2) is appropriate.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“British national” has the meaning given by section 50(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981;
“Rome Statute” means the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998 (2187 UNTS 90).
(7) Nothing in section 41B or this section limits the protections afforded to an individual under the Human Rights Act 1998.”
NC1 and NC2 ensure that the United Kingdom does not extend the immunities and privileges afforded to visiting forces under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to forces from states whose commanders are subject to ICC proceedings, and creates a framework for referring dual nationals suspected of war crimes to prosecutorial authorities.
New clause 3—Veterans: housing and employment data duty—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, in each calendar year, collect and compile data on the following matters in respect of persons who have served as members of the regular forces (‘veterans’)—
(a) the number of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness within the meaning of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and Part 2 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014;
(b) the number of veterans who are unemployed and claiming Universal Credit or Jobseeker’s Allowance, disaggregated by—
(i) length of unemployment;
(ii) age and gender; and
(iii) service branch and rank on discharge;
(c) the number of veterans in contact with local authority housing or homelessness services;
(d) the number of veterans placed in temporary accommodation by a local authority;
(e) the number of veterans who have presented themselves as having suicidal ideation and those who have committed suicide;
(f) trends in the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) over the preceding five years.
(2) For the purposes of collecting data under subsection (1), the Secretary of State—
(a) must request and receive data from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, local authorities, and such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,
(b) may require local authorities in England to provide data as to veterans within their area who have approached them for housing assistance, and
(c) must consult Veterans UK and any other bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate in designing the data collection methodology.
(3) The Secretary of State must, not later than 31 March in each year, lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) the data compiled under subsection (1) for the preceding calendar year;
(b) a comparison with data from the two preceding calendar years;
(c) the steps taken or proposed to be taken by the Secretary of State, or by public authorities subject to the duty in section 343AZA of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (as amended by section 2 of this Act), to reduce rates of homelessness and unemployment among veterans; and
(d) an assessment of whether those steps have been effective.
(4) The report under subsection (3) must include, in respect of veterans who have left the regular forces within the preceding three years—
(a) the proportion who entered employment within three months of discharge;
(b) the proportion who were provided resettlement support under a scheme administered by the Ministry of Defence; and
(c) the proportion who were provided with suitable accommodation within one month of discharge.
(5) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a person independent of the Ministry of Defence to review, and report to Parliament on, the methodology and reliability of data collected under this section at least once every three years.
(6) In this section—
“homeless or at risk of homelessness” is to be construed in accordance with sections 175 to 177 of the Housing Act 1996;
“regular forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act);
“veteran” means a person who has served as a member of the regular forces for a period of not less than one day and who is no longer serving as such a member.”
This new clause imposes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to collect, compile, and annually report to Parliament data on rates of veteran homelessness, suicide and unemployment, including trends, actions taken and their effectiveness.
New clause 4—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years—
“(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 is amended as follows.
(2) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 after “Forces” in paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.
(3) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 in paragraph (b) leave out “(a) and (b)” and insert “(a), (b), and (c)”.”
This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.
New clause 5—Review of mental health support for veterans—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passage of this Act, conduct a review of the adequacy, accessibility and effectiveness of mental health support available to veterans of the armed forces.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must assess the extent to which mental health support available to veterans meets their needs, including specific information about availability of such support based on—
(a) age,
(b) sex,
(c) service branch,
(d) rank,
(e) length of service,
(f) time elapsed since leaving service,
(g) operational deployment history,
(h) conflict or operation in which the veteran served,
(i) geographical location within the United Kingdom,
(j) whether the veteran resides in a rural or urban area, and
(k) any other characteristic the Secretary of State considers relevant.
(3) A review under subsection (1) must examine—
(a) levels of provision of specialist and non-specialist mental health services for veterans;
(b) waiting times for assessment and treatment;
(c) access to NHS and charity-provided mental health services;
(d) barriers to accessing support, including those arising from geographical isolation, transport availability, digital exclusion and workforce shortages;
(e) rates of referral, treatment completion and clinical outcomes;
(f) rates of suicide, self-harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions among veterans;
(g) differences in outcomes between veterans who served in different conflicts or operations;
(h) the effectiveness of arrangements for identifying and supporting veterans most at risk of mental ill health;
(i) reliance on charity support.
(4) In conducting a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) veterans’ organisations,
(b) service charities,
(c) NHS bodies,
(d) devolved administrations,
(e) local authorities, and
(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) Upon completion of a review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament indicating the findings of the review.
(6) A report under subsection (6) must include recommendations for improving mental health support for veterans, particularly those groups identified as being at elevated risk of poor mental health outcomes based on the review on which it is based.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the adequacy and effectiveness of mental health support available to veterans.
New clause 6—Review into reservist facilities—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into reservist facilities in rural areas.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the quality, accessibility, and refurbishment of reservist facilities.
(3) The review under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into reservist facilities in rural areas.
New clause 7—Digital archive of Armed Forces Standing Orders—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must put in place a plan for the digital archiving of all Standing Orders issued to Armed Forces personnel, to be completed within 12 months.
(2) Once the digital archives under subsection (1) are established, the Secretary of State must carry out a review every six months to ensure they are up to date.
(3) Under this section, “Standing Orders” means the body of permanent regulations, issued by units or formations, which govern the conduct, administration, and procedures of personnel.”
This new clause would add a requirement for the Ministry of Defence to ensure the indefinite digital archiving of all standing orders issued to the Armed Forces.
New clause 8—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)—
“After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert—
“366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment
(1) Within 6 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”).
(2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office.
(3) The Commissioner’s functions shall include but are not limited to—
(a) promoting the interests of veterans in England;
(b) monitoring the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England;
(c) reviewing the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families;
(d) identifying barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services;
(e) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.
(4) In exercising the functions under subsection (3) the Commissioner may—
(a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans;
(b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations;
(c) publish reports and recommendations.
(5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.
(6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section before both Houses of Parliament.
(8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—
(a) the provision of staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions, and
(b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports under this section.
(9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for one further term.
(10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of—
(a) incapacity,
(b) misbehaviour, or
(c) failure to discharge the functions of the office.
(11) In this section—
“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998;
“veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.””
This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions.
New clause 9—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces—
“A member of the regular or reserve forces who has been deployed for operations under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.”
This new clause would make provision for the members of the regular or reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment.
New clause 10—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan—
“Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament, if they have not already done so.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the passage of this Act, if they have not already done so.
New clause 11—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights—
“After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert—
“(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must authorise for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.
(2) In this section —
“overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance;
“Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).””
This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations.
New clause 12—Feasibility study on a Forces Housing Association—
“(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act , the Secretary of State must publish report on the possibility of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA).
(2) The report must examine the proposals in Chapter 5 of the 2020 Report “Stick or Twist – A Report for The Prime Minister into Retention in HM Armed Forces – and how to improve it.”
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the merits of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA) as opposed to the proposed Defence Housing Service.
New clause 13—An armed forces retention strategy—
“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the Ministry of Defence Votes A paper seeking Parliamentary authority for the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service with the armed forces in the following financial year.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay alongside the Votes A paper an armed forces retention strategy.
(3) The retention strategy must include—
(a) an assessment of the current rates of retention across the regular and reserve forces,
(b) an explanation of the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to improve retention to meet the maximum numbers of personnel set out in the Votes A paper, and
(c) an assessment of the findings of the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey and its findings regarding satisfaction with service life.”
This new clause would require the Government to lay an armed forces retention strategy alongside the annual Votes A paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained in the Armed Forces.
New clause 14—Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—
(a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces,
(b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces,
(c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and
(d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life.
(3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the armed forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament.
New clause 15—Duty to provide medical records on discharge—
“(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records to be provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces.
(3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person’s consent.
(4) In this section—
“health body” has the same meaning as in section 343AZB;
“service medical records” means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty’s forces during the person’s period of service.”
This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date.
New clause 16—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert—
“343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer
(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.
(2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB.
(3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans.
(4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section.
(5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section, “veteran” means a person who has at any time been a service member.””
This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.
New clause 17—Personal independence payment reassessment exemption for amputees—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for persons who have experienced an amputation as a consequence of their membership in the armed forces to be exempt from personal independence payment reassessments except in instances in which such persons have requested a reassessment.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “personal independence payment” has the meaning given by Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that persons who have experienced an amputation as a consequence of their membership in the armed forces are exempt from personal independence payment reassessments.
New clause 18—Report on disregard of armed forces compensation in means-tested benefits—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare a report on the potential merits of disapplying consideration of compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating entitlements to other means-tested income benefits.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must consider compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating—
(a) Pension Credit entitlements, and
(b) any other means-tested benefit where compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is not currently disapplied in entitlement calculations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the potential merits of disapplying consideration of compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating entitlements to other means-tested income benefits.
New clause 19—National Standards, Funding and Monitoring of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 343AE (Sections 343AA to 343AD: guidance) insert—
“343AEA Armed Forces Covenant Duty National Standards
(1) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance establishing clear and consistent national standards for the discharge of the duties imposed under section 343AA to 343AD (“the Covenant Duty”).
(2) The national standards must—
(a) set minimum requirements for compliance by relevant public bodies,
(b) promote consistency in the quality and accessibility of services provided to members of the armed forces community across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and
(c) require relevant public bodies to demonstrate due regard in a manner capable of objective assessment.
(3) Relevant public bodies must have due regard to the standards issued under this section.
343AEB Funding and Support for Delivery
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is made available to support the effective implementation of the Covenant Duty.
(2) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a dedicated Covenant Duty Training Programme, which shall—
(a) provide accessible training and guidance to relevant public bodies,
(b) promote awareness and understanding of the purpose and scope of the Covenant Duty among staff and decision-makers,
(c) support the sharing of best practice between relevant public bodies, and
(d) include provision for capacity-building where required.
(3) In determining the allocation of funding under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to variations in local demand and the particular needs of the armed forces community.
343AEC Reporting and measuring framework
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of compliance with, and impact of, the Covenant Duty.
(2) The framework must include—
(a) defined performance indicators and outcome measures,
(b) requirements for relevant public bodies to collect and report data relating to the Armed Forces Community in a consistent manner,
(c) annual independent review of the effectiveness of the Covenant Duty, and
(d) mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning and best practice.””
This new clause would create a requirement for guidance that sets national standards of Covenant Duty delivery across the country, for funding and resources to support delivery and to require monitoring of compliance with the duty.
New clause 20—Armed Forces Covenant report: required content—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 343A (Armed forces covenant report), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) An armed forces covenant report must—
(a) include an assessment of compliance with armed forces covenant duty national standards under section 343AEA,
(b) include analysis of outcomes for the armed forces community, and
(c) include recommendations for improvement.””
This new clause, which is consequential on NC19, would require the Armed Forces Covenant report to include detail on compliance with national standards, outcomes for the armed forces community and recommendations for improvement.
New clause 21—Reporting on the Defence Investment Plan—
“(1) Every six months after the passage of this Act for the duration of this Parliament, and every year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would compel the Government to publish and lay before Parliament a regular report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan every six months during this Parliament, and annually thereafter.
New clause 22—Report on the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment of the delays to the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of such delays on—
(a) small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) within the UK defence supply chain,
(b) military procurement, equipment capability timelines, and operational readiness, and
(c) the financial sustainability of defence sector businesses.
(3) In preparing the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector, and
(b) the Defence Suppliers Forum.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a one-time report within six months of the Act’s passage assessing the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays on military procurement and defence businesses, with particular focus on SMEs.
New clause 23—Assessment of the reserve forces estate—
“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the conditions of the reserve forces estate.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—
(a) catering provisions,
(b) personal hygiene provisions, and
(c) support for existing and new reserve forces.
(3) The Secretary of State must consult the RCFA in conducting an assessment under subsection (1).
(4) Under subsection (1) “reserve forces estate” refers to all properties managed by the RFCA.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the reserve forces estate six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter.
New clause 24—Review of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must review offences included under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider whether any offences pertaining to domestic abuse which have been classified under Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 may be instead classified as an offence under Schedule 2 of that Act.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the classification of offences under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; it would create a specific requirement for the classification of domestic abuse offences to be considered.
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 4, line 15, at end insert—
“and to the district and borough councils of Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would add the district and borough councils of Northern Ireland to the meaning of “local authority” in relation to the armed forces covenant.
Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs
(1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for special educational needs awarded to a person who—
(a) is a child of or dependent upon a person serving in the Armed Forces, and
(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted.
(2) The regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that, if a person is required to move from one base to another as part of their service in the armed forces, any plan awarded to their child or dependent under subsection (1) must be automatically transferred to the relevant authority.
(3) A person to whom subsection (2) applies shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan under subsection (1) with the relevant authorities.
(4) Under this section, “a plan” means—
(a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan;
(b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan;
(c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan;
(d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.”
This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another.
Amendment 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements
(1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who—
(a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces,
(b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and
(c) is required to move base as part of their military service.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons.
(5) Service families to which this section applies shall have an opportunity to renegotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.”
This amendment would require adoption and/or fostering processes being undertaken by a service family to be automatically transferred to the appropriate local authority if that family is required to move bases as part of their service in the armed forces.
Amendment 5, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services
(1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who—
(a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and
(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for relevant health bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates.
(a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and
(b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.
(3) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on—
(a) the transfer of patient records,
(b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and
(c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care.
Amendment 14, page 6, line 43, at end insert—
“343AZC Communication regarding armed forces pensions
(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of communication with former service personnel about their armed forces pension.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include—
(a) a review of the number of armed forces pensions which have been unclaimed,
(b) the impact of the current armed forces pensions system on former service personnel, and
(c) an assessment of the effectiveness of introducing an annual letter distribution service to inform former personnel of their pension entitlements.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“former service personnel” means a person who has completed their services in the armed forces.
(4) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements.
Amendment 15, page 6, line 43, at end insert—
“343AZC Transfer of medical assessments
(1) The Secretary of State must review current practice for the transfer of medical records and services for armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces.
(2) A review under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—
(a) the time and costs associated with current practice, and
(b) the costs and benefits of introducing a case-by-case approach for determining whether a reassessment of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services is required upon their transfer to the reserve forces.
(3) Within one year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services upon their transfer to the reserve forces.
Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 7, line 15, at end insert—
“(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a multi-year budget, which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.
(5) This must specify both capital (CDEL) and revenue spending (RDEL) on the Defence Housing Service, over the period of the Defence Investment Plan”
This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 8, page 7, line 26, at end insert—
“(e) improving the satisfaction of service personnel and their families with the accommodation provided.”
This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service.
Amendment 9, page 7, line 26, at end insert—
“(e) providing earmarked accommodation, as far as practicable, to facilitate members of the armed forces spending time with their child where they have a child arrangements order.
(f) for the purposes of subsection (e), a “child arrangements order” has the meaning given by section 8 of the Children Act 1989.
(g) “contract visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).”
This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate members of the armed forces spending time with their child where they have a child arrangements order.
Amendment 13, page 8, line 24, at end insert “and single living accommodation”.
This amendment would add single living accommodation to the definition of defence housing to ensure that defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation as well as service family accommodation.
Amendment 10, page 9, line 27, at end insert—
“(4) The Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service, once appointed, must report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.”
This amendment requires the Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.
Amendment 12, in clause 13, page 34, line 33, at end insert—
“115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police
(1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom.
(2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force, and inform the complainant of their right to have the investigation referred back to the relevant service police force and military courts.
(3) If the complainant requests that the case be transferred back to the military courts, the jurisdiction over the investigation and subsequent trial must be transferred back to the relevant service police force and military courts.
(4) In this section—
“relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place;
“relevant offence” means—
(a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003,
(b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or
(c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b).
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.”
This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system, with the option for the complainant to transfer their case back to the military justice system if they prefer.
Amendment 6, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert—
“(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.
(iv) NCO’s – down to the level of Corporal, or equivalent.”
This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial. It would also allow soldiers down to the rank of Corporal (or equivalent) to sit on Court Martials.
Amendment 7, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—
“69C Notice periods for recall
(1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R7 (60 days).
(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘Army Reserve Group A’ has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.”
This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 60 days.
Government amendment 2.
Jeremy Corbyn
The amendments I have tabled concern the right of British nationals to engage in foreign wars. What brought them about is reports that British nationals have been involved in Israel Defence Forces activities in Gaza and other places. To prevent this from happening in future, my amendments would amend the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to give the Secretary of State power to undertake some form of legal action against those individuals. To me, it seems very obvious and very important that if, as a general principle, we say that British nationals should not be allowed to fight for a foreign force, or to engage in a war in another country under a different command, we should do something about it legally. My amendments are quite widely supported and very carefully drafted, and I hope that the Minister will understand why I tabled them and their importance.
I never thought that in my lifetime, we would be able to watch genocide taking place live on television, as is happening in Gaza. My amendments clearly state that if cases are taken to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, that would be enough to trigger action by the Secretary of State in this country. That is why I tabled them, and I hope that the House will take them seriously and support them.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Bill has four key themes. First, it creates the Defence Housing Service, which is a fantastic move forward; it will change for a generation how our people are looked after in service family accommodation. Secondly, it will make major improvements to our service justice system, which is another fantastic move forward. Thirdly and most importantly, it will look at how we renew our reservists. It looks at how we extend duty for our strategic reserves.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On reservists, I am sure that the hon. Member will be aware that the maximum age of recall is being increased from 60 to 65, and the threshold for mobilisation is being lowered. The problem in Northern Ireland is that our reservists are overwhelmingly employed in civilian jobs in our small and medium-sized enterprises, so the changes create real problems. Can he put forward a solution that would enable our small and medium-sized businesses to employ reservists and let them do their duty?
Al Carns
As we progress the Bill collectively, we could, in some areas, look at giving better support to employers, but it is worth being clear that the Bill looks to extend service from anything from four to 16 years. It allows for the return to service of ex-military personnel until they are 65. That is being standardised across officers, other ranks, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. By doing that, we will increase our strategic reserve pool. If we get caught in a crisis in any way, shape or form, their skills can be harnessed to help the nation out. There is a further discussion to be had, at a later stage, about how we include civilians in that.
This Bill puts in place a whole range of important provisions—on improving the standard of living and housing for the armed forces, on reserves and on the service justice system—while, importantly, keeping us safe at home and abroad.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I may refer to again in a few minutes. It is important to place on record the respect he has engendered across the House by resigning on an important issue of principle relating to the defence of the realm, which is, after all, the most important duty of Government, above all others. He and I have debated for five months on this Bill. We have not always agreed, but we have always dealt with each other respectfully. That respect has only been enhanced by his recent decision.
I rise to speak to new clause 11 and amendments 3, 4, 5 and 11 in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I will get into the detail of those amendments and the new clause in a moment, but before I do, I observe the courtesies of debate and congratulate the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), on her recent field promotion. We hope that she enjoys herself in her new post, but I caution her that there appear to have been further command changes back at the chateau as of today. We shall have to see how she fares in the re-brigading exercise that will inevitably follow, but for today, well done.
In the meantime, this Bill, which had its Second Reading back on 26 January, has been extensively debated—when the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill received both oral and written evidence; in the Select Committee’s debate phase; in Committee of the whole House on 2 June; and now on Report and Third Reading. The Opposition’s summing-up speech tonight will come from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).
Over nearly five months, we have spent more than 40 hours taking evidence, conducting visits and debating this important Bill. As today is the culmination of its consideration in the Commons before it moves on to further scrutiny in the other place, I should say that throughout, we Opposition Members have attempted to act as a critical friend to the Bill. We have been able to do that mostly in a relatively consensual manner, although there have been occasional points of disagreement, as I suspect there may yet be this evening.
New clause 11 relates to a derogation from the European convention on human rights in the event of overseas operations under the auspices of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the proposition of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), despite the fact that I was born in his constituency, in Crouch End—or “Creuche Ende”, as the estate agents call it today. When we debated this matter in Committee, we tabled a similar new clause, based on the wording of the 2021 Act. It said that Ministers should at least consider derogating from the ECHR, if not doing so might constrain the operation of our troops when deployed overseas and leave them potentially fighting a ruthless enemy with no moral scruples, who behaved as the Russians did in Bucha during the invasion of Ukraine. Because of the ECHR, our troops could effectively be fighting with one hand tied behind their back, and could fear lawfare being used against them, perhaps even decades later, potentially at Russia’s behest. Unfortunately, the Government have been completely hopeless on this, and we have therefore firmed up the wording in our revised new clause; it says that Ministers “should” derogate in such circumstances. The principal argument, however, remains the same, and I hope that Ministers might yet be persuaded to accept the new clause.
Jeremy Corbyn
I remind the Opposition spokesperson that new clause 1, which I tabled, would prevent the Secretary of State authorising the entry of members of visiting forces from states whose commanders are subject to International Criminal Court arrest warrants or proceedings of the International Court of Justice. I do not see how that is a problem for anyone who respects and understands the importance of international law in bringing an end to conflict, or preventing conflict. Surely the Secretary of State should not allow people to come and operate here when they have an ICC arrest warrant against them.
Mr Francois
I am old school, and I was taught that in a debate, it is polite to refer to the Member who moved the lead amendment. That is what I was seeking to do. As I think the House would realise, I am making a very different point and a different argument from him. I will have to respectfully disagree, particularly given events earlier today.
New clause 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), has been signed by 64 MPs from across the House, including me. The law was changed many years ago to permit foreign, Commonwealth and Gurkha personnel who have served in our armed forces for four years or more to apply for UK citizenship in return for their willingness to risk their life in service of the Crown. That is now a well-established procedure. However, there is a long-running issue about their immediate family, who may also wish to apply for citizenship, being charged visa fees. Both the Conservative and Labour parties in their 2024 general election manifestos pledged to change that. Indeed, the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have been campaigning on it for some time. The case will no doubt be made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, just as it was in Committee, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
When we debated this issue in Committee some three weeks ago, the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, sought to offer the House some comfort that progress might be made on this issue by the time we got to Report. That being the case, and given that the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have been doing their best to press the case—including at an event in the House earlier today—I hope that his replacement as the Armed Forces Minister will be able to give us a positive update tonight.
It is not really the money that is the impediment. We in the Conservative party have pledged that if we were in government, the Ministry of Defence would cover the additional cost of these visas, which would realistically run at most to a few million pounds a year. However, as everyone knows, the real blocker is not the MOD, but the Home Office. I very much hope that the Armed Forces Minister can tell us today that she has put some vim down the pipe, as it were, and that the Government will now accept new clause 4. If not, I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon will be present to press his new clause at the conclusion of our debate.
Our amendments 3, 4 and 5 are on the subjects of special educational needs, the related matters of fostering and adoption, and care in the national health service. In essence, our argument is that if military personnel who have children with special educational needs are ordered to transfer from one military garrison or base to another, any support that they have for that child—including an education, health and care plan or its equivalent in the devolved Governments—should automatically be portable from one local education authority to the one that covers their new posting.
One of the two overriding principles of the armed forces covenant, which is an important aspect of the Bill, is that military personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service relative to the civilian population. Given that they may sometimes be compelled to move by order from one part of the country to another, this is a perfect example of where that principle should now bite.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
In the context of the armed forces covenant and all the great work it does for military families, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Royal British Legion also does important work in this regard? Will he join me in saying thank you to the Royal British Legion in Hayes, in my constituency, which does so much work for military families as they go about their duties?
Mr Francois
I thank my hon. Friend him for his intervention. As patron of the Rayleigh branch of the Royal British Legion, I too am very glad to pay tribute to the amazing work that it does in support of serving personnel, veterans and the wider armed forces family. It has also played an important part in lobbying for what is now new clause 4, on which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon will elaborate.
Jim Shannon
I thank the shadow Minister again for all his endeavours on behalf of the defence forces. He is an example to us all.
I understand that the Government have extended the armed forces covenant to Northern Ireland, but there is a question mark over the responsibility of local borough and district councils in Northern Ireland that may have adverse feelings about the covenant. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is important that the Government bring forward legislation tonight to ensure that every district and borough council in Northern Ireland must adhere to the same rules as those here on the mainland?
Mr Francois
Yes, the armed forces covenant should apply equally throughout the four nations of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman and I know that some local authorities in Northern Ireland take a different view on this matter, but even in Sinn Féin-run councils the covenant should still apply. Northern Ireland has a very proud tradition of providing troops for the United Kingdom’s armed forces, and those troops are as entitled to be recognised and supported by the civilian population as those drawn from any other part of the United Kingdom. So, again, my in-principle answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Francois
I suspect that this might be about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, in which case I am very happy to give way.
Jayne Kirkham
It is not, actually, although I can always talk about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in the context of clause 31, in which it is brilliantly included and which will give the RFA a commissioner at last, which is fantastic.
May I ask the Minister to confirm—because I have had some correspondence about this—that clause 2 covers unitary authorities, single foundation strategic authorities and borough councils outside outer London? Some members of the Local Government Association have raised that with me. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, just for clarification, that those authorities are covered by the duties in the covenant?
Mr Francois
I thank the hon. Lady very much for referring to me as the Minister. I was the Minister once and—who knows?—I may be one day again. I must say, in fairness to the previous Minister, that I believe the Government tabled amendments in Committee to clarify the matter that the hon. Lady has raised, and I think that on their behalf, if it is not precocious, I can give her and the LGA an absolute reassurance in that regard.
We believe that as military personnel are often moving at the behest of the state, the state has a moral duty under the covenant to ensure that any EHCP—and, as we all know from our constituency work, obtaining EHCPs is often a tortuous process—is then fully transferable. When we debated that in Committee, we received considerable support from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who has received a field promotion of his own in recent days, and will therefore hopefully be a friend to these measures within the Department. I would welcome him too, but I am saving him up for Defence questions in July.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
We in the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community—including my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey)—have been working on these issues with the Royal British Legion for the past year. The Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), has come before us, has listened to the views of service personnel and their families, and has committed to ensuring that serving personnel are included in the SEND reforms process. I want to thank her for her work, alongside that of the Royal British Legion and the APPG.
Mr Francois
I thank the hon. Lady for a very helpful intervention. I will come to the NHS in a moment, but during the Bill’s earlier stages we have suggested that if the Government do not feel that they can accept this amendment—amendment 3—in this primary legislation, which was our preferred route, now that we know there will be a new Bill on special educational needs, they should seek to address the problem in that Bill, and because it is a Department for Education Bill, hopefully local education authorities will then give it considerable weight. So we are in absolute agreement about that route, and, if I may say so, what the hon. Lady has said about education Ministers is heartening.
Amendment 4 makes, in a sense, the same argument as we have made on the EHCPs with regard to fostering or adoption by service personnel. Amendment 5 argues, in a similar vein, that military personnel who transfer from one military location to another should not lose their place on any NHS waiting list as a result. Again, there is forthcoming legislation on NHS reorganisation, and we hope that this issue can be tackled via that legislative route. I believe this is a relatively straightforward moral argument, in all three cases, and I hope that the Government may yet accept the logic of what we are putting forward this evening.
Let me now turn to the subject of funding for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. As I said during the Select Committee stage of the Bill, there is almost universal agreement that we want to improve the quality of accommodation for service personnel and their families. The remaining area of contention is how best to achieve that, given that there is almost complete unanimity on the desired end state.
Nevertheless, following media reports—especially in The Sunday Times—Opposition Members are increasingly concerned about the possibility that money for capital improvements, and even maintenance, may now be taken away from the Defence Housing Service before it is even born, and reallocated to other priorities in Labour’s very long-awaited defence investment plan. We know from evidence sessions on the Bill that there is already a plan for the Defence Housing Service to reduce the spending on housing maintenance by 25%, compared to current practice. That sounds worrying, although officials, and indeed the previous Minister, were keen to stress that they believed the new Defence Housing Service would be able, by renegotiating certain contracts and the actual operation of maintenance, to do this more efficiently.
The proof of the pudding for all that will be very much in the eating. However, what we understand is now being proposed is that the capital allocations for the Defence Housing Service will be raided in order to fund other defence priorities elsewhere. That process will only be exacerbated if, as has been widely reported, the amount of money that will be available for the DIP—if and when it is finally published—will be the lowest of the three options widely canvassed in the press, namely an additional £10 billion of spending on defence over the next four years.
Given the challenges faced by defence—which were laid out starkly by both the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister in their powerful resignation letters—£10 billion over four years will not even touch the sides. Let me humbly remind Labour Members that all three authors of the strategic defence review, which was published over a year ago on 2 June 2025, were adamant that the price tag for delivering Labour’s much-vaunted SDR would be defence spending of at least 3% of GDP. What is on offer is clearly nowhere near that. Indeed, in his scathing resignation letter, the former Defence Secretary said that all that was being offered to him was an increase in defence spending from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030—in other words, a 0.08% increase over four years. Those numbers completely and utterly demolish Labour’s constantly repeated mantra that they are now funding
“the biggest…increase in defence spending since the Cold War.”
That is simply not true.
However, the situation is even worse than that. In addition to the headline “increases”, which are now minuscule, as the resignation letter starkly reveals, last year, at the Treasury’s behest, the Labour Government introduced a target of making efficiency savings—“cuts” in plain English—of some £2.6 billion from operational and revenue spending in the Ministry of Defence. What that means in practice is fewer ship days at sea, fewer hours for our pilots to fly, and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain. Incredibly, in this financial year—2026-27—the efficiency savings target has now been increased to £3.5 billion of cuts, which means even more operational and revenue spending reductions than last year.
For Labour to continue the mantra that it has provided the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, in the face of these self-imposed, Treasury-driven in-year cuts, simply destroys any credibility that the Government had that they really are striving to keep this country safe. This is not the result of enemy action—unless one regards the Treasury as the enemy, which many in the military now do. This is a self-inflicted wound brought about by a Labour Government who are completely paralysed by inaction, and who now have no idea whatsoever of how to credibly fund the defence of this country.
In the light of today’s events, it remains to be seen whether the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will attempt to introduce any order into this chaos. If he does, he and his new Chancellor—whoever that turns out to be—will still have to say how the Labour Government are going to pay for it. Are they going to increase borrowing, which will frighten the bond markets, or are they going to cut welfare, which would probably provoke a Back-Bench revolt?
Mr Francois
We would reduce welfare spending and spend it on the defence of the realm. That is our policy.
Mr Francois
In a moment.
I come back to the Defence Housing Service. Ministers have promised us ad nauseum that their plan will include £9.2 billion of investment in military accommodation over the next 10 years—that point has been repeated again and again over the five months that I have referred to. Given that the DIP has still not been published, I ask the Minister for the Armed Forces whether she can still repeat Labour’s mantra on the Floor of the House this evening. Is that £9.2 billion still there? Has it been definitively signed off by the Chancellor of the Exchequer —yes or no?
Moreover, can the Minister advise us when the DIP will finally be published? I see that the Secretary of State has kindly joined us, so he can bob up and answer if he wants. Will it be published prior to the NATO summit in Ankara on 7 and 8 July, as we have been told multiple times? Will it be published prior to the House rising for the summer recess on 16 July? Will it ever be published, or will we have to go round the loop all over again with a new Government? Are they going to publish it, and if so, when? We have now transitioned from frustration to filibustering from Ministers, and from there to farce. Our adversaries can see this as clearly as our friends can.
We have already rightly spent five months on this very important Bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House at least some comfort on some of the points that we have raised. Otherwise, we will have to test the will of the House, almost certainly in the matter of the ECHR and potentially on the Defence Housing Service and the DIP as well. Finally, when—if ever—will Labour publish the defence investment plan?
Alex Baker
May I begin by congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) on being appointed the Minister for the Armed Forces? She did an outstanding job as the Minister for Veterans and People, and I pay particular tribute to her work with the Gurkha community. I saw at first hand how she engaged with a community that for too long felt ignored and unheard, and she helped many feel that their voices were finally being listened to. I am delighted to see her promoted, and I look forward to her making many visits to Aldershot and Farnborough in her new role.
This weekend, Aldershot and Farnborough will have the privilege of hosting the national Armed Forces Day celebrations. As the historic home of the British Army, it is a huge honour for our community. I thank everyone involved in making it happen, including Rushmoor borough council and our headline sponsors: QinetiQ, BAE Systems and KBR Aspire Defence. Armed Forces Day matters because it gives us an opportunity to say thank you, but it should also be an opportunity to listen.
On Saturday, I was privileged to attend the launch of the Commonwealth military hub in Aldershot, which has been delivered by Op Belonging under the leadership of Samuel T. Reddy, in partnership with Aldershot Town football club. It was an extraordinary event. Serving personnel, veterans, families and organisations from across the Commonwealth came together to celebrate service and support each other. In some regiments based in Aldershot, more than 15 different nationalities are represented, and what struck me most was the theme of belonging. These are people who have served our country, and their families have sacrificed alongside them. They deserve to feel that they belong.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the compassion and dedication of community volunteers in supporting our veterans is second to none? I certainly extend my gratitude to Lauren Fox and Luther Blissett, who support people in my constituency of Watford with an invaluable level of help.
Alex Baker
Like me, my hon. Friend will have many fantastic volunteers supporting veterans right across his community, and we are so indebted to them. We are able to deliver so much veteran support because people voluntarily give their time to make it happen.
I was really proud to stand on a Labour manifesto that committed to removing visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served in our armed forces for four years or more, and for their dependants. This Government are working through such commitments. Having worked closely with the new Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), on these issues before he entered government, I know how passionate he is about delivering meaningful change in this space, but it is for the Government to make these changes. For that reason, although I fully support the principle of removing visa fees, I will not support new clause 4 today. I want to give the Minister the time and space to be able to deliver on the Government’s commitments.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I appreciate the hon. Member’s position and have previously spoken to her about new clause 4, which I tabled. The Government have been in power for two years, and nothing has yet been done on delivering their pledge. Why should Labour Members not vote for new clause 4, given that it will deliver their manifesto pledge?
Alex Baker
Ultimately, a manifesto is delivered over the period that a Government serve—they do not deliver everything at once. It takes time to deliver these things over the course of a Parliament. These things look hard because they are hard. The previous Government made many things look hard when it came to defence, and I want to give this Government the chance to deliver, throughout this Parliament, on the things that we are committed to delivering.
I really welcome the extension of the armed forces covenant duty in the Bill. The covenant is obviously one of the most important promises that we make to a nation, and it says that no member of our armed forces community should face disadvantage because of their service. I have worked closely with outstanding organisations, including the Royal British Legion, SSAFA and our service family federations. When it comes to this Bill, their message is clear: accountability matters. Families need to know where to go when support falls short, public bodies need to understand their responsibilities, and the Government need to be able to demonstrate that the covenant is being applied consistently and effectively. Judicial review cannot be the only realistic route available when the covenant is not being properly applied.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Member is making a very important point. Judicial review is not an answer for the many people who are damaged or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and so on, because they do not have the capacity to do it, which is why authorities should be held accountable for the actions they take.
Alex Baker
That is precisely what I am asking the Government to do. They should look at that, because judicial review cannot be the only option. We must have other options available to make sure that, when the covenant is not being delivered, we can hold those bodies to account.
We need clearer guidance for how services can put the covenant into practice. Earlier this year, I presented my recommendations to the Minister responsible for early years—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey)—setting out how the new Best Start family hubs can properly support military families. The first recommendation we made was simple: services should ask everyone at the first point of contact, “Are you from a military family? Are you from our armed forces community?” If public services do not know whether someone serves or has served, or is part of a military family, how can we connect them to the support they need? Service life often means deployments, frequent moves and dealing with different local authorities and providers. With a clearer record of our forces community, we can ensure that support follows people as they relocate, rather than forcing them to start again each time.
Ultimately, this is not about processes, but about people. At the Commonwealth hub on Saturday, I met a female Royal Navy veteran, and she spoke honestly about the challenges she has faced after leaving service in struggling to secure housing, to find work and to access the support she needed. Then she said something that has stayed with me:
“The Covenant is supposed to mean something. But it means nothing.”
That must change. The covenant must mean something when a veteran needs a home or a military family is looking to settle down. Those who sacrificed so much in service to our country ask one thing of us, which is that we stand by them in return. That is the promise we must keep and the standard we must set ourselves, which is why I support this Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for opening this debate and speaking to his new clauses. I will shortly speak to the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on behalf of my party and to others tabled by my hon. Friends.
It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week. Like many Members, I look forward to attending Armed Forces Day in my constituency, at Pingle field in Bicester on Saturday. We will raise the flag to salute the service and sacrifice of our incredible armed forces and their families. If previous years are anything to go by, I will again disgrace myself in misdirecting a bomb disposal robot under the patient eye of a member of the defence explosive ordnance disposal, munitions and search training team, which is based at the Bicester garrison.
Fred Thomas
The hon. Member mentions bomb disposal. He may not know that we have seen two significant bomb disposal events in Plymouth in the last couple of years. Does he agree that Armed Forces Day this Saturday is a great opportunity to thank our military community for keeping safe everyone who lives in residential areas, especially in Plymouth, where there is unexploded ordnance from world war two?
Calum Miller
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention. I quite agree with him that the work of our brave service personnel in the bomb disposal units and those who train them—as I say, at the Bicester garrison in my constituency—deserve to be celebrated. I would resist the temptation to say that I hope everybody’s Armed Forces Day go off with a bang.
The skill and commitment of our armed forces reflect the best of us, and it is a privilege to speak today on this Bill. I believe there is much in the Bill that should be welcomed and that deserves our support. Crucially, it renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty across Government, introduces a Defence Housing Service to oversee and implement improvements in the quality of accommodation for our troops, and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has energetically taken the Government to task for their spending pledges, yet I regret that the Conservatives did not apply the same energy to supporting and protecting our armed forces during their time in office. The scandalously poor quality of service personnel housing serves as the clearest evidence that they allowed a dogmatic commitment to outsourcing to blind them to how they were failing our armed forces.
Matt Turmaine
I recently visited a 92-year-old constituent in Watford who had been terribly concerned about the state of the housing provided for her grandson, which is obviously a consequence of the previous Government’s tenure. As a result of the work of this Labour Government, his housing situation is greatly improved. Does the hon. Member agree with me that the trajectory is at least in the right direction?
Calum Miller
It is important that we sustain progress in that direction. The Defence Housing Service, to which I have referred, must do that, and I will come on later in my remarks to comment, in common with others on the Liberal Democrat Benches, on some of the challenges that might be faced if the right capital is not provided.
If we are serious about reversing the calamitous decline in recruitment and retention under the Conservatives, we must renew and reinforce the covenant with service personnel and their families.
Calum Miller
I will not for the moment. I will, if I may, make a bit more progress.
It is equally vital, however, to give our armed forces confidence that the Government are serious about expanding our military capabilities, and we cannot do that without a credible defence investment plan. The outgoing Prime Minister allowed his office to brief that this document would be published before the NATO summit on 7 July. Today, Labour appears more concerned by who gets a seat at the Cabinet table than about actually governing the country. Can I therefore ask the Minister whether that commitment to publish the plan in the next fortnight is made by the Government, or merely by the current occupant of No. 10 Downing Street?
Once the DIP is finally published, it is critical that Ministers can be held to account for its implementation, and for the costs that the delay in its publication has already caused for UK businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises are desperate to contribute to our national defence, but their survival has been jeopardised by delays to the DIP. New clauses 21 and 22 would guarantee this necessary transparency, requiring the Government to produce two reports a year to provide an update on the delivery of the DIP and a report on the impact of its delay on business.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
We should not let everything that is happening in Westminster today distract us from the urgent need to safeguard our national defence. New clause 22 would highlight the result of the defence investment plan being long overdue. Does my hon. Friend agree that our understanding is that we still expect the defence investment plan to be delivered before the NATO summit and before the selection of a prospective new Labour Prime Minister?
Calum Miller
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his remarks. As I was underscoring, he is quite right to say that so many in the defence industry are holding on for the announcement of the DIP. There are many companies in the supply chains whose very survival depends on it, and I urge the Government to recommit to publishing the DIP before 7 July.
Turning to the wider Bill, there are several important areas for improvement, and I will start with how we recruit and retain service personnel across our military, how we treat those who have left, and how we strengthen our understanding of the reasons why they have left. This priority requires a long-term plan. That is why our new clause 13 would mandate the publication of a retention strategy, alongside the Bill, outlining the Government’s plan to ensure we can attract and keep talent in the military for longer. Our new clause 14 would also require an independent review to identify and examine factors such as diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing.
On housing, I am pleased that Ministers have heeded Liberal Democrat calls to bring service family accommodation under the decent homes standard. We were troubled, however, to hear that delaying the implementation of this commitment was one of the Treasury’s ruses to help fund the DIP. I am sure the Minister agrees that that would be short-sighted, so I invite her to recommit to achieving the decent homes standard for SFA properties before the standard comes into force. We also want the Government to take the next step by applying the same standard to single living accommodation, too. That is what amendment 13 would do, helping to deliver for about 80,000 single and unaccompanied service personnel.
Ian Roome
It is a big misconception that single living accommodation in the forces is primarily for those who are single; it is not. Even at the flag-raising ceremony here in Westminster today, most of those in uniform told me that their wives live in a different part of the country, and they are living in single living accommodation. They are not living in family accommodation, but they do have families. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with this investment, we should be upgrading single living accommodation, too?
Calum Miller
I strongly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I see nodding their heads those around the Chamber who, having served in our armed forces, know this accommodation better than me. It is critical that our service personnel, whether they are single, living away from their families or living in family accommodation, have a right to decent housing, and I hope the Government will stand by that commitment.
Calum Miller
If the hon. Member does not mind, I will make a bit more progress.
Let me now turn to veteran support. Service personnel transitioning out of the forces and into civilian life need vastly more support to ensure a smooth transition. In my own constituency, I have heard just in the last six months from two families deeply affected by the abject failure to link up military and civilian medical records. Two of my constituents were denied, as veterans, the care and support they deserved for physical and mental health damage sustained in fighting for our nation. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) has been assiduous in responding to me and I am in no doubt of her personal commitment. However, I think she would agree that such cases highlight system-wide problems that must be tackled.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also be helpful if there was a specific requirement, written into the Bill, for the classification of domestic abuse offences? I refer to my new clause 24 on this very matter.
Calum Miller
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for her excellent point, and I endorse her advocacy for new clause 24. It would indeed have that beneficial effect, bringing the service justice system in line with that in the civilian courts.
The amendments I have spoken to do not seek to unravel the Bill, but rather to encourage the Government to go further. I hope the Minister will take these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are meant and that the Government will support them.
Luke Akehurst
The Bill is perhaps one of the most constitutionally significant Bills that Parliament regularly debates, as it renews the mandate for a standing Army on a five-yearly basis. It has therefore been a privilege to serve on the Select Committee established to scrutinise it.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for pointing out the convention that one should address the opening speech, and the new clauses moved in it, because that gives me the opportunity to say—I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is not in his place, because it would have been a delight to cross swords with him metaphorically—that I am really quite flabbergasted that in new clauses 1 and 2 the right hon. Member has managed to insert issues relating to the middle east into a debate that is primarily about the welfare of the armed forces here in the UK. It was extremely imaginative of him to manage to do that, which perhaps indicates a degree of dedication to one particular policy area that is in some ways commendable and in other ways slightly disturbing. I am sorry he is not here, because I would have been delighted to have taken an intervention from him on that subject. Just in case he scrutinises what I have said, I refer right hon. and hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I once again pay tribute to the armed forces community across the North Durham constituency. As I have noted at every opportunity I have had to speak on the Bill, North Durham is home to a considerable number of veterans, as well as the families of service personnel. It was an honour yesterday to speak at the flag raising ceremony in Stanley Front Street for Armed Forces Week. We are so into Armed Forces Week in North Durham that we have two ceremonies—one at the start of the week and one at the end of the week—and this year it was my honour to be at the one at the start of the week. I pay tribute to Stanley town council and the Durham Light Infantry Association for their role in that ceremony. You could really see the pride that people in North Durham take in their connection to the armed forces. I am always seeking to use my platform here to advocate for those who serve our country, and I have taken every opportunity, such as serving on the Bill’s Select Committee, to play a role in advancing policy that helps our armed forces community.
The Labour Government introduced the Armed Forces Bill to deliver on their pledge to renew the contract between the state and the armed forces community. The Bill will deliver for veterans, serving personnel and the next generation of our armed forces by making key strides forward on the covenant, housing and service justice, as well as bolstering our defensive capabilities by changing reservist criteria—at the request of reservists, I might add—and giving the Government powers to tackle drone activity. I believe the parliamentary scrutiny the Bill has had, by the Select Committee and on the Floor of the House, will make it even stronger than it was at the start.
I pay tribute to the Government for engaging so constructively with the Bill Select Committee and for accepting the vast majority of our recommendations, resulting in 81 Government amendments to further strengthen the legislation in Committee of the Whole House. In particular, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) and the former Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) for their tireless work. They have consistently stood up for what is right, not only for our armed forces community but for our country. From their service as Ministers to making the case for the increased defence spending to adequately protect the British people and, ultimately, to the very honourable decision they took to resign, I hope their decision will have encouraged the Government so that when we finally see the defence investment plan, the quantum and content of it will reflect the political sacrifice they have made in standing down.
I welcome the new Defence Secretary, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and the new Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), with full confidence in their ability to step up and continue to do the right thing by serving personnel and veterans. All of us in this House should wish them well. They are doing hugely important work on the final stages of getting agreement on the DIP. Whatever the politics going on in Whitehall around that, we wish them all the very best in that process. They are taking on huge responsibility at a time when this country faces really severe threats. I repeat that I pay tribute to their predecessors, but I also pay tribute to them for stepping up and taking on these hugely important responsibilities at a time when it could not be more important.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I place on record that, as a veteran myself, it was a huge privilege to serve on the Select Committee that considered this important legislation. I will concentrate my remarks on new clauses 4, 9 and 11. At first glance, they may appear to concern different matters, yet, in reality, they are united by the common principle that Parliament should ensure that those who serve this country are treated fairly, and that the law recognises the unique obligations we place on them.
We quite rightly celebrate the professionalism of our armed forces. We ask them to defend our interests overseas, deter our adversaries, and, when necessary, place themselves between danger and the rest of us. It is right that the first duty of any Government is the defence of our realm. It therefore follows that the first duty of Parliament towards those who discharge that responsibility is to ensure that they are treated with fairness, dignity and respect. That means understanding that military service is not simply another profession, but a vocation that places demands on individuals and their families that most of our fellow citizens will never be asked to bear.
I begin with new clause 4. I have long believed that when an individual commits to service in the armed forces, the nation enters a contract with them that carries practical consequences. We ask our service personnel to accept postings away from home, to move their families at short notice, to spend long periods separated from loved ones, and, in some cases, to place themselves in danger on our behalf. When we speak of supporting the armed forces, we cannot confine our attention solely to those in uniform; we must also consider the spouses and children who support them.
New clause 4, tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), addresses a concern that many Members across this House have heard repeatedly from serving personnel and veterans alike: that the financial burden imposed on families seeking indefinite leave to remain after years of loyal service to this country is too much. There is a straightforward question before us. If an individual has given years of service to our nation, why should their family then face significant financial barriers simply to secure their future here? They have worn our uniform, accepted unlimited liability in defence of our national interests, and contributed directly to our security. In those circumstances it cannot be right, having honoured their commitment to our country, that we appear reluctant to honour our commitment to them.
The armed forces covenant, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, rests on the principle that those who serve should suffer no disadvantage as a result of that service. It is difficult to reconcile that principle with a situation in which a family that has supported a service member throughout years of deployments and postings, is then confronted with substantial costs in order to remain together in the country for which that service was given. New clause 4 is not a radical proposition; it is a relatively modest measure that simply recognises commitment and rewards service. Crucially, it sends a clear signal that Parliament values not only those who wear the uniform but the families who stand behind them.
Over the past two decades, there has been a considerable concern about the extent to which human rights litigation has affected military operations overseas. Parliament has recognised those concerns in previous legislation relating to overseas operations. That issue is not a novel one, but part of a continuing debate about how best to reconcile operational effectiveness, accountability and fairness.
The argument for new clauses 9 and 11 is, at its heart, a simple one. A soldier deployed on operations is not situated in the same circumstances as a civilian living in peacetime; the realities of combat are fundamentally different. Those of us who have had the privilege to spend time with serving personnel quickly come to appreciate that military operations are conducted in conditions of danger, ambiguity and enormous pressure. Decisions are often made in moments, not months. Commanders and soldiers do not enjoy the luxury of hindsight that is available to lawyers examining events years later from the cold comfort of a courtroom.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
It is apt that the House meets during Armed Forces Week to discuss this important Bill. I strongly welcome it, and commend Ministers past and present for using its passage to not just renew service law, which Parliament is required to do every five years, as hon. Members have said, but genuinely drive wider improvements for the benefits of service personnel and our national defence. My speech focuses on housing elements of the Bill, around which there remains some debate, and on which there are a number of amendments.
Before I come to the amendments, there are two reasons why the new approach to defence accommodation is incredibly important. The first is a point of principle: there can be no greater calling in the public service of our nation that donning uniform to defend our fellow citizens. I am proud to be a County Durham MP, and the county has one of the highest proportions of serving and veteran armed forces personnel in the country. Those from our communities who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend our way of life deserve the best support. That includes housing. Providing good-quality service homes should be non-negotiable. It should be a source of shame that, under the last Government, the housing element of the duty we owe our personnel fell far short of what they rightly deserve.
My second point is pragmatic. The historic failures on service housing have caused operational problems for those tasked with defending our nation. The state of some military housing hampers the day-to-day ability of our armed forces to compete in a competitive labour market. That matters; a Defence Committee report in 2023 highlighted that housing and other issues were making it difficult for our armed forces to recruit and retain talented people. Because of the fantastic investment that our armed forces make in defence personnel—I have seen that for myself on bases—whether in fighting troops, engineers, or others, we thankfully make our personnel highly competitive in the modern labour market, so there is rightly a draw on them. This issue absolutely must be addressed if we are serious about improving our defence, and I commend Ministers for their determination to address it.
New clause 12 calls for a report on the potential for establishing a forces housing association. I respect the intent of this proposal entirely, but I think we might be in danger of putting form before function here. I say that as somebody who, before my election, worked for 14 years in housing—for seven years as a council housing cabinet member, building council housing, overseeing an arm’s length management organisation and working with major developers to secure billions of pounds of investment in Tottenham after the riots, and then for seven years as the director of a large housing association, again delivering complex projects—so I have seen housing from many angles, and many providers.
Working in the housing sector, I have seen that what matters fundamentally is the quality of leadership and culture, not necessarily the detail of the structures. The emphasis should therefore be on strong, clear and transparent leadership. It can be found at the heart of the best social and public housing providers. That might sound like an obvious point, but in the rapidly changing world of housing, it takes a particular type of leader to deliver on projects involving large numbers of residents, stakeholders and contractors, because it is hard.
I was therefore pleased to hear the commitments made, in the oral evidence sessions of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, to the Defence Housing Service having an independent chair, non-executive directors and a family representative. That mix of strong, robust leadership is exactly right, and is in accordance with good practice in the wider housing sector. I hope that Ministers will make the most of this structure by recognising that there is a wealth of leadership experience and skill in council housing departments, big housing associations and other social housing providers—people who have dedicated their careers to this. They could lend their expertise to the Defence Housing Service. I hope that Ministers will proactively tap into that pool of talent across the country to ensure that the new organisation works at every level.
Amendment 8 seeks to introduce an objective of improving the satisfaction of service personnel. Having worked in the housing sector for 14 years, I would expect that the satisfaction of residents or customers would be a core part of everything that the Defence Housing Service did, and one of the main issues for discussion by the board and the leadership team. Whether or not Parliament sets these as objectives slightly misses the point; the point is that they should be the absolute bread and butter of that organisation, day to day. I am sure that Ministers will talk to the board and the leadership of that organisation about that.
On the point about organisational culture, having worked in the sector, I have seen complex housing organisations in which there is a culture of delivery, real care for residents and a determination to fix things, which can often be complex, and a culture of getting things done. Equally, I have seen housing providers in which the opposite is true—where things are not done, things take a long time, residents are seen as a nuisance and complaints are seen as a pain, rather than as an object for learning. Again, the key lesson for Ministers is to work with the new organisation to drive the culture; I know that having served in uniform, Ministers will be used to driving strong culture through organisations. That is the key issue here.
In my previous career, I saw that the social housing sector has become more complex. Organisations increasingly deliver maintenance, long-term asset management, investment programmes and new home building, and deal with the construction issues with homes for rent and sale—the complex mix of things we will be tasking the Defence Housing Service with doing. Some organisations were just overwhelmed. Strong leadership and strong culture are needed, and there is clear evidence that with those, we can make this work.
There is something else that we need to defend against in the Defence Housing Service—and I know that Ministers are cognisant of this. In council housing departments and charitable housing associations, the pressure to deliver quickly has often led to convoluted chains of accountability, involving layer upon layer of contractors and subcontractors. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) made about accountability is important. We have seen in many of the reports following the terrible Grenfell tragedy that there were layers and layers of organisations involved, without any clear accountability, and that caused some of the appalling problems there. There should be an emphasis on accountability in the Defence Housing Service.
Ministers and the board will find really good advice in many reports from the Housing Ombudsman and the Regulator of Social Housing’s in-depth assessments; there is lots of evidence from Government about how to make complex housing organisations work well. We know that this was one of the main issues that came with the privatised model of service housing that was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, and it is why I strongly support the changes being made.
On visits through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, we have met lots of service personnel who shared stories of outsourced housing contractors being difficult to contact, unresponsive and acting slowly; equally, we heard from senior and base commanders who were keen to ensure the best accommodation for their people, but who struggled to hold private providers to account and have lacked direct lines of accountability. I know that Ministers will be tackling those issues, and that might be a better way of addressing them than through the amendments that have been tabled.
Amendment 11 seeks to bring the Defence Housing Service’s budget into the defence investment plan. The key point here is not which budget the money technically sits in, but whether the housing commitment will be properly resourced; I know that Ministers are committed to ensuring that it is. The £9 billion commitment from Government is really powerful; work has already started on repairing military homes. The debate about whether that £9 billion sits in the DIP or elsewhere, again, slightly misses the point; the point is whether this Government are committed to investing and providing resource to get this fixed and sorted, and the answer is yes. I am sure that will change and develop as time goes on, as the organisation is fully set up and the board takes real control of that. That, I think, is our key priority.
In summary, strong leadership, an accountable, can-do culture that gets stuff done and proper resourcing are the key ingredients of to delivering for our servicemen and women in uniform, and I am confident that ministerial colleagues will drive that forward. A number of Members from across the House from the ’24 intake who came to the House with significant experience of working for complex housing organisations would be very happy to support Ministers on the road ahead.
Lastly, while I will not go into these elements in detail, I want to say how important the parts of the Bill that deal with the covenant are. Expanding the armed forces covenant duty to central Government Departments is absolutely the right thing to do if we are to stay true to the duty that we owe our service people. It is entirely right that it applies to all layers of Government. On Friday, I met a constituent at my surgery—a veteran—who was raising concerns about his access to services from the NHS and other parts of the local public sector. He was struggling to get the support that he needed. Members know from our casework that support for our veterans is not always consistent, and that must improve across the public sector. That is why enshrining the covenant in law, through this Bill, is such an important step. Those serving our nation in uniform, those who have served and their families deserve the very best support. That is why I am proud to support this Bill.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland).
I start by stating, on behalf of my party, our support for this Bill and its important provisions, not simply because it extends the legal basis of our armed forces, but because of the very important new provisions that it introduces. We very much support the extension, which the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, of the armed forces covenant to more policy areas. We also support the expansion of recall for reservists; it would be good if we could actually recruit more reservists, full stop, but it is very welcome that we will be able to recall more of them. Most of all, I support the principle of better housing for veterans and forces families. I think I represent more forces families and veterans than any other MP; the area that I represent covers part of Salisbury plain, Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill, and despite what it says outside Aldershot, we are the true home of the British Army—I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) will allow me to make that claim—and I am very keen to ensure that our forces and their families are properly accommodated.
I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor that what really matters is the leadership of housing organisations. However, I want to express my concern about a measure that will create a new quango responsible for forces families. I instead support the official Opposition proposal that we create a dedicated housing association for that purpose.
I will turn now to the amendments tabled by other Members and parties that we support. It is important that the budget for the new housing organisation is properly reflected in the defence investment plan, when it comes out. I would also very much like a commitment from the Government that we will see in due course the effect of this long, unacceptable and unaccountable delay to the defence investment plan. What effect will the delay have on our procurement and military readiness?
Luke Akehurst
Is the strategy not in the strategic defence review that was published last year? I remember reading it, and copies were available from the Vote Office. I would recommend that the hon. Gentleman has a look at the SDR, because it sets out what our role is in terms of geopolitics and military strategy.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the SDR, because I was about to do so myself. It is not a strategy. For starters, it is a defence review. The point I was just making is that the strategy we need is upstream of defence. We need a proper national security strategy that considers, in the round, all the different levers of national power and places defence in its proper place in the hierarchy, which is downstream of the crucial strategic questions about the role that the United Kingdom will play in the world. The SDR was published over a year ago; we have seen none of its recommendations implemented, and the money that is required for it still has not been delivered.
Luke Akehurst
My understanding is that the recommendations in the SDR that do not require financial investment—changes of doctrine or stance or the deployment of existing forces—have been implemented. It is the defence investment plan that we are waiting for, which is primarily about additional spending above and beyond what we already spend on equipment.
Danny Kruger
My point is that arguing loudly for a bigger armed forces, praising our troops, as we all do, or speaking up for our allies, as we should, are not a strategy. Publishing a strategic defence review or even a defence investment plan do not count either.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The hon. Member says that the SDR is not about strategy, but the clue is in the name. It is a strategic defence review. Does he not agree?
Danny Kruger
The word “strategy” can be put on all sorts of things. I am talking about what a strategy actually is. It is a plan of action that proceeds from an objective and a doctrine about how to achieve that objective. That is what we lack as a country. We have not done grand strategy in this country for decades.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
A strategy is not a plan. A strategy is about ways, ends and means. The ways are the plan. The means are the resources. The ends are where one is going to.
Danny Kruger
I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman is an academic in this space. The point that I am making is that we need an overall vision for our country, a doctrine of how to achieve it and then a set of actions—working together, which I understand to be a strategy, how we deploy different assets, the different policies we have, and the different means to the ends that we have identified in pursuit of our overall objective. I do not think that any of us in this House can accurately define what that is for our country, and that is a source of great regret.
I applaud everything that the Government are trying to do to improve conditions for our armed forces. It would be great if the money were to be forthcoming as well, but there is something bigger and more profound than the questions about specific posture, kit or even deployments. It is: what are we trying to do as a country?
I want to finish by suggesting a strategy. It might sound bold and simplistic, but it is only bold because we are so weak and diminished as a country. Our strategy should be to rejoin—not the EU—the club of great powers. Currently, the great powers are the United States and China, of course, but also Russia, India and Japan. Those are the countries that recognise each other in those terms. They are great powers not because they are good—very obviously China and Russia are very bad—but because they make the weather in the world, and Britain does not, despite our country’s most incredible assets, opportunities and strengths.
The reason for setting out this objective to be a great power is not just for national pride or self-esteem but for a simple reason: a country that is not a great power is subject to those that are. Sovereignty and capability are vital in the age of tech, a high demand for energy, rare earths and high-tech skills. That is what a country needs in this age.
What does great power status look like? I do not want to join the EU. I think that would be a disaster economically and pointless from a security perspective.
Danny Kruger
I will not.
Instead, I would like the United Kingdom to lead European defence by leading a partnership of other countries that have a capable military—most obviously France, Germany, Poland and the Baltics—to defend the Euro-Atlantic from Russia, China and Iran. That is the best role we can play in partnership with our friends in the United States.
Ben Obese-Jecty
That sounds very much like a European defence force. In what way would that differ from the concept of a European army?
Danny Kruger
I absolutely do not believe that we should form a European army, and we certainly should not join any sort of chain of command organised within the EU, but we can act with European partners, as we currently do—most obviously with the northern states in the joint expeditionary force, but also with our other allies in Europe, such as Italy, France, Poland and Germany. We should do that on the basis of a genuine, bespoke partnership for the purpose of defending Europe, particularly the Euro-Atlantic sea border, where the United Kingdom has a special responsibility.
My position is that we should preserve our national sovereignty, capability and independence, but that we can do that in partnership with other countries, in defence of our common interests. That feels to me to be completely consistent with national sovereignty.
Stuart Anderson
I am struggling to see where the JEF, NATO and another alliance, even with our own sovereign capability, come into play. Those frameworks are already in place to enable us to stand up on the stage. It is about our funding of our capability. To the earlier point about strategy that Members were getting confused about, a grand strategy will be set out by the leader of the country, and the strategic defence review is a strategy of defence within that grand strategy.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am taking the opportunity of a defence debate to make the point that defence is downstream of grand strategy, and that is what is fundamentally lacking. Our defences are not going to be as strong as they could be, because they are not necessarily oriented towards the fundamental objectives that we need, which I am trying to set out in very broad terms. I am not suggesting that we need to create new structures and new alliances with new institutions—we can work within the ones that we have—but the purpose of the United Kingdom’s security strategy, and the fundamental objective we should have as a country, is to lead the defence of Europe with our partners, particularly the Euro-Atlantic sea border.
Let me conclude with this point. To lead the alliance that I suggest, we need real strength at home. More than anything, that means economic reform, liberating the inventors and entrepreneurs, particularly in the exciting new fields of defence tech. It means freeing up private capital that will ultimately fund our defence in addition to anything that the Government can find. It means driving forward on AI, which is the new, great frontline for everything. It also means securing the supply of energy, licensing new oil and gas exploration, and radically reforming our planning system. None of that is being done by the Government. That is why, although I absolutely support the objectives of the Bill—we will vote for it tonight if it goes to a Division—I still fear for our security as a country.
Michelle Scrogham
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), mostly because it is such a rarity—like hen’s teeth—to see our Reform colleagues in the Chamber for these debates.
I turn to new clause 10, tabled by the Conservative party. I would be supportive of it if it focused less on the timeframes and more on getting the defence investment plan right. There is an urgent need to properly fund the defence investment plan as a credible, long-term commitment for our nation’s security. I call on the Government to do that.
We have seen what happens when defence is funded inconsistently—the Conservatives, in their 14 years in government, provided a masterclass in that. For years, too often spending has been drip-fed, reactive, fragmented and tied to short-term pressures rather than long-term strategy. That approach does not save money; it stores up costs and leads to delays, inconsistencies and, ultimately, weaker capability.
Nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency of Barrow and Furness, the heart of our sovereign submarine building capability. When investment falters, as it did under the coalition Government of the Opposition parties, skills are lost, highly trained engineers move on, the training pipeline is cut and the supply chain contracts. When the nation inevitably needs to accelerate production again, we are forced to rebuild that capacity at far greater expense. That is why the DIP—the first line-by-line, long-term plan of its kind in a decade—is so important. It is vital that we get it right, but also that it is properly funded to meet the scale of the threats we face and the demands placed on our armed forces. The consequences of not doing so extend beyond cost; over time, our armed forces risk becoming “hollowed out”, as referenced by former Conservative Defence Secretaries.
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member is right to mention defence being underfunded—I called it out under the last Government and I call it out under this Government. The previous Defence Secretary talked about 30 years of defence underfunding. We talk about the DIP going line by line and getting this right, but if it does not come out with correct funding and it is anywhere near the numbers quoted by the previous Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), that will probably be felt most in the hon. Member’s constituency with its shipbuilding and, as she mentioned, submarine capability.
Michelle Scrogham
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As he rightly says, nobody felt that more than we did in my constituency. I agree that we have to invest properly in the DIP, but we must also ensure that the priorities in the DIP are right. Warfare has changed so dramatically in recent years that we cannot go to the capabilities that we have always looked at, and we cannot continue to fund it in the way that has been done for the past couple of decades. It is about putting the right amount of money in, and about putting it into the right places.
Over time, our armed forces have become hollowed out. Our adversaries will be emboldened, and we leave ourselves at a greater risk of the conflicts that we all want to avoid. Defence is not just a cost; it is an engine for growth in communities like mine. Investment in defence supports skilled jobs, apprenticeships and innovation across the country.
This Armed Forces Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to strengthening our services through improving support for personnel and their families, updating service justice arrangements and ensuring that our armed forces are better equipped to meet the challenges of the modern world. Those are important steps forward, and I am confident that the Bill significantly delivers the improvements that are needed. I therefore oppose new clause 10.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wish to speak to new clause 4, tabled in my name. I thank all those across the House who signed my amendment. Some 10% of MPs in the House supported the amendment. Although that is not exceptional, it is certainly unusual, and I wish to put on record my thanks to all those who put their name to it—particularly those on the Labour Benches.
Alex Baker
The Minister whom the hon. and gallant Member is talking about is not actually in the Chamber. In the APPG, we worked on these issues together. The Minister has had seven days in that job to make progress. Is it fair to put him under this sort of scrutiny after only seven days?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying. I am not putting the Minister under scrutiny here; I am merely highlighting the invidious position that he finds himself in and the situation as we find it. I spoke to the hon. and gallant Member, the Minister, earlier today, so he knows full well that I am going to say this. I very much want to put this front and centre as an issue that needs to be resolved, and to put some heat and light on it to encourage the progress that we are yet to see.
The only reason to oppose this new clause is purely political, as the Government choose to play games with people’s lives rather than support our armed forces community and uphold the armed forces covenant. Earlier this year, that same armed forces community was surveyed by the Army Families Federation on the armed forces pathway to settlement in the UK, in response to the 2025 “Restoring Control over the Immigration System” White Paper. It had 1,424 qualifying responses and more comments on reducing the cost of indefinite leave to remain than any other topic.
One of those responses stated:
“the current level of fees for ILR—and the subsequent cost of citizenship—places a significant financial burden on Armed Forces families. Given the service and sacrifices made by Armed Forces personnel, and the vital role their families play in supporting them, these costs are prohibitively high for many. As a result, families who are committed to remaining in the UK long-term face unnecessary financial hardship simply to secure their lawful status and future.”
Another said:
“Speaking from experience it’s a struggle to get us and our kids to join our husbands here in the UK. We have to work 2 jobs in order to pay for the visa and travelling expenses. We have to bring our 3 kids over to the UK. Due to the expensive costs we have to apply for loans to cater for the expenses. With the high living standards and tight financial constraints, we have to save up for our ILR fee once our 5 years contract is done. It’s so hard to save, especially for us. Me and my 3 kids have to apply for ILR together as our visa expired the same date, so that’s a total of £12K we have to fork out to pay the fee. Can the home office look into this urgently? Thank you.”
Another said:
“I have supported my partner’s service to the UK while facing many of the same sacrifices required of military families. This includes frequent relocations, prolonged periods of separation, disrupted employment opportunities, and the emotional and practical challenges that come with military life. For Commonwealth families in particular, these sacrifices are made alongside the added uncertainty of immigration status. Charging ILR and citizenship fees places an unfair financial burden on spouses who have already contributed significantly to the stability and wellbeing of service personnel. Military spouses play a vital role in enabling service members to serve effectively, yet are required to pay substantial fees simply to remain in the country their families serve with loyalty and dedication”.
This last one said:
“the financial burden of applying for ILR and subsequently citizenship is not proportionate to Armed Forces pay, particularly in the context of the current cost-of-living crisis. Many serving personnel simply do not earn enough to comfortably meet these fees, even though they have complied fully with all rules and requirements. It is difficult to understand why those who have shown long-term commitment, loyalty and service to the United Kingdom must go through one of the longest and most expensive settlement routes, while others are supported through different schemes that include accommodation, financial assistance and fee exemptions. This creates a strong perception of unfairness among service members, who feel they are being penalised for following the rules.”
That last one really sticks in the craw. We price our service personnel out of being able to afford to live here as veterans while dishing out ILR to others like confetti, who have done nothing to earn it. There is perhaps no better example of a genuine two-tier system.
Before Labour Members go into the voting Lobby and swipe their pass on autopilot, I ask them to think about why they became MPs—specifically Labour MPs—because if the answer was to clamp down on immigration so hard, with the bar so high that we do not even let the children of people who have risked their lives in the service of this nation live here without fleecing them for thousands of pounds, they will get a slow handclap for achieving their political dreams. If, on the other hand, they have the moral courage to do the right thing, they should not go into the No Lobby. What is the worst that is going to happen? How whip-able do we think the parliamentary Labour party actually is right now, just a few hours after the Prime Minister has resigned?
I ask Labour Members to have the moral courage to do the right thing, to vote in favour of new clause 4 and to deliver on the promise they made to service families when they stood for election. In a matter of days, they will find themselves jockeying for position in the leadership contest. People who are Whips today might not be Whips tomorrow. Nobody is going to lose the Whip as the Government collapse because they did not vote against this new clause. There may never be a more perfect set of circumstances in which to rebel: a Government with no authority trying to whip Labour MPs to vote against their own manifesto pledge and against the wishes of the Royal British Legion. I dare say there has never been safer, more fertile ground upon which to rebel.
If Labour Members cannot vote in favour of the new clause, I beg them not to vote against it. When this issue was voted on three weeks ago, there were 102 abstentions. The Prime Minister has laid out the timetable for his departure. This Administration is in its death throes. How much do those on the Labour Benches feel they really owe the outgoing Administration? They should be asking what the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) would do, because I am not really asking the current Government any more. What is the point?
Today, at the start of Armed Forces Week, I ask Labour Members to consider how they will vote tonight. Do they want to vote against service families, against the Royal British Legion campaign and against doing the right thing in order to prop up a Government who have a lifespan we can now measure in hours? This is now about whether the next Government back this change. I ask them to support new clause 4, not to vote against it. Ministers should think very carefully about what they want their legacy to be. They should have the moral courage to do the right thing tonight.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Most speakers tonight have talked about the duty of care that we owe to those who put themselves in harm’s way for the people of the United Kingdom. Those of us who come from Northern Ireland or represent Northern Ireland know that that is not just some vague form of words. Over the period of the troubles we saw at first hand—this is not abstract—the sacrifices that those who serve in the armed forces made. More than 300,000 people served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner, and 722 of them gave their lives in Northern Ireland.
In the 1970s, I was involved in the reserve police force, going in and out of Army barracks and going out with Army patrols, so I know the conditions we expected people to live in: empty schools and old factories, some of which were surrounded by houses and so easily open to sniper fire, mortar bombing, and narrow streets where people were easily ambushed. We owe a duty to those who made those sacrifices to stop terror in our own streets of the United Kingdom, let alone those who go overseas.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The armed forces covenant was a national promise to the veterans of this nation. A veteran from Birmingham, Glasgow or anywhere else in GB will have better access to the covenant provisions, because their local authorities will benefit from them, yet someone living in Upper Bann, South Antrim or Fermanagh will not have that access. Does he agree that that smells very much like kowtowing to Sinn Féin, its demands and the anti-covenant approach it has taken over many years?
Sammy Wilson
I do not know who advised that, or whether it was the Northern Ireland Office, because of course it is prone to trying to avoid any conflict with Sinn Féin when it comes to policies. If it was, I hope that this will be seriously thought about and that the Minister will look at ways of including local authorities in North Ireland in the legislation, so that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the armed forces covenant, which is meant to be a national commitment, applies nationally right across the United Kingdom.
I want to support some of the other new clauses, though I want to dissociate myself from new clauses 1 and 2 tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). They represent more of his obsession with finding ways of trying to batter Israel than really being concerned about the welfare of soldiers. The fact that he is not here to answer challenges to those new clauses says a lot as well, because he knows exactly what the motivation is.
New clause 3 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to collect data on the number of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It is very sad when I walk down the streets of London—towards Victoria station, for example—and see people sitting in shop doorways. I remember speaking to one of them. He was an ex-soldier, and he blamed his situation on himself, but the fact of the matter was that it seemed that the Army had no idea what condition he was in. I met an ex-soldier in my constituency advice centre on Friday who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and who cannot find any support or help. He left the Army in 2004, and the impact had come on some years later. He did not have his medical records and had been referred to one body and then another, but was finding no help. We have a duty to monitor what happens to those who leave the armed forces. They sometimes leave with injuries, either mental or physical, and we must ensure that we look after them when they have suffered as a result of their service.
It is so easy for people to get in a boat, come across the channel and get into the United Kingdom and then be treated to accommodation and support and quickly be given asylum to stay in this country and leave to remain in this country, but there are those who have served in the armed forces and want to bring their families here and who face a financial penalty for doing so. Waiving those fees is one of the reasons why we support new clause 4. We should not be treating the families of those who served our country in a far lesser way than we treat those who break into our country illegally, and are then treated and have money lavished upon them. On the amendment referring to a veterans’ commissioner dealing with mental health, given the number of soldiers who have suffered from mental health problems, it is important that they should have an advocate for the problems they face.
The last proposal I want to support is new clause 19 on national standards, funding and monitoring of the armed forces covenant duty. It is one thing to have a duty and to put it down as a covenant duty and a promise to soldiers, but if we are not monitoring how it works and funding it, it will of course not have the impact that it is meant to have. The Government were right to bring forward this legislation, and many of its provisions are welcome, but there are amendments before the House tonight that I believe would improve it. We owe it to those who have served us, and I hope that the Government will take on board the reasonable amendments that I have spoken about.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)
First, I want to take this opportunity to put on record my huge thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) for his service as Secretary of State for Defence. He has been a stalwart champion of our armed forces, and I am especially grateful for his support for our service personnel and their families, driving forward improvements to pay, housing and childcare. His guiding light is, and has always been, to serve those who serve us. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He is a formidable operator, a passionate advocate for military modernisation and transformation, and not half-bad at pull-ups either. I hope to match his work on the former, although perhaps am unlikely to do so on the latter, and I look forward to working with both of these fine colleagues as we go forward.
I thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to this debate. Given the number of amendments before us, many of which raise issues fully debated in Committee and on which the Government position remains unchanged, I do not intend to repeat those arguments, but I will focus on the new amendments and a number of the principal issues raised while relying on the record of earlier debates for the remainder.
Helen Maguire
I seek a quick clarification on something that has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and was raised in Committee. Will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box, because this has been raised with me by the Surrey Military Support Group, that the term “local authority” refers to borough councils, unitary single foundation authorities and foundation strategic authorities?
Louise Sandher-Jones
To confirm, where the covenant duty is provided by local government, then it will apply. For example, if it provides housing, it applies. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question.
I will begin by speaking to the amendment in the Secretary of State’s name making minor and technical changes to the Military Lands Act 1892 that are consequential to the establishment of the reserve forces and cadets associations by clause 38 of the Bill.
New clause 4 would waive settlement visa fees for members of the armed forces and the dependants of serving or discharged members of the armed forces. I acknowledge the concerns raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and recognise that the new clause has been significantly redrafted to reflect the points raised in previous debates, and I also recognise the important role that stakeholders such as the Royal British Legion have played in highlighting this important issue. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment in full. Work is actively under way across Government and we are determined to bring forward a solution that is clear and works for service personnel and their families.
It is important that we get this right, rather than legislate in a way that is partial or risk creating inconsistencies and, as in Committee, new clause 4 does not clearly achieve the stated aim. It is also important that immigration fee waivers continue to be provided for through the established framework in secondary legislation, rather than be fixed in primary legislation. I know how passionate the hon. and gallant Gentleman is about this issue, and he is right to demand speed and progress. I hope he will recognise that while primary legislation is not needed, our commitment—my commitment—is no less than his and I look forward to when we do deliver this important manifesto commitment.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The Minister accepts that the new clause has been significantly redrafted to try to make it as watertight as possible. I appreciate what she says about primary and secondary legislation; it seems like a little bit of a convenient get-out-of-jail-free card for the Government. Can she confirm whether there is anything wrong with the new clause as it is drafted other than the change to primary legislation, and if there is not, what changes do the Government plan to push through a piece of secondary legislation in the very near future in order to implement the measures as drafted?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his valiant attempt. I can assure him it is our manifesto commitment, and we will deliver it.
I will now turn to new clauses 21 and 22. These amendments seek to introduce additional statutory reporting requirements on the defence investment plan through both regular updates to Parliament and specific assessments of the impact of any delays. As was set out in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s urgent question last week, the Government are already committed to keeping Parliament appropriately informed, and we do not consider it necessary to add to those commitments. Work to finalise the defence investment plan is continuing under our new Defence Secretary, and we are clear that we will publish it ahead of the NATO summit in July. In the meantime, we are getting on with delivery, having signed over 1,400 major contracts since the election, with 94% of spend going to UK-based companies.
Calum Miller
The Minister has just said that the Government intend to keep the House regularly updated on these matters, but she declined the Liberal Democrat amendment that would set out that commitment in the Bill. Will she commit from the Dispatch Box that the Government will report, within six months of the enactment of the Bill, on the delays caused by the delay to the DIP, and the impact that they have had on the economy?
Louise Sandher-Jones
We are committed to publishing the DIP before the Ankara summit in July.
Amendment 11 concerns the Defence Housing Service’s budget and the defence investment plan. I hope that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will understand that I will not comment on any figures in the DIP—it will be published soon enough. Our defence housing strategy will deliver a decade of renewal for defence family housing. Previously, military housing was subject to insufficient, stop-start funding. That did not deliver value for money for the taxpayer, or the improvements that our service families deserve. The Defence Housing Service’s budget will be clearly set out, and it will account for its spending to Parliament via an annual report. As the Select Committee heard during the evidence sessions, there is nothing in the defence investment plan process that stops the Department getting work under way. The Defence Housing Service will be up and running from April 2027, and the work of renewing the estate can continue.
Mr Francois
We were told multiple times—loads of times—over five months that the Government would invest £9.2 billion over 10 years to achieve the objectives of the Defence Housing Service, so I ask the Minister again: will she give a commitment to the House that that figure has not been reduced? If she cannot do that, people will believe that it has been reduced.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will not comment, piece by piece, on what might be in the defence investment plan. We are getting on with the job of making improvements for service families now, and we are preparing for the launch of the new Defence Housing Service.
Amendment 11 states that the Defence Housing Service must operate within a budget set out in the DIP. That risks constraining the Defence Housing Service in a scenario where investment is set out in the plan, but has to rise thereafter. Any additional spending then risks being in breach of this requirement, unless and until a new defence investment plan is published. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that would constrain the service’s ability to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing requirements.
New clause 11 would require any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 of the ECHR, which provides that
“in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation…a State may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”,
provided that such measures are
“not…inconsistent with the State’s other obligations under international law”.
When the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was being considered, concerns were raised that its clause 12 risked damaging the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. It was also seen as unnecessary, because the Government can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, so the provision did not add any additional legal power and was largely symbolic. It was the last Government who agreed to its removal from that Bill, and I have not heard a convincing case for its inclusion in this Bill.
I will address new clauses 3 and 5 together, as they both deal with how we care for our veterans. I thank hon. Members for tabling them. I appreciate their concerns about our armed forces veterans, and I acknowledge the sentiments behind the new clauses. We have published our new 10-year veterans strategy, which sets out a new narrative around the remarkable men and women who have served in our armed forces. It applies UK-wide, is cross-Government and cross-sector in scope, and will provide significant opportunity for both data collection and data sharing, and we do not wish to distract from the progression of this work.
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Recruitment and retention have both improved, and, crucially, morale has improved, as measured through the armed forces continuous attitude survey, so our work so far has shown clear results.
Stuart Anderson
I am very conscious of the words that we are saying to veterans. In the Minister’s response to a written parliamentary question on 28 May, she said that UK veterans faced a six-month wait when applying for war pensions in 2024-25. It is now 18 months at a minimum. I know that because I am going through the process, after a minor amputation of my foot. That period has more than tripled on her watch. Was she aware of that? Is that acceptable? It is a bare minimum of 18 months before there is even a response.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am very sorry to hear of the challenges that the hon. Gentleman faces. I am very well aware of the issues faced, and we have taken a number of measures to counter them. I will ensure that we write to him with very full details of the measures that we have taken to address the issue.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am afraid that I am going to make some progress, because I only have so long.
We are delivering Op Valour, a new national programme designed to make it easier for veterans to access the care and support that they deserve. Part of the programme is about using data to ensure that the right services are delivered at the right time, to the right place.
On the issue of homelessness, we are delivering Op Fortitude. I say to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and to everybody in this House that if they come across an ex-service person on the street, they should make use of Op Fortitude. The telephone number is 0800 952 0774. It is a single referral pathway that connects veterans who are experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness with help and support, and it has already helped more than 1,000 veterans with supported housing and temporary accommodation. On mental health, we have invested more than £25 million this financial year in Op Courage. Again, it is a single pathway in England for supporting veterans’ mental health, and it has already supported more than 35,000 veterans. We have a range of programmes to support those leaving service in finding fulfilling and sustainable careers that make use of their unique skills and experience.
Let me turn to new clause 13. After well-documented, historic shortfalls in recruitment and retention, the figures are now far more positive. Under this Government, inflow is up by around 13%, and outflow is down by 9%. We have cut red tape, addressed system blockages and established a ministerial board to oversee both inflow and retention. I am concerned that if the Government were required to set out an armed forces retention strategy, alongside the annual “Votes A” paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained, it would create an additional layer of bureaucracy, and would largely duplicate information that is already available. We already publish information on the size and make-up of the armed forces, and we will continue to publish that. We will also continue to publish the outcomes of the various continuous attitudes surveys that the MOD runs annually.
New clause 14 would require an independent review of armed forces recruitment and retention. We are improving retention through sustained investment in our people. We have a range of policies designed to help those who are medically discharged, and to ensure that people get the support that they need, and they are kept under constant scrutiny. The results of that can be seen in the decreasing outflow rates in the quarterly personnel statistics.
As I have mentioned, we also publish the attitudes surveys each year, and we will continue to do so. Although these show that service personnel still have some significant issues with service life, we believe that the investments we have made will mean that we start to see an improvement in future surveys. We will also continue to publish a range of other reports. For example, the Service Complaints Ombudsman publishes an annual report, which will be taken forward by the new Armed Forces Commissioner.
Let me turn to amendment 12. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) raised the issue that low trust reduces the likelihood of reports of sexual offences. I take this issue very seriously and have done a lot of work on it, but the feedback from victims and from our victim and witness care unit has been positive; it indicates that they feel supported, listened to and understood. We have seen an increase in reporting of sexual offences, which may indicate greater confidence in reporting them. We continue to strive to improve the service justice system, and to raise confidence in it. That is why the Bill strengthens support and protections for victims of sexual offences.
Amendment 15 would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the House that no transfer of records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service, because defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records in the same electronic system.
Let me turn to amendment 1. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for it, and recognise the concerns raised regarding the position of Northern Ireland councils. However, the amendment reflects a misunderstanding of the role that those councils play in the delivery landscape. The covenant legal duty applies to bodies when they are exercising public functions in certain key policy areas. In England, Scotland and Wales, local authorities play a direct role in delivering services in policy areas such as housing, which is why they are included. In Northern Ireland, responsibility for those policy areas rests with the Executive Departments and their arm’s length bodies; councils do not exercise functions in relation to the policy areas covered by the covenant duty. While councils can support the armed forces community through engagement, they do not have the levers to address the disadvantages that the duty seeks to tackle. Clause 2 reflects the distinct devolved arrangements across the UK, ensuring that the duty sits with those bodies best placed to make a meaningful difference.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am afraid that I do not have time, but I would emphasise that what I have outlined does not remove the ability for councils in Northern Ireland to pledge their support as a covenant signatory. We will work very closely with colleagues in Northern Ireland to uphold covenant principles in practice.
In my former role as Minister for Veterans and People, I recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to discuss the concerns behind amendments 3, 4 and 5. We will continue to work as a Government on the best way to address those concerns in practice. Last month, I met the Minister for School Standards, who has agreed to look into the concerns raised, particularly about improving support for service families when they move.
The better route is not a rigid statutory fix; rather, it is practical improvements through existing systems. The covenant legal duty statutory guidance already gives public bodies a flexible framework for taking account of the particular challenges that service families face. However, let me be clear that considering the statutory guidance and supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies subject to the duty must have regard to it in their decision making and policy development. Special educational needs, adoption and fostering, and NHS continuity are incredibly important issues, but they are not well addressed through rigid legislation—the systems are different, the legal frameworks are different, and the decisions involved often depend on professional judgment. Our focus is on improving continuity in delivery, so that service families get better support without unintended consequences.
Turning to new clauses 1 and 2, the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 give effect to the provisions in the statute of the International Criminal Court. As such, they are the applicable regime for the issues raised by those new clauses, rather than the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The International Criminal Court Act exercises jurisdiction over individuals, rather than states, and any request to the UK from the ICC in respect of a warrant or investigation would be dealt with under the International Criminal Court Act as the appropriate applicable legal framework. I would add that the International Criminal Court Act already enables UK courts to prosecute relevant offences committed by UK nationals outside of the UK, irrespective of whether they are a member of a foreign military organisation.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am afraid that I have little time, so I must make progress.
New clause 17 would exempt certain service personnel and veterans from routine reassessments or reviews of the personal independence payment. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, it is important to note that the PIP is a civilian welfare benefit, administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. Once someone has been awarded the armed forces independence payment, it is paid for life. It is not subject to periodic reviews, and there is no requirement for reassessment; it is specifically designed to provide stability and certainty for those with the most severe, life-changing injuries sustained in service. It is set at the same level as the highest rate of PIP or disability living allowance, whether or not the recipient has any care needs.
Although I recognise the intention behind new clauses 19 and 20, a national standard is not required. I hope that what I have outlined provides the necessary assurances to the House that these new clauses are not necessary, and I ask that they be withdrawn. I commend amendment 2 to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years
“(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 is amended as follows.
(2) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 after “Forces” in paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.
(3) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 in paragraph (b) leave out “(a) and (b)” and insert “(a), (b), and (c)”.”—(Ben Obese-Jecty.)
This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank everybody who has helped bring to the Bill to this stage, in particular the parliamentary staff, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and officials in the Ministry of Defence, especially the Bill team. They have all worked diligently to deliver it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and all Members on both sides of the House for their constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. I place on record my particular thanks to my predecessor, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for all his hard work and dedication in getting the Bill to this stage.
The first duty of any Government is the defence of the United Kingdom. It is a duty carried out every day by the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces, with the support of their families, who together make immense sacrifices to keep our nation safe. Too often, however, those who serve and the families who stand beside them feel undervalued. This Government were elected on a promise to change that and to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. Through the Bill, we are delivering on that promise.
The Bill not only fulfils our constitutional responsibility to renew the legal basis for the armed forces, but delivers meaningful reform across four key pillars: extending the armed forces covenant legal duty, establishing the Defence Housing Service, expanding our pool of reserves, and reforming the service justice system to boost protections and support for serving personnel.
First, the Bill strengthens the armed forces covenant—the promise that those who serve and their families should face no disadvantage because of that service.
Secondly, the Bill addresses long-standing concerns about defence housing. The quality of accommodation is not a peripheral issue; it is central to recruitment, retention and family life.
Thirdly, the Bill recognises the increasingly vital role that reservists play in modern defence. They are essential to our operational capability. Deployed alongside regulars and reserves, our strategic reserve gives us wider access to the specialist skills we increasingly need in the face of a shifting landscape of threats. The measures in the Bill help to support mobilisation, improve flexibility and ensure that reservists are properly integrated, valued and supported. They will therefore strengthen not only our military capability, but the essential connection between our armed forces and wider society.
Finally, the Bill delivers important reforms to the service justice system. Discipline, fairness and confidence in the system are fundamental to operational effectiveness and morale. The changes set out in the Bill aim to modernise and improve victim support and boost protections for those serving.
Taken together, these four pillars reflect our commitment to improve service life in a practical and lasting way. At a time of growing global uncertainty, we are asking more of our armed forces than ever before, so it is right that we match that ask with action to protect, support and value those who serve.
The Bill not only renews the legal foundation of our armed forces; it renews our national commitment to them. I end by paying tribute to the courage, professionalism and dedication shown by the men and women of our armed forces. We are proud to count them as the finest in the world and, above all, this Bill is for them. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I start in the same way that the Minister did, by thanking all the Clerks and parliamentary staff who made the Bill come together. They have kept things on track, and it has been impressive to watch.
Given the strength of the political headwinds we are navigating at present, and with little sign of them abating in the months ahead, I want to take a step back from the heat of the moment and reflect on what has been achieved through the passage of this Bill. I hope that those on the Government Benches will recognise that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have approached this legislation as a critical friend, scrutinising its provisions carefully, seeking improvements where they are needed and holding the Government to account where challenge was warranted.
It is in that same constructive spirit that I make my brief remarks this evening, but before I do, I must pay tribute to the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is no longer in his place. He declared from the outset of the Bill that no one would drone on more about drones, and he was true to his word. As a fellow former regular Royal Marine, I can say with some fondness that his bootneck persistence had a material impact on how this House discusses the changing character of warfare. His resignation speech made clear that we have rather more in common than perhaps either side would care to admit. He may no longer sit at the Ministry of Defence table, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he will return in the not-too-distant future, and I look forward to working with him for the good of our country when he does.
The Bill contains a number of welcome reforms. The extension of the armed forces covenant duty into Whitehall strengthens the principle that supports our service personnel, veterans and their families. That should be felt across the whole of government, building on the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in enshrining the covenant into law. I commend Ministers for carrying on that work.
The reforms to the service justice system give victims greater confidence in the process. There are positive steps on accommodation and welfare, though as many hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned today, we will need to see the defence investment plan before we can properly understand how those pledges will be funded. These are set to be meaningful improvements, if they are in the defence investment plan and funded in the way we discussed in Committee, and they deserve recognition. I hope that Ministers will continue to consider what more can be done for veterans. We ask a great deal of those who have served, and our responsibility to them does not end when they leave uniform.
It is precisely that responsibility which leads me— tangentially, Madam Deputy Speaker—to raise the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Many of those who served on Operation Banner are in my constituency, home of the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines. They remain in limbo as the Government seek to repeal the protections granted by the previous Governments, and the process itself is becoming the punishment. On that, the former Armed Forces Minister and I are in complete agreement, and I know that many other hon. and right hon. Members across this House are in agreement, too. He said plainly that this legislation is “unfit for purpose”, and I hope his colleagues on the Government Benches will reflect carefully on those words and have the courage to challenge and ensure that this legislation is either amended significantly or thrown out.
I wish to reiterate the clear message from the Leader of the Opposition that with the international order deteriorating at pace, we do not have time for cheap politics. The defence of our nation and the security of our countrymen and women are at stake, and we must make the difficult decisions necessary to give our armed forces what they need to keep us safe. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that we would lend our 117 votes to pass welfare reforms, so that the savings could be redirected to the defence budget. That offer stands; anything less would be a catastrophic dereliction of duty. The Prime Minister has rejected that offer—
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Estimates (Backbench Business Committee Recommendation)
Committees
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, I will take the next items of business together.
Ordered,
Education
That Chris Vince be discharged from the Education Committee and Jodie Gosling be added.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
That Tim Roca be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Ben Goldsborough be added.
Housing, Communities and Local Government
That Andrew Lewin and Sean Woodcock be discharged from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Mr Jonathan Brash and Ashley Dalton be added.
Justice
That Linsey Farnsworth be discharged from the Justice Committee and Janet Daby be added.
Science, Innovation and Technology
That Dr Lauren Sullivan and Adam Thompson be discharged from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and Tom Collins and Maya Ellis be added.
Transport
That Baggy Shanker be discharged from the Transport Committee and Daniel Francis be added.
Treasury
That Luke Murphy be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Ms Julie Minns be added.
Women and Equalities
That David Burton-Sampson be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Richard Quigley be added.
Work and Pensions
That Johanna Baxter and Amanda Hack be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Patrick Hurley and Liz Twist be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
First, I would like to declare an interest: I am a former coal miner and a member of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.
In the 1950s, there were over 700,000 men working in the pits in this country—people like my grandads, great grandad, dad and uncles—in fact, I cannot remember any male member of my family not working down the pit in the 1950s and 1960s. When I went underground for the first time in the 1980s, there were still around 170,000 men working in the coal mine. Now we have probably about 112,000 former miners still living. There are around 38,000 members in the BCSSS, and of course many of them will be women—women who worked in the industry, or widows of men who did. I am no spring chicken—I am getting on a bit—but I am one of the youngest members in the scheme, the average age of a member being about 78 years. One of the questions that we must ask ourselves is: how many members of the scheme will be left in 10 years’ time? I reckon there will be half as many as there are today, because members of both schemes—the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the BCSSS—are dying every single day. All we are asking for is one simple thing: fairness in the surplus sharing arrangements.
It is hard to explain what it was like to work down a coalmine—there is one other hon. Member in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who knows what it was like—but it is like nothing else. I worked at four different pits in my time as a coalminer. I started off at Sutton colliery and ended up at Welbeck colliery in north Notts. I did not need an alarm clock to get up to go to work on a day shift—I could hear my dad’s alarm clock going off. He would wake up and he would get me up, and he would take me to Sutton colliery, where we would do a shift together.
Most sons are proud to follow their dads into the workplace, and it was no different for me. I was very proud to follow my dad into the coalmine. I grew up in a coalmining community, where lads followed their dads into the pit—that was the norm. It was the best education I ever had, to be honest—better than any school or college—because it taught me how working-class people think. Those tough, hard men who worked down the pit were products of where they were born. If they had been born in a village like mine 60, 70, 80 or 90 years ago, there was a high chance that they would end up in a coalmine. Those men did incredibly dangerous jobs to put food on the table, pay the rent or a mortgage, and maybe, if they were lucky, get a week in a caravan in Skegness once a year. That was our life.
Mining was more than just a job. The miners did not stop turning coal once they left the pit, had a bath and went home—they would still be talking about it in the miners’ welfare at night-time, or at a football match on a Saturday. It was just a way of life that was bred into the mining communities. There will be ex-miners watching the debate who will know exactly what I am talking about when I say that the experience of working at a pit was different from working in any other industry. There was the smell of the pit head bath, which I can still smell now; the sound of laughter in the bath as hundreds of men stood there naked, washing each other’s backs to scrub away the coaldust, the dirt and the grime; and the feeling of your ears popping as you went through the air doors to reach shaft side, before you went underground. What ex-miners really remember is the danger, the noise and the heat, and the sense of unity they had with their fellow working miners. It is the sort of unity we see now among the ex-miners who are still here, fighting for a fairer deal under both pension schemes.
I started in the pit a year after the miners’ strike of 1984-85. My dad had been a striking miner. He was on strike because he knew that closing the pits would kill communities. He was right, and 40 years later, we are still recovering. It was the fault of politicians and union leaders that communities were divided. They killed an industry that had served us well in this country. Some men, like my dad, went on strike and others worked. Looking back, I have no problem with either group. I knew men in South Yorkshire who wanted to work but were too scared to go to work, and likewise I knew men in Nottinghamshire who wanted to go on strike, but they thought it was pointless—and it was pointless. Communities of decent, hard-working miners were ripped apart because they were being used by people in high places, who had personal scores to settle. Well, we have politicians and people in high places now who have the chance to make amends for this injustice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing the debate. I think it is the third time that he has brought the issue before the House, and I congratulate him on that. The issue is a matter of basic dignity and fair play, because this is about the miners’ own money, paid in from hard, back-breaking labour. Does he agree that the Minister must commit to scrapping the outdated 50:50 split entirely, and ensure that 100% of future surpluses go directly into the pockets of those elderly pensioners and their widows, some of whom live in my constituency of Strangford, so that absolute, total pension justice can finally be delivered?
Lee Anderson
It is heart-warming to know that former miners are living out their final years in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He is quite right; they need to live in dignity, and a fairer surplus sharing agreement would allow them to live a more comfortable life. Let us not forget that once they get the extra money, they will spend it in the local community.
I have to give credit to the Government for the investment reserve fund for both schemes. They made a promise, and they stuck to it—fair play. But we must battle on to get more justice for the miners, because they deserve it for the service that they have given to our great country.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It is a delight to hear a Nottinghamshire voice; as the hon. Gentleman knows, I was an adopted son of Nottinghamshire for a long time. He is making a case for the nobility of labour, and that case is too rarely made in this place. Working men deserve the same respect as anybody who learned at a university, as I and many people here did. That nobility of labour is personified by the hard-working miners whom he describes, many of whom holidayed in Lincolnshire—and retired there, too, as he well knows.
Lee Anderson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his wisdom, and he is quite right. I am sure that many of the ex-miners watching this debate will be very encouraged by his intervention.
I have two questions for the Minister. Will he commit to working with the scheme’s trustees to ensure that 100% of any surplus is shared with any members and their spouses?
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
There is a reason why this request is actually fair and just. My hon. Friend talks so evocatively about the dangers undertaken by coalminers going underground, and in today’s world, that is almost impossible to imagine. That is the key difference. This was one of the most dangerous occupations in the country, but it literally kept the lights on and kept industry moving. For that reason, above all, justice and fairness must surely prevail.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
When I was elected nearly two years ago, the very first person to contact me was a BCSSS member. There are about 750 BCSSS members in my constituency, and the campaign has certainly been part of my heart ever since I was elected. I know that many BCSSS members will be watching tonight and listening to the debate, and I am sure that the stories you tell will ensure that they are—
Lee Anderson
Those are very wise words. It is very encouraging to hear that whoever becomes the next PM will treat this issue seriously.
Let me go back to my original request. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the scheme can share 100% of any future surplus with all members and their spouses from its next valuation? I think that will be in March 2027. Will that be announced in the autumn Budget? That is my first ask.
The trustees have asked if they can be given total control over future surpluses. The scheme has £7.8 billion in assets. That is a lot of money—our money, and we want it back. We are not asking for much.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever we do with the BCSSS surplus, we should do with the mineworkers’ pension scheme as well? We must ensure that mineworkers are looked after, and that the surplus goes back to the scheme’s members, too.
Lee Anderson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Members of both schemes need the justice that they deserve.
I live in a coalmining community; I was born there, and I have lived there all my life. I feel incredibly proud of the contribution that my community has made to this country, but I feel incredibly sad when I look at what has happened since all the pits closed in the ’80s and ’90s. As I said, that is because of union leaders and politicians in this place who destroyed our industry, and they will never be forgiven for doing that. However, politicians in this place now have a chance to make some amends and give the miners the justice that they deserve.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
A number of years ago, the Business and Trade Committee came forward with recommendations, which were totally ignored by the Government of the day. The Labour party has been in office for just under two years and has made tremendous strides, which has had a huge impact on members of both schemes. Does the hon. Member agree that is the case?
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree 100% with the point he has made.
I thank all Members who have turned up tonight—I would have expected a few more, because there are probably 200 coalfield constituencies in this country. Please, Minister, give justice for the miners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)
I start by acknowledging the debt of gratitude that our country owes to our miners and our mining communities. I particularly wish to take this opportunity to note that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the Easington pit disaster, where on 29 May 1951, 83 men died following an underground explosion. I grew up in a mining village just down the road from Easington, and the shadow of that day hung over the community for decades. As a former member of the Easington colliery band, I remember players who were members of the band at that time telling me how they played at the funerals of all 83 men. It will be deeply sorrowful indeed at this year’s Durham miners’ gala to see the Easington colliery band and the colliery banner—no doubt with black drapes solemnly attached—process through the streets of Durham city.
I tell that story to make clear our thankfulness, and my own thankfulness, to those who laboured in our pits, their families and their communities, for they are my family and my community. I want to be clear that every penny in their pension scheme, whether it is the mineworkers’ pension scheme or the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, is theirs by right. The withdrawal of funds by previous Governments is an historic injustice, and one that I am determined to put right with the wholehearted support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this, I am guided by the principle that we transfer as much of the money as possible as quickly as we possibly can to those in receipt of a pension, while also ensuring that sufficient funds are available to pay future pensions. It is in balancing those two aspects that I am currently in discussions with the trustees of both the British Coal staff superannuation scheme and the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I thank the trustees for their constructive and meaningful engagement on behalf of their members.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his understanding of these issues—which is a deep understanding—and his diligence in considering them. I also thank him for meeting me, along with the trustees of both the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. I hope the Minister will be around for a significant period of time to see this through at the Budget. I think it is very important that he remains in his place.
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend very much for his good wishes. Perhaps I can return the favour by thanking the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), who—along with the National Union of Mineworkers and its general secretary, Chris Kitchen—have been diligent representatives of the mineworkers, their families and their communities.
When British Coal was privatised in 1994, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme closed to the accrual of benefits, and remaining employees were given the right to participate in successor schemes. The Government of the day gave the mineworkers a guarantee that the value of the fund would not decrease, ensuring that pensions would continue to be paid while taking half of any surplus on the investment. The other half could be used to improve benefits through bonus payments. That surplus-sharing arrangement was ended in 2015, but future benefits were fixed, ensuring that pensions could be paid, with the aim of returning the reserve to Government in 2033. Since the 2015 changes, the scheme’s investments have performed well, building up a reserve of £2.3 billion.
Today, there remain almost 40,000 members of the scheme, the vast majority of whom are receiving their pension. Those 40,000 cover the full spectrum of those who contributed to Britain’s mining industry, from former pit workers and supervisors to clerical staff and canteen workers. As of 2024, the average age of members of the scheme was 78, although the hon. Member for Ashfield is obviously much younger than that. The group includes 11,000 widows, with an average age of 84.
As I have mentioned, we owe former mining communities a debt of gratitude for their contribution to national prosperity. We must acknowledge the hard work and sacrifice of coalminers who powered our country for decades. Previous Governments failed to ensure that former British Coal employees got the level of pension that they deserved. Earlier in this debate we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington, and he rightly said that in 2021 the then Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee looked at the mineworkers’ pension scheme and recommended that the Government took no further funds from the scheme, transferred the reserve to scheme members and reviewed the surplus sharing arrangements. The Conservative Government of the day declined to accept those recommendations, and I know that the hon. Member for Ashfield would not have agreed with that. While he was unable to persuade his colleagues at the time, he does not need to persuade Labour Ministers in this Government, because we are determined that these historic wrongs will be righted.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this debate and thank him for his service down the mines. I say that as a coalminer’s daughter, and I put on record that I am proud of my dad for the work he did. The Minister mentioned the delays caused by previous Governments’ inaction. I am glad that this Government are acting, but every day former miners and mineworkers are passing away. Can he reassure those affected by this injustice in my constituency of Amber Valley that he is working as fast as possible to resolve this issue?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, and it fits very much with the point I was making about the age profile. I assure her that I am acutely aware of how many miners, miners’ widows and other coal workers are dying every day and every week not in receipt of their pension entitlements. That is why I proceeded as quickly as I could with the initial arrangements for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme last autumn. With the co-operation of the trustees, we are proceeding at pace on both schemes.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for bringing forward this debate. He will know, because I have spoken to him before about this, that my father-in-law’s pit would fall within his constituency. My constituency of North West Leicestershire has about 2,200 coalminers, of whom a big majority are in the BCSSS. I am reassured by the Minister’s comments about making sure we get fairness. Can he say some more about how these decisions will be made, and how soon we can get fair justice for our miners?
Chris McDonald
Yes, I will say more about the work I am doing with the trustees and the timing, as my hon. Friend rightly requests. The Government are implementing the recommendations of the BEIS Committee report from 2021 in respect of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme and the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and we continue to provide a guarantee to the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, ensuring that scheme members’ pensions will always be paid after retirement. We have transferred the £2.3 billion reserve within the scheme for use as a bonus pension. This led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, that meant an extra £100 a week for scheme members, and I know that money will be spent in coalmining communities. That is direct support for pensioners and local communities that powered our country for decades.
I am clear, however, that there is still more to do. The Government are discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme, including the potential for future surpluses to be used to enhance the benefits for the trustees. The hon. Member for Ashfield asked me if I would commit to working with the trustees, and I can tell him simply: I will, and I am. On timing, he asked me whether the decision will be made at the Budget. I of course leave decisions at the Budget to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but she is incredibly supportive of the work that I am doing, and I place on the record her support for me in my work and for mining communities.
Lee Pitcher
The Minister talked earlier about putting the wrongs right, and those decisions that will be made in the future will hopefully do just that, but once that is done, we want to make sure that they are future-proofed for everyone, regardless of what happens in the future. Will the Minister also commit to ensuring that once those wrongs are put right, that will continue, whoever governs in the future?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. You have had more than one intervention, Mr Pitcher.
Chris McDonald
Like my hon. Friend, I sincerely hope that these changes will permanently right the wrongs. It is important that we think carefully about moving as much money as possible out of the scheme, but also ensuring that there are sufficient funds to pay existing pensions.
Let me briefly raise the issue of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The Government are taking a similar approach to both schemes. In 2024 they transferred the mineworkers pension scheme reserve, increasing pensions by 32%, but I want to reassure members of that scheme that I am also considering proposals for future arrangements put forward by their trustees. Those proposals could further enhance members’ benefits, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while also managing the future funding risks.
Ian Lavery
I should declare an interest, as probably the only deferred member of the mineworkers’ pension scheme left in the Commons. There is a perception that the Government treat the BCSSS differently from the MPS. There is a belief that some have received preferential treatment—better treatment than others. When the Minister is negotiating with the trustees from both parties, will he ensure that there is equality of justice, across the board, for members of both schemes?
Chris McDonald
I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that issue, because I know that it concerns members of, particularly, the mineworkers’ pension scheme and people in those communities. I want to reassure members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme that I am endeavouring to ensure that we get as much money out of the scheme as possible. The issue of equality does concern me. However, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that in the case of both schemes my aim has been to move as much money out as possible, as quickly as possible, for all those members.
I do not see this as a divisive issue between two parts of the mining community, because ultimately both parts of the mining community, whichever scheme they were in, were disadvantaged by Governments of the time. I will take forward the proposals from the trustees, which I hope will further enhance members’ benefits. I want to reassure my hon. Friend, and other members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, that my top priority is to reach agreement on how best to enhance these pensions as swiftly as possible, so that we can get that funding into the pockets of scheme members.
I opened my speech with some words about the Easington colliery disaster, and I mentioned the Durham miners gala. There is a miners memorial in Durham cathedral, and the words on that memorial are sung by the cathedral choir at the miners festival service on gala day every year, as they will be this year, in a few weeks’ time. I shall be there, playing in the cathedral with my band, and I thought that this might be a suitable moment for us to mark the Easington pit disaster ourselves, here in the House. So I simply say to Members:
“Remember before God the Durham miners who have given their lives in the pits of this county”.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker—it is my first time doing so, which makes it all the more special. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment.
In the implementation road map, published on 13 November 2025, the Government set out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases. As the first phase, on 1 May 2026, we commenced the new tenancy regime. As a result, section 21 no-fault evictions were finally abolished, all fixed-term tenancies transitioned to periodic tenancies; rent increases were limited to once a year, with new rights to challenge unreasonable rent hikes; rental bidding wars were banned; demands for large amounts of rent in advance were prohibited; discrimination against renters who have children or receive benefits was banned, and the right to request permission for a pet was introduced. In the second phase of our reforms, we will introduce our innovative database of private rented sector properties and establish a landlord ombudsman for the PRS to improve dispute resolution between tenants and landlords and avoid costly court proceedings. These regulations concern the latter measure, but do not themselves approve or designate a specific scheme.
As hon. Members may be aware, the 2025 Act provides for the establishment of one or more landlord redress schemes for the private rented sector. These regulations preserve that flexibility, in case it is needed; however, the Government do not intend to create multiple schemes at launch. Our immediate intention is to establish a single designated scheme. Once further regulations are made and that single designated scheme is operational, residential private landlords will be required to join it, giving prospective, current and former tenants a route to fair, impartial and binding resolution where they have a legitimate complaint against their landlord. That will close an important gap in the current PRS regulatory landscape, where agent redress is already mandatory, but there is no equivalent mandatory route where responsibility lies with the landlord.
The regulations are therefore the next legislative step towards establishing mandatory landlord redress for the private rented sector. However, as I mentioned, they do not approve or designate the scheme. This is an enabling instrument that must be put in place before a scheme can later be approved or designated. In the interest of providing clarity to the Committee on precisely what the instrument does and does not do, let me set out further detail. In essence, the regulations set the detailed framework for how a private landlord redress scheme may be approved or designated.
In practice, the regulations will mean that any future scheme must be shown to have robust arrangements around independent decision making, fair complaints handling, binding redress, proportionate enforcement, fair and transparent fees, co-operation and information sharing with other bodies, public reporting and regular reviews, continuity if a scheme closes and access for users who need to engage by post or telephone. To be clear, an approved scheme would be designated and administered by an independent body and approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of mandatory landlord redress. A designated scheme would be administered by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, who would designate it a mandatory landlord redress scheme.
The regulations also set out how a scheme may be amended, so that it can respond to changes in the sector over time—including, but not confined to, changes in landlord and tenant behaviour, operational learning and the needs of the people who use the scheme. The Government’s view is that the framework should be robust, but not so rigid that it prevents a scheme from remaining effective and fit for purpose over time. The regulations also protect continuity of redress if a scheme closes, or if its approval is withdrawn or its designation revoked. That means that there must be arrangements to support an orderly transition, including the transfer of relevant information and records where necessary, so that tenants and landlords are not left without clarity or continuity if a scheme stops operating.
I once again stress that the regulations do not approve or designate a redress scheme; that decision will come later. Their purpose is to establish the statutory conditions that any future scheme must meet, so that it can proceed only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it meets the required standard. That provides clarity for landlords on what will be expected of them, and for tenants on how complaints can be escalated once the scheme is in place.
The regulations do not require landlords to join a scheme immediately. Next steps will involve preparing and designating a scheme, and subsequently bringing forward separate regulations, specifying which landlords must join and when that requirement will take effect, once the service is ready. It is essential that we establish this framework now because, without it, a scheme cannot be approved or designated and we cannot proceed to the next stage of implementation. However, doing so will also provide clarity, certainty and confidence to the sector.
Subject to parliamentary approval of this instrument, our focus will turn to the scheme itself, ensuring that it is designed to meet the rigorous conditions set out in these regulations and that the Secretary of State can be satisfied that it is ready for designation. The Government’s intention, as I confirmed during the passage of the Bill, is for the Housing Ombudsman Service, which already administers social landlord redress, to operate the private landlord redress scheme too. The Housing Ombudsman will need enough time to develop the service ahead of launch, and we will ensure that we give landlords sufficient notice and clear guidance before any future requirement to join the scheme takes effect, including what will be expected of them in order to comply with the scheme.
To conclude, these regulations put in place the minimum standards and safeguards that the private landlord redress scheme must meet. They are a necessary enabling step towards delivering a fair, impartial and binding redress scheme for private tenants, and a clear route to resolution when things go wrong. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On this hot afternoon, the Committee will be pleased to hear that, having debated a lot of the detail underlying the Minister’s proposals in Committee for the Renters’ Rights Act, the Opposition will not be seeking to trot out lengthy speeches or a long list of questions—although I hear that one or two Back Benchers may have come with 90 minutes of material prepared.
In Committee, we debated at great length the proportionality of the measures that are now fleshed out in more detail in this set of proposals, not least because, while there are some egregious examples of poor landlords, the private rented sector still enjoys the highest resident or tenant satisfaction of any form of housing tenure. It remains the view of the Opposition that some of the measures set out in the 2025 Act go well beyond what is proportionate to the experience of the vast majority of private tenants. This is a sector that is absolutely critical to providing housing, especially for younger people who are looking for more flexible housing options as they develop their working lives.
The Minister has set out a little bit of his thinking. I think it would be helpful if he could touch briefly, in summing up, on how the Government propose to ensure that that level of proportionality will be maintained when this scheme translates from a set of legislative proposals into reality. In particular, could he address how we will ensure that the costs to landlords—and indeed the costs that would thereby be passed on to tenants—remain within reasonable limits? How do the Government propose to ensure that the cost of any financial awards arising from these measures is met? Will that be a cost taken out of, in effect, the collective fees paid by landlords, or by tenants through their rent, or through some other arrangement?
It would be helpful if the Minister could touch on the points made about the reliance on local authorities using powers that they have gained under the Renters’ Rights Act to carry out enforcement where breaches are identified. One point that we raised in Committee was that local authorities already struggle to carry out enforcement on issues such as trading standards and environmental offences, partly because of resourcing and partly because of the burden of proof. We were not satisfied at that stage that the proposal for levying significant fines would result in a significant additional level of resource to carry out that work. We drew attention to the experience in Wales, where a slightly different version of the same system operates and where those concerns remain live issues for local authorities charged with this responsibility.
In summary, while we all agree with the principle of making effective and practical redress available to people who are tenants in the private rented sector, we do not want to see an overly complex and costly bureaucracy that does not make it straightforward for people to seek the redress that they need and deserve.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. On the parent Act to this instrument, the Liberal Democrats campaigned in favour of ending no-fault evictions, and we were pleased to support the Bill to bring that about and bring those to an end. We support the principle of the landlord redress scheme, although we did push for the Government to go further on protecting renters and on the private rental database, including more records of landlords, on rent smoothing and so on. We believe that the redress system should extend to providing redress against excessive rent increases above and beyond the pertaining Bank of England rate of interest. That is in our rent-smoothing proposals. None the less, we support the draft enabling regulations for the redress scheme.
Will the Minister say a little more about the kinds of landlords that the draft regulations will apply to, which he said will come out in due course? Is the metric to do with the scale of the landlord or a type of landlord? It would be helpful to know a little more on that front. Otherwise, we are willing to support the statutory instrument.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank both the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, for those questions. I will seek to answer them each in turn, beginning with giving the Committee a sense of when things will change for landlords and for tenants.
I made it clear that the draft regulations set out the framework for the redress scheme to come; they do not themselves approve or designate a specific scheme. Much of the detail will follow in regulations. The draft regulations do not themselves create an immediate live complaints route for private tenants and they do not yet require private landlords to join a scheme. As I said, further regulations will be needed before membership becomes mandatory, once the service is ready to go live.
The shadow Minister asked about fees. As we debated at length in the Bill Committee, landlords will be required to pay for the scheme. That is in line with established practice across the sector. The draft regulations require a scheme to include provision for fees, but they do not themselves set fee amounts. The intention is that the scheme document will outline the approach to setting and calculating membership, while details of the fees will be published elsewhere. That will allow administration and membership fees to be managed proportionately, without requiring the scheme to be amended whenever fee levels change. The Secretary of State, however—this is the important point in response to the shadow Minister’s question—will retain oversight of fees, including any increases, to ensure that they remain proportionate and represent value for money.
Again, to respond to the point that the draft regulations do not set out the actual scheme, broadly, the PRS landlord ombudsman will consider complaints from tenants about actions, inactions or behaviours by their landlord that have caused harm or inconvenience. Those may include, for example, complaints relating to property standards and repairs, the landlord’s handling of requests or inappropriate behaviour by a landlord. We have deliberately not set out an exhaustive list on the face of this instrument, however, because the ombudsman will need discretion to consider the facts of individual cases and to respond to a change in the rental market. Again, as the designated scheme comes forward, we will see more detail and more examples of how that will work.
To answer the shadow Minister’s question about fees and compensation, hon. Members will have noted that the draft instrument sets a compensation cap of £25,000 to align with the established cap for mandatory property agent redress. That helps, we think, to support consistency across the housing redress landscape, but the Government will of course keep the operation of the scheme, including the cap, under review as part of our wider governance monitoring and evaluation arrangements, with an initial review required within five years of the scheme being approved or designated.
The shadow Minister touched on local authorities. It is important to be clear that the ombudsman is intended to provide a quicker, cheaper and less adversarial route to redress, where that is appropriate; it is not intended to replace either the courts or local authority enforcement. We have debated local authority enforcement at length on many occasions. He knows what we are doing about new burdens funding coming forward. Also, there is the ability for local authorities to levy fines and to use the proceeds of those fines to fund their enforcement work—we have recently switched those powers on, perhaps even today, although the exact date escapes me. Local authorities will continue to enforce regulatory requirements, with the ombudsman focusing on investigating complaints and, where appropriate, awarding redress to put things right.
I touched on the point about landlords, which the Liberal Democrat spokesman asked me about. The draft regulations themselves do not mandate membership. A separate set of regulations will be needed to specify when landlords must be members of the scheme. We will have a chance to debate what kind of landlords are covered at that point, and I expect he will have a series of questions in that regard at that stage. We will, however, ensure—I think this is important—that landlords have clear guidance and sufficient notice before any membership requirement takes effect.
I think I have answered all the questions. To conclude, while the draft instrument creates a legal framework for future private landlord redress schemes, it does not yet require landlords to join a scheme or create a live complaints route. It is, however, a critical step in delivering the private rented sector landlord ombudsman and our wider reforms to empower tenants. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Banking facilities in Cupar
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” notes:
“The privilege of freedom of speech in debate…allows us to conduct our debates without fear of outside interference. But it is a freedom which should be exercised responsibly, in the public interest and taking into account the interests of others outside this House.”
Additionally, paragraph 21.21 of “Erskine May” states:
“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”
The rules of behaviour further note:
“There is no hard and fast list of unparliamentary words. Whether something said is a breach of order depends on the context…Any abusive or insulting language used in debate will be required to be withdrawn immediately.”
I remind members of the public that they are here to observe proceedings, not to participate or comment. Demonstrations of approval or disapproval are not permitted and any interruption of proceedings will result in removal from the Public Gallery.
The debate is very oversubscribed and there will be limited time. If a Member’s name is not on my list to speak, they will not be called. I still expect anyone who is on my list to bob, and any interventions will be minimal, in response and in asking. I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 752646 relating to pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mrs Harris. This is no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who introduces the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but am I alone in feeling distinctly uneasy about this debate? Why is Israel singled out in this way? Why not Gulf countries, Iran, eastern Europe or the USA? The petition is being discussed at a time when the Jewish community are clearly under threat and are suffering numerous hideous attacks. I am not sure I trust the motivation of the petition organisers. I fear the whole thing smacks of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Thank you for your point of order and for notifying me of it in advance, but decisions relating to the publication of e-petitions and the scheduling of e-petition debates properly sit with the Petitions Committee. If you have not already done so, I encourage you to make direct contact with the Chair of that Committee regarding your concerns. I reiterate that, as Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers regularly remind Members in the main Chamber, there is a need for “good temper and moderation” in parliamentary language, as set out in “Erskine May” paragraph 21.21. The same rules and courtesies apply in Westminster Hall, and you can be assured that I will exercise all my authority to make sure they are complied with.
John Lamont
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for his point of order. As he will discover during the course of my contribution, I have a great degree of sympathy with his remarks. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While I will take interventions later in my speech, I would be grateful if I could develop some of my key points before doing so.
The petition was created by Andy Kalil and signed by over 118,000 people. I begin by making it explicit that I do not support the petition; indeed, I believe that it raises profound concerns, not because it seeks scrutiny of politics or lobbying but because of the way in which it frames those concerns and the sinister narratives upon which it draws. The debate raises important questions not simply about foreign influence or political advocacy but about the boundaries between legitimate political criticism and conspiracy theories that have historically fuelled antisemitism.
Let me also say at the outset that I recognise that many of the people who signed the petition, including the 194 in my constituency, may have done so in good faith. Many will have believed that they were supporting transparency in public life or expressing concern about the events in the middle east. I do not question their motives; however, Parliament has a responsibility not only to consider what is being said but to understand the historical and political context in which it is being said. We have a duty to recognise when language and ideas echo prejudices that have caused immense harm throughout history.
The petition calls for a public inquiry into what it describes as
“pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy”.
That wording matters. The petition does not call for a review of lobbying regulations generally. It does not seek greater transparency about foreign influence from all states; indeed, it cynically overlooks the fact that there are campaigns and lobbies operating in the UK in support of almost all countries in the world. It does not ask for a broad examination of how political advocacy works in the United Kingdom. Instead, it singles out one country and, more importantly, invokes a long-standing allegation that people who support that country exercise hidden or improper influence over our democratic institutions.
That false accusation has a very long and very troubling history. For centuries, at the heart of antisemitism has been the claim that Jews exercise secret control over Governments, political systems, financial institutions, the media or public life. Those ideas have appeared in countless forms throughout history. They have been repackaged and modernised for different generations, but the core allegation remains remarkably consistent: that Jews acting collectively and covertly manipulate political events from behind the scenes.
The most notorious example was the fraudulent document known as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which purported to reveal a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Although repeatedly exposed as a forgery, its pernicious influence was immense. It fuelled antisemitic movements across Europe and beyond, and helped to create an environment in which discrimination, persecution and violence flourished.
Today, such ideas are often expressed through different language, but the ill intent of its practitioners and its harmful consequences for Jews and wider society are all too familiar. Rather than speaking explicitly about Jews, some speak about Zionists, the lobby, hidden influence networks or pro-Israel control. The packaging has changed, but it is no less insidious in its implication.
Like many of my colleagues, I have been accosted while walking outside Parliament by so-called peace activists handing out mock banknotes with “Bank of Zionism” written on them—an insinuation of Jewish control of our politics and economy. It is unmistakably racist, but that is exactly the sort of harmful activity and rhetoric that has become commonplace—the sort of message that today’s petition stems from.
That is why concerns have been raised by so many across the political spectrum about the framing of the petition. This is not an attempt to prevent criticism of Israel or shield any Government from scrutiny. The Government of Israel, like every Government in the world, can and should be subject to criticism. Their policies can be challenged. Their decisions can be debated. Their actions can be scrutinised robustly and vigorously. Indeed, that is entirely consistent with democratic debate.
It should be noted that extensive parliamentary time has been spent debating Israel. In the year following Hamas’s horrific terror rampage of 7 October 2023, MPs made an astonishing 4,369 contributions in the Chamber relating to Israel. Consider for a second that that is more than double the number of mentions of the national health service, at 1,895. In the same period, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was mentioned 1,449 times, while the appalling suffering unleashed by the war in Sudan warranted only a paltry 225 mentions. The same disproportionate focus on Israel within this place continues to this day.
Presented with those facts, it is undeniable that anyone who claims the existence of a lobby seeking to silence dissent is nothing less than delusional. A reasonable case can be made that the very opposite is true: Israel has been uniquely singled out. Holding Israel to standards that are not applied to any other country is an unmistakable breach of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, as the former UK special envoy for post-Holocaust issues, Lord Pickles, has warned.
The IHRA definition also as potentially antisemitic identifies allegations concerning Jewish control of Governments, institutions and public life, as well as accusations of dual loyalty directed towards Jewish citizens. The grossly disproportionate focus on Israel, and the hardline language that that has all too often entailed, means, I regret to say, that this mother of all Parliaments has played a dangerous role in the explosion of antisemitism in this country. It is a painful truth, but Lord Austin was right to say so last week in the other place.
As part of my preparation for the debate, I spoke to academics from the Royal United Services Institute who have considered the extent of foreign influence in the United Kingdom. The clearest and most substantiated concerns identified by successive Governments, parliamentary Committees and security services relate to hostile state activities from countries such as Russia and China. That makes it all the more striking that the petition singles out Israel, and frames its concern in language that echoes long-standing conspiracy theories about hidden influence.
There is a clear difference between criticising a Government and advancing allegations that supporters of that Government exercise covert influence over democratic institutions. The concern is about not simply what the petition says but what it implies. When political outcomes are routinely attributed to hidden influence rather than democratic choice, trust in democratic institutions is eroded. Conspiracy theories weaken our democracy, encourage suspicion and promote division. That is true regardless of who the alleged conspirators are, but when those allegations reinforce one of the oldest prejudices in human history, the consequences are particularly serious.
We should also remember that conspiracy theories do not exist in a vacuum. History teaches us that conspiracy theories portraying Jews as powerful, manipulative and disloyal have often preceded discrimination, exclusion and violence. That is not a theoretical concern. At a time when antisemitism is rising across many parts of society, we must be especially careful not to lend legitimacy to narratives that reinforce such ideas.
The context matters. The Jewish community in Britain has experienced a sustained increase in antisemitic incidents in recent years. Many British Jews report feeling less secure than they have for decades, and synagogues, schools and community institutions continue to require significant security measures.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I briefly declare an interest: the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews. I applaud my hon. Friend for the robust way in which he is introducing the debate. Does he agree that, given global events, our Jewish constituents are justified in feeling uneasy, and that we must absolutely ensure that we do not import those conflicts on to the streets of our country?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Against a backdrop of the Jewish community asking for extra protections, it is entirely understandable that a petition built around allegations of hidden pro-Israel influence has generated such deep anxiety. Many British Jews hear in that language echoes of accusations that have been directed at their community for generations. We should listen carefully to those concerns.
That does not mean that public life should be beyond scrutiny—quite the opposite. Transparency is essential, foreign influence should be taken seriously, lobbying should be transparent, political donations should be properly regulated and Parliament should remain vigilant against inappropriate influence from any source, but those principles must be applied consistently. If concerns about lobbying exist, they should be addressed through the established mechanisms that already exist.
The challenge for all Members today is to ensure that the debate does not inadvertently amplify the very narratives that have caused such concern. We must expose those narratives, not to amplify but to challenge conspiracy theories. Parliament is at its strongest when it combines robust democratic debate with moral clarity. As legislators, we have a responsibility to understand that hatred evolves and adopts new language to advance old prejudices. We must now respond appropriately.
If there is one positive outcome of today’s debate, I hope it will be that there is a greater public understanding of how antisemitism can manifest in modern political discourse, particularly through conspiracy theories concerning power, influence and loyalty. We should use this opportunity not to legitimise those narratives but to expose them.
This should not be a partisan issue. Members from every party should be able to agree that legitimate political disagreement must never rely upon, excuse or reinforce antisemitic narratives. We should be collectively clear that allegations of covert Jewish or pro-Israel control of politics are not legitimate political criticism; they are rooted in a tradition of antisemitic conspiracy theory that has caused immense harm throughout history. Parliament should reject those narratives.
The Prime Minister and the Government have rightly committed to a whole-of-society approach to tackling antisemitism. This debate is therefore about more than a petition; it is an early test of their resolve to confront antisemitism wherever it appears. I hope the Minister will use his contribution to make it clear that conspiracy theories concerning Jewish or pro-Israel control of politics have no place in democratic discourse.
I hope that Members from all parties will stand together in defence of democratic debate, free from prejudice and conspiracy. Allegations of hidden pro-Israel or Zionist control of British democracy draw upon a tradition of conspiracy thinking that has poisoned public life for generations. Parliament should reject those ideas, and send a clear message that antisemitic narratives, whether old or newly repackaged, will find no home in this Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. The clock displays are broken, but we are working on fixing them. I will notify Members by coughing just before their three minutes are up.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I refer Members and the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear: scrutinising foreign influence is not, in itself, a problem. Any healthy democracy should look hard at lobbying, donations, pressure groups and influence campaigns wherever they come from. That is not and should not be in question, but it is exactly my concern about how this debate is framed. They should be scrutinised wherever they come from.
If this is about foreign influence in general, let us have that conversation properly; if it is about transparency in lobbying, let us have that conversation, too; but if the concerns keep landing on Israel specifically, more than they do on other countries, as has been mentioned, it is worth pausing and asking why that might be. There is something deeply uncomfortable about the idea that, out of nearly 200 countries, it is the world’s only Jewish state that needs a special parliamentary inquiry into hidden influence. I gently note that this type of framing has a very long history, and it is not always an easy one.
Jewish people have, at different points over the centuries, faced accusations of secretly controlling Governments, finance or politicians from behind the scenes. I have heard versions of those accusations, sometimes about me personally. I am not suggesting that everyone who supports this debate has that intention, but it is worth being honest about the fact that the framing echoes something older, more sinister and more troubling.
Given that more than 100,000 people have signed this petition, I hope that the Minister considers including something educational in his response, just so that people have the full context. I also push back on the idea that Israel somehow escapes scrutiny in this House. As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, it is one of the countries we debate the most regularly.
Whether it is on military action, settlements, Gaza, sanctions, trade, arms exports or the recognition of Palestine, I have criticised Israeli Government policy myself. That is exactly how it should be. We should feel free to criticise any Government’s actions—British, American or otherwise. Criticism is healthy. Where there is genuine evidence of wrongdoing, it should of course be looked into, as it would be for any country. I just ask that we hold to the same standard on Israel as we would for anywhere else, rather than treating it as a special case.
Most of us are in this job because we believe in something—our values, our constituents, our party—or simply honest disagreements with one another. I know that I cannot be bought and I never will be, so I ask that we try to avoid both naivety and overreaction here. Let us support the principle of transparency being consistently applied to every country in the same way, and let us be mindful, so we do not end up unintentionally leaning on older, uncomfortable and wrong narratives.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I hope, Mrs Harris, that anything I say here today will not cause you to cough or choke, but I want to be very clear that the motion we are discussing is not about lobbying and it is not about the influence of Israel on politics. This is yet another angle of the antisemitism that we are experiencing in this country, especially driven by the left.
As other speakers have already pointed out today, it is a very dangerous idea that somehow or other Jews control politics in our country. We have seen examples throughout history, from when Jews were accused of co-ordinating a program of poisoning wells that caused the black death, to the Holocaust, when Hitler accused Jewish influence of causing Germany’s defeat in the first world war, and therefore claimed that it had to be dealt with. We have seen the impact of antisemitism in this country. We only have to look at what happened in Golders Green, in Manchester and in other attempted bombings of synagogues to see the threat that Jews feel in this country, and to know that the poison of antisemitism has an impact on people’s lives.
I agree with other speakers that if there is a secret Jewish lobby seeking to influence Government in the United Kingdom, it is not being very successful, because Israel has been the most scrutinised country and their Government the most scrutinised Government here in Parliament. In the House and in Westminster Hall, almost every week we have questions, urgent questions, written questions, statements, debates and so on about Israel. Some of our own domestic affairs, such as unemployment, inflation and the health service, receive less scrutiny, so to say that somehow or other the Jewish lobby has influenced the direction of our politics just does not withstand examination.
Israel is the one of the few democracies in the middle east. We should debate the positive contribution it makes to our country, in terms of help with security, research and development in health, and in other ways. We benefit from that collaboration and that research, and that is what we should emphasise today.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on his opening speech.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with engaging in deep scrutiny of the things that may or may not influence our politics, but it should not just be focused on Israel. China, Iran, Russia and Belarus are all bad-faith actors that seek to change the way we do things in this country, yet there often seems to be very little attention given to them.
That worries me, for two reasons. For those who do not know, my wife is Jewish. I am not “declaring” that, because it is not something that I need to declare, but it is relevant for the purpose of this conversation. She is a British Jew, a British citizen. She had the audacity in a previous life to stand for election and get elected, and she was a much better MP than I ever will be. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] [Laughter.] To fund that election campaign, my wife took a donation from a British citizen who happened to be Jewish. What happened? Her name appeared on a list propagated by the Green party’s deputy leader, Mothin Ali—it continues to be propagated to this day, by the way—which talks about politicians being
“bought and sold for Israel.”
My wife was not alone on that list. There are also members of the current Cabinet, members of the shadow Cabinet and Members of the House of Lords—individuals whose only contribution has been to try to make a difference in society. They are British citizens being funded by British citizens. The only difference is that the British citizens offering those donations are Jewish.
Unfortunately, that is where debates such as this one lead to in society. When someone expresses a pro-Israel position, one starts to ask, “Why do you think that? Are you Jewish? What is your opinion on Israel?” before a conversation with them about anything else can start. It drives debate to a place where we are sceptical of people who are Jewish, because they might have some tenuous link to a country far away. What does that do? That stops Jewish people wanting to participate in any form of public life. I know that to be true, because other Jewish people tell me that, and I have seen it in conversations around my dinner table.
I was in a synagogue in Manchester on the day that the Heaton Park synagogue was attacked. I saw British citizens who were scared—scared because of the pervasive narrative that has been allowed in this country that because Israel is a Jewish state, Jewish people are rightful targets for attack and scrutiny disproportionate to the impact that they have on society. Although I welcome any debates that allow us genuinely to scrutinise the impact that foreign Governments have on this country, the fact that we are yet again spending all our time talking about just one—the only Jewish state—says more about the petitioner than about the people here to debate it.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
May I start with a preamble? It is important to say that this is not about the Jewish community; it is about the state of Israel. We must be careful in our words and ensure that we do not conflate the two.
It is always said that the strength of a nation’s alliance is measured by how much it can endure. For two years, this Government have supported the state of Israel through the unimaginable: genocide in Gaza, illegal settlement building in the occupied west bank, and even war in Iran. It is also said that the power of a lobby group is measured by how far a Government can be pushed beyond the limits of policy making. I think it is fair to say that for millions up and down this country, the Government’s approach to Israel has defied the most basic logic, justice and humanity. Continued arms sales amid mass extermination, the weaponisation of terrorism law to silence dissent, the welcoming of wanted war criminals on the steps of 10 Downing Street—with every decision this Government have made, it is not only reasonable to ask questions about political influence in Britain, but necessary.
This is not about Jewish communities or Jewish identity, and it is not about denying anyone the right to advocate for Israel, Palestine or any other state. Lobbying is part of our democracy, but when such practices are shrouded in secrecy while shifting huge sums of money, we must ask, “Are this Government truly committed to cleansing our politics of foreign influence, or are they just concerned with blocking the foreign donations they do not get?”
This is about more than simply election funds. It is about access and influence. Anyone who claims that these donors receive nothing in return is being naïve. The transactional nature of donations applies no less to those in the highest echelons of our democracy. Just this year, Labour Friends of Israel, which funded many Cabinet members, was reported to the Electoral Commission over concerns about opaque funding arrangements. Ministers in this Government publicly identify themselves as members of that organisation, yet it is not registered as a Members’ association, and therefore avoids the further disclosure requirements that accompany that status. That cannot be right.
More troubling still is the question of direct support from the Israeli state. Electoral records show that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has provided financial support to UK parliamentarians. That must be transparent.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mrs Harris, but I take no pleasure whatsoever in speaking in the debate on this petition. Its manipulative title fits the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, as Lord Pickles has clearly stated.
I must register my interests. I am, of course, a Jewish MP—perhaps the only Jewish MP in the Chamber this afternoon. I am a member of Labour Friends of Israel and of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, and a representative on the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Shame on those who have orchestrated this regurgitation of antisemitic tropes. It is ancient just as it is predictable. In 1190, 57 Jews were slaughtered in Bury St Edmunds, then Norwich, Lincoln and York. Our country has a terrible record of anti-Jewish hatred, and all the Jews of England were expelled in 1290. Few people know that. Antisemitism is not new in this country.
Just think a little about the title of the petition:
“pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy”.
It is familiar; we have seen it before. In the ’20s and ’30s, German antisemites and Nazis argued that the Weimar Republic had become verjudet—“Jewified”. In 1941, Nazi propaganda depicted Jews as secretly manipulating London, Washington and Moscow. The idea that Jews exercise hidden influence over politics, democracy and society is not new; it is an ancient conspiracy theory repeatedly used to isolate Jews, undermine social cohesion and stoke hatred.
Let me tell the Chamber what really threatens democracy: the funding of political parties by billionaire expats; Elon Musk’s claims that civil war in Britain is inevitable; the vice-president of the United States blaming the terrible murder of Henry Nowak on mass migration; Russian interference in democracies across Europe; and alleged Iranian links to a number of recent attacks on Jewish institutions, synagogues and communities—yet here we are, forced to debate Israel’s role in our politics and democracy. Antisemitism is an ancient hatred repeatedly repackaged to distract people from their real grievances. Once again, it is rearing its head in Britain, reaching appalling levels on our streets, in our workplaces and online.
This debate is making those divisions worse, and the terrible conflict in the middle east is no justification for it. Citizens of conscience march with a genuine and heartfelt sense of outrage at the war, and I respect that, but there are those who seek to intimidate. Hon. Members should try being a law-abiding Jew in a British town centre on a Saturday afternoon—for too many Jewish citizens, public spaces are not safe.
Let us come to our senses. We must reject antisemitism in all its forms, reject conspiracy theory dressed up as political analysis, and defend a politics based on evidence, decency and truth.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This motion is antisemitic in its very motivation and at its core. As such, we should utterly reject it. Hon. Members have spoken brilliantly and passionately about that, but we can turn that terrible negative into a positive.
The motion asks us to talk about the influence of Israel on democracy. Democracy thrives when citizens are healthy, so maybe we should celebrate the incredible brilliance and influence of Israeli scientists, entrepreneurs and those specialising in medical research and artificial intelligence applications. Their work and innovations, whether they live in the state of Israel or somewhere else such as London, have an incredibly positive influence on the success and health of us all.
We should say that we want more of that success and brilliance—more of that innovation and more partnerships with brilliant Israeli scientists who can share their knowledge and understanding. I want more entrepreneurs from Israel listing their companies on joint listings, preferably on the UK stock exchange rather than somewhere else. I want more AI experts from Israel sharing that best practice and knowledge for the benefit of all of us.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that we need more of the AI weapons that Israel has used to shoot at children’s genitalia in Gaza?
Richard Tice
The use of AI across society, and its applications in all industries, are changing rapidly, but I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the best way to guarantee peace is to prepare for war so that our opponents respect us.
To conclude, Israel has so much to offer as the only democracy in the middle east and we should work closely with it. As other hon. Members have said, there is a massive difference between criticising politicians who may be elected in a democracy—whether in Israel or elsewhere—which is completely legitimate, and criticising a state. I want to celebrate the influence of incredible entrepreneurs, scientists, technicians and cyber-security specialists in Israel, from the Jewish community, and in our great nation—and I want to have more of that, not less.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. This debate touches on a principle fundamental to our democracy: British democracy is by the British people, for the British people and accountable to the British people. No foreign Government, no matter who they are, should abuse our system for privileges at the cost of British interests.
Historically, many foreign actors have tried to meddle in our politics in their own interests. Over the past decade, the Israeli Government have been guilty of exactly that: meddling in our politics in the interests of what is ultimately a foreign nation. This is not a debate about international relations, foreign policy or the Palestine-Israel conflict, nor is it a debate about the right of British citizens to advocate for their views.
To make matters more apparent, in 2017, an Israeli official employed at the London embassy was recorded by an undercover journalist expressing his desire to “take down” pro-Palestine British politicians. The Israeli official, Shai Masot, expressed his goal to “take down” ex-Minister Alan Duncan because of his criticism of Israel’s illegal settlement expansion.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have not gone far enough to challenge the expansion of illegal settlements? Does he agree that too many red lines have been crossed, and that the Government have sat on their hands and done very little to change that?
Tahir Ali
Although I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments, this debate is about lobby groups, and especially the Israeli Government.
Pro-Israeli lobby groups have paid hundreds of thousands in political donations in the UK. The amount of evidence, which I will refrain from sharing due to limited time, is countless. If we believe in democracy, we must demand scrutiny; if we value our sovereignty, we must demand accountability; and if we believe in British independence, we must ensure that no foreign state, whether Israel, China, Russia, Iran, India or any other country, is permitted undue influence over our institutions. I urge the Government to strengthen the lobbying regulations, improve the disclosure requirements and review the relationships between foreign Governments and parliamentary bodies. British policy must be determined by British interests, British law and British democratic accountability.
In January 2025, Lord Austin was reappointed as the UK trade envoy to Israel. Last October, it was revealed that Government officials had urged Ministers to allow him to pursue a visit in May 2025, yet that came after the Foreign Secretary’s announcement in the same month that the UK would suspend free trade agreement talks with Israel in response to its blockade of Gaza and its attacks on hospitals. Despite the Government saying that the trade envoy would not meet any representatives of—
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I join my friend, the hon. Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), in condemning antisemitism in all forms, anywhere. My remarks referring to Israel refer to the Israeli Government’s actions and organisations’ interactions with parliamentarians in this place.
In June 2024, Declassified UK revealed that 13 of the then 25 members of the Labour Cabinet received hundreds of thousands in donations from pro-Israel donors, and that some 180 of Britain’s 650 MPs had accepted such funding during their political careers. That is one in four elected Members.
Iqbal Mohamed
I will continue. The 255 of my constituents who signed this petition, and the 118,000 people who signed from across the country, would like to hold our Government and our system to account for these donations. What are they for?
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman made a big claim about “pro-Israel donors”; could he clarify what he actually meant by that? Does he have a particular definition about what that actually means—who those donors were and the purpose for which he believes that money was given?
Iqbal Mohamed
My definition would be donors who turn a blind eye to blatant violations of Israeli law, British law or international law.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Iqbal Mohamed
I will continue because of time.
Britain claims to defend its democracy from foreign interference. We rightly sanction Russia for undermining democratic institutions, and warn about the threats from China and Iran to our political system, yet when substantial evidence of foreign influence concerns Israel, our principles of transparency, scrutiny and accountability appear to vanish.
Given the lack of time, I will give just one example. Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms manufacturer, operates 16 sites across the UK and supplies around 85% of Israel’s drones and military ground equipment—systems that have been widely used during Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Declassified UK reported that in December 2024, representatives of Elbit Systems met Home Office officials in a private meeting, with details withheld under FOI exemptions. Elbit Systems benefits from substantial British defence contracts. The defence industry cannot become a shield for privileged and secret political access without accountability.
No amount of democracy should exempt a state from scrutiny, no lobbying should be beyond accountability, and no Government should let political convenience override the principles of democratic integrity.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I agree wholeheartedly that conflating a people’s religion with a Government’s actions is totally unacceptable. Criticising the state of Israel and its actions, especially with its present Government, is not antisemitic, otherwise the bombing of Iraq or Afghanistan would be Islamophobic.
I want to concentrate my speech particularly on Elbit, which supplies around 85% of Israeli military drones and land-based military equipment. As the International Court of Justice considers allegations of genocide, and while the ICC has issued arrest warrants against the Israeli Prime Minister and former Minister of Defence, Elbit continues to profit from the genocide in Gaza. United Nations investigators have documented the repeated use of armed quadcopter drones against Palestinian civilians. One of those systems, the Lanius drone, is manufactured by Elbit.
Elbit has a significant presence in my city of Leicester through its manufacturing and technology operations. The company generates billions of dollars in annual revenue while supplying the military equipment used in a conflict that is subject to allegations of genocide before the International Court of Justice. That is why parliamentary scrutiny of its access to Ministers is essential.
It is deeply alarming that freedom of information disclosures reveal repeated meetings between Elbit executives and the Home Office. Briefing papers show that Ministers were preparing to reassure the company in response to Palestine Action protests. They also reveal that Home Office officials had been in contact with the police regarding those protests, while another meeting was scheduled to include a representative from the Attorney General’s Office.
It is disturbing that, while Ministers meet privately with executives from a company whose weapons are alleged to have been used in acts now under scrutiny before the international courts, those who want to challenge those activities through protest increasingly face being associated with terrorism. While the suppliers of war and genocide are granted meetings with Ministers, those opposing the machinery of war risk being treated as a threat. Most troubling of all, the section of the ministerial briefing entitled “Past lobbying” was redacted. If there is nothing to conceal, why are the details of previous lobbying being withheld from Parliament and the public?
My question for the Minister is straightforward: why was an arms manufacturer being reassured by Government Departments while international legal proceedings over genocide in Gaza continued? What safeguards exist to ensure that commercial relationships with any foreign defence contractors do not influence policing, prosecutorial independence or British foreign policy? Transparency is not optional; if Ministers are confident that those relationships are appropriate, they should have no objection to placing them fully in the public domain.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I will begin, as many have, by associating myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). In the interests of time, I will skip over the many things on which I agreed with him and talk about some of our role as leaders.
What I am about to say is not meant as a partisan attack. I am just as angry about incidents of antisemitism in my own party as I am when I see it in others. On that note, and on this day in particular, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who rooted out the poisonous antisemitism that had taken hold of our party. However, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) talked about choosing our words carefully before going straight into the conflation of the actions of the Israeli Government with the Jewish people. There was an attack on Labour Friends of Israel, which receives no money whatsoever from the Israeli Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) referred to a list. I have also been on that infamous list. I am proud that one of those donors is a big supporter of refugee rights around the world. He just happens to be Jewish. How many conversations have I had with him about Israel and the actions of the Israeli Government? Zero. The idea that any of us is somehow having their strings pulled by anyone is an absolute disgrace.
David Taylor
I will not, unless the hon. Member wants to apologise for some of his remarks.
Where do we even begin with some of the things that we have heard in the Chamber in recent years? In relation to the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, one Member referred to a stunt by an MP representing the Zionist lobby. Another MP referred to Israel’s “thirst” for the “blood of innocent civilians” in a clear antisemitic trope. Another referred to the “blood-soaked tentacles” of the Israel Defence Forces—another clear antisemitic trope.
That is before we get to political parties outside the Chamber, which are not yet represented in this House in any decent numbers. I am referring to the Green party, and specifically to its deputy leader, who talked about supporting the right of indigenous people to fight back on 7 October, the day the attacks happened. He has never apologised properly for those remarks, if at all, and it has since been revealed that he actively supports members of his party who have rightly been suspended for antisemitism.
We leaders have a responsibility to be careful with our words and not stir up hatred in the community, among which is a very fragile Jewish community reeling from ever-more antisemitic attacks. In the case of the Golders Green attacks, there was serious injury and death, too.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for setting the scene incredibly well and for giving us a chance to participate.
I rise to speak on a matter that touches the very core of our democratic values, foreign policy and historical obligations as a nation. The Minister and hon. Members know that I have never been one to hide my views on this issue. I stand here proud to say that I am a friend of Israel, whether in this Chamber, walking the streets of Newtownards in my constituency or speaking to believers across our great United Kingdom. I declare my interest as a friend of Israel. Of course, saying that does not mean that I blindly support or defend every action of that nation—no nation is infallible. I am not infallible, Mrs Harris, and neither are you, with great respect—none of us in this room is. I do not agree with all the things that Israel has done.
We hear a lot of noise in the media. We hear sinister undertones and talk about undue influence and lobbying in UK politics by the pro-Israel community, but I can highlight exactly what that influence is: shared democratic values. Israel is a lone beacon of democracy, freedom of speech and the rule of law in a deeply unstable region of the world. When British citizens and British parliamentarians stand up to defend Israel, they are defending the very principle upon which this mother of Parliaments was built. The idea of democracy is not as clear anywhere else in the middle east as it is in Israel, which puts that principle to use.
The Democratic Unionist party, of which I am very proud to be a Member, has always stood four-square with the Jewish community in Northern Ireland. We know only too well what it is like to see a democratic state subjected to the scourge of terrorism. We know what it is like to see a legitimate Government forced to defend their citizens from those who wish to wipe them off the map—that is Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. We know all too well the experience of living through terrorist war and seeing acts of thuggery whitewashed, while being held to impossible standards. As I said, Israel is not perfect, but at least it is held to account by all of us and by itself.
When my constituents ask me why the UK must maintain robust, iron-clad diplomatic and security ties with Israel, I tell them that it is because our safety is intertwined. Our intelligence sharing saves lives right here on the streets of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Israel and across the world. Let us be completely honest: the real threat to our democracy comes not from those advocating for an ally, but from the terrifying antisemitism on our university campuses and streets that masks itself as political debate. It comes from foreign adversaries who want to fracture our alliances and see western democracies fall.
I urge the Minister to send a clear message from our Government, reaffirming that the relationship of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with Israel is not a matter of political expediency or bowing to pressure but a fundamental commitment to a fellow democracy and a friend to this nation. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has shown that we stand for what is right, and Israel’s ability to exist, which is ultimately at stake, is right and proper. I will continue to stand for that while not being unduly influenced by anything other than belief.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. It is critical that we do not let fair concerns about weaknesses and loopholes in our political system spill over or give any credence to ancient, dangerous and poisonous antisemitic conspiracy theories. Of course, it is possible to fairly and rightly criticise the actions of the Government of Israel, but let us be very clear: the dangerous antisemitic trope that British Jewish people are somehow puppets for a foreign state, or that there is a secret conspiracy to exercise undue control over the Government, must be actively called out. I robustly and unequivocally reject any such antisemitic conspiracy theories. No one should use concerns about foreign interference to stir hate or to smear and stigmatise the Jewish community.
Our democracy is under pressure from a structural failure that has been building for years. We have allowed money, opacity and foreign influence to creep into British politics, and successive Governments have been far too slow to act. The most recent Conservative Government bear a particular responsibility. They were relaxed about Russian money flooding into the UK, they weakened the independence of the Electoral Commission and they presided over a culture of cronyism and sleaze that corroded public trust. That is not ancient history; it is the recent record, and it matters when we ask why too many people feel that British politics is no longer conducted in their interests. More than 118,000 people signed this petition, including 154 people in my Hazel Grove constituency.
The Liberal Democrats have long believed that protecting our democracy must be treated as a national security priority. The first and best way to safeguard that democracy is by ensuring transparency. We have long campaigned for reform of political finance and for protecting our democracy from any undue or opaque foreign influence. We have called for real change, including a cap on political donations—no matter where they are from—and a publicly searchable database of all online political advertising. Tweaking around the edges will not do. We also need a strengthened Electoral Commission with genuine enforcement powers, including higher fines for breaches of political finance law.
While we welcome much of what is in the Representation of the People Bill and feel that it is a step in the right direction, it is but a step forwards—we need a leap. The Bill is an opportunity to make genuine, transformational change to the strength and transparency of our democracy. It is an opportunity to close the loopholes that allow foreign billionaires and oligarchs to buy political access in this country. We Liberal Democrats will push hard for those changes as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
Our democracy should not be for sale to hostile states, foreign oligarchs or any outside interest that places its own agenda above the interests of the people who we in this place are elected to serve. Our solution must be not to play geopolitical whack-a-mole but to fortify structurally our democracy. Seven Prime Ministers in a decade might suggest that it is more than just the wrong people getting the keys to No. 10. Our problems are just a little more structural than that.
British people deserve fairness, transparency and a democracy that they can believe in. Politics affects us all, and the Government should do all they can to protect democracy for all our communities. That includes pushing back robustly against antisemitism wherever it is, including in the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. We are here to debate e-petition 752646, which calls for a public inquiry into what the petitioners term “pro-Israel influence” on UK politics, party policies and public debate. I thank the petitioners for raising concerns about foreign influence, transparency and public confidence in democratic institutions, but I share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) about the apparent motivations of some the petition’s supporters.
Although Parliament must always take seriously any issue that touches on the integrity of UK democracy, the evidence that has been put forward does not support the allegations. There is clearly deep public concern about the conflict in Gaza and the west bank, and that strength of feeling runs across communities and all parts of the country. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) made clear, there is nothing wrong with criticising the political decisions of any Government, including that of Israel—I have certainly done so myself in relation to illegal settlements—but it is concerning when Israel is singled out for scrutiny in a way that no other country is.
When donors who happen to be well—
Iqbal Mohamed
I apologise for not giving way earlier. On the point about Israel being singled out, the Rycroft review focused specifically on Russia and China, and did not mention Israel once. It was correctly carried out and nobody had any objections. What is the difference?
Mike Wood
The difference is that every day of every week of every year there are concerted attacks from Russia and China on our democratic system, on communities around the country and across online media, to try to set one part of our community against another, and they do not care who wins.
When the hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about donors—mostly about donors to the Labour party, but I know there are donors to other parties—he described them as pro-Israel because they happened to be Jewish and had not questioned the actions of the Israeli Government. It is hard to find a clearer breach of the international definition of antisemitism than to hold Jewish people in the UK accountable for the actions of the Israeli Government, which is what the he appeared to do.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Anti-Israel hatred creates a scourge of antisemitism against our Jewish community. They suffer for doing nothing other than being British Jews who happen to live in this country, and are caught in the middle of the conflict for no other reason than their ethnic and religious background. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply unfair and racist?
Mike Wood
I could not agree more strongly. Let me be entirely unambiguous from the outset: His Majesty’s Opposition firmly reject the premise of the petition and any suggestion that Israel—or any British organisations expressing solidarity with it—represent a malign or covert influence on British politics and democracy.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking exceptionally well, for his very strong words. Does he agree that the Government were right to take action against Palestine Action? The Government went to the Court of Appeal and won that case. Palestine Action has stepped over the line of what is acceptable when it comes to protesting, so it should be condemned for being an illegal organisation.
Mike Wood
The hon. Gentleman gets to the heart of the issue, as he so often does. Protest stops being peaceful protest when it involves using weapons to harm and intimidate those who hold a different view. To suggest that open and transparent advocacy by British citizens and established communal organisations constitutes an improper or malign conspiracy is not only factually incorrect but treads into deeply troubling territory. As I have said, the petition is not supported by credible evidence. Instead, it invites vague suspicion of covert—
Mike Wood
I have given way a number of times; I need to make a little progress.
The petition invites vague suspicion of covert, improper activity by unnamed organisations and we must call it out for what it is. The use of terms such as “the Israel lobby” to describe British Jewish communal bodies combines unfounded claims of disproportionate backroom influence with the ancient insidious trope that Jewish citizens are inherently disloyal or untrustworthy.
Ayoub Khan
The hon. Member is clearly very emotional in delivering his points. Would he agree that, whichever nation is concerned, our responsibility to the millions of British citizens is to be transparent? Would he support transparency when it comes to donations of any kind?
Mike Wood
Of course. One of the reasons why those donations have been highlighted and publicised as thoroughly as they have is that they are recorded and published. I myself have not taken any donations to which that applies, but there is nothing inherently wrong with them.
The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly warned that we are witnessing a deeply concerning normalisation of rhetoric towards British Jews that would once have been unthinkable. Far too often, individuals use their political views on Israel as a convenient cover to display blatant antisemitism. We cannot allow a moral and political vacuum to be filled by a hatred of Jews. We must be vigilant that parliamentary procedures, including the e-petition system, are not inadvertently weaponised to legitimise those harmful tropes.
Our political system is built on open, transparent advocacy. Members of this House regularly engage with a wide variety of groups to understand complex international issues, and we recognise and value the long-standing, transparent activities of groups such as Conservative Friends of Israel and Labour Friends of Israel, which work openly to foster strong bilateral ties, trade and security co-operation between the United Kingdom and a democratic ally.
At the same time, our parliamentary democracy benefits from a diverse range of perspectives. Organisations such as the Conservative Middle East Council and other advocacy groups play an invaluable role in ensuring that Members of Parliament receive a comprehensive understanding of the region. They work diligently to ensure that parliamentarians receive detailed information and insights from a range of viewpoints, including pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab perspectives. That is how healthy, transparent democracy should operate: through open debate, visible briefings and competing arguments presented clearly in the light of day. There is no secrecy here, no hidden hand and certainly no malign infiltration.
While this petition asks us to chase shadows and investigate legitimate domestic advocacy, it distracts from the very real, pressing and deeply dangerous threats of foreign interference that our security services warn us about every single day. The greatest threat to British politics and democracy comes not from democratic allies or British community groups, but from hostile foreign state actors, most notably China and Russia. That is why they were at the heart of the Rycroft review.
Our intelligence agencies have been explicit. In October 2025, MI5 issued urgent guidance to Parliament warning that Russian hackers had actively stolen data from Members of Parliament, leaked sensitive UK-US trade documents ahead of the 2019 general election, and even impersonated foreign embassies to contact Ministers directly. We have seen the tangible consequences of that subversion in our legal system, such as the sentencing in November 2025 of Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK Wales, to more than 10 years in prison after he was found guilty of accepting bribes from a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician to peddle Kremlin narratives.
Equally alarming is the sustained, calculated campaign of espionage and democratic infiltration orchestrated by Beijing. MI5 security alerts have warned of covert attempts to recruit individuals with access to sensitive information within the Palace of Westminster. We have seen a string of high-profile cases, including espionage involving the UK Border Force and Hong Kong trade officials, and deeply concerning allegations involving political advisers and researchers. China is actively seeking to pass information on parliamentarians and undermine our sovereign affairs. It continues to spy on our colleagues and to target Hong Kong activists, many of whom remain British citizens and who have sought refuge on our shores, and actively works to weaken our democratic resilience.
The Opposition believe that we must go much further to protect the integrity of British politics and our wider democratic framework, which is why the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has called for China to be formally placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. That would require strict monitoring of any political activity taking place in the UK at the instruction of the Chinese state. The Government must publicly accept that China is already acting in a matter opposed and hostile to the core interests of the United Kingdom.
David Taylor
The hon. Member rightly mentioned Russia and China. Does he agree that Iran also poses a massive threat, is interfering in our democracy and is behind some antisemitic attacks and the spreading of some antisemitic conspiracy theories?
Mike Wood
We have seen that Iran, seeing itself as not only a regional but an increasingly global power, is becoming increasingly willing to make physical attacks and also take sub-threshold action against our democracy.
In conclusion, we do not support a public inquiry into the imaginary threat of pro-Israel lobbying. To grant one would be to validate a petition that lacks credible evidence and fuels antisemitic conspiracies. Instead, the Cabinet Office and Government must focus their finite resources on the genuine systemic dangers that face our democracy. Let us strengthen our defences against the hostile state apparatus in Beijing and Moscow, protect our parliamentarians from actual espionage, and maintain a political culture where open, transparent discussion from all sides of the middle east debate can thrive without fear of malicious vilification.
Iqbal Mohamed
On a point of order, Mrs Harris. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) referred to my remarks in answering a question. Maybe I was not very clear, but he mischaracterised my remarks as referring to all Jews or Jewish donors. My remarks clearly referred to pro-Israeli donors, whoever they are. To clarify, it is those who support the illegal actions of Israel or—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I think that your clarification has been made. Thank you very much.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr James Frith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I bring the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion. He does so on behalf of the signatories of the petition, which asks for
“a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy”.
I also thank hon. Members from across the House who have participated today. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) in paying tribute to the Prime Minister, who has shown his finest form in his six years leading our party in rooting out antisemitism. I pay tribute to how he has handled himself and took the fight to issues in the party.
On the specific request of the petition, the Government do not support a public inquiry solely on pro-Israeli influence—in fact, I would like to turn to and address what I believe to be the underlying premise of the petition and this debate. Before I do, I should say that we could have had another kind of debate today: a debate about legitimate concerns about foreign influence and interference in our politics and democracy, more wide-ranging than from any one country, and what the Government are doing about that. Instead, the premise of this debate is narrowly and deliberately targeted on Israel. To speak to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) about the need for education in this debate, the premise is that Israel—the world’s only Jewish state—is an influence on British politics that stands alone and must be held to a standard different from that for any other democratic nation.
It is unfortunate that the petition behind this debate plays into the same old antisemitic tropes of hidden forces and malign control. I remind hon. Members that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism lists the “double standards” applied to Israel as one of the hallmarks of contemporary antisemitism in public life. The definition also refers to the mendacious allegations of Jews having power as a collective, controlling the Government and other institutions. This e-petition invokes those very same stereotypes when it talks of pro-Israel organisations shaping Government decisions. With that in mind, I want to be clear that we reject the premise from which this debate originates. The framing used risks reinforcing the narratives historically associated with antisemitism.
The UK and Israel have a deep and enduring relationship. Seventy-six years ago, we were rightly proud to recognise the state of Israel. Our commitment to the security of it and its people remains unwavering. My political party has long been an advocate for the Jewish state. More than 100 years ago, Labour’s 1917 war aims declaration committed us to support for a Jewish homeland. In the 1960s and 1970s, when Israel found itself yet again under attack from its neighbours, it found one of its most passionate advocates in the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson.
Criticism of Governments is democratic and proper. Within Israel itself, citizens regularly protest against and challenge the actions of their elected Government. As a Government, we have challenged and will continue to challenge the Israeli Government when we disagree, such as on recognising the state of Palestine and the expansion of illegal settlements, and to impose sanctions on their leaders.
There are those in the UK who wish to criticise the influence of a particular Israeli Administration or their policies, but we should acknowledge that there are individuals and organisations that support the Government of Israel: they engage in our democratic process and advocate for causes they believe in, just as countless other groups do. They are normal features of a democratic society, not evidence of malign control or undue influence.
Furthermore, donors who support Israel are singled out like no others, expected to defend their position on Israel: “Jewish donors’ support for Israel equals malign influence” is the implicit and too often explicit rhetoric we see and hear. The premise of this debate gravitates towards a familiar inconsistency that even influence rooted simply in supporting Israel, or its legitimacy and right to exist, is somehow an improper or hidden force in British politics.
Ayoub Khan
Earlier, the Minister said that the premise of the petitioners and this petition falls foul of the IHRA guidance. He knows that this petition and its wording will have gone through the Petitions Committee. Does he agree that it does not fall foul, otherwise we would not be debating it?
Mr Frith
I agree that there is cause for concern that the premise of the petition is antisemitic. I have explained my reasons why. I commented earlier on the Prime Minister’s leadership in rooting out antisemitism in the Labour party. For too long, the Labour party gave too much benefit of the doubt to explicit antisemitic tropes and antisemitism. I encourage all Members not to trip over tropes knowingly or unknowingly when considering this matter, as holding British Jews collectively responsible for the Government of Israel’s behaviour is its itself antisemitic.
Mr Frith
I will make some progress.
The premise of the debate veers into the unhealthy territory of antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories: the double standard towards the only Jewish state, questioning the legitimacy of a democratic state’s existence that is not applied to other countries, including those with authoritarian regimes.
The Government are clear that antisemitism is unacceptable in all its forms and that British Jews must never be held responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government.
Jim Shannon
I commend the Minister on his honest, truthful and forthright stand. He deserves credit for that, and he is right to underline the issue. The Prime Minister deserves credit for all he has done to change attitudes in the Labour party. He is about to depart, but we should put our thanks to him on the record for what he did to change attitudes and make sure that antisemitism was frowned upon.
Mr Frith
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. The record will show his support, and I concur with it.
We have all seen the harm caused by the abhorrent rise in antisemitism, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Antisemitism in the UK has been on the rise, and it has no place in our society. Since the appalling 7 October terror attacks, there has been an increase in antisemitic attacks in the UK, including in Heaton Park, near my constituency. That is just one example of the shocking fear, prejudice and anger directed towards the Jewish community.
The attacks cannot be divorced from the nature of the debate. We should condemn the readiness, ease and tendency to hold 300,000 British Jews collectively accountable for the actions of the Israeli Government. That standard is never applied to other communities in relation to foreign Governments.
Mr Adnan Hussain
Can I ask the Minister why so many in this House, including himself, conflate the Jewish faith and Jewish people with the actions of the state of Israel? The petition does not do that, and that is not what has been said in this House. No matter how uncomfortable it may be for some in this Chamber, the state of Israel stands accused of committing genocide in Gaza. Does he agree?
Mr Frith
I do not agree with that.
On 30 April, the Government announced £25 million of additional funding for 2026-27 to strengthen policing, protect Jewish communities and provide reassurance in response to the terrorist attacks in Golders Green and the recent spate of antisemitic attacks.
Instead of accepting the premise of this debate without question, I urge Members across the House to reject it, to remember the context and to question the notion of focusing any debate on Israel alone. Had this debate addressed the issue of foreign influence or interference as a whole, we could have focused on the range of actions that the Government are taking to address improper influence outside of the rules.
The Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review of lobbying, disclosure and access to Government. The Government are working with Parliament to consider their own rules on lobbying. We are tackling foreign financial influence by improving transparency, closing loopholes and reinforcing legislation.
Iqbal Mohamed
I agree with the Minister that lobbying and donations across Parliament from any source must be investigated and that the rules must be reinforced. But on the specific point around Israel, Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel and other friends of Israel groups—
Mr Frith
I refer the hon. Gentleman to an earlier answer I gave about misassociation, whether unintentional, explicit, deliberate or wilful. It is possible to be in Labour Friends of Israel without being a Labour friend of the Israeli Government’s actions on a particular day, and it is the duty of allies and friends to point out where we disagree. If we were debating certain behaviours of the Israeli Government, I am sure that a mix of views would be expressed in the House, including on a strong common theme. But that is not this debate, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to pull back from wilfully or unintentionally using tropes.
Mr Frith
Thank you, Mrs Harris.
The Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to carry out a review into lobbying. We have commissioned and are now responding to the Rycroft review of political finance rules, with immediate steps taken to cap total political donations from British citizens abroad and to put a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. These measures are a first step, and the Government will have more to say.
The Government will always take legitimate concerns over foreign influence and interference in our politics and democracy very seriously, but I do not believe that the premise of this debate is to focus on those concerns. Criticism of Governments and policies is democratic, but the use of double standards in relation to Israel and conspiracy theories and tropes about the influence of Jews and the Jewish state take us into ugly, inciteful and deeply unhealthy territory. I urge Members to join me in rejecting this framing and rejecting the petition.
John Lamont
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. As I said at the start, my job was to introduce the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but it is not a petition that I have any sympathy with—I fundamentally disagree with it. When I was allocated this debate to introduce, I worried that I would be the only voice calling the petition out for what it is, but I am reassured that across the House and across parties—with a few notable exceptions, I have to say—there has been a unity of voice.
Parliament has demonstrated that we see this petition for what it is: we are not comfortable with it, and we do not like it. It is astonishing that a minority of hon. Members said things that, frankly, amounted to the expression of antisemitic views. I found that deeply uncomfortable, and we, as legislators, must call it out. That is the only way we will stamp out antisemitism.
I congratulate the Minister, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on their strong words.
Richard Tice
Now that we have debated this appalling motion, is there a minimum timeframe before we have to debate it again?
John Lamont
Any further petition would have to attract more than 100,000 signatures, but the Petitions Committee has discretion, even when it reaches that number, on whether to grant another debate. When reflecting on how this debate has gone, and more widely on how the Jewish community in particular has reacted to the petition, I would certainly argue that it should not come back for another debate, even if it reached that threshold. We have had an opportunity to air our views, and we have collectively called it out for what it is. I am grateful to you, Mrs Harris, for chairing the debate, and to all hon. Members who have taken part.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 752646 relating to pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy.
Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 755980 relating to spinal muscular atrophy and the newborn screening test.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, and a privilege to open the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I want to begin with two little girls. In May last year, twin daughters were born prematurely to the petitioner, Jesy Nelson, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). Several months later, they were diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy type 1, which is the most severe form. Their mother was told that they would, in her words, “probably never walk”.
In January of this year, Jesy chose to share that diagnosis publicly, saying that it would be
“selfish to keep this to myself and not potentially save a child’s life.”
This petition is the result, and I pay tribute to her for the way that she has courageously told her story, using her own unique reach. As a result, the petition was signed by 149,692 people, including 225 of my constituents in Sunderland Central. I was grateful to meet Jesy earlier in Westminster Hall, and I thank her and every family who has turned the hardest experience imaginable into a campaign for other people’s children.
In preparing for this debate, I also met Giles Lomax of SMA UK, Muscular Dystrophy UK, and Professor Francesco Muntoni of the Neuromuscular Centre at Great Ormond Street. I thank all of them for their time, and I also thank the Petitions Committee staff for their help as I prepared for this debate.
SMA is a rare genetic condition that attacks the motor neurones, causing progressive muscle weakness. Around 1,500 people in the UK live with it and about 48 babies are born with it each year—roughly one a week. With type 1 SMA, symptoms appear within the first six months and the effects are profound. Children cannot hold up their heads or sit unsupported; they may be tube-fed and need help to breathe. Until recently, up to 90% of untreated babies either died before the age of two or required permanent ventilation.
I used the past tense there deliberately and happily, because the important fact in this debate is that SMA is no longer untreatable. There are now three disease-modifying therapies in this country, including a one-time gene therapy that did not exist a decade ago. They are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and funded by the NHS. A condition that was too often a death sentence for babies is now one that we can treat.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for, as he often does, leading this debate on a petition that has generated a lot of interest. I understand that the one of the life-altering gene therapies for SMA, Zolgensma—I hope that I have pronounced it correctly—is available on the NHS, but such gene therapies only work if they are administered before irreversible nerve damage and muscle wasting occur. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) has been at the forefront on this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps what we really need is a UK-wide purchasing power for these heel-prick testing kits to be fully extended to all local health trusts without delay? That would make sure that those who have SMA are caught in time.
Lewis Atkinson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I will come on to talk about screening in just a minute.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. My hon. Friend is talking about lifesaving treatments. One of my constituents has a niece who was born with SMA type 1 and previously would have been at risk of dying. My constituent was told that her niece was unlikely to live past the age of two, but because of the advances in treatment that my hon. Friend has just spoken about, she has just celebrated her ninth birthday. However, she did have to be fed through a stomach pump. Does my hon. Friend agree that for £3.1 million we can get full coverage across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and ensure that all babies are tested, so that those with SMA can be treated as early as possible?
Lewis Atkinson
I agree with my hon. Friend, though I think the issue is not mainly financial; I will come on to that in a minute.
As other Members have said, the key point is that treatments are dramatically more effective the earlier they are given: before symptoms appear and before irreversible damage is done. Once motor neurones are lost they do not come back.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on his speech. I join him in paying tribute to Jesy Nelson and her campaigning. I also pay tribute to the parents of little Charlie in my constituency. In the words of his mother, he was
“very lucky to celebrate his first birthday last August.”
He was treated with gene therapy after being diagnosed and following symptoms. He is now living his life, but in a wheelchair. Had he been screened at birth he might have had treatment sooner and he might be walking right now.
Lewis Atkinson
The hon. Lady is entirely right and I have heard a number of those heart-wrenching stories; she does well to speak so movingly on behalf of her constituent. That is a testament to the key intervention of getting a diagnosis as soon after birth as possible. Today, a baby with type 1 SMA is typically not diagnosed until around six months of age. By then, for many the window when treatment would have had the most impact has closed.
There is an alternative; screening at birth through the existing NHS heel-prick test, which is routinely done on day five of a baby’s life. That already screens for 10 different serious conditions.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Mundell, for your chairmanship. I, too, pay tribute to the determination of Jesy Nelson and all the parents and young people who have been campaigning for this. I was alarmed to discover from parents this weekend that Portsmouth will not be included in the roll-out of the SMA screening this October. That means that babies born in my city will miss that early diagnosis and will face potentially devastating conditions that early treatment might well have saved them from. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and I have written to our integrated care board to find out why Portsmouth is not included and whether it will change its mind.
Lewis Atkinson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to talk about the potential postcode lottery. I do not believe it is a decision for individual ICBs to make, but a national decision that includes the UK National Screening Committee, which I will come on to.
The screening that I have described is already in place in dozens of countries. Across Europe, 75% of children are screened at birth and since 2024, every newborn in the United States and Canada has been screened. Ukraine managed to begin newborn screening for SMA in the midst of a full-scale Russian invasion. Given that, the petitioners simply ask, “Why is this screening not in place universally here too?”
Jim Shannon
On 23 March, Scotland rightly introduced routine screening. In October, babies born in England will benefit from the in-service evaluation framework. Yet families in Northern Ireland do not qualify whatsoever. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must commit to working across jurisdictions with the Northern Ireland Department of Health to ensure that the evaluation framework is immediately extended to Northern Ireland so that a child’s chances of walking, breathing and surviving are not dictated by the part of the United Kingdom that they are from?
Lewis Atkinson
I thank the hon. Member for making one of his excellent interventions. Clearly health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and Wales, where screening is also not available, but the hon. Member is absolutely right. It would be difficult to explain to parents anywhere in the UK why this screening is increasingly standard practice internationally but is not available in every nation of the United Kingdom.
The petitioners are clear that all the conditions necessary to begin screening have been met. The test exists, the treatments exist and the evidence tells us that screening would save both lives and money. In the UK, screening is overseen by the independent UK National Screening Committee, which gives recommendations to Ministers. I was unable to meet with the committee in preparation for the debate, but I am sure that the Minister has had the benefit of its advice.
I recognise, as we all must, that the committee’s independence matters. However, its decision making and the way in which it balances risk, evidence and benefit must be subject to ministerial oversight. In this case in particular, there are questions about how those three elements have been balanced, and specifically about how far the committee seemingly required NHS-specific evidence when significant international evidence already exists.
When the National Screening Committee reviewed SMA for potential inclusion in the screening programme in 2018, the committee did not recommend screening, but campaigners like SMA UK did not walk away; they kept on doing the work. New cost-effectiveness modelling commissioned by the screening committee and published last year finds that screening for SMA is likely to be lifesaving and cost-effective.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this debate and welcome your chairmanship of it, Mr Mundell. My hon. Friend referred earlier to 90% of children who are untreated potentially dying before their second birthday. That is a sobering statistic, but it is not a statistic; it is the reality of the lives of children, families and parents. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to go faster sooner to roll out a comprehensive programme, as so many other countries have managed to do?
Lewis Atkinson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a matter of pace and of asking, “When?” not “If?” or “How?” because both those questions have already been answered.
I turn to the Government’s response. The previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), met Jesy Nelson, the petitioner, in January. The Government accepted the case for an in-service evaluation and brought the date for that live NHS trial forward from January 2027 to October this year, when screening will begin to be rolled out. I, the petitioners and others welcome that, though there is a sadness that it has taken so long to get to that point.
We must, however, be honest about where that decision leaves us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) alludes to, the real argument now is about pace and fairness. The evaluation is funded. It will run at seven of England’s 13 screening laboratories, covering around 72% of births. The remaining six sites, which include the site that covers the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), and which account for the remaining 28% of babies born in the UK every year, are not at present in the plan. That does not seem to be an accident but the design.
Put in human terms, of the 48 babies born with SMA in England each year around 35 would be diagnosed by the introduction of SMA screening in this evaluation but 13 would not: there would be 13 babies a year born with the same condition but on the wrong side of an arbitrary line that they did not choose who will go undiagnosed until damage is done. A baby born in one postcode will be screened, treated early and may walk, but a baby born in another postcode in the same week will not, and by the time anyone knows it may be too late. That is the postcode lottery that Jesy told me about, and which deeply concerns her, in its starkest form.
It is not about a difference in waiting times but about whether a child walks, breathes unaided or feeds normally for life. That is why Professor Muntoni’s assessment needs to be heard. He asked me specifically to put this on the record: he described a trial that deliberately leaves some babies unscreened to serve as a comparison group as—his word—“unethical”. We are withholding from some children a diagnosis that we are fully capable of making and that we know will help to shape their lives in order to gather data on something that Professor Muntoni considers already internationally proven. That is the view of not just one eminent clinician, I am told, but the wider SMA clinical community.
Lewis Atkinson
I will make a little progress and finish my point; I can see the time getting away and I want to make sure that other Members can speak.
The question is why, when so much of the world has acted, the United Kingdom is moving so slowly. That caution sits oddly with the Government’s welcome ambition elsewhere. The generation study is sequencing the whole genome of 100,000 newborns for more than 200 rare conditions, and the Government have committed to offering whole genome sequencing to every newborn within a decade, which is a welcome part of their 10-year health plan. That is a world-leading vision, and I welcome it, but there is some irony in promising to read every baby’s entire genome within 10 years while not rolling out today across the whole of England one well-established, internationally proven test for a single treatable condition.
Screening decisions must, of course, be taken with care. A national programme that affects 650,000 babies a year must be safe, accurate and deliverable across many laboratories. I recognise that the therapies are relatively new and therefore their lifespan impacts require ongoing evaluation. There are legitimate grounds for further research, but the evidence that we have now on its impact should sharpen our urgency, not dull it. I am told that the research the screening committee commissioned estimates that each year, screening could prevent around two babies needing permanent ventilation, prevent around three early deaths and allow around 37 babies to live relatively normal lives.
The economics are striking, too: the typical direct costs of caring for a child severely disabled by SMA—not the drugs costs, but the care costs—are around £450,000 per year. Most of that would be avoidable through diagnosis and treatment at birth. Here, the compassionate course and the fiscally responsible course point the same way.
I gently raise the point—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has already made it—that there is a geographical discrepancy across the United Kingdom on this matter. Let us welcome the fact that, in Scotland, screening is now being rolled out for every newborn, though that is not the case, and there are no plans that I am aware of, in Northern Ireland or Wales.
I began my speech with two little girls—Jesy’s girls—and I return to them now. The delays to their diagnosis were not inevitable. Had the UK adopted screening on a timetable comparable to that of other countries, Jesy’s twins might have been diagnosed before symptoms appeared. We cannot change that, but we can stop it being true for the next family.
SMA is only the first of many rare genetic conditions where an early, treatable diagnosis will likely become possible in the coming years. If we cannot move at a reasonable pace on screening for SMA, which is proven, costed and adopted across the world, what does that say for the children with other rare genetic diseases, the screening tests for which will be developed in the coming years?
I put the following questions to the Minister, and I hope—and I know the petitioner hopes—for answers that are as specific as she is able to give. First, will the Minister push for conclusions to be drawn more quickly from the in-service evaluation than the 18 months that are currently planned? Every month of delay in roll-out to the 28% of the population not covered by the evaluation will likely delay the diagnosis of one baby, with serious consequences.
Secondly, what does the Minister say to the families of the 13 babies a year who, on the current plans, will be born outside the evaluation’s reach? Are there any interim safeguards against a delayed or missed diagnosis? Thirdly, will the Minister respond directly to the concern shared across the SMA clinical community that knowingly leaving some babies unscreened when the test and treatments already exist raises serious ethical concerns?
Finally, will the Government commit to ensuring that every baby in England is screened for SMA as quickly as possible? Will they continue to roll that out to all remaining screening centres, even if that is on a provisional basis while we wait for the in-service evaluation? By what date can that be achieved?
I conclude with a reflection that, as it stands, the science on this disease has changed faster than our health system has. The condition was, within living memory, untreatable, but now a test at birth can make the difference between a wheelchair and a childhood spent running around. The petitioners are not asking us to abandon evidence or caution; they are asking us to act with the urgency that international evidence now permits, and to make sure that no baby is left behind simply because of where they are born. I look forward to contributions from other Members and to the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I do not intend to apply a time limit to contributions. Members will note that the clocks in Westminster Hall are not functioning. If someone speaks for longer than might be reasonable, I will call them to order. I call Ed Argar, who I am sure will not do that.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will seek to speak relatively briefly.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) set out the case behind this petition eloquently, reasonably and with passion. Every year in the UK, 48 babies are born with SMA, with 60% of those having the most severe form: SMA type 1. I was moved to speak in this debate not only as a former Health Minister, but particularly after hearing from my constituent Charlotte. She told me about her son Harvey, who sadly passed away at just shy of seven months old. She very movingly set out her experience to me, and has kindly allowed me to share it with the Chamber today.
I pay tribute to Charlotte and her family for their courage and willingness to share something so personal not just with me as their Member of Parliament, but with hon. Members and more widely. I hope hon. Members will bear with me; I want to quote Charlotte fully, because what she relates is extremely important:
“On 15th March 2017 I gave birth to my first child. A beautiful blonde haired, blue eyed boy—Harvey. He was perfect. He was also unbeknown to us born with SMA Type 1.
As first time parents, having navigated the difficult journey of IVF, we were like rabbits in the headlights and had no idea anything was wrong—but in hindsight the signs were there quite early on. It was only through the concern of a Health Visitor when Harvey was 10 weeks old did the journey to his diagnosis begin. She had sadly come across another baby with SMA 1 earlier in her 30-year career and recognised the signs.
What Harvey went through to be diagnosed via multiple tests and what we went through as his parents was traumatic. Three weeks later we were then told by a room full of medical professionals that he had SMA Type 1 and at the very best he would live to two years old.
I will never forget that meeting, or the box of tissues that were slipped through the door just in case we needed one. I will never forget the walk out of Leicester Royal Infirmary that day, the day our ‘happy bubble’ burst & our lives changed forever. Nor will I ever forget the subsequent times when we had to go back to LRI when Harvey had stopped breathing and I resuscitated him, or to be trained in how to feed him via a nasal feeding tube.
In 2017, treatments were still at trial stage. We as Harvey’s parents decided not to treat Harvey with drugs that hadn’t been approved by NICE, nor did we want to put him through anymore trauma. An unimaginable decision to make, but we decided to focus on him and his needs as they changed whilst making memories together.
Harvey died on 14th October 2017, he was a day shy of being 7 months old.”
Charlotte told me that she and others in her situation were told that change was coming—that there would be an advancement in treatment, and that gene therapy and better diagnosis were on the way. As the hon. Member for Sunderland Central set out, those treatments do exist. There are three effective treatments for SMA in the UK, but as with so many health conditions, and as I saw during my tenure as a Health Minister, all too often, speed of diagnosis is everything.
The disease needs to be caught early, hence the benefits of newborn screening. I pay tribute to the former Health Secretary for bringing forward the ISE to October of this year, and I am grateful to him for that, but as the hon. Member for Sunderland Central set out, only 72% of babies in England will be included, so a large proportion—160,000—will not be screened. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has now left, highlighted the divergence in access across different parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as did the hon. Member for Sunderland Central.
Until and unless the National Screening Committee makes recommendations on routine screening, many of those babies will miss out. I have seen how systems within the NHS work, often for good reasons—safety and rigour—but sadly that suggests that routine screening will not happen until 2030 or 2031. That is an awfully long time to wait and an awful lot of newborns who will be left unscreened and therefore potentially vulnerable to SMA.
In conclusion, and in paying tribute to Charlotte and her family, I have a question for the Minister, whom I know and have stood opposite on many occasions, both in government and now in opposition. I know that she cares, takes her brief extremely seriously and is a very diligent and caring Minister. My question to her, in Charlotte and Harvey’s name, is very simple: what steps can the Government take to speed up the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test for all newborns in this country?
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for his impressive eloquence. Watching this debate today is my fantastic communications officer, who has spinal muscular atrophy and whose insight on this issue has been incredibly valuable. SMA is a life-threatening genetic condition where timing is everything. Without early diagnosis and treatment, irreversible damage occurs within the first months of a baby’s life. Left untreated, around 90% of babies born with severe SMA will die before their second birthday or require permanent ventilation just to survive.
However, when SMA is caught through newborn screening before symptoms even appear, that trajectory can change completely. Early treatment can halt the disease in its tracks and provide children with opportunities they would not have otherwise had. That is why I welcome the news of the screening that will begin in parts of England this October.
Under the current plan, however, screening will reach only two thirds of England, which leaves some newborns in England excluded. Many of my constituents in North Somerset rely on Bristol hospitals, such as Southmead, where my two children were born, which are not among those rolling out screening. Babies born there will belong to the 28% or so missing out.
This really is a postcode lottery, plain and simple. A baby’s chance of early diagnosis should not depend on their parents’ address. As we heard, Scotland has now launched a full national programme, and I believe that the Republic of Ireland has done the same. We are falling behind our neighbours while our children’s futures are decided by geography.
I spent nearly 20 years working as a pharmacist. In that time, I developed a particular instinct: if a disease can be treated, you treat it, and if a harm can be prevented, you prevent it. That instinct does not leave you. I agree that the current trial raises serious ethical concerns. When I consider this issue, the question I keep returning to is straightforward: where is it possible to prevent irreversible disability, why would we not act for every child without delay? Every baby, wherever they are born in the UK, deserves the same chance at a healthy life.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
It a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I welcome the fact that we are having this debate. I do not know what to say, other than that if I was one of those amazing parents and advocates in the Public Gallery, I would be absolutely seething with rage, not because of the beautiful, cherished, much-loved and incredible children who have been born, but because we have determined that it will take a significant number of years to get in place something that already works, as evidence shows, and, more importantly, saves a child.
I want to talk about something a little wider than spinal muscular atrophy, because this could be any condition. I have written to the Minister about any number of childhood conditions, and the common factor—it is the same with SMA—is that we deem them not important enough. That is the message to the families behind me today—those incredible people who advocate so strongly, even when their hearts are breaking. We should not expect them to go through this. Whether it is SMA or childhood cancers, the theme is the same.
Back in January of this year, as a result of the incredible advocacy and work that Jesy did on behalf of her two beautiful children, Ocean and Story Monroe, I tabled an early-day motion that carried the support of 34 Members from across the House, which was really significant. The one thing that people wanted to say whenever they reached out to me—not just in Lagan Valley or Northern Ireland, but across the UK—was, “Enough is enough. We need to be heard. Our voices matter and our stories matter.”
I want to share some remarks from an incredible young woman I know from Northern Ireland. She is not my constituent, but if I did not say this, there is no way that she would forgive me. The incredible Michaela Hollywood is from Northern Ireland. She is not that young—I will not say her age, because she will shout at me—but she is living an incredible life. She says:
“Honestly, I won’t take a break until every family gets what they need. It’s a strange feeling this week: I’m glad we have the exposure we need to save babies but I also want the world to know life is just as rich and full if you can’t walk”.
Those powerful words from a long-term disability advocate and campaigner are at the heart of this as well.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) spoke about the emotional and psychological cost to families, and also about the long-term physical and other impacts. We work all the time on improving PEG feeding for families, and families feel that they have to bash down a door just to feed their children, but here we have an option sitting in front of us that is proven to work. It will save lives and, whether it will be 2030 or 2031, we do not need to waste extra time having a debate about whether it is worth doing. We agree that it is worth doing and that it saves lives; we just need to get on urgently and do it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this vital debate on behalf of the nearly 150,000 people who signed the e-petition. I am glad that, with the help and promotion of Jesy Nelson, who brought the petition forward, we are able to highlight the need for preventive action to protect children from the impact of SMA.
In my work with the all-party parliamentary group on genetic, rare and undiagnosed conditions, I closely supported the campaign for newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy for many years. I praise the work of SMA UK and Muscular Dystrophy UK, which led the “Every Moment Matters” campaign along with Genetic Alliance UK to press for newborn screening for SMA. It is absolutely fabulous that Jesy Nelson has been able to put focus on the issue and to press the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to take real action, although it is very sad that she had to learn about the devastating impact of SMA from her own heartbreaking experience.
With SMA, time is muscle. The condition causes rapid and irreversible neurodegeneration. By six months of age, an untreated baby with SMA type 1 will lose 95% of their lower motor neurons. Transformational treatments are available on the NHS, but we are diagnosing babies too late for them to receive the maximum benefit. I have seen the life-changing difference that early diagnosis made for a family in my constituency.
I want to talk about two brothers, Freddie and Louis. Freddie is a happy, social and determined young man who has hugely benefited from access to the lifelong treatment nusinersen. His family say that it saved his life and independence, but they still face challenges and costs in securing equipment to allow Freddie to have the freedom he needs and deserves, including by fundraising with the community for an all-terrain wheelchair that allows him to take part in as many activities as possible with his peers. Because Freddie was diagnosed with SMA, his younger brother, Louis, was screened for SMA and diagnosed before birth. As a result, Louis became the youngest pre-symptomatic baby in the UK with SMA type 2 to receive Zolgensma, a groundbreaking new gene therapy, at just 18 days old. Since getting that treatment, Louis has done well and is able to live his life free from the disease. That completely transformational treatment was available only to siblings, creating, as we have heard, an unacceptable health inequality where the wider population is denied the same chance of a healthy life.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I was recently contacted by a constituent whose daughter was diagnosed with SMA type 1 at five months old and, in her own words, five months too late. Her child is now two and needs a wheelchair. She cannot sit or stand unaided. She depends on specialist equipment and multiple weekly visits and appointments. That is no way for a toddler to live. Does the hon. Member agree that families like my constituents urgently need the Government to fast-track the roll-out of a testing programme to all children in all areas to ensure the best possible outcomes for children affected by the condition?
Liz Twist
I certainly do agree. The test should be made available to everyone to prevent people from living with the effects of SMA that could have been diagnosed and treated.
As I was saying, it is important that we now have testing, but we must expand it to the whole of the UK very quickly.
Amanda Martin
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ask the Government why babies born in Portsmouth matter less than babies born in other parts of the country? If we are one of the six areas that will not have testing or screening, the babies born in my city have less chance and are therefore less valued.
Liz Twist
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central. All babies should have access to treatment. We know the clinical consensus is absolute.
In February 2025, leading clinicians published a letter in The Lancet contrasting the UK with countries that have screening programmes. In Belgium, babies born with SMA are ambulant. In the UK, babies with the exact same condition are still dying or remaining permanently reliant on ventilatory support and tube feeding. On the wider issue of newborn screening, a range of conditions could be the subject of testing, but we are behind the world on testing. Genetic Alliance UK and the APPG on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions are asking for a clear timeline for a systematic review of the NHS newborn screening programme from each of the four Governments across the UK to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to give more children a better and a healthier life.
Returning to the issue of SMA screening, the UK National Screening Committee’s updated model from August 2025 confirms that introducing screening would prevent three early deaths and stop two babies from requiring permanent ventilation every single year. Crucially, it would also prevent about 30 babies from being confined to sitting and enable 37 babies annually to live largely normal lives.
There is a rigorous financial case for acting now. Treating SMA pre-symptomatically reduces the need for lifelong mechanical ventilation and round-the-clock care. Introducing newborn screening would result in lifetime savings to the public purse of over £62 million and 529 quality-adjusted life years for each annual cohort of newborns diagnosed.
I was relieved by the Government’s announcement last month that the in-service evaluation for SMA screening will finally begin in England this October. However, the Government confirmed on 16 June that the evaluation will cover only part of the country. Specifically, it will launch in only the seven newborn screening laboratories that already have the required equipment. There must be a way of getting around that problem so that all our babies can be tested and receive appropriate treatment if necessary. The Scottish Government began a national screening pilot for all newborns earlier this year, and Ireland announced the introduction of its own screening programme in April.
We cannot accept a health system in which a baby’s chance of typical neuromuscular development depends entirely on the hospital in which they happen to be born. Will the Minister confirm whether the evaluation will be extended immediately to cover all of England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, for the sake of those children? We have the treatment, economic case and diagnostic tools; we must stop denying babies the chance of a healthier future.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am proud to be a member.
I am grateful to everyone who signed this petition and I pay tribute to the lead petitioner, Jesy Nelson. She has used her personal experience and public platform to raise awareness of spinal muscular atrophy. We know that it is a rare neuromuscular genetic condition that causes muscle weakness, movement problems, and difficulties with breathing and swallowing, as well as tremors, and bone and joint problems. Although those symptoms are most often noticed in babies and toddlers, they can also start in teenagers and adults. This extremely cruel disease has touched many people across the country and beyond. That is evident, given the simple fact that the petition has nearly 150,000 signatures, including that of my constituent Nasser Iqbal.
Nasser’s daughter was diagnosed with SMA type 1, the most severe form, three months after birth. She is unable to walk or eat due to nerve damage caused by her condition being left undiagnosed and therefore untreated in the first few months of her life. We know that every year in the UK, 48 babies are born with spinal muscular atrophy, with 60% having SMA type 1.
Once symptoms begin, damage to motor neurones cannot be undone. However, there is clear evidence that babies diagnosed before symptoms appear have significantly better health outcomes, with many able to reach developmental milestones that would otherwise not be possible. Earlier intervention would have made a huge difference to Nasser’s daughter. I am proud to speak in this debate on her behalf, because she and many other young people are impacted by the absence of early screening. That is why the petition calls on the Government
“to fund and help fast-track the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test”
so that every baby is
“screened at birth to allow early diagnosis and access to life-changing treatment.”
Although screening for SMA in newborn babies is currently not recommended by the UK National Screening Committee, it has confirmed that an in-service evaluation of newborn screening for SMA will start in October 2026. However, the plans will include only seven of the 13 regions, which, as many Members have said, leaves approximately 163,000 babies without screening until as late as 2030 or 2031.
I am disappointed that one of the areas not included in the ISE of newborn screening for SMA is West Yorkshire, and I am extremely concerned that it will leave my constituents across Keighley and Ilkley without access to this potentially lifesaving screening, despite the ever-growing need for it. Yorkshire has 1.5 times as many patients with SMA compared with national figures; in the last three years alone, the regional neuromuscular service in Leeds has diagnosed 10 infants with the most severe form of SMA. Two tragically died within their first year of life and two have survived, but are living with significant and lifelong disability. Neither child can stand or walk independently. They require night-time respiratory support and are unable to feed themselves without assistance. In comparison, the children diagnosed and treated pre-symptomatically have achieved their expected motor milestones, and they are sitting and walking as expected for their age.
I pay tribute to the Leeds teaching hospital for reaching out to me before this debate. In particular, I thank Dr Anne-Marie Childs and her team of paediatric neurologists, who asked me to tell the Minister that we cannot be in a scenario where not every new-born baby in the UK has access to early diagnosis and life-changing treatment. I therefore call on the Minister to make sure that West Yorkshire and my constituents across Keighley and Ilkley are included as part of the early screening process.
Munira Wilson
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) have eloquently and powerfully laid out the ethics of leaving out some children from screening, as well as the deep unfairness those children face in not being screened. Is there not also a question of evidence? When we are talking about a rare disease, the numbers are so low that it makes sense to include the whole of England in what is essentially a clinical trial being run by the NHS. If we need a control arm to compare data against, there will be historical data for the children who were not screened and treated too late. I am genuinely perplexed why the Government have not included every testing centre or every laboratory in this trial in the in-service evaluation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. The reality is that, when dealing with such rare diseases, we are better casting the net far and wide to get as much data as possible. That was one of the points made to me by the Leeds teaching hospital. Dr Anne-Marie Childs is advocating for West Yorkshire to be included as part of the early screening process because, at the moment, it is a postcode lottery. Whether someone has access to early screening depends on wherever they happen to be born. The data collection would feed into national reassurance that the Government should be focusing on this issue. It pains me to say that right now a child born in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley in West Yorkshire does not have access to early screening.
SMA is a debilitating condition and, although it cannot be prevented, the outcomes are significantly better for babies who are diagnosed early. Looking at the progress made in Scotland, which began screening new-born babies for SMA in March based on in-service evaluations, I urge the Government to ensure that no child is left behind and that we roll out screening for every child, no matter where in this country they are born.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for leading this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the 306 residents of Newport West and Islwyn who signed the petition. I am delighted to have spoken with the chief executive of SMA UK, Giles Lomax, a number of times, and I pay tribute to his tireless advocacy. I also thank Jesy Nelson for her work raising awareness of SMA following the diagnosis of her twin daughters.
SMA is a serious but rare genetic decision that causes progressive muscle weakness and deterioration, as we have heard. I should declare that, in my previous life, as a paediatric physiotherapist, I treated a number of children and babies with SMA, so I know a bit about the struggles that families go through in coming to terms with the diagnosis, the treatment, the child’s ongoing needs and the aids and adaptation that are required throughout their life.
Currently there is no cure but, thanks to transformative research, treatment can slow symptoms and even stop progression. As a result, early detection and treatment of SMA due to newborn screening can dramatically improve the wellbeing of patients. That includes the significant benefits that have already been highlighted to respiratory health, motor function and, critically, life expectancy.
To be totally hard-hearted about it, catching SMA early via screening saves not only lives, but taxpayers’ money. Without presymptomatic treatment, The Lancet estimates the annual health cost for a single child at about £75,000—not including the wider mental health issues, equipment, carer costs, housing adaptations or disability benefits. Those costs can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds per family. It is therefore not only morally right to roll out the screening to all children straight away; it is also financially prudent.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government have recognised the public case for newborn screening, becoming the first nation in the UK to add SMA to their universal screening programme. If they can do it, why can the rest of us not? It is really important. I am pushing for all constituent nations of the UK to learn from that example and urgently explore how we roll out universal screening for SMA. We cannot risk the postcode lottery mentioned in this debate. Children with SMA should not have their life chances determined by which part of the UK they live in.
I welcome the progress made in England to extend access to newborn screening, although we know it does not go far enough. Around 72% of babies born in England will be screened, but we obviously must go further. The previous Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), committed to expanding the ISE to ensure that more children could be screened, so I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the progress on delivering that.
While significant progress has been made in England, Wales still has no plans for a screening roll-out, despite being uniquely well positioned to participate in the ISE. Screening facilities at the Cardiff and Vale University health board are currently being upgraded and have the capacity to facilitate newborn blood spot screening for every child born in Wales. A single, one-off and modest investment of around £1.5 million could therefore deliver 100% coverage and certainty for the parents of the 27,000 children born in Wales every year.
Given that unique opportunity, the decision thus far by the Welsh Government not to participate in the ISE is extremely frustrating. I wrote multiple times to the previous Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care, urging him to reconsider that short-sighted decision. Although the NHS in Wales faces many challenges and competing demands for future investment, I will continue to press the new Welsh Government to participate in the ISE. Waiting until the ISE concludes risks no babies being screened until the National Screening Committee makes its formal recommendations in 2030—four years more of missed opportunities for Welsh babies.
Given the clear benefits of cross-border working across our Union, could the Minister outline what conversations she and her colleagues have had with their Welsh Government counterparts about the ISE and how Wales could participate in it? If she cannot answer tonight, I would be grateful if she would write to me.
To conclude, although the effects of SMA can be dramatic, screening and early treatment offer us the opportunity to transform these children’s lives. We need to ensure that all babies across every nation of the UK receive blood spot screening for SMA, so that no child’s future is determined by their postcode.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Our final Back-Bench contribution will be from Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening and framing the debate. I also thank the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) for sharing Harvey’s story with us. It was really powerful, and I hope that Harvey’s memory will live on for us through this debate.
One of the reasons I want to speak in this debate is that I am a new father, who celebrated his first Father’s Day yesterday, and I know how important it is for all new parents to know that their baby is healthy. I am very proud that so many of my constituents in Harlow, which borders Broxbourne, feel so passionately about this issue and signed the petition. Spinal Muscular Atrophy UK and Muscular Dystrophy UK have asked for SMA to be included in the newborn screening programme, and I thank those charities for their work. As Members will know, this issue came to the fore at the beginning of this year when Jesy Nelson’s twin daughters were diagnosed with SMA, and I thank the then Health Secretary for meeting her. The petition was launched subsequently and led to this debate.
I recognise that the Government have started to roll out an in-service evaluation in NHS screening services in response to this petition, but I add my voice to those of the campaigners, the Members who have spoken in this debate and the many Harlow residents who signed the petition to urge the Government to go further and faster. The quoted 18 months for evaluation is just too long, and so many babies will not be diagnosed because of it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, the sooner this treatment is administered, the less these young people will be impacted. I also welcome his comments about screening not becoming a postcode lottery. Both those points are really important. I hope the Minister heard the passionate words of Members from across the House, in particular those of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), who is obviously hugely passionate that her constituents are not left out—I would feel the same if it was my constituency.
Having worked with children, particularly young people with lifelong disabilities and their parents, for pretty much all my life before I came to this place, I know that the trauma they face never really goes away. The more we can do to support them and their children, the better.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this debate so well. I am grateful to the petitioners for securing this debate, including the 287 constituents in my own patch, and to the many families, clinicians, charities and campaigners who have worked so hard to raise awareness of spinal muscular atrophy and the importance of newborn screening. I would like to say a big thank you to them, and I truly mean that.
This issue goes to the heart of what our health service should be about: identifying serious conditions as early as possible, ensuring equal access to life-changing treatment and giving every child the best possible start in life. Spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, is a devastating genetic condition, as the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) so eloquently set out when he shared that letter. It causes progressive muscular weakness and can have a profound impact on almost every aspect of a person’s life. Many people with SMA face significant mobility challenges, difficulties with breathing, and bone and joint complications such as scoliosis.
An SMA diagnosis can be life changing for whole families. It brings uncertainty, anxiety, and in many cases, the prospect of intensive and lifelong care needs. Historically, SMA was one of the leading genetic causes of infant mortality. Before effective treatments became available, up to 90% of babies with the most severe forms of the condition would die or require permanent ventilation before the age of two. That stark statistic reminds us just how serious this condition can be.
Thankfully, the picture today is different. Thanks to years of scientific research, medical innovation, and the determination of patients, families and campaigners, we now have treatments that can dramatically alter outcomes for children diagnosed with SMA. These advances represent one of the great success stories of modern medicine, but there is one crucial factor that determines how successful those treatments can be: timing. The earlier SMA is diagnosed, the better the outcomes. In many cases, treatment before symptoms develop can prevent irreversible damage to motor neurones and dramatically improve children’s future quality of life. Earlier diagnosis can mean the difference between a child learning to walk independently or their never achieving that milestone. That is why newborn screening matters, as all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate have made so clear.
The debate is about ensuring that children can benefit from treatments at the point when those treatments are most effective; it is about giving families the opportunity that comes with early intervention; and it is about ensuring that where a child is born does not determine whether they have access to life-changing care. That is why there is understandable concern about the current rollout of the in-service evaluation for SMA screening. The principle behind the evaluation is sensible, and gathering evidence and ensuring that the NHS is prepared for wider implementation are important objectives. However, the rollout to date has been inconsistent and incomplete. Some parts of the country have been included, while others, as we have heard, have not.
Families living in areas such as Oxfordshire currently have no access at all to the programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of his constituents affected by this issue. In response to a parliamentary question that he submitted, it was confirmed that the current in-service evaluation will offer screening to about 400,000 babies. By comparison, a national screening programme would cover approximately 650,000 babies every year. In other words, under the current arrangements about one third of babies born each year will not be covered by the evaluation.
That inevitably brings up questions, and not just those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who rightly said that services for rare conditions should cast the widest net possible. Why should access screening depend on geography? Why should one family benefit from early detection, while another family living elsewhere does not? If the evidence increasingly points to the importance of early diagnosis, how can we possibly justify such uneven access? Too often in our NHS, patients and families face postcode lotteries. Whether it is on access to dentists, GPs, mental health services or specialist treatment, geography can end up determining outcomes.
The Government and NHS England have acknowledged concerns about the rollout. We welcome indications that NHS England is considering whether implementation can move faster, and whether the evaluation could potentially be extended more widely. That is encouraging, but families and clinicians need greater certainty. At present, there is a lack of clarity about how long the evaluation will run, when additional sites may be added, and when a final decision on a national screening programme can be expected. Those are issues that it is reasonable to ask questions about, and people deserve answers to such questions.
The Minister might point to the need for robust evidence before national implementation. Of course evidence matters and of course changes to screening programmes must be safe, effective and carefully planned, but if the stated purpose of the in-service evaluation is to gather evidence, surely there is a strong case for gathering that evidence from as broad and representative a population as possible. A wider rollout would not only improve equity of access; it would also strengthen the evidence base on which future decisions will be made.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
A couple of my constituents with direct experience of SMA got in touch with me. The thing that they identified as being most difficult about the current arrangements with the in-service evaluation is the lack of detail about how long it will take. Does the hon. Lady agree that if the Minister could provide a level of clarity about the length of time that the ISE will run, that might give us the sense that there is forward momentum on this issue?
Alison Bennett
The hon. Member makes the good point that often the uncertainty and the unknown length of time for which people are in limbo matter, and I hope that the Minister can address his question when she responds to the debate.
In conclusion, the story of SMA over recent years is ultimately one of hope. Medical science has transformed what was once considered an overwhelmingly bleak diagnosis. Children who previously would have had very limited prospects now have opportunities that simply did not exist a generation ago, but those opportunities depend on timely diagnosis. The treatments exist, the evidence is growing and the need is clear. The challenge now is to ensure that every child has the same chance to benefit from those advances, regardless of where they happen to be born. Families affected by SMA deserve urgency, clarity and, above all, a system that acts as quickly as science now allows. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The debate is an example of Parliament at its very best.
I also acknowledge Jesy Nelson and her tireless efforts to raise awareness of spinal muscular atrophy following her twin daughters’ diagnosis with the condition. Little Mix have long used their platform to support a wide range of charitable causes, and I express my sincere thanks for their continuing to do so. However, to open up about something so deeply personal goes a step further. I also pay tribute to all the other families who have opened up to so many Members of Parliament.
I have often spoken about my time working in children’s hospices, and it was always the families’ stories that made compelling cases for the extra support that was needed. I acknowledge the work of Spinal Muscular Atrophy UK, whose dedication to supporting individuals and families affected by SMA continues to make a meaningful difference in countless lives. In this country we are lucky to have so many wonderful charities that help families through difficult times.
As we have heard, SMA is a progressive condition that causes muscle wasting and weakness. It is a most awful condition that is not reversible with treatment and, as we have heard, there are several types. SMA type 1, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) talked about Harvey having, is a severe form that develops between birth and six months of age. Without intervention, life expectancy is often less than two years. Type 2 develops between six and 18 months of age; children usually cannot walk unaided and may suffer respiratory complications into adolescence. Type 3 develops after 18 months of age; individuals can usually walk independently, although that may become progressively more difficult over time.
Before 2019, there were no effective drugs available on the NHS to treat the condition. However, over the last seven years, three transformative treatments that can stop SMA in its tracks have become available on the NHS: one is administered by a lumbar puncture every few months; the second is gene editing infusion; and the third is a treatment that patients must take orally for the whole of their lives. There is encouraging evidence that those treatments really are helping.
We have heard that SMA cannot be reversed, but NHS data from 2023 shows that children with SMA 1—the most severe form of the condition—are now surviving for longer. For families affected by an SMA diagnosis, time is everything, so that is an important start. When I worked in children’s hospices, I saw so many families go through incredibly difficult times. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) mentioned, it is not just about caring for a child; there is the impact on relationships, family finances and even sleep. I remember one father saying to me that if he got up eight times in the night, he considered that a good night’s sleep.
We had a saying in the children’s hospices: while we cannot add days to their lives, we can add life to their days. However, in this case we can literally add days to their lives, and we really should do so. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston that the Minister is very diligent and clearly cares, but will she tell us how many babies and children are currently receiving the drugs I mentioned from the NHS? Will data continue to be collected to give us fresh insights into the effectiveness of those drugs over time? While the damage inflicted by SMA is irreversible, if treatment is given before symptoms begin, that damage can be prevented. Screening can therefore be an absolute lifeline for babies and families if SMA is caught early. That is why we welcome the UK National Screening Committee’s recommendation to introduce in-service evaluation, which will see newborn screening for SMA trialled in the UK, and the role that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), played in all that. It is a positive step forward.
I want to add my voice to those of other Members today, and put some questions and points of clarification to the Minister. The ISE, recommended by the National Screening Committee, will evaluate newborn screening for SMA for some newborns in England, commencing in October 2026. However, as we have heard, reports suggest that about one third of newborns will initially not be included. Will the Minister explain the logic behind the choices that have been made?
As I understand it, the seven NHS newborn screening laboratories in England that will undertake screening are in Birmingham, Great Ormond Street, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, south-east Thames and south-west Thames. Government statistics do not suggest that babies born in those regions are more likely to have SMA, and there appears to be no correlation at all between instances of SMA and the location of the centres chosen to screen newborns for the condition. I could also find no correlation with the efficiency of delivery for the screening programme. That begs the question: what is the rationale for choosing just those centres, and why have others not been chosen?
A baby born today who is screened and treated straight away is likely to walk at three years old. One born in a non-screened area, who is treated only when they become symptomatic, is very unlikely to walk and may not even be with us for very long. NHS England is responsible for organising the screening, but we know that the Government are going through with its abolition, along with the reorganisation of integrated care boards, so what assessment has the Minister made of the impact the restructuring may have on the capacity to deliver screening? That is an important point to bear in mind.
There are other conditions that are excluded from newborn screening, such as metachromatic leukodystrophy. I met a mother who has been campaigning hard on that, along with other campaigners. Will that condition and others also be included in newborn screening in the UK? Surely we should help if we can, because, as I say, the impact is really difficult for those children and their families. I am a huge fan of early intervention, so if we can do something about it early on we should—I cannot remember which hon. Member said this, but even if we just look at it through the hard lens of finances and public money, we would save a huge amount of money over the years.
It is desperately sad to see babies and their families affected by SMA. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance to those families that the forthcoming screening that they have long been fighting for will be fair, effective and accessible to all newborns in the UK. As I mentioned, the families I used to work with in children’s hospices would often say that, when their child was born or diagnosed with whatever condition it may be, their hopes and dreams for their child changed. When the baby was first born, they thought about the first day at nursery, primary school or secondary school, and then doing exams, going on to get married and have children and so on, and suddenly those dreams had to change because their life would be different. If we do this screening, some of those families, can keep their original dreams and we can add days to the lives of those children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is very heartening to see so many Members in the Chamber and so many families in the Public Gallery, all united by a shared concern for children and families affected by spinal muscular atrophy.
SMA is a cruel and devastating condition. It can steal from a family the carefree future they had imagined for their child. It can take away a child’s mobility and, far too often, it can take away a child’s life far too soon. I pay tribute to children living with SMA for their courage, to their families for their strength, and to campaigners for working tirelessly to ensure that their voices are heard. Their message to us is clear: where there is a chance to identify affected babies earlier, and where treatment may have its greatest effect, we must pursue that chance with urgency, care and resolve.
I particularly thank Jesy Nelson, who is in the Public Gallery and is very welcome. She is so brave to share her experience of the condition, which affects her twins, Ocean and Story. She has given a public voice to all those going through a similar experience. This petition has rightly gained significant support—150,000 signatures —in such a short space of time. I am so pleased that we can take the time to have this debate and raise awareness of SMA.
I assure everyone that this conversation will not stop today. I will continue to listen to the voices of those speaking for children with SMA. Tomorrow, for example, I am due to meet with members of Muscular Dystrophy UK to continue this very conversation. I know that many families and advocates feel that the Government have moved too slowly towards a decision on screening for SMA. I understand that frustration, but decisions about national screening programmes must be made with great care.
We must be confident that screening will do more good than harm, that it can be delivered safely and fairly, and that we are making the best possible use of NHS resources for the babies and families who depend on them. There remain many unanswered questions about the benefits and practical delivery of screening for SMA. That matters because the answer we seek must be robust enough to support a lasting national programme.
We were pleased that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published final guidance earlier this year accepting both nusinersen and risdiplam as treatments that could be routinely offered to SMA patients for whom gene therapy has not worked. The finding that those treatments can improve survival rates and slow the progression of disease is welcome and significant. For families living with SMA, even slowing that progression can mean more time, more independence, more moments together and more hope.
Ruth Jones
The Minister says that screening must be safe and fair. We know the benefits of screening—the people in the Public Gallery have articulated it so clearly. The benefits are undeniable, so is it fair that the whole of Wales and a third of England does not have such screening?
Mrs Hodgson
I was going to come to the point about labs, but let me address it now. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore); the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew); and others have made that very point. The trials will be rolled out to seven of the 13 labs, which leaves six labs outside the trial. I am told that the reason is that, as it is such a rare condition, the trial has to be broad enough to ensure a robust evidence base. The six not included do not currently have the requisite equipment. If that changes, more labs could be included.
Amanda Martin
I thank the Minister, who I respect her massively, for her comments. Portsmouth hospital is part of the generation study, so it is already able to test for the condition and could have rolled out the evaluation had it been included in the trials. It seems very strange that we are able to test babies in the generation study but not across the board.
Mrs Hodgson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central also mentioned the generation study. There are lots of questions around this, and, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North is aware, in preparing for this debate, I have been asking lots of those questions. I will take that point away and get back to her.
As we have heard, spinal muscular atrophy affects every part of daily life for the children and families involved: their routines, milestones, plans and the hopes that families hold for their children. Any progress against it matters deeply. At the same time, NICE has been clear that important questions remain, including around longevity and how long the benefits of these relatively new treatments may last. Those questions, alongside important issues of feasibility, must be answered before a national screening decision can be made.
That is why my Department has worked with the National Institute for Health and Care Research and NHS England to establish an in-service evaluation. That evaluation will run within the routine newborn blood spot screening programme to gather the evidence that we need, help answer difficult questions and fill the gaps that stand between us and a confident national decision. Crucially, the Department has worked alongside patient advocate groups, including the SMA NBS Alliance and SMA UK. I commend both groups for their excellent support and advocacy. They help to ensure that families’ voices are not an afterthought but are at the heart of decisions.
I acknowledge that, as we have heard, many have been frustrated by the pace of planning for this large-scale scientific evaluation. I hear that frustration—I really do—but we must get this right, because only a strong evaluation will give us the answers that families deserve and the evidence that a national programme requires.
Ruth Jones
I appreciate what the Minister says about getting evaluation right, but Ukraine can install such an evaluation across the whole country during a war, and Ireland is doing it, too, so why aren’t we?
Mrs Hodgson
Again, I have heard my hon. Friend’s remarks. They are not falling on deaf ears, as I am sure she is aware.
The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), met Jesy Nelson, along with Giles Lomax from SMA UK, and I know that that had a massive impact on him. They spoke at length about what is needed; he listened and we acted. That is why I was very happy to announce just last month that the planned start date of January 2027 would be brought forward by three months. The new start date for the in-service evaluation will be October 2026. From that date, babies will begin to be screened for SMA, and we will begin collecting the essential information needed to help many more children in the years ahead.
Robbie Moore
I am pleased that that announcement was made, but, as I reiterated in my speech, that provision does not include West Yorkshire or my Keighley and Ilkley constituents. The Minister said that a broadbrush approach was needed to gain data, and that has been rolled out to the areas that the Government have already announced, but surely it is necessary to include all areas, as many Members said. Will the Minister meet me or write to me about what steps can be taken to include areas such as West Yorkshire, Leeds, and Keighley and Ilkley as part of the screening programme?
Mrs Hodgson
I have asked those very same questions. As it is such a broad trial, the small number that is not covered does lead me to ask those questions. I have not given up asking those questions, but for today, the answer is the same as the one I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn.
Peter Dowd
A group of SMA experts wrote an article in The Lancet in February 2025 entitled “The human toll of slow decisions”. They recommended that
“expert opinion and international evidence should be more thoroughly integrated into the decision-making process of NSCs”
and that
“the decision of independent bodies such as the NSC should be subject to scrutiny by the Ministry of Health, given the substantial effect of failing in the duty of care.”
The evidence and experience are there, but we are lagging behind. I hope the Minister agrees that we must stop taking a conservative approach to this. Children’s and families’ lives are at risk, and it has to stop.
Mrs Hodgson
I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate intervention. I say again that it does not fall on deaf ears.
The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) asked what steps can be taken to speed up the process. We will be working at pace. Again, I will be paying very close personal attention to that.
Let me refer to a few other comments that I have not touched on yet. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central asked about the unscreened community being used as a control or comparison group. I want to be very clear that those not included in the trial are not being used as a control or comparison group. Labs taking part in the study start to screen newborns for SMA in phases, and the labs act as the control before they start to screen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) asked when coverage will reach the whole of England. Again, this is about the six labs that are not covered. The Secretary of State is actively considering that, which is why I said that we are listening and working at pace.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Isl—[Laughter.] She asked whether we had spoken to Wales. It is a good job they do not send me to speak to Wales, because I cannot pronounce all the names! We work in close collaboration with the devolved Governments, who were all included in discussions about setting up the ISE.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry, asked a number of detailed questions. I will endeavour to write to him on those points. We have chosen areas with labs with the equipment needed to do the analysis, which is why I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North about the generation study.
We must move forward with compassion for families, rigour in the evidence and determination to give every child the best possible start in life, and that is what will do. I thank all hon. Members for their excellent speeches and for the challenge about the pace and coverage of the clinical trial. I hear them all and feel their pain deeply. The House should believe me when I say that I asked all those questions while preparing for the debate. I commit to them all that I will continue to ask those questions on their behalf. Where we can go further and faster safely, I will push for that to be the case. This debate has played a very important part in that push. I thank Jesy, all the petitioners and all hon. Members for ensuring that this debate took place today.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank the Minister for her remarks. As others have said, she is a diligent Minister, and I know that she will push this carefully with the Department. Would she consider meeting me, Jesy and SMA UK after she has had a chance to push some of those points? I thank all Members for their contributions today.
Most of all, I thank Jesy for bringing this petition to life, telling the story of her twin girls, being so clear and rightly challenging us about the fact that there should not be a postcode lottery in the UK. We should have screening provision as good as anywhere else in the world.
Written Statements
CPTPP Accession: Entry into Force with Mexico
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
From today, the terms of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership have entered into force with Mexico. This follows Mexico’s recent ratification of the UK’s accession, and it means that UK traders are now able to trade with Mexico under the terms of the CPTPP for the first time. This supports the Government growth mission by providing tariff benefits, new digital provisions and additional market access beyond the current bilateral UK-Mexico FTA, with benefits for UK traders and consumers.
Benefits for UK traders and consumers
British farmers and food and drink manufacturers will benefit from improved opportunities to trade with Mexico. For example, chocolate producers will benefit from zero tariffs when exporting to Mexico, compared with tariffs of up to around 25% at present.
In addition, cheese exporters will receive tariff-free access to Mexico through a shared quota, with further shared duty-free quotas also available for other dairy products.
There will also be opportunities for pork sectors, with duty-free access for pork from day one.
Lower tariffs on Mexican exports, including honey, chocolate, asparagus, sweetcorn and orange juice, may also benefit British consumers if those reductions are passed on through lower prices.
The UK’s current trading arrangements with Mexico contain only limited commitments on temporary business travel. By contrast, CPTPP includes more comprehensive commitments for UK businesspersons, including the ability for dependants to accompany intra-corporate transferees, as well as commitments covering investors, independent professionals and contractual service suppliers for the first time.
UK financial services firms will also benefit from greater legal certainty when trading with clients based in Mexico, including when providing portfolio management and e-payment card services.
For UK traders exporting to Mexico, CPTPP introduces new digital trade and supply chain benefits which do not exist in our current bilateral agreement. It supports cross-border data flows, protects source code and cryptography, and prohibits unjustified data localisation requirements, giving businesses greater certainty, security and lower compliance costs.
It also allows cumulation of content from other CPTPP countries, increasing flexibility and strengthening export resilience for industries with complex supply chains, including in the automotive industry.
Other CPTPP updates
Mexico is the tenth country with whom the UK’s CPTPP accession has entered into force, out of a possible 11. The UK also welcomes the progress Canada is making on the legislation required to implement the UK’s CPTPP accession protocol. The UK currently expects this to be completed later this year, and we look forward to the agreement entering into force with Canada at the appropriate moment.
As the trade strategy outlines, CPTPP is a “living” agreement, intended to evolve with the wider global economy. Earlier this month, on 6 May, CPTPP parties substantially concluded Costa Rica’s accession negotiations following 18 months of negotiations, demonstrating that CPTPP remains open and dynamic. The UK also remains closely engaged in the recently launched accession process for Uruguay.
I look forward to keeping you updated on future CPTPP developments.
[HCWS127]
Digital Trade Agreement Negotiations: Malaysia
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The UK and Malaysia have today announced the launch of negotiations on a new digital trade deal that will support growth and back British jobs.
Digital trade agreements can provide the benefits of digital trade chapters in free trade agreements while remaining agile, flexible and fast to agree and implement. In this case the UK and Malaysia already enjoy the free trade benefits of membership of the CPTPP so this would add a new set of benefits.
Today’s announcement marks the next step in making the UK a global hub for services and digital trade. Digital trade can open new markets for businesses by reducing the costs of delivering goods and services, supporting jobs and productivity.
The UK is a world leader in digital trade and has a growing trading relationship with Malaysia, worth £6.4 billion in 2025. In 2023, the UK exported £730 million digitally delivered services to Malaysia. The OECD estimates that in 2022, exports to Malaysia supported 31,100 UK jobs.
Its rapidly expanding digital economy makes Malaysia an ambitious, like-minded partner, with opportunity to support UK growth.
The DTA aims to make digital trade with Malaysia easier, cheaper and more secure through cross-border data flows. Other potential benefits include reducing paperwork and border friction through digital systems, and guaranteeing strong protections for personal data, intellectual property, online consumers and cyber-security.
The deal could strengthen international digital and tech co-operation by supporting responsible innovation in areas like AI and data. It could also create new partnerships that boost efficient supply chains, infrastructure and global competitiveness.
[HCWS130]
Critical Minerals Programme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
Today I am announcing the scope of the Government’s new £50 million critical minerals programme, first announced in the UK’s critical minerals strategy last year. In line with the strategy, this programme will help strengthen the UK’s supply chain resilience and security and support economic growth across the UK.
Critical minerals are essential to modern industry and to many of the growth-driving sectors identified in the industrial strategy, including clean energy, advanced manufacturing and defence. The Government’s strategy sets out clear ambitions to increase domestic production of critical minerals, boost recycling, and reduce our dependence on concentrated international critical mineral supply chains. This new programme is an important part of delivering against our ambitions and will complement wider Government support, including through the National Wealth Fund, UK Export Finance and other existing funding routes, as well as more competitive energy costs and streamlined planning and permitting to support industry.
The programme is structured around three pillars. First, we will provide up to £20 million for a magnet hub to establish a national facility to develop and support the scale-up of rare earth permanent magnet manufacturing capability in the UK, while also supporting skills and training in this specialised and crucial field. Secondly, we will provide up to £25 million through a critical minerals accelerator to support collaborative projects across extraction, processing and recycling of critical minerals, helping innovative businesses move towards commercial scale. Thirdly, we will take forward a demand aggregation platform, designed to help industry consolidate demand, unlock investment and secure supply through strategic partnerships.
Taken together, these measures will help grow domestic capability and optimise domestic production across the UK critical minerals value chain, harnessing our competitive advantage in recycling and midstream processing alongside our distinct pockets of mineral wealth. The programme aims to accelerate commercialisation, create high-value jobs, and attract investment in areas where the UK has these competitive strengths.
Further programme details and guidance will be published on gov.uk as the individual pillars open and progress. The magnet hub competition will be launched first, followed by the critical minerals accelerator, and market engagement on the demand aggregation platform later in the summer.
[HCWS129]
Public Procurement: Protecting National Security and Strengthening Economic Resilience
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
On 19 June the Government announced the publication of new policy guidance to protect the UK’s national security through public procurement.
In March, I announced plans to ensure Government Departments make use of the national security exemption in the Procurement Act 2023, where lawful and appropriate, to ensure procurement protects our national interest. Today, we move from policy intent to delivery.
This new guidance targets four critical sectors where global shocks can directly threaten national security: steel, shipbuilding, artificial intelligence, and energy infrastructure.
At a time when our national security and economic security are inextricably linked, true resilience requires supporting critical sectors and securing supply chains so they can be relied upon during times of crisis. This means understanding that foundational assets like steel and shipbuilding are critical capabilities essential to the UK’s national security, and treating them as such. It also means recognising that emerging essential assets like artificial intelligence and energy infrastructure must not be left vulnerable to supply chain disruption.
For far too long, public procurement has been too narrowly focused on short-term requirements and with too little regard to long-term resilience and national and economic security. This has, over time, eroded our national capability, exposing the UK to increasing national security risks. To fix this, HM Treasury is updating guidance to accounting officers to frame value for money as a balanced judgement of strategic alignment, long-term resilience, and risk.
To co-ordinate commercial pipelines and intercept vulnerabilities in the four critical sectors identified, the Government have also appointed departmental sector leads across the Department for Business and Trade, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
This guidance provides central Government practitioners with the clarity and confidence to lawfully deploy the national security exemption under the Procurement Act 2023 in these four sectors in order to safeguard essential capabilities, boost resilience and protect national security. Relevant private utilities in energy infrastructure and wider public sector bodies are also strongly encouraged to apply this guidance.
These measures are targeted at procurements in these sectors which are indispensable to our national security. Our priority is to ensure an existing legal exemption is used appropriately and consistently with our international trade agreements.
We recognise that our global trading partners and close allies will often have suppliers well-placed to help us meet our security needs. Our approach is built on collaboration; trusted international partners and global suppliers are at the heart of our procurement strategy, bringing the innovation and resilience we need to stay secure. However, national security requires constant vigilance and an active Government.
We will keep this guidance under active review, and this Government will always act in the wider, national interest to back our critical industries, protect our supply chains, and keep the British people safe.
[HCWS128]
OSCE: UK Delegation Appointments
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) has been appointed as a full representative of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson).
The right hon. Baroness Winterton of Doncaster DBE has been appointed as leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of Stephen Gethins.
[HCWS134]
Pathways Clinical Trial
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Murray)
I refer hon. Members to the oral statement I made in the House today, 22 June 2026, on the Pathways clinical trial.
[HCWS135]
Home Buying and Selling: Reform Roadmap
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) has today made the following statement:
Buying or selling a home should be one of life’s most important milestones, yet for too many people the process is frustrating, uncertain and deeply stressful. For too long, people have had to navigate a system where they lack clear information and have little visibility of progress.
That is why I am delighted to announce that Government are reforming the broken home buying and selling system to reduce delays, cut costs and stop sales falling through. The fundamental changes we are introducing to fix this broken system will allow people to move into the right homes at the right time, put down roots in their communities, and relocate more easily for work. They will also save critical time and reduce the costs involved in what is already an emotional process for those buying or selling a home. These reforms will bring benefits not only for families, but also property professionals, the housing market, and the wider economy.
The Government have published a landmark road map setting out how we will transform the home buying and selling process over the course of this Parliament. Alongside this, we published our response to two key consultations—on home buying and selling reform, and on material information in property listings. Together, these publications mark a decisive shift from consultation to delivery, underpinned by strong and widespread support for reform from consumers and professionals across the sector.
The case for change is clear. The current home buying and selling process is slow, costly and uncertain. It takes around 120 days on average to complete once an offer has been accepted, and around one in three transactions fall through, costing buyers and sellers around £400 million each year in wasted costs. These failures create unnecessary stress for households, reduce confidence in the market and impose wider economic costs.
Our reforms will create a system that is more streamlined, less stressful and fit for the future. At a time when households are feeling the squeeze, new changes will cut home-buying times by around four weeks, save first-time buyers an average of £650, and stop the nasty surprises that cost time, money and heartbreak. Overall, first time buyers are set to save more than £200 million a year, and the reforms will support a housing market in which people can move with greater confidence and with less risk of late surprises and failed transactions. They will also support the Government’s wider agenda of unlocking housing supply, improving affordability and supporting the delivery of 1.5 million homes.
The road map sets out a phased programme of action to ensure that change is practical, enforceable and built to last. We will act now where we can, while preparing carefully for more complex changes that require legislation or further market development. This phased approach reflects what we heard through consultation and our continued engagement with industry, and will help ensure that consumers and professionals can have confidence that the system will change in a meaningful and sustainable way.
The core principle at the heart of our reforms is simple: people should know what they are buying before they commit money and time. Sellers and estate agents will have to prepare a sales pack, providing key information before a property is even listed. This will cover the condition of the home, leasehold costs, the status of the chain, flood risk and planning history. Buyers will see the reality up front, before they spend a penny, reducing the risk of transactions being derailed by problems that are uncovered too late.
We will also raise standards and build trust across industry. A new code of practice and our proposed consultation on mandatory qualifications for estate agents will set clearer expectations for this sector.
Alongside this, we will bring home moving into the 21st century, requiring the wider use of digital property logbooks and digital sales packs. These tools store current and historic information on properties, reduce transaction risk by verifying data provenance, and provide consumers with digital property information up front in the sales process.
A modernised system must make full use of digital tools, trusted data and secure information sharing. We will publish a call for evidence this year to identify barriers professionals face when sharing data, and will consult next year on a smart data scheme for property data. We are also taking forward work to support the adoption of digital identity services and qualified electronic signatures to reduce reliance on paper-based and disconnected processes, and will continue to work with HM Land Registry and partners to modernise services and improve access to key datasets.
We are preparing the ground for earlier binding agreements in property transactions. After sales packs are embedded, we will require the use of binding conditional contracts, so that once both sides have committed, they cannot simply walk away without consequence. In the meantime, we will work with industry to support readiness for this change and raise awareness of existing voluntary reservation agreements.
To support leaseholders and homeowners on privately managed estates, we will use powers in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 to make it quicker, cheaper and more predictable to obtain the information needed to sell their homes. This will end the practice of third parties delaying home moves by taking too long to respond, or charging unreasonable amounts for information.
In parallel, we will publish non-statutory material information guidance later this year, so that estate agents understand their responsibilities to provide potential buyers with critical property information. This will be supported by a standardised form and clear, user-friendly guidance.
Taken together, these measures represent a once-in-a-generation programme of reform to create a housing market that works better for all and supports the dream of home ownership.
[HCWS132]
Temporary Accommodation: Tackling Poor Conditions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I am grateful to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for their report published on 22 April 2026, and our response, laid and published today, sets out the actions Government are taking to improve the quality and supply of temporary accommodation. My long-term priority remains to prevent homelessness and tackle the root causes, but where temporary accommodation is necessary, it must be safe, decent and stable. Today I want to set out the wider steps Government are taking to ensure this is the case.
We are making encouraging progress against commitments we set out in December 2025 in our cross-Government child poverty strategy and national plan to end homelessness. First and foremost, we will continue to focus on the most harmful forms of homelessness, and particularly the unlawful use of B&B accommodation for families where essential facilities, such as kitchens and bathrooms, are shared. We have achieved a 63% fall in families with children staying in B&Bs beyond six weeks, compared to the same time last year, and remain on track to eliminate this by the end of the Parliament. More widely, the latest homelessness statistics show some signs of stabilisation, with numbers of households in temporary accommodation falling for the first quarter since 2022. We are also helping councils invest in good-quality temporary accommodation, through delivery of the £950-million fourth round of the local authority housing fund, and through exploring options for partnerships with social impact and institutional investors.
Councils work extremely hard to find suitable accommodation, but we know performance varies between different councils. Through the national plan to end homelessness, we are establishing routes to escalate and intervene to address poor performance. We will not shy away from calling out councils if they are not taking adequate steps to improve. To aid this, in May we published the first of the toolkits committed to in the national plan on local performance and accountability. This includes detail on the requirements, via grant conditions, for local authorities to produce a policy to ensure temporary accommodation is suitable, and to set out how the local authority will mitigate disruption and avoid multiple moves, ensure access to support services (particularly where safeguarding issues exist), and ensure access to key facilities—including cooking and laundry facilities, storage and wi-fi. Action plans must be published by December 2026, and will be an important tool to identify and tackle poor practice.
But we are not waiting until December. In our national plan, we committed to engaging with the sector to assess what urgent action is needed to address the worst outcomes in the short term. During this engagement, we have heard about a wide range of issues, including poor physical quality, multiple moves, a lack of facilities, out-of-area placements and overcrowding.
Our progress on B&B reduction shows what we can do with a clear national focus. Today I have announced allocations for the first year of our newly expanded £30 million emergency accommodation reduction programme. In year one, the vast majority of the £10-million funding will be targeted on reducing B&B use, but we will then expand the programme to address wider poor practice. We are also taking wider action to improve quality, suitability and support for households, while also improving the evidence base to inform future policy.
We are improving quality and increasing protections against poor housing conditions. Our guidance is clear that accommodation must be free of the most serious category one hazards, and local authorities must now set out in their temporary accommodation policies how they will ensure this is the case. We will soon be consulting on extending the scope of Awaab’s law from the social rented sector, so that it includes temporary accommodation occupied under licence and tenancies in the private rented sector. We intend to apply the reformed decent homes standard to temporary accommodation wherever possible, and will publish guidance by the end of 2026 to help landlords prepare for this. We have recently achieved Royal Assent to the Renters Rights Act 2026, which introduces a new power for local authorities to issue fines of up to £7,000 where a category one hazard is found in private rented homes, and are considering extending this to other forms of temporary accommodation.
In keeping our focus on moving families out of B&B, we must not see them moved into other unsuitable alternatives. I have heard concerns about unsuitable out-of-area placements, and of failure to provide notifications to receiving areas. Requirements to notify are clear in law, and we are actively engaging with stakeholders to improve practice and make expectations on placing and receiving local councils clear. Safeguarding risks must be minimised across all forms of accommodation. This is why eliminating B&B has been our core focus, but we will review wider models of shared accommodation, and consider whether further action is needed as part of our wider work to improve quality. Our guidance is clear: local authorities must provide adequate space for cots and support where families do not have one. Concerns have been raised that this is not happening, and we will work with local authorities to ensure this is the case.
We are making progress on our cross-Government commitments to improving the health and education outcomes of families in temporary accommodation. I am delighted we have now reached Royal Assent on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which, from September, introduces a new duty on local housing authorities to notify health and education bodies when a child is placed in temporary accommodation. We will provide guidance on this in the coming weeks. We committed to ending the practice of discharging newborns into B&Bs, or other unsuitable housing, and are working with the NHS on safe and robust pathways.
To complement this action on improving suitability, we are working with the sector over the coming months to develop and share a consistent evidence base to support local authorities in making risk-based assessments based on suitability for specific household needs. This includes wider work to review child mortality data, and working with the NHS on their commitment to improve clinical data collection for children in temporary accommodation, to ensure we understand risks and take the right preventative action. My Department’s local artificial intelligence division are also using data to explore how an AI tool could be used to assist in the matching of homeless families with appropriate accommodation, using a transparent weighted-scoring algorithm. If taken forward, Match1 would join a suite of AI-backed tooling for case workers in local government across England, including Local Transcribe2 and upgrades to StreetLink3. We hope to say more on this work in the autumn.
I am committed to continuing to work together to protect households and improve their experience in temporary accommodation while our long-term strategy enables us to get back on track to ending homelessness for good.
1 https://mhclgdigital.blog.gov.uk/2025/12/12/how-collaboration-and-innovation-came-together-to-tackle-homelessness-and-rough-sleeping/
2 https://mhclgdigital.blog.gov.uk/category/local-ai/
3 https://thestreetlink.org.uk/
[HCWS133]
Draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement: Relevant Period
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Further to my statement of 18 June, I am today updating the House that, as required by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the draft revised airports national policy statement, now renamed the Heathrow expansion national policy statement, has been laid today. A period of parliamentary scrutiny—the “relevant period”—now begins from 22 June and will end on to 26 November 2026.
Next steps
I will update the House on the outcome of the consultation and parliamentary scrutiny process in due course.
[HCWS131]
Grand Committee
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, I remind the Committee of the rules on declaring interests. Noble Lords should declare any relevant financial interest the first time they speak at each stage of a Bill. This means that, in Committee, relevant financial interests should be declared during the first group on which a noble Lord speaks. Thereafter, the declaration does not need to be repeated in debates on later groups at this stage. Declarations should be specific and brief. Members should briefly indicate the nature of their financial interests, not simply refer to their entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests. I also remind noble Lords of guidance at paragraph 8.82 of the Companion: when withdrawing amendments, noble Lords should
“be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate”.
Clause 1: Consumer credit
Amendment 1
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, along with another in the name of Baroness Neville-Rolfe, seeks to allow for a debate on the Government’s intentions around a new regime to be laid down in the regulatory rule book in place of that established by the Consumer Credit Act and associated legislation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open our deliberations on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement so far and I thank noble Lords across the House who have shared their initial views with us. These conversations have been very helpful and have underscored a shared objective: to improve financial services regulation in a way that promotes growth, attracts investment and supports innovation. Although there are differences between us, we all agree on the importance of the financial services industry across the United Kingdom: the contribution it makes to GDP, the 2.5 million jobs it supports and the £110 billion in tax it pays.
However, I think this first group of amendments will challenge the Minister on a very important issue that we will want to address at several points throughout Committee: oversight and parliamentary scrutiny. We have approached this with slightly different amendments, but I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, shares the concern, which also applies to her amendments in group 2.
Clause 1 is short, but it is the gateway provision that introduces Schedule 1. It provides for the repeal and recasting of significant parts of the remaining Consumer Credit Act framework into FCA rules. The reasoning behind this desire for reform, as we said at Second Reading, is broadly understandable. The Treasury’s policy statement on CCA reform says that the current framework is increasingly out of date because it was designed for a paper-based credit market and now sits awkwardly alongside modern regulation. The Government say that the aim is to create a more “agile and proportionate” regime, and we do not disagree with that assessment. Certainly, that is the feedback we have been getting in our discussions with stakeholders.
However, identifying the right problem does not necessarily mean that the Government have chosen the right solution. Their approach has two serious consequences. First, Parliament will lose control and oversight of the core consumer protections currently contained in the CCA. Secondly, we are being asked to approve the repeal of these protections without being able to scrutinise the regime that will replace them. This sets a deeply concerning precedent. The purpose of your Lordships’ House is to scrutinise legislation, challenge the Government, ask questions and ensure that the law is workable, proportionate and effective. Yet there is nothing for us to scrutinise. The Government are dismantling the existing regime without showing Parliament what will take its place.
Both Houses contain a wealth of expertise—much of it is here today—including Members with extensive industry experience, who can identify unintended consequences and suggest more effective solutions. As we have frequently made clear, we want to work constructively with the Government on this Bill, but asking Parliament to surrender its powers to a regulator before it can examine the replacement regime is not meaningful scrutiny and it is not an approach that we can support.
Consumer credit in particular matters because it is woven into the everyday financial lives of millions of people. It allows households to spread the cost of major purchases, manage short-term cash-flow pressures and access funds when they are needed, all of which supports wider economic participation but needs to be done carefully and responsibly. This is a very important area and, as with the other parts of the Bill that delegate power, the Minister must take this opportunity to answer some key questions.
First, which core consumer rights and remedies do the Government intend to keep in primary legislation? By what principle have they decided which protections may safely be moved into the FCA rules? Secondly, when will Parliament be able to see the FCA’s replacement rules in draft? Will these rules be finalised before any repeal of the existing statutory protections is commenced? What transitional arrangements have the Government found? Thirdly, how do the Government intend Parliament to scrutinise future changes once the substance of consumer credit protection sits in the FCA rule book, rather than in statute? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the effect of these reforms on smaller lenders, brokers and intermediaries, as well as on the availability of credit and related services more broadly? What effect is uncertainty on this point around the future regulatory regime having on economic activity and how much is that costing?
My amendment seeks to re-establish a basic constitutional principle that is being threatened by the Government’s approach in this part of the Bill. Parliament should not be asked to repeal important statutory protections before it knows what will replace them, how the new regime will operate and how it will be held to account. Modernisation and agility are worthwhile objectives, but they cannot justify Parliament legislating in the dark. Before Parliament agrees to transfer such significant powers, the Minister must show us not only that the destination is right but that the safeguards, accountability and route for getting there are right as well. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution in Committee, I declare my interests as recorded in the register, in particular that I hold listed shares in financial services companies and technology companies that may be affected by the Bill or amendments tabled to it.
I am going to use the opportunity of this first group of amendments to raise the issue of the accountability of the financial services regulators, which, as we have heard, are being given significant regulatory powers. This theme certainly applies to Clause 1 and Schedule 1, because of the vast new powers in relation to consumer credit being given to the FCA, but the theme is pervasive and we will debate it several times in Committee.
I should start by saying that I agree that consumer credit legislation needs a massive overhaul. The current legislation focuses on paperwork and processes. It was written in a pre-digital age and does not have a sophisticated approach to consumers—for example, it does not have the concept of a vulnerable customer. It is crying out for change. Indeed, when we scrutinised the Financial Services and Markets Bill in 2023, I tabled an amendment to give the Treasury significant powers to rewrite the legislation, including the ability to delegate to the FCA. My noble friend Lady Penn, who was the Treasury Minister at the time, convinced me that this was a step too far because of the many significant consultations that were needed. In withdrawing my amendment, I suggested that the extensive consultations sounded to me like an excuse for not making any progress. I am, therefore, supportive of the Government using this Bill as a vehicle to make some progress, although I regret that they still have not completed the task.
That support is qualified by issues that have become apparent since the 2023 Act was passed. At that time, I was a supporter of the FSMA model, which allowed Parliament to determine the overall principles of financial services regulation and left the detail to the regulators. Instead of challenging the huge burden being put on the FSMA model by the 2023 Act, which made provision for the repeal and replacement of retained EU law, a number of us focused on the accountability of the regulators. This was an error. I now believe that we failed to understand fully what that meant for democratic oversight of what the regulators do with the powers that they acquire. We also failed to appreciate the scale of the task of holding the regulators to account.
The FSMA model was set up by FSMA 2000 in an era when the most significant financial services regulation was set by the EU and either applied directly or incorporated by our own legislation. In either event, there was significant oversight through the processes of the European Parliament, particularly ECON, which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. In addition, both Houses of Parliament had committees dedicated to oversight of the regulatory outpourings of the EU, and, in the case of your Lordships’ House, we had a Sub-Committee of the EU Select Committee dedicated to financial services.
The FSMA model was not designed to do the heavy lifting that it is now being asked to do, first via the 2023 Act and now via this Bill for consumer credit legislation. I do not advocate scrapping that model but I believe the time is right for re-examining Parliament’s oversight and the accountability of the regulators. The 2023 Bill initially provided for some additional oversight by the Treasury Select Committee in the other place but was amended during its passage to add what is now the Financial Services Regulation Committee of your Lordships’ House. I am a member of that committee, along with several other noble Lords present today, and I currently chair it.
These arrangements were designed to increase the accountability of the regulator, but I have to tell the Committee there remains a significant accountability deficit. Of more importance, committees of Parliament cannot and should not replace democratic oversight of the judgments made by the regulators. That is particularly important when we come to consumer credit law. The arrangement envisaged in the Bill passes to the FSA almost total responsibility for judging the complex balance between consumer protection and the need for innovation and competition in the market. Quite simply, that is not the right answer and Parliament needs more involvement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has some amendments to Schedule 1 that we will be debating in the next group, and I believe they are designed to alter the balance between Parliament and the regulators. I look forward to that debate, but that measure alone would not be enough because any reasonable approach to modernising consumer credit legislation will still involve significant delegations to the regulators. That is why we need to use the Bill to revisit the mechanisms for the accountability of the regulators.
At a later stage in our Committee, we will be reaching some important amendments designed to tackle that: the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has a provision requiring a periodic independent review of the regulators, and my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley has some amendments dealing with an office of financial regulatory accountability.
These issues of democratic oversight and regulatory accountability are unfinished business, and we must use the opportunity of the Bill to strengthen both and not sleepwalk into a situation where the regulators govern us rather than the other way around. We will be debating the accountability of the regulators again when we get to Clauses 16 and 17, when we reach the accountability amendments that I have just referenced.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, which has produced a report on this Bill. That report concerns especially Clause 3, but it raises general issues that fall within the scope of the amendment that my noble friend has moved from the Front Bench. My noble friend is essentially asking what the purpose of the Bill is and what it will do.
On the committee we have heard again and again, where government Bills are introduced, quite correctly, that this is a fast-moving world, that the Government need the flexibility and room to move quickly, and that it is therefore appropriate to do these manner of things and those manner of things by regulation. That is far from being a contemptible argument. The Government have a good point, and I suspect that Ministers in other political parties have made the same point from the Dispatch Box in the past. However, there are some important general issues to consider.
First, as my noble friend indicated, it is not generally a good thing to bring in legislation if you do not know quite what the intention is and you propose to proceed by regulation. Secondly, Ministers at this point tend to say, “Trust us”, which is fine, but the Minister may change. Another Minister may come with a different approach, and we are about, I read, to have a change of Prime Minister, and the Government may decide that there is some alteration in their approach to these matters. Thirdly, you may have a change of political party, and quite another Government of a different complexion deciding what to do. I do not want to anticipate the debate on Clause 3, but, if I read the Bill rightly, as noble Lords will find when we get there, power is given to the Minister by regulation to pretty much close every bank account in the country.
Why is all this happening? The reason is that, down in the other place, things are changing. Members of the other place are besieged by WhatsApp messages all day in their groups and are drowning in constituency correspondence from people besieging them with matters that often would be better addressed by priests and psychiatrists. They are being drawn away from the Chamber by dealing with this on social media, at a time when, as my noble friend Lady Noakes has pointed out, the burden of what they consider has had to increase because of Brexit. Whether one is pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit is not the point here; the point is that there is simply more to do.
In short, there is a general attention deficit problem in our culture, which I am sure affects this House as much as anyone else but is particularly affecting the other place. Poorly drafted legislation is rushed through, it is then challenged successfully at judicial review, and then we all blame the judges. Why should we do that when the fault is literally and almost completely in our own House? I am grateful for the chance to raise these general issues and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a significant shareholder in Lloyd’s Banking Group, of which I was formerly chairman.
Although I recognise the concerns raised by my noble friends, it is important that we tackle the confusion caused by the dual roles of the courts and the regulator in the regulation of consumer credit. The regulation of consumer credit is not a black and white issue. A balance has to be made all the time between the level of protection offered to consumers and the costs of compliance borne by the institutions, and the risk that, if the courts are unpredictable in the way they interpret the Consumer Credit Act, suppliers will either withhold products or build an insurance premium into the costs.
We have had too many incidents over the past few years where what financial institutions thought was a settled issue, as determined by the regulator, has been altered retrospectively by decisions in the courts. We can have a choice one way or the other, but it is important that we tackle the confusion caused by the dual responsibility. As I see it, the Consumer Credit Act is an outdated piece of legislation, as the Government have set out. It was based on conditions that have changed radically. We have since set up the financial services regulator, with devolved responsibilities for regulation. We may or may not think that the regulator is doing well or want to increase supervision of it, but the Government should try to make it clear through these amendments to the Consumer Credit Act whether the result will be, as I hope, to make it clear that there is a single definitive source of regulation for the Consumer Credit Act, which is the balance struck by the Financial Conduct Authority, and that the courts, so far as possible, no longer have a role.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, this and the following group dwell on the same territory; I will make my main intervention in the next group alongside my detailed amendments. I am sorry that I had to separate them out, but that was only because of the Chief Whip’s speaking-time restrictions on non-movers, which ironically mean that the debate will take longer overall. I have both general points and points on the substantive amendments. I agree very much with many other speakers, and in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes. Overall, the Bill is extraordinary for the manner in which it does and undoes many things with questionable process.
My general approach on the point about the Consumer Credit Act is straightforward: I do not object to using the FCA to modernise and speed up redress mechanisms. We are already seeing that in practice with the motor finance commission cases, but that experience also contains a very clear warning. Here I depart from what the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, would wish to have. In the first instance, the FCA made rules that were not in line with statute. It said that commission did not have to be disclosed unless asked about. We have ended up with a situation where firms which thought they were following the rules have been caught out because the statute said something different.
The moral lesson is simple: if you find yourself thinking, “Oh good, I don’t have to tell them about this nice little earner”, something is already unfair. In practice, some car salesmen discussed bonuses, quotas and commissions with customers, sometimes linking them to discounts. I have personal experience of that. But if the statute had not existed, what would have happened? The logic is that the old way, non-disclosure, might have continued because the FCA rules permitted it and it had not spotted the unfairness. For all that we have some very capable regulators, we have been shown that they are not infallible and they are not legislators—a point we will return to repeatedly as we go through the Bill. From time to time, they hit the barriers of their remits, perimeters and institutional roles.
Our system is not to delegate unconstrained power to regulators. Parliament sets the framework, regulators operate within it and, when necessary, the court interprets. Yet here, we are being asked to legislate for an automated substitution to set in train an unseen process that Parliament can no longer influence, that has no predetermined scope and whereby courts lose jurisdiction. That is constitutionally unsound and unsupportable. I will return to the detail in the next group but the principle is clear. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, Parliament should not sign away rights and protections without knowing what will replace them.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
It is a great privilege to wind up for the Lib Dems. People will know from Second Reading that I am very strongly of the same mind as the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Bowles, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, takes a very similar view on this first clause. The others speak with some sense of diplomacy; I will be slightly more direct, because, from my perspective, the Bill, by repealing the CCA, basically removes consumer credit protection from law and moves it to the FCA rulebook with no meaningful accountability and, frankly, little visibility.
Peers will remember that in 2021, many of us in this House and the other place were getting very frustrated with the FCA. It had some very good people but it was definitely neglecting consumer protection, and this House consequently passed an amendment to instruct the FCA to consult on a duty of care. The FCA chose not to consult on a duty of care, despite that direct instruction. It consulted instead on what it said was the equivalent, which was a consumer duty, the key difference being that a duty of care has a meaning in law, with a private right to action. In other words, an individual can turn to the courts if he or she believes that they have been wronged. This is a right that, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, the FCA, at the behest of the industry, did not want the consumer to have, despite it being a long and very well-established tradition in English law.
The Bill now achieves the wholesale removal of credit protection from the law and into the rulebook of the FCA, and it is obviously an extension of that deliberate process to remove paths to redress for consumers. The Committee will be aware that consumers cannot take civil action against the FCA: it is immune. It is correct that it should be immune from action by those whom it regulates in the market, but it is also immune from action by consumers. As we go on through the Bill, will see that same process of undermining redress in future groups of amendments—very much so when we are dealing with the FOS.
When I have talked to members of the Government on this issue, they seem surprised at my comments because they see the FCA as a real champion of the consumer. Indeed, the industry will say the same thing. However, perhaps I have a longer memory, as does this Committee.
Do Members here remember the issue of payday lenders—the very widespread abuse of individuals who were entering into incredibly high-priced credit and were finding themselves continuously in debt trouble? When the issues were put to the FCA by Members of Parliament, by complainants and by whistleblowers, the only action that the FCA agreed to take was to make some minor adjustments to the rules on rollover. It argued that payday lenders had an important part to play within our credit system. It took action in this House in 2015, when a Minister broke with the Government’s perspective and decided to support a move that had been made from the Labour Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. It was the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, who spoke for the Government, and he decided that enough was enough and that the only way to deal with payday lenders was to shut them down. That action was put into law, and it improved the whole credit environment that we live in today and eliminated a really serious abuse. As I read the Bill, people will lose that opportunity. When people claim that the FCA is a champion of credit, and they cite the consumer duty, they do not realise that it does not incorporate that very traditional English right to turn to the courts.
Even if today one accepted that the FCA, in its currents design and with the relevant people in place, was indeed a consumer champion, that could easily change, because we are relying totally on FCA culture. In the 1990s—I often go back to that decade—the financial regulators demonstrated the most extraordinary degree of deference to the financial sector. Frankly, the 2007 crash could not have happened without that deference. Many of the lessons of that crash are being undermined by this Bill, throughout which there is a return to deference—this time in the name of growth.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I will make my first contribution to this Bill. This is also one of my first in Committee, so I beg noble Lords’ forgiveness for any errors I will make. I do not have vast experience in the banking sector, but I have spent almost 25 years in technology, during which I worked with a number of firms in the banking sector.
I support the comments from my Front-Bench colleague, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and from the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, on the impact of this broad-ranging Bill. Later, I will comment more on the technology aspect, but at this point I highlight that, as we move forward, a degree of regulatory burden is continuing to build, especially for the future of banking around fintech, innovators, start-ups and scale-ups, a world I have worked in significantly. I look at this Bill through that lens, seeking to understand what we are doing around the posture we are requesting from these new future banking institutions, as they see different requirements from different regulators based on a loose—or, sometimes, as in the case of this Bill, unclear—focus. I say that because we are hearing that from the industry.
The past couple of years have required significant consultation on start-ups and scale-ups, particularly in the area of digital assets. Regulators have undertaken extensive questioning of the industry, but there seems to be some gap between parliamentary oversight and regulatory direction. That has been fed back and has resulted in ad hoc approaches to intervention with regulators from parliamentarians, industry bodies and even parliamentary groups—I co-chair the APPG on Digital Markets and Digital Money—in order to provide a certain level of input about what the industry, particularly the digital asset industry and digital start-up banks, may be considering. There is a huge opportunity in this Bill to understand how we would like to set out frameworks and risk management for the future, but there is also considerable risk—as was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe—around where we lose oversight and potential control at this critical time.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I will speak just briefly. I find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on the role and functioning of the Financial Services Regulation Committee, of which I am a member. The committee was created to undertake a particular task, and what is in the Bill makes that task virtually impossible. We very much hope that the Minister will listen to what the committee has said on this subject.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on this important set of issues and for the constructive nature of the debate so far. Before we start, my interests are set out in the ministerial register. I invest in a number of funds that are regulated by the FCA.
I start by addressing why Clause 1 and Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill. The case for reform is straightforward. The Consumer Credit Act—the CCA—is more than 50 years old and was enacted long before the creation of the FCA. It no longer delivers as it should for today’s consumers, who engage with modern products in an increasingly digital world. It too often results in people being sent lengthy, complex documents that they do not read, do not understand and cannot use with confidence. It is important to say that one in seven adults has literacy skills at or below those expected of a 9 to 11 year-old and 34% of adults have poor or low levels of numeracy involving financial concepts, yet the CCA regime means that some of the information provided on credit cards requires a far higher reading age.
Debt advice charities have criticised the way in which the CCA requirements often result in borrowers being sent arrears notices even when they have agreed a repayment plan, causing confusion and alarm. To address the point raised by the noble Baroness in her amendments, this demonstrates that it is not just the content of the arrears notices that is the problem but the inflexible legislative triggers that mean they must be sent even when there is no clear purpose and they cause more harm than good. There are many more examples of where the CCA results in poor outcomes for consumers and anachronistic procedures for lenders.
That is why this Bill continues the work that began in 2012 of repealing this outdated legislation so that it can be replaced with updated rules that better meet the needs of consumers and are fit for the digital age. The Government strongly believe that those replacement rules should, in the main, reside in the FCA rulebook, not in primary legislation. The FCA has extensive experience in developing firm-facing rules for retail markets, including mortgages, insurance and investments. Its rule-making approach is underpinned by consultation and consumer testing so that protections remain robust, proportionate and relevant. The FCA’s new rules for buy now, pay later, which come into force next month, demonstrate what a modern, FCA rules-based regime can deliver for consumers.
I have heard the concerns of some noble Lords that the Bill does not set out how the repealed provisions of the CCA should be replaced and that this has been left to the FCA to determine at a future time. While I appreciate that concern, this is entirely consistent with the model of regulation established in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. These provisions sit in the CCA only because this model of regulation did not exist in 1974. Parliament has already vested the FCA with significant responsibilities in this space, objectives that include a primary consumer protection objective, powers to allow it to fulfil its role and a comprehensive system of transparency, governance and oversight.
Parliament will have a key role in scrutinising the FCA as it makes these replacement rules. The FCA is required to advance its objectives through its rules, including its consumer protection objective. The FCA is required to consult, to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on rule changes and to submit copies of those consultations to the relevant parliamentary committees. They include the Financial Services Regulation Committee, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
The FCA has a comprehensive set of enforcement powers that will help it to ensure compliance with its rules and to act decisively where firms are failing to comply. As well as ensuring that an expert body with the right objectives, powers and resources can fulfil this function, this approach ensures that the rules can adapt as needed in the future to stay current and respond to future trends.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked when Parliament will see the replacement rules and how the transition period might work. The FCA will set out the detail of the new rules through its normal rule-making process. Repeal of legislation will be commenced only once the relevant FCA rules are in place. The Bill contains a power for HMT to allow for an orderly transition. In practice, Parliament, consumer groups and stakeholders will see the FCA rules at consultation stage before the new regime takes effect. I am aware that some noble Lords have tabled amendments to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny further. The Government believe that the current arrangements work effectively, but I look forward to debating them in more detail later. CCA reform is an important opportunity to create a clearer, more flexible and more accessible framework that better reflects today’s consumer credit landscape.
The noble Baroness asked what rights and protections will remain in legislation. Where rights and protections require legislation to work, they will remain in legislation. Criminal offences will remain, so canvassing to minors and doorstep selling will remain in legislation, along with other key protections such as Section 75.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also asked about the impact on smaller firms, as the FCA replaces parts of the Consumer Credit Act. I can assure her that the aim of the reform is to create a more proportionate set of regulations for all firms, including smaller lenders. Everyone will benefit from this modernised regime.
I hope I have provided the Committee with some assurances that the CCA reforms are vital. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and the Minister for his response. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friends Lord Goodman and Lord Ranger of Northwood, all of whom, I think, echoed the Opposition’s concern about overdelegation. In fact, I appreciated and enjoyed their interesting historical and contemporary perspectives, which brought the matter to light.
The discussion has demonstrated that the concern at the heart of these amendments extends well beyond the technical details of consumer credit regulation. It concerns a fundamental question about how Parliament performs its constitutional role, particularly when substantial powers are transferred from statute to regulators. I will not repeat all the points made by my noble friend Lady Noakes, but we need to look at Parliament’s oversight. There is a democratic deficit. We will no doubt debate her letter when we come to Clause 17. I noted the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for bottoming out the role of the committee and the points that he made.
We support the objective of modernising the consumer credit framework—I would like to emphasise that—but reform cannot mean that Parliament approves the removal of existing protections without seeing what will replace them. Nor should moving provisions into a regulator’s rulebook place it beyond meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. We will continue to apply these principles throughout our deliberations in this Committee. Wherever the Bill delegates new powers or expands the remit of the Treasury or the regulators, we will be asking the same essential questions. What safeguards will govern the exercise of these powers? Who will be accountable for the decisions taken? How will Parliament examine what is being proposed, assess whether it is working—because follow-up is important too—and intervene where it is not?
There must be a direct relationship between power and accountability, and when the authority, discretion or remit of a regulator is increased, the capacity for effective oversight must increase alongside it. It is constitutionally perverse for an expansion of regulatory power to be accompanied by a weakening of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government repeatedly invoke the need for agility, which I understand, and we recognise the value of a framework that can respond to changing markets and emerging technologies. My noble friend Lord Blackwell warned against the confusing dual responsibility that sometimes exists between the CCA and the courts and regulators, but the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, pointed out that it is not as simple as delegating everything to the FCA, which is not a legislator. She was right to warn against automated substitution.
Agility cannot become a proxy for opaqueness and flexibility cannot become an excuse for removing important decisions from democratic oversight. The Government must demonstrate that each transfer of power is not merely convenient but necessary, proportionate and matched by effective accountability. If the Minister is willing to engage with us on this basis, we will do so constructively, but we will continue to challenge any provision that asks Parliament to surrender oversight without first showing how that oversight will be replaced. We will return to this issue on Report, unless we can find a better way of ensuring proper scrutiny, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 1 and Schedule 1 standing part of the Bill. I shall speak also to my detailed amendments to the schedule, which appear as Amendments 4 to 17.
We all know how consumer agreements work, whether for credit or anything else. There is always an asymmetry of power between the provider and the consumer. Nowadays, it is often impossible to speak to a person rather than a bot. If you do get a person, it is a call centre with scripted questions and answers, often including a recital of terms and conditions faster than it is possible to understand. You cannot get to the next stage without saying, “Yes, I have understood and agreed”, when, in truth, you have not. You do not even see the terms and conditions until after you have clicked “Yes”, then you are given a time-limited right to withdraw. This back-to-front impatience to get boxes ticked first is now a feature of the modern consumer environment—one that I fear we have now replicated in the legislative procedures in the Bill, only here, once Parliament ticks the box, there is no cooling-off period and no right to withdraw.
The Bill repeals parts of the Consumer Credit Act. It gives the Government open-ended regulation-making powers before there has been any consultation and before we have seen the shape or operation of any FCA rules. I cannot support that. It goes too far, too fast and too unseen. That is not the way to make irrevocable changes. So I will not tick the box. I want to know what I am signing up to, just as the consumer must. I want to know that what are presented as rights are, in fact, rights.
Clause 1 repeals statutory rights before replacements exist. The Government take powers to make regulations before consultation. At the very least, that is a reason to take a great deal of notice of what is being said by Parliament. I also question whether this approach meets the Government’s own statutory duties under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which requires regulation to be proportionate, accountable and transparent. Repealing rights before replacements exist does not seem to meet those tests. This is a fundamental change from the status quo, where rights are in statute and rules are made to assist in negotiating the statute.
Clause 1 reverses that. It removes statutory protections now and offers only a possibility of regulatory rules later. Rules are not rights. Rules can be changed by the rule-maker, whereas rights bind everyone, including the regulator. The Government’s approach is, therefore, constitutionally backwards. Parliament is being asked to repeal rights without knowing what will replace them. It is like signing a credit agreement without knowing the terms, and we are being asked to sign it on behalf of the public.
My solution would be to preserve a statutory floor, both now and in future, and not a temporary one that could be slowly eroded at the whim of the Government or a regulator. My amendments to Schedule 1 are intended to show how this can be done; I thank Which? for its assistance in preparing them. They aim to preserve important provisions in relation to notices of arrears and default sums, as well as the unenforceability sanctions attached to them in the Consumer Credit Act. These are the legal backstops—the protections that ensure that rights are real.
I shall explain what my amendments do and why they matter. First, they would preserve the requirement to serve notices of arrears and default sums and the statutory consequences of failing to do so. These provisions apply, for example, where a borrower has fallen behind on payments. A default notice must be served before a creditor can take certain drastic steps such as terminating the agreement, demanding early repayment or recovering goods and land. Default notices also play an important part in determining when debts become statute barred, because, once served, lenders have six years to take court action. Secondly, they would keep these protections in legislation but allow the FCA to modernise the form and content of the notices. That is the right balance. Technology changes, as does the way in which information is presented, but the underlying rights do not and should not.
The Government’s approach is to repeal the majority of the CCA provisions with the suggestion that they could be recast into FCA rules at some future point, subject to consultation. That means there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of what these protections might look like once they are repealed. My amendments would guarantee that the core protections remained mandatory legal requirements while allowing the FCA to update the way in which information is provided. That is what the legislation should have done from the start—modernise the form, not abolish the substance.
I turn to sanctions, which is where the Consumer Credit Act is at its strongest and where the Bill is at its weakest. The sanctions in the CCA were included in 1974 because Parliament recognised the significant imbalance of power between a consumer and a creditor. Parliament wanted proactive compliance with the law, not a system where an individual consumer must detect a breach, voice a complaint, and then pursue slow and time-consuming legal or ombudsman remedies, particularly when those consumers are likely to be vulnerable, stressed or in financial difficulty.
The sanctions ensure that a creditor cannot take steps against a debtor while the creditor is non-compliant with the law. They are automatic. They work because they require compliance up front, not after the harm has occurred, and they cannot be replicated in FCA rules. Without those sanctions, consumers may face new threats from being pursued for debts, particularly when debts are sold to unauthorised debt purchasers. The burden shifts on to the consumer to detect breaches and seek redress. Vulnerable consumers are disproportionately harmed, and the automatic reprieve that Parliament deliberately created is lost.
My amendments would ensure that those sanctions on arrears and default notices remained in legislation while allowing the FCA to modernise the way information was presented. That would preserve vital individual rights while recognising that flexibility is needed in a digital age. That is not an unusual approach. The CCA and the FCA’s existing consumer credit rules already operate in a complementary way.
The amendments I have tabled focus on arrears and default notices because that is where the greatest harm would arise if protections were removed, but they are only exemplary. They show the balanced approach that should have been taken across the whole reform of the Consumer Credit Act: move form and content to the FCA rules where appropriate but keep the substantive protections in legislation. I am looking for that complete reform.
There are other areas, such as the form and content of credit agreements, the duty to provide information under fixed-sum and running-account agreements, and the sanctions for improperly executed agreements, where the same balanced approach could and should be taken. I would be happy to meet to discuss those. The Government’s own consultation on CCA reform was meant to have two phases. Phase 1, on information requirements and sanctions, took place, but phase 2, on key consumer rights, was scrapped. That is not a sound basis for repealing rights now and promising rules later.
The CCA was ground-breaking for creating automatic protections, even if at times those protections have been bitten for trivialities. That is a reason for modification, not cancellation. Their purpose is still relevant: ensuring active compliance, preventing regulatory creep and protecting vulnerable consumers. They cannot be replaced with certainty in FCA rules. Their removal shifts the burden on to consumers. This is a regression in consumer protection at a time when modern communications already curtail the time for circumspection.
If the Government were bringing forward a coherent replacement for the Consumer Credit Act, it would look something like this: statutory principles of fairness, transparency, good faith and protection against unequal bargaining power. Those are not exotic ideas; they exist in other jurisdictions. Australia’s unconscionable conduct regime is one example. At the end of the day, businesses must think and exert conscience and play fair, but that is not what Clause 1 does. It removes rights without replacing them. Modernisation is possible but I will not tick the box on behalf of the public until I have seen the replacement and until I know that it preserves rights now and in the statute. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I must apologise: I was not in the country for Second Reading, so this is my first intervention on the Bill.
I support wholeheartedly the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the rationale that she has just explained. I thank Which? for the work that it has been doing on the Bill and to try to help consumers.
I cannot support this leap in the dark for parliamentary scrutiny and I cannot support imposing this leap in the dark on consumers. At the end of the day, that is what the provisions in Schedule 1 are at risk of doing. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, with her amendments, and the amendments that we have seen from other noble Lords in the first group, are seeking to help the Government to achieve their aims more safely for consumers. I believe that what the Government are trying to do has the right motive; it is about whether the manner in which this is being done is safe for us to agree to—and I do not believe that it is.
If we think one step ahead, what protection will consumers have against the FCA making a significant error in its regulation? What protection will consumers have if the asymmetry of information and power that we know already exists in the financial services industry, especially for retail customers, continues along its current lines? I hope that the Government and the Committee will recognise that leaving consumer protection to the regulators is not a safe thing to do if you want to improve consumer protection—and, as I say, I believe that is what the Government would like to do.
The FCA has a peculiar regulatory style. For example, if it has discovered or suspected wrongdoing, it does not, as you might expect, do mystery shopping on behalf of consumers. It will ask firms generally to investigate how they behave and then to report to the FCA. That may work but it will not always work, and there is no fallback protection such as we have in the Consumer Credit Act if the consumer experience is not as it has been portrayed or as the FCA might have expected. There is a consumer panel as part of the FCA, but, in my experience with a number of financial scandals or problems that have arisen for consumers, the FCA consumer panel has little or no power. It is not listened to and does not form part of the FCA regulatory decision-making process that perhaps one would need to be confident that it represents in the case of passing on this protection to the FCA.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will listen carefully to the arguments that have been made so far in the first two groups and recognise the damage that could be done by pursuing the proposed actions.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I am more sympathetic to the approach that the Government are taking here. I think that we need to be careful what we ask for when we interpret parliamentary oversight as potentially meaning Parliament being involved in the drafting and redrafting of every detailed regulation. Not only is that time-consuming and likely to lead to long delays, but I fear that the political process will inevitably mean that it is weighted to the highest level of consumer protection regardless of the costs or the side consequences. There are other ways of having parliamentary oversight of the regulator. The Government can appoint the chairman, the chief executive and the board members. It does not have to be ex ante writing and approval of all the rules in primary legislation or committee. Parliament can excise oversight by holding the FCA ex post to account on whether it is fulfilling its remit in a sensible and proportionate manner.
We have chosen this system of having regulators. We should allow those regulators to operate properly and then hold them to account. When Members refer to the long list of protocols that consumers are led through in order to buy products, a lot of that is belt-and-braces protection that the financial institutions have been forced to put in place because of the complexity of the regulation and the risks of action against them if they do not ensure that the consumer has satisfied every detail of the consumer protection. The role of the regulators here is to exercise proportionate regulation. I think that we should hold them to account ex post rather than trying to insert Parliament in the process ex ante.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with what my noble friend Lord Blackwell has just said. He has fallen into the trap of believing that an accountability process can be effective within Parliament. The experience that I and my committee have had is that there are limits to what can be achieved in terms of parliamentary accountability. That is one of the reasons why there are other amendments later in this Bill to find other mechanisms for improving accountability.
It is important to differentiate between those areas where Parliament has a right to be democratically involved in the decisions and those areas that can safely be left to the regulators to carry out the detail and to be held accountable for that. It is the balance that we are concerned about. I would probably end up with a different decision on whether certain of the protections in the existing legislation need to be retained as well as on improving the way in which the legislation works by updating it to a modern digital age. There is genuinely a case for looking again at whether the sanctions that exist in the consumer credit legislation are right for today’s world. I believe that some of them are too severe or can be disproportionate to the issues that are involved in practice—for example, minor breaches in relation to enforcement notices.
I would not necessarily end up with the view that what is currently in the legislation must be preserved for all time, but I think that Parliament needs an involvement in some of those key decisions about the parameters of where liability exists and what sort of sanctions can be applied. That is why I think that we must constantly differentiate between democratic oversight and parliamentary accountability. They are complementary but different things.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I speak with diffidence on this matter, as I am not an expert on consumer credit. I have been involved in many cases over the years when consumers have been dissatisfied with the consumer credit arrangements that they have undertaken and have felt that there was a serious breach of contract. I am concerned that we are suggesting here that parliamentary process is the answer to many consumer credit complaints, even though parliamentary process is just about the least living instrument in our possession. It seems that the purpose of Clause 1 and Schedule 1 is to ensure that what is created is a living instrument that will modernise the consumer credit framework—not weaken consumer protection—and will become more effective because it sits in FCA rules rather than in primary legislation. It has been suggested that FCA rules are not subject to the courts, but there is already an elaborate system in place in the FCA rules.
In this debate so far, no one has mentioned the Consumer Duty, an extremely detailed document that has been in existence for three and a half years and that has, in my view, served the FCA well. If you look at the comments from law firms, which one can find all over the internet, the result is that there has been a much more informal resolution of difficulties than relying on the old system before the Consumer Duty was created. Therefore, I believe that FCA rules are part of a living instrument: they are binding, enforceable and subject to consultation and scrutiny. At the end of the day, if someone breaks the law, they are of course subject to the courts as well. That goes without saying and to suggest the contrary would be nonsense.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who, although he is not a specialist in this area, is a lawyer. I will speak in support of this group of amendments; I would have done the same for the first group, had I been here. It is important that businesses and consumers alike have the protection of a law that is predictable and transparent and where no doubt arises about its interpretation. Many doubts have arisen around the judgments and rulings of the FCA and its lack of consistency. Therefore, I am sympathetic to the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to have something done on paper, so that we can see something before putting it through.
Both businesses and consumers are used to having a legal surround for such transactions. They go back to the 1850s in the Bills of Sale Act 1854, which was modernised throughout the end of the 19th century and then followed by the Money-lenders Act 1900, obliging the registration of moneylending and allowing the courts to be involved. It is important that we have judicial oversight, not just by updating the process—although I agree with noble Lords on that—but with a legal framework that is transparent and consistent and that allows people to see what is expected.
I am also concerned about the impact of rushing through legislation to empower an as yet uncertain regime of rule-making, about which nothing of substance is known. The FCA appears to be as unprepared for this as others. In its response last month to the Treasury’s announcement of the reform of the Consumer Credit Act, the FCA said that such reform
“is an important step towards a more flexible regime that supports effective competition and innovation, while maintaining appropriate consumer protection both now and in the future”.
It acknowledged that it would put
“greater emphasis on FCA rules and guidance rather than prescriptive requirements set out in legislation”.
It states that it intends
“to consult on the key elements of the … framework … set out in legislation”.
One problem with being flexible—or moving to what the FCA calls
“a more flexible regime that supports effective competition and innovation, while maintaining appropriate consumer protection both now and in the future”—
is that flexibility can be inconsistent and lack transparency. What is appropriate for one firm may not be so for another. It brings doubts into the minds of businesses. We have heard of businesses being concerned about the arrangements run by the FCA. For example, given that many of the requirements to disclose information in the CCA and associated regulations are to be repealed, how transparent will the rules be? How consistently will they operate? Will the FCA’s rulings be published? If they are to be less prescriptive and more in line with the FCA’s consumer duty principle, how certain can businesses be about what counts as being in scope?
Before closing, I would like to mention another concern: the considerable compliance costs. Most of the disclosure of information obligations on the CCA, and in the linked regulations being repealed and replaced by FCA rules, will bring costs. I am grateful to Addleshaw Goddard LLP for its analysis, published on its website, which suggests:
“Reforms in relation to arrears, default notices & in-life information are likely to create major operational impact for collections and arrears handling. Given the high litigation risks attached to these requirements firms should carefully consider these changes and monitor how these requirements will be re-designed in FCA rules”.
Here, we should think of the start-up costs for this new system, along with the continuing compliance costs, which will be considerable. Take, for instance, the information requirements. How will they affect the estimated 30,000 firms that will have to amend documentation that does not align with the consumer duty?
With those thoughts, I support the thinking behind the stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, with its question mark around the wholesale transfer of such powers without any information on how they will be operated or regulated—or, indeed, what they will be now.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest in South Molton Street Capital, which is regulated by the FCA.
The amendments in this group reflect concerns similar to those raised in our previous debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe have argued, it is for the Government now to set out a compelling case for moving Consumer Credit Act provisions into the FCA rulebook. This is a serious new precedent and they must meet it with an equally serious explanation. Regulatory flexibility, or, as we have heard from my noble friends, the living instrument arguments, may be appropriate for matters of form, process and technical detail. However, that flexibility comes with risks. Consumers, firms and the courts all benefit when substantive rights and remedies are stated clearly in law. Notwithstanding the comments made by the Minister, moving them into regulatory rules may reduce their visibility, create uncertainty about their permanence and make their enforceability less clear. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us further on how the proposal before us will avoid that issue.
There is an important constitutional principle at stake. If rights established by Parliament can, in effect, be rewritten through regulator-made rules, Parliament’s role in determining the proper balance between consumer protection and regulatory proportionality is diminished. More broadly, public confidence depends on protections being visible, accessible and readily understood. This is particularly important in consumer credit, where people may be making difficult or significant financial decisions while facing difficult or vulnerable circumstances. Rights are of limited value if consumers cannot identify or understand them and cannot be confident about how they will be enforced.
Fundamentally, we need a lot more clarity on this process and on what the Minister described as the orderly transition. We shall listen carefully to his response on this group, in addition to his previous reply.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on this important set of issues. I start by addressing why Clause 1 and Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill. However, I do not want to duplicate what I said on the previous group, where I set out at length the Government’s policy for the CCA. Suffice it to say that the case for reform is straightforward. The Consumer Credit Act is more than 50 years old and was enacted long before the creation of the FCA. It no longer delivers as it should for today’s consumers, who engage with modern products in an increasingly digital world. That is why the Bill continues the work that began in 2012 of repealing this outdated legislation, such that it can be replaced with updated rules that better meet the needs of consumers and are fit for this digital age.
I understand the strength of feeling on the question of delegation, but I note that the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said that this is not a consensus. As I have said, this is entirely consistent with the model of regulation established by Parliament in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Government strongly believe that those replacement rules should, in the main, reside in the FCA rulebook, not in primary legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, expressed concern about how the FCA will replace some key protections, including information requirements. In the last group, I already explained the process that the FCA will follow. As I said, in practice, Parliament, the sector and consumer groups will see the FCA’s detailed proposals at the consultation stage, before the new regime takes place. I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that the FCA’s recent public statement confirmed that it aims to consult on key information requirements, rights and protections, including cancellation and withdrawal, the termination of agreements, including early settlement, and on looking across the consumer credit journey, with this approach being underpinned by the consumer duty. This will be supported by consultation and cost-benefit analysis, consumer research and stakeholder feedback.
Amendments 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 would retain information requirements and related sanctions in legislation or limit the FCA to prescribing only the form and content of notices. That would preserve the rigidity we are seeking to address. I cannot accept these amendments, as the provisions are not fit for the digital age. The Bill repeals these rigid statutory requirements so that the FCA can develop a more effective, rules-based regime. This is not about reducing information but about improving its timing, its quality and its clarity. The aim of the regime is that it provides consumers with better information in a clearer form and at a time that is most useful to them.
The consequence of repealing these information requirements is that certain related sanctions will fall away. These sanctions were designed for a different era. The Office of Fair Trading had limited powers for supervision and enforcement, so the regime was designed to be draconian to act as a robust deterrent. The sanctions apply automatically, regardless of the seriousness of any breach or whether any consumer harm has arisen. For example, a lender that used the incorrect wording in an arrears notice is required to refund any interest and fees charged from the point at which that breach was originally made, even if the error was in no way harmful to the borrower. Much has changed over the years since these sanctions were designed, and this approach is poorly suited to the modern approach to regulation. The FCA has strong supervisory and enforcement powers, and under consumer duties firms must deliver good outcomes. Unlike when the CCA was enacted, any consumer who suffers harm can straightforwardly access redress through the Financial Ombudsman Service, the FOS.
I recognise the concern behind Amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that FCA rules can supplement but not replace or diminish rights and remedies in the CCA. However, the Bill already preserves statutory rights that need to remain in legislation. Because FCA rules are not capable of eroding such rights, the amendment is not necessary.
I have already set out, in the last group, several examples of protections that remain in primary legislation, including Section 75 and provisions connected to criminal offences, which must of course remain in legislation. Amendments 6 and 15 would retain withdrawal, cancellation and early settlement rights in the CCA rather than allowing them to be recast into FCA rules. These rights are an important feature of consumer credit products that ought to be preserved. However, the current framework is complex and outdated and, as a result, not always well understood by consumers. The purpose of reform is to ensure that these protections work better for consumers, which is why the FCA has committed to consider cancellation rights alongside other rights including withdrawal, termination of agreements and early settlement, as part of its future framework. The amendments would prevent the FCA taking forward this vital work.
Lastly, Amendment 17 covers certain important rights, such as time orders, and seeks to retain these provisions within legislation without changes. However, changes to these provisions are necessary to ensure that they work together with the new information requirements recast into FCA rules.
I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that the Government are taking forward these changes for the benefit of consumers, and convince them that the changes the Bill makes are necessary to modernise our protections and ensure that they are serving their intended purpose of protecting consumers. I acknowledge that we will come to the scrutiny of the regulators, especially the FCA, in future groups. I therefore propose that Clause 1 and Schedule 1 stand part of the Bill and respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press her opposition to them.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all who have spoken in this debate. I am sorry that, to some extent, having it in two separate bits has made it more awkward. We are at a kind of impasse here. The Minister replies as though we are saying that nothing in the Consumer Credit Act can be changed and it will all have to stay there. In fact, all I am saying is that there are some basic core rights in statute, similar to the sorts of core rights that exist in many other Commonwealth countries, that should remain, because you do not have rights with the regulator. As my noble friend Lord Sharkey explained, the consumer duty does not give you any rights. It is about the opinion of the FCA, and it can change how it will apply it.
The main thing that we are objecting to is that the Bill is shoot first, ask questions later: “Give us all the power now and we’ll consult and tell you what we’re actually going to do later”. That is not the way to make legislation right—it is not how you would hire a telly, for heaven’s sake. We are being asked to tick the box on behalf of the public for something that is fundamentally unseen. The Bill does not retain core rights. It says that some things will change and gives an open-ended power to change everything else automatically when the Government want to. The fact that the Government are not taking rights away now does not mean that they cannot take them away later.
That is the impasse that we are at. We need some core rights that stay. The rest can all be simplified, streamlined and handled by the FCA and made more modern. The two should be able to work together, but it is not a simple fix. This has been pushed through without that second consultation, and that is why it is now falling apart as unsatisfactory. I will return to this when we come to Report, but, for now, I will not press my opposition to Clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“38A In section 140A (unfair relationships between creditors and debtors), after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) An application under section 140B(2)(a) shall not be made, and no action for an order under section 140B shall be brought, after the expiration of six years from the date on which the relationship between the creditor and the debtor ends.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would retain the six-year limitation period, running from the end of the creditor-debtor relationship, for applications or actions seeking relief under sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in respect of an unfair relationship.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the detail of these amendments, I should briefly set the scene. Noble Lords will be aware that last week the Conservative Party announced a new policy in relation to the Financial Ombudsman Service. An amendment on our proposal for an alternative approach, a financial adjudication service, is currently being discussed with the Table Office, and I do not intend to pre-empt that discussion. We will have the opportunity to debate that proposal at a later stage of the Bill.
The clauses before us, by contrast, change the landscape of dispute resolution in financial services in the immediate term. Our policy announcement does not prevent us engaging properly with the provisions before us now. Indeed, it makes it more important that we do so. We want whatever system Parliament agrees on now to work as well as it can. The amendments in this group are concerned with certainty, timeliness and fairness. They are intended to ensure that the framework being created by the Bill does not introduce unnecessary uncertainty for firms, does not allow yet further delay to become embedded in the system and does not create open-ended liabilities or an undesirable degree of retrospection.
I turn first to Amendment 17A, which relates to unfair relationships under Sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Its purpose is to retain the six-year limitation period running from the end—I emphasise “end”—of the creditor-debtor relationship for applications or actions seeking relief in respect of an unfair relationship. These can of course go back many years. This reflects a concern that has been raised with us following the Supreme Court ruling in THG plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd, which found that unfair prejudice petitions under Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 are not subject to statutory limitation periods. I appreciate that that judgment arose in a different statutory context, but it has prompted a serious and practical question. Does that reasoning have any implications for applications or actions seeking relief under Sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act?
If there is any doubt about the applicable limitation period, the consequences could be significant. Credit agreements, and the relationships arising from them, may have ended many years earlier. Banks and other lenders do not keep records indefinitely. They cannot reasonably be expected to defend claims on the basis of files, communications, systems and decision-making processes from an indefinite period in the past. That is why limitation periods matter. They reflect a basic principle of fairness: that after a certain period evidence may be lost, as memories fade and documents are no longer available. Without a clear time limit, firms could be exposed to open-ended liability and a significant increase in vexatious or speculative claims, often fired up by claims management companies.
Amendment 17A therefore seeks to preserve the existing position that, where relief is sought under Sections 140A and 140B in respect of an unfair relationship, the relevant limitation period should be six years from the date on which the relationship between the creditor and the debtor ends. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some clear answers here. As my noble friend Lady Lawlor said in the previous group, it is important to have predictability. Does the Government’s understanding remain that the six-year period applies? Has the position been affected in any way by the Supreme Court’s reasoning in THG v Zedra? If the Government consider the position is already clear, will the Minister set that out on the record? If there is any doubt, will he commit to preserving the current six-year period?
I turn next to Amendment 36, which concerns referrals from the Financial Ombudsman to the FCA. The Bill creates a new mechanism by which the Financial Ombudsman may refer matters to the FCA where there is an issue of wider significance or where FCA rules may be ambiguous. In principle, that is sensible and an important mechanism, but one of the recurring criticisms of the current system is that firms can find themselves judged against interpretations or expectations that were not clear at the time.
A route for the FCA to provide clarity is therefore welcome. However, that mechanism will work only if it operates at pace. If a complaint is referred to the FCA and then sits there for months, the result will be uncertainty for everyone. The consumer is left waiting, the firm is left with a live and unresolved complaint and the ombudsman cannot proceed. The wider market may be left in doubt about the meaning or application of the rules.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I would like to join in this discussion because it is probing thoughts. I shall make a few comments on Amendment 17A, because the issue overlaps with an amendment of mine that comes later in the main FOS group.
Amendment 17A raises an important point about limitation periods and the concept of when a relationship ends. It seeks to preserve the six-year limitation period for unfair relationship claims, running from the end of the creditor-debtor relationship. I understand the intention, but it exposes a deeper difficulty. The end of a relationship is not, or may not be, the same as the end of rights and it is certainly not the same as the end of enforcement powers. In many cases, firms retain continuing benefits or enforcement rights long after the consumer’s remedies have expired. Debts can be sold, pursued, securitised or enforced years after the practical relationship has ended, yet the consumer’s ability to challenge an unfair relationship may already have fallen away. That is an asymmetry.
As I said at Second Reading, while I understand the industry’s desire to get a grip on long-tail risk and liabilities, especially where regulators are interested in it, that cannot be done off the back of consumers. If we are to move parts of the Consumer Credit Act into the FCA rules, at the very least those rules must be required to secure, as far as reasonably practicable, symmetry between the duration of rights, remedies and redress available to consumers and the duration of rights, remedies, enforcement powers or continuing benefits to firms arising from the same act, omission or relationship. Without that symmetry, we risk creating a regime where firms retain long-tail powers but consumers lose long-tail protections. Limitation periods cannot be considered in isolation from the underlying rights. The two must move together or we distort the balance that Parliament intended. That is why the statutory framework has a place.
The FCA has already announced, a year or so back, a shift in emphasis to allow more risk in the interests of growth, which is a recurring theme. That was an important statement by the FCA and it feeds into the need for proportionate regulation and acceptance that there may be more failures, which Parliament must accept, but it cannot mean a bias advantage towards business in ways where firms retain recourse against consumers while consumers lose recourse against firms.
Under that process, companies may enjoy growth by escaping the consequences of some bad actions, but that gain is extracted from consumers and effectively added to the cost of living. Fleecing consumers is not growth, but I fear that this may be the consequence of the asymmetry in rights that could arise under Amendment 17A. I may return to this issue with my own amendment on Report.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I just wanted to say that I have a lot to say on the Financial Ombudsman Service but I shall save it all for group 6.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest, which perhaps I should have done at the beginning. I am a director of a pension company that is regulated by the FCA. I apologise for not having declared that earlier.
I will reflect on an issue that could arise because the Financial Ombudsman Service is in charge of complaints about pensions. We know that many people who are taking out pensions products may have problems that do not become apparent to them for six or 10 years or beyond. Perhaps we could consider an amendment that would carve out the extent to which the Financial Ombudsman Service deals with a pension complaint in relation to this element of the Bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have only a few comments on this group. As I listened to the comments on Amendment 17A, particularly those of my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I understood what reminded them of mortgage prisoners. In that case, people who held mortgages with banks that failed, and who were rescued by the Treasury, were then sold on to private holders who were not themselves lenders of mortgages. In effect, they lost the ability to refinance, and so they remained imprisoned in very high-rate mortgages at a time when everyone else was able to remortgage. We can see echoes of that in some of the limitations that would be introduced by these amendments. I am therefore always concerned about those time limitations, particularly in situations where assets can be sold on, as they often and increasingly are today.
Amendment 44, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to deal with the issue of consumer redress. If a consumer has been abused in some way and has a moral right to redress—a right in law—should that be lost simply because we have a regulator that fails to act promptly and within a reasonable time? I understand that it is tough for the industry, because it leaves it with uncertainty, but some of these products are life-changing for individual consumers and have life consequences. That is what made me think of mortgage prisoners; their lives were completely ruined by that process.
Where there are such consequences for the individual, it is very concerning to take away the right to redress because there was a delay in the functioning of the regulator. I understand that it means that the industry has to live with uncertainty, but my advice to it is to behave well to your customers. That really is the very best way not to get into these issues.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by considering Amendments 17A and 44. The Government’s reforms to the FOS are aimed at ensuring that the legislative framework in which it operates supports it to perform effectively the role that it was established to do, providing quick, informal and impartial dispute resolution between financial services firms and their customers.
Given the nature of the FOS and the way it operates, it can be effective at resolving the majority of disputes between customers and financial services firms, but it cannot do everything, and some things are more suited to other routes. The alternative routes include the courts and a consumer redress scheme established by the FCA. These routes are more appropriate when addressing systemic issues, such as widespread mis-selling. The reforms that the Bill makes to Section 404 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 are designed to enable the FCA to act quickly to prevent disruption and uncertainty when it finds that a mass redress event has occurred.
Turning to Amendment 17A, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this important issue. I recognise that there have been questions about the time limits that apply to claims brought under Sections 140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in the light of the Zedra ruling. The Government understand that there is an interest in and desire for clarity in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked me about the Government’s position following the Zedra ruling and its implications for the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Government’s position remains that the limitation period runs from the end of the credit agreement. That approach provides legal certainty and reflects the nature of these claims. That understanding is consistent with existing case law, including the Supreme Court’s judgment in Smith v RBS.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this brief debate and to the Minister for his response and clarification of THG v Zedra, which I will certainly consider.
My central point is that a redress and complaints system must be fair in operation. It must be capable of delivering justice for consumers, but it must also give firms a reasonable degree of certainty about the liabilities they face, the standards against which they are judged and the timeframes within which matters will be resolved. If we create a system in which liabilities are open-ended, where regulatory redress powers can go beyond ordinary limitation principles, and where referrals can remain unresolved for an indefinite period, I do not think it will produce a better system for consumers.
I agree that we must look after consumers—this is obviously a very important part of consumer law—but I worry that we will produce a slower, more uncertain and more contested system for everyone if we do not get these judgments right. I do not accept a bias towards business, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, suggested. Actually, we are seeing a shift the other way in some of these areas, which is why I have had the representations I have had on these points and why I think is it is very important to find clarity.
I note what my noble friend Lady Altmann said about pensions. The Minister has answered and explained that he sees pensions in a slightly different way. I am not sure what the limitation rules are there.
I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the thrust of these amendments. In particular, I hope that he will consider whether the Government can provide a clearer statutory safeguard on limitation—clarity is certainly important—as well as a firmer timetable for FCA opinions. I worry that just delegating it to the FCA will mean it being in charge of its own timetable. If there were an enormous problem in the financial services industry that required the diversion of staff elsewhere, for example, things could slip, and redress for the consumer could then slip as well.
All of these amendments go in the same direction: towards fair, timely and certain decision-making, with predictability for both consumers and the businesses involved. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Noakes
“(1A) Before making regulations under this section the Treasury must consult persons which provide banking services and such other persons as the Treasury consider may be affected by the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Treasury to consult banks and others who might be affected by regulations on access to banking services.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 18, I will also speak to my Amendments 19, 20 and 25 in this group; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for adding his name to them.
We now move on to Clause 3, which gives a very wide power for the Treasury to make pretty well any provision it feels like about providing access to banking services. It is a fact of life that major banks in the UK have been reducing their branch footprints for several years, in response to the massive shift from in-person banking to online and mobile banking. Branch visits have fallen by more than 90% since the 1980s, and debit cards overtook cash transactions in the 2010s. In 2024, only 9% of transactions were made in cash, while 93% of adults used online or mobile banking. At the same time, the activity that banks could conduct safely via branches diminished. Some might think nostalgically of the era of autonomous bank managers making lending decisions and offering investment advice, but those days have been largely risk-managed out of retail banking.
Noble Lords will be aware that the 2023 Act gave the FCA powers to protect access to cash services. I did not think that those powers were necessary, because I could see that cash was definitely on its way out, but I accept that banks have to continue to provide cash until cash-only users drop to an insignificant number. The banks have agreements with the Post Office and have voluntarily signed up to the provision of 350 joint banking hubs that provide not only cash services but, to a more limited extent, the services of community bankers.
I know that some consumer lobby groups have had statutory protections for more than cash services in their sights for some time, but it is far from clear whether more needs to be done beyond the banking hubs, which are still being rolled out. I have never seen a clear exposition of what services are missing, so I have no idea whether they are realistic in terms of continuing provision, hence I am unconvinced about the case for either statutory intervention or further regulatory powers.
The case may be made when the review being undertaken by Mr Richard Lloyd reports, but that is the time for the Government and Parliament to decide whether a statutory remedy is necessary. Frankly, it is bizarre that the Government set up the Lloyd review in the very month when they announced in the King’s Speech that they intended to legislate. Normally, we consider matters then determine whether legislation is necessary, but not in this case. Even if Mr Lloyd’s review finds that further banking services are needed, that does not inevitably lead to the need for further laws. The banking hub arrangements that I referred to are not in existence as a result of the 2023 Act, as the banks had already started to set them up. The banks are generally well aware that they are an essential part of the fabric of our society and that responsibilities go with that.
I turn to my amendments. Amendments 18 and 19 are straightforward. Amendment 18 says that the Treasury would have to consult the banks and anyone else who might be affected before making regulations. I am quite sure that Mr Lloyd will be diligent in discussing the issue of banking service provision with the banks during his review, but that is no substitute for the Treasury itself being required to consult the banks before any regulations are made. Whatever Mr Lloyd’s review concludes, it is the Treasury in the first instance that needs to decide what, if any, burdens to impose on banks, hence it is absolutely necessary that they are consulted. Amendment 19 would require the Treasury to be satisfied that the banking services which might be covered by regulations would not be provided voluntarily. There is no need to create regulatory burdens where the desired outcomes can be achieved by other means.
As I have already said, retail banks are aware of their societal responsibilities; they will also be aware of the Treasury’s power under Clause 3 to require them to do things. Hence it is highly likely that, if Mr Lloyd comes up with reasonable recommendations, there will be a voluntary agreement. That would in effect leave the power in Clause 3 to make regulations in place to make less than reasonable recommendations into law, which is particularly why Amendment 18, which requires consultation, would be essential.
My other amendments in this group, Amendments 20 and 25, are intended to ensure that any use of the regulation-making power in Clause 3 is rooted in the findings of independent reviews. At present, the regulation-making power is unlimited and its only restriction is to have regard to the findings of the Lloyd review. It does not even have to follow the findings of the Lloyd review. That review might make recommendations which the Treasury does not wish to pursue at this time. Amendment 25 would ensure that if the Treasury wished to resuscitate such recommendations at a later date, or indeed to pursue other approaches to the provision of banking services, then it would have to have another independent review to validate the necessity for using the power.
Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, would tie the use of the Clause 3 power to the Lloyd review. I see the rationale for that, but I wonder whether her amendment might ossify the concept of banking service provision into mid-2026. I am sure that the need for in-person banking services will carry on changing long after Mr Lloyd has submitted his report.
I predict that we will end up with only a very small number of bank customers who actually need in-person services. The last thing that we want to do is to make the banks carry on providing them if those services are not generally needed, because the costs would be borne not by the banks but by all bank customers, so we would be shifting burdens from one small set of consumers to another.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has tabled a Clause 3 stand part notice, with which I have very much sympathy. The Government have stated in the Explanatory Notes, and the Minister repeated at the Dispatch Box at Second Reading, that the Government intend to narrow the power during the Bill’s passage. My own view is that it is unacceptable for the power to leave your Lordships’ House in its current wide form. The Government must narrow the power while we are scrutinising it in your Lordships’ House, since it is unacceptably wide as it stands. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, I would normally apologise for not taking part in Second Reading but—how I can put this—I was enjoying my temporary retirement from the House.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
It is very nice to be back to do another Financial Services and Markets Bill. As it is the first time I have spoken, I should declare a registered interest in Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., which is a large American company that provides services and software to a wide range of financial services companies around the world.
I have tabled Amendment 26 and given notice of my intention to oppose that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I have also added my name to a number of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
I have another interest to declare. I lost my local bank branch in my village some years ago, and I have just been informed that the last remaining bank in my nearest town is also about to close. To visit a bank branch for me will now involve a 100-mile round trip, so I am sympathetic to the idea that we need to do something to ensure continuation of access to banking services, especially in rural areas such as mine. At the same time, I am conscious that I probably visit a bank branch less than a couple of times a year, so I understand why banks feel it necessary to close them. They are not economic. We need to find a sensible balance to this. I accept that we may need to do something, but what?
There is the old joke: “We need to do something; this is something, so let’s do it”, but Clause 3 is not even something. It is just a vague—I was going to say promise, but it is not even that—intention to do something completely unspecified at an unspecified time, or indeed times, in the future. This Government have an unfortunate track record of putting sweeping powers into legislation before deciding what they actually intend to do with them, and this is yet another example. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out really strongly, this is a very sweeping power with no meaningful limitations at all other than, as we have heard, the need to have regard, and only to have regard, to the independent review currently being undertaken by Richard Lloyd.
Clause 3(3), which has only examples rather than limitations, is one of the widest I have seen. It includes the express ability to make changes to any Act of Parliament, a really strong Henry VIII power. It starts by saying:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may (among other things)”
do the things listed below that. Will the Minister explain what these other things might be? Am I being old-fashioned to suggest that this is not the right way to create law? It would surely be better to wait until after the review has been undertaken, decide what is needed and then legislate—if legislation is actually necessary, since, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says, we got these banking hubs without legislation—and have the legislation subject to proper scrutiny by Parliament, which it will not be if we go down this route.
The Minister will no doubt try to reassure us about how this power will be used. Of course I—and, I am sure, everybody else in this Room—will have complete faith that the Minister would not try to misuse the power, but he will not always be the Minister. That may be a comment that has particular resonance today. Who knows? It is even possible that this Government may not always be the Government, but this power is unlimited and will be the law for the foreseeable future. Who knows what a future Government might wish to do with such an unlimited power? Indeed, as written, they could even use it to reduce the rights of access to banking.
I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, will he explain in more detail how the Government currently expect, subject of course to the review, to use this power? What do they expect to do with it and when? Secondly, will he explain which Acts of Parliament he has in mind that might be changed under Clause 3(3)(b) and what changes he would expect to make to them? I put on record now that if I do not get a very convincing answer as to why this wide Henry VIII power is required, I will push Amendment 26, which would remove the power to amend primary legislation, to a Division on Report.
Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum recognises that this is a broad power. It says it is “necessarily broad”. At the same time, and in contrast to that, it also seems to recognise that it is broader than really needed, as it goes on to say,
“the Government would expect to narrow it once the review has concluded”.
I am somewhat baffled by that. We are in Grand Committee now, and the timetable for the Bill seems pretty tight. Will the Minister explain how it would be possible to narrow it, given that the Bill is likely to have completed all its stages before the review is completed and they have worked out what they want to do with it? Once the Bill has become law, the power cannot be narrowed.
This is another example of the Government trying to show they are doing something before they have decided what they want to do, and therefore giving themselves inappropriately broad powers that avoid proper scrutiny when they do finally decide. It is not the right way to make laws that will outlast this Government, and I do not believe this clause should stand part of the Bill without at least very significant narrowing and safeguards.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 24 and 27 in my name. I support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. To some extent, we are again fishing in the same constitutional pond that regulators are not Parliament. Parliament should not give away powers it cannot get back, and it should not make decisions before we know what we are deciding about.
Amendment 24 would ensure that any regulations made under this clause can only make provision that arises directly from the statutory review. A review is not a blank cheque. If Parliament asks for a review of access to banking services, the regulation-making power should be, if not confined to, at least in some way related to what the review identifies and not what a future Minister or regulator might wish to do. That is my real target. It may be that I have drafted he amendment a little too tightly but, as has been explained, this is a very open-ended power to do anything. Looked at constitutionally, the fact that the consultation has not yet been completed and assessed more than stretches proper procedure.
Amendment 27 addresses a different but related concern. As drafted, the Bill creates machinery in which FCA rules effectively drive changes to legislation, including primary legislation. The FCA pulls the lever, the Treasury presses the button and the law moves to reflect the regulator’s rulebook. The Government will no doubt say that Parliament can always reject the regulations, but we all know how that plays out: Parliament is presented with take-it-or-leave-it unamendable statutory instruments, and if it dares to reject them, we are told we are precipitating a constitutional crisis. That is not meaningful parliamentary control.
I am not opposed to the FCA modernising rules or streamlining processes—far from it—but where those rules have the effect of altering rights or obligations that were created by Parliament, the change must meaningfully come back to Parliament. Otherwise, we risk creating a system where the regulator can, in substance, rewrite Acts of Parliament by changing its rulebook. That is not proportionate regulation; it is law-making without accountability. Again, this seems not to be the sort of thing expected under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. These amendments do not prevent modernisation; they simply ensure that modernisation happens within a statutory framework, with Parliament retaining oversight of the rights it has created. It does not mean going into the detail, but it does mean monitoring the rights. I hope the Minister will recognise that these are modest but important constitutional guardrails.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 22 in my name. I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading, as I was overseas on a parliamentary delegation. I declare an interest as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission and president of the Money Advice Trust.
My amendment is specifically about banking hubs, a subject I have been very interested in ever since they came on the scene. There is a need, as I see it, for a far clearer definition of what constitutes a banking hub. Looking at the range of other amendments in this group, I am pleased that we are having a broader and much-needed debate on access to banking and, in particular, in-person services than we managed to have on the 2023 Act, despite my best efforts, which did not really get us anywhere.
To explain why a definition of “banking hubs” is so important, I will briefly look at the context. As we all know, over the past decade banking in the UK has changed profoundly. More than 6,700 high street bank branches have closed since 2015. Of course, at the same time, the way that people pay for goods and services has shifted dramatically: 10 years ago, more than half of all payments were made in cash, and today that figure is closer to one in 10.
For many people, that transition has been quite manageable, and indeed welcome, if they like the convenience of digital banking online, apps or card payments. But, for others, the shift away from local branches and cash-based services has created real barriers. For someone who cannot use online banking, the closure of a local bank branch can mean losing independent access to their own money. For someone who is blind or partially sighted, inaccessible digital systems can make everyday banking difficult or, frankly, impossible. For an older person without reliable transport, the nearest banking services may simply be out of reach. For those who use cash to budget—a proportion of people still do—or to pay carers, support relatives and retain control over household spending, the disappearance of in-person banking is not just a minor inconvenience; it can affect that feeling of control, autonomy and financial security.
Banking hubs emerged as a response to this new reality, providing shared in-person access to basic banking services, including cash withdrawals and deposits, as well as a limited amount of face-to-face support. I welcome banking hubs, as I have throughout this debate. I have been pleased to visit one and see what it involved. The Government have committed to rolling out 350 hubs by 2029. For me, the questions around banking hubs are: what do they actually do? Are they doing enough and being rolled out quickly enough? Are they addressing the needs of the people who need them most? These questions are ever more pressing following the announcement, which I very much welcome, of an independent review into the impact of bank branch closures, looking at what further interventions might be needed to protect access to in-person banking services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised whether this is all about nostalgia and looking back to how it was in the old days—a sort of “Dad’s Army” view of banking—but we really need to recognise that it is not a question of nostalgia for traditional banking. Banking services have and will continue to evolve, and digital services will remain central, in my view, to the future of financial services, but inclusion has to be built into that transition. At the moment, we have not seen quite enough emphasis on inclusion. That key gap remained and was baked into the 2023 legislation, which is why it is so important that the independent review looks at this and comes up with good recommendations, so that the FCA can specify what a banking hub is and what qualifies as one.
Frankly, at the moment, the industry could meet all the terms of regulation without a single banking hub. It can offer services virtually, in theory—namely, through video conferencing—which might have some merit in setting out the minimum requirements for a hub and holding the industry to them in the long term. The FCA might also choose to define hubs to suit rural areas. It might be a lighter-touch model. We have to make sure that this does not impact on the Post Office and that it allows further rollout. All the evidence I have seen so far has pointed to the importance of sustainability for the Post Office and the basic banking services that it provides under the framework agreement.
Moving forward, there are big challenges. At a recent meeting of the All-Party Group on Fair Banking, there were strong calls for the FCA to prevent closures of banks—the last branch in town—until replacement access is in place. There was a feeling that the current approach is frankly too reactive, with a response often coming only after the closure occurs, and there were questions of whether communities losing their final branch should automatically receive a hub, so that there should not have to be a review. The Post Office was very much recognised as a key national asset in supporting access to cash and basic banking services.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness., Lady Tyler. As I listened to her speech, I was crossing off most of the things that I was going to say, because she said them much more eloquently than I could have, and I am thankful for that. We need to be able to provide everybody with the best possible services, locally available. As the noble Baroness said, when people are at their most vulnerable, at the most crucial moments of their lives and taking the big decisions, being face to face makes all the difference.
I gather that an article in the Spectator says that Bishops do not mention the word Jesus enough when we are speaking in your Lordships’ House—well, I have just covered that one, for Hansard’s benefit. In my theology, when God had something really important to do, He did not send an email or text message or put writing in the sky. He sent a person, in Jesus Christ, to meet other human beings face to face. We lose face-to-face services at our peril.
Occasionally, yes, I am involved with the closing of a church. But very few churches, certainly Anglican ones, have been closed in England over the past 40 or 50 years, because we recognise the importance of providing face-to-face encounters for people to meet other people. While I appreciate that we do not want to overregulate, I feel that, as I said at Second Reading, making face-to-face banking services available to people when that is what they need, because they have a big decision and are feeling vulnerable, gains priority over the convenience of the banks. They might pass some small costs on to the rest of us, and it might affect the bonuses that some bankers get and the shareholders’ dividends at the end of the day, but that is a price to pay for seeing that everybody is included in the banking world.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I shall speak to Amendment 23 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sikka. He very much regrets not being able to be here, but I hope that the Minister will still respond to the point that it raises.
The key issue is that there is a public service element in banking. It goes beyond commercialism; it is reasonable to ask that the review which is taking place should consider that issue, and specifically whether it requires an amendment to the Bill to effectively pre-empt the issue and say that villages, towns and districts need some form of banking services. I think there could well be broad agreement on that—the issue is that banks are competitive commercial organisations and so are not going to do it. They will do it only if there is some sort of collective scheme, funded by a levy, that provides good services for people where they live. I very much enjoyed the contribution of the right reverend Prelate, and indeed churches have closed down far less frequently than banks and post offices. I hope my noble friend will respond positively to that point on the public service element.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I speak for the first time in Committee on my third Financial Services and Markets Bill. I reflect on the curious circumstances in which we find ourselves and offer reassurances to those who do not like Clause 3 in particular. Surely under the new regime, which we expect to see in a month or so, we are unlikely to see the Bill in anything like its current form given that it aims overall to deliver the so-called Leeds reforms of Chancellor Reeves. Those intend to give the financial sector a boost of growth, at an inevitable cost to the real economy—a boost to London and the tax havens at a cost to the rest of the country—and to reduce the regulations which were brought in as protections for all our security after the last financial crash. However, there is still a point in all of us going through the Bill in detail as we are doing now, because we are also making bids for what a future Government will look like.
On that basis, I will speak in particular to Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. We are expressing very important issues, as the right reverend Prelate put so well. He was speaking about religion but also about humanity and human need, which these amendments particularly address. Your Lordships do not need to listen to me with my radical voice; reading around this, I found an article in March from the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance. It quoted figures which state that about 53 bank branches close each month, and pointed out that this was forcing older people in particular into digital exclusion, stripping away their independence and leaving them highly vulnerable to scams. No one has yet brought that up, but speaking to local persons in a local branch can be an important prevention against scams, and there is also the premium on having to pay more for things because you are poor.
Picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, the pensioners alliance talks about circumstances of bereavement or the need for a power of attorney, which are circumstances that can happen to any of us. They will continue to happen, and technology cannot make them disappear. On that, I take issue with a couple of points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The noble Baroness said that we can get rid of branches when cash users drop to an insignificant number. First, we should not be treating anyone in our society as insignificant, but more broadly, that assumes that we are heading—both as individuals and collectively—only in one direction. You may, at a certain age, be able to cope very well with digital banking and be perfectly comfortable with it, but that is not to say that later in life you might not want to use a different system. You might not be able to see the screen of your phone or manipulate its buttons, or you might not be able to hear on the telephone anymore. At that point, cash being available is an absolutely crucial thing.
Finally, I will pick up a point from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which the right reverend Prelate also discussed. It is not the case that customers have to pay for the provision of these services. I point out that the big four UK lenders made £14 billion total profit in the first quarter of this year, and their profits last year were £46 billion. The financial sector depends on government support to survive. That is a licence, and we can comment on the conditions under which that licence is held. If this legislation goes forward, surely we can add a provision on local banking services—having a person to speak to when you really need it. Whatever future legislation comes in, there clearly needs to be action in this area.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, there seem to have been two themes in today’s discussion; I will address both because I agree with them both.
The first is on whether we value banking hubs. There have been so many voices that say that we value them, but they are calling for a much-improved framework, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I suspect that there is a universal consensus that we need to think through this issue, which is exactly why the Richard Lloyd review is now anticipated. I think that most people who see the value of banking hubs in their community—most MPs have been asking for banking hubs in their constituencies—very much appreciate the direction of the Lloyd review. On the background and evidence for the need for banking hubs, I will address some of those issues much more when I discuss community development financial institutions in a later group, so I will not repeat all that.
That does not take away from the fact that we have a constitutional issue here. According to its report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is very concerned that the problem has not been clearly identified and that a power as extensive as the one provided for here in the Bill severely compromises effective parliamentary scrutiny. The Select Committee asks for the power to be removed from the Bill. I say to the Government that it is important that there will be some real clarity before this hits the Commons—otherwise, this clause will be very much in trouble.
I support banking hubs. I suspect that I will be very pleased when I read the Lloyd review. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I cannot just say to Parliament that, if it is something that I like, we do not need oversight, scrutiny and a proper process and that we do not need to consider the role of the regulator versus the democratic decision-making that should be happening in Parliament. This is a very good instance where I suspect that I would be very much in favour of the Lloyd review, but I would be very sad if that is not brought before Parliament for discussion, scrutiny and proper oversight. It is unfortunate that the Bill follows a procedure and process that seems to be completely unnecessary and that does not allow for that oversight. Oversight is valid, whether or not you think you will like what the regulator will do.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 21, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Noakes, would ensure that any government intervention in the provision of in-person banking services is evidence-based, proportionate and properly balanced. It would require Ministers to consider not only the needs of consumers but the legitimate commercial reasons why firms may reduce their physical banking provision.
More widely, Clause 3 raises two distinct but closely related concerns. Our amendment speaks to the first: banks do not close branches simply on a whim. Consumer behaviour has changed profoundly, more banking is conducted digitally, and maintaining a physical network carries substantial costs. The Government may decide that wider social considerations justify intervention, but they cannot responsibly make that decision while ignoring the commercial realities facing the firms they intend to regulate.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin by setting out why Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill. The way that UK citizens bank has changed significantly in recent years, with many customers choosing to use digital channels such as mobile banking. As such, we have seen many firms reviewing how best to meet these changing needs, and banks are closing branches in response.
However, for some people who require access to in-person banking services, these changes may have resulted in detriment. The Government are committed to ensuring that people who need in-person banking, including vulnerable customers and those with specific needs, can continue to access essential services. Last month, as mentioned, the Government launched an independent review into access to banking services led by Richard Lloyd, former executive director at Which? and a former board member of the FCA. I encourage noble Lords to engage with him. As they have noted, he conducts this critical work. I am glad to hear much agreement from many noble Lords today as this is a critical issue and the Government are right to be exploring it.
Clause 3 ensures that we can act swiftly and proportionately if the evidence from the Access to Banking Services review supports intervention. Once the Access to Banking Services review has concluded and made its recommendations, the Government will assess whether any further legislative change may be required. I appreciate that the power is broad and that many of the amendments in this group are aimed at scrutinising or reducing the breadth of that power. I also recognise that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has drawn Clause 3 to the attention of the House and recommended that the power be removed from the Bill. The Government have considered that report and will be responding in writing in the normal way before Report.
We accept that this is a broad power, but we consider that it is needed now so that, once the independent review reports, the Government can respond promptly and proportionately in light of the evidence and recommendations that it provides. As the review is still ongoing, it is not yet known what detriment exists, which customer segments are most affected, whether further intervention is needed or what form it should take. The Government are committed to keeping all aspects of this power under review as the independent review completes its work.
I pass on my personal welcome back to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. His comments about Ministers changing is indeed pertinent on a day such as today. I am not casting too far in the future; indeed, I keep checking my phone just to see whether I make it through Committee stage.
The noble Lord whether this power could be narrowed. I can confirm that the Government expect to narrow the power once the review has concluded in October and we have had the opportunity to consider the recommendations. This will provide further clarity on any appropriate interventions that will allow the power to be refined.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
If the review is going to be completed in October, presumably there will then be a period of time when the Government will consider it. In my experience, that usually takes several months, by which time the Bill will be law. I struggle to understand how the power can be narrowed, given that we are probably at the end of the year before proposals have come forward.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I was coming on to that point. The noble Lord asked what the power can do and how that scrutiny can take place. It allows the Government to introduce targeted secondary legislation or to confer functions on the FCA, including the power to make rules in the future. When using this power, the Treasury must have regard to the recommendation made by the Lloyd review.
I think the noble Lord made a point about what legislation could be amended. I can only answer this in part at this time: the Treasury expects to use the power if needed to amend relevant legislation, for example, financial services legislation.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I would just like to clarify this. Is the Minister saying in effect these powers are going to be one time only? Is that the implication?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that they may need the power to change financial services legislation. Since financial services legislation is in the hands of the Treasury, I think we are entitled to a slightly more specific explanation of how the power might be used to change primary legislation. Can he be more specific about which bits of financial services legislation the Treasury will likely use the power for?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
With all these examples, I will have to come back in some detail at a later stage. The idea of narrowing the powers means that we can take into consideration the conversation and debate, while acknowledging that there will be some work to do in the intervening period. We believe we have the time to do that before the Lloyd review comes into play, allowing us to make the amendments necessary.
On Amendment 18, from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I reassure noble Lords that the Treasury engages very regularly with the retail banking sector as part of its policy-making process. In addition to the Treasury’s ongoing regular engagement, the Access to Banking Services review will engage closely with as wide a range of stakeholders as possible, including the industry, consumers, local authorities, small and medium-sized businesses, and trade bodies. Furthermore, if regulations are made under this power to confer functions on the FCA, the Government would expect the regulator to follow its usual processes and to fulfil its statutory duty to consult before it imposes any new requirements.
Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, contains a similar requirement for the Treasury to consult before making any regulations. It would require the Treasury to have regard to other sources of evidence, including the burdens that any regulations would place on banks, and for the Treasury to publish a statement alongside any draft regulation summarising its consideration of the evidence. The review will consider these sources of evidence, and, in considering the review’s recommendations, the Treasury will naturally take into account the impacts on banks and other relevant businesses. If the Treasury brings forward regulations under this clause, it will publish an impact assessment that will consider the impact on firms, as well as the proportionality of regulation.
Similarly, Amendment 23—in the name of my noble friend Lord Sikka and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton—would require the Treasury to have regard to the need for local banking services when making regulations under Clause 3. I reassure my noble friends that the review will consider the need for in-person banking services and the impact on any specific cohorts or demographics. Funding will be considered once the review has identified the scale and nature of the consumer detriment and once the Government have considered how to respond.
Likewise, Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, seeks to require the Treasury to have regard to several matters relating to the existing provision of banking services, including through banking hubs and the Post Office. The review will consider these sources of evidence when forming its recommendations. On her specific point on the time between bank branch closures and the opening of a banking hub, I reassure her that, if a banking hub is recommended, FCA rules already require banks not to close existing cash-access services, such as branches, until the recommended solution is in place.
Amendments 20 and 25 would require the Treasury to commission further independent reviews if it wishes to make subsequent regulations after first exercising the power in this clause. There is an existing requirement in Clause 3 for the Treasury to have regard to the recommendations of the current review when making regulations. The review was commissioned to bring together proactively the evidence from across the UK and to look at the trajectory for access to in-person banking services, not just the position as it currently stands. If the Government consider it necessary to make further provision in future, they would envisage this to follow the usual process of consultation and impact assessment, beginning from the baseline of evidence provided by the ongoing review. Further wide-ranging independent reviews are likely to be disproportionate.
Amendment 24, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, is similar: it would limit the power to be used only to implement matters arising directly from the independent Access to Banking Services review. As I have made clear, the Government’s intention is for the power to be used to implement the recommendations of the review. However, it is important that the power is not limited solely for this purpose, in case further relevant evidence outside the scope of the review comes to light as Ministers consider the review’s recommendations. The Government should be able to consider all relevant evidence, not just the review itself, before making any regulations.
Amendment 19 would require the power to be used to make regulations only if the relevant banking services would not be provided on a voluntary basis. The Treasury welcomes action taken by industry to support customers and welcomes the voluntary commitments, such as services provided in banking hubs, that the industry has taken forward. The Treasury will consider relevant information in determining any regulations to take forward following this Bill, including any relevant voluntary arrangements already in place.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. A number of noble Lords expressed their views on what kinds of services should be made available, but we have the Lloyd review and we now await its outcome. That may or may not answer questions to all noble Lords’ satisfaction, but at least we will have a starting point.
That brings me to one of the key issues that arise from our debate: sequencing. It is normal to identify a problem, then decide whether legislation is required to deal with it, and then legislate. That has been how we have done business through Parliament for time immemorial. Not just in this case but in other cases as well, the Government are starting to flip that on its head: “Let’s take some powers. Then let’s see if we’ve got a problem and then see if we can use the powers to solve the problem”. That is not responsible legislation.
The Minister acknowledged the breadth of the powers but he has failed to articulate in a way that will satisfy the Committee the reasons or the rationale for having such a broad power. He referred to the DPRRC report, which gave a clear finding. The Minister will find that the House will generally take a lot of persuading not to follow such an explicit finding of the Delegated Powers Committee.
This will not rest here; the Minister will be aware of that. This power is being taken at the wrong time, without sufficient evidence or definition. In consequence of it being taken at the wrong time and without any evidence, it is being drafted in a way that is deeply offensive constitutionally. The only thing I need to say in closing is that we will return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Kramer
“Access to affordable credit(1) The Financial Conduct Authority must—(a) within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish, publish and maintain a framework for assessing and rating the performance of relevant deposit takers in providing access to affordable credit, and(b) annually publish updated ratings and scores produced by the Authority under the framework.(2) The framework must—(a) assess the extent to which relevant deposit takers serve the credit needs of individuals, households and small businesses, including those who are underserved by mainstream financial services, and(b) enable comparisons to be made between relevant deposit takers.(3) In developing the framework, the Authority must have regard to—(a) the distribution of lending across income groups, geographic areas and customer characteristics,(b) the availability of affordable credit to consumers who may otherwise be at risk of financial exclusion,(c) the provision of affordable credit to small and medium-sized enterprises, and social enterprises,(d) the extent to which a bank supports access to affordable credit through partnerships, referral arrangements and funding agreements, with credit unions, Community Development Finance Institutions or other community-based lenders, and(e) such other matters as the Authority considers relevant to the objective of promoting access to affordable credit.(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Authority may—(a) make use of regulatory data already collected by it, including product sales data,(b) require relevant deposit takers to provide such information as it reasonably considers necessary for the purposes of the framework, and(c) make different and proportionate provision for different sizes of business.(5) For the purposes of this section, “relevant deposit takers” are—(a) banks, within the meaning given of section 2 of the Banking Act 2009;(b) building societies, with the meaning of section 119 of the Building Societies Act 1986;which meet an Authority-set threshold for the total volume of personal and small and medium business lending.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the FCA to establish a framework assessing banks’ and building societies’ provision of affordable credit, including via partnerships with credit unions and CDFIs. It uses existing regulatory data where possible, with proportionate requirements for firms of different sizes.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 28 and 29 are in my name. Amendment 30 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Bowles and I am very supportive of it, but I am going to focus my remarks on Amendments 28 and 29.
I thank the Fair Banking for All campaign, a coalition of 38 organisations co-ordinated by Finance Innovation Lab, bringing together civil society organisations, anti-poverty groups, community development financial institutions, fintech researchers and people with lived experience of financial exclusion. Their work on drafting Amendments 28 and 29 assures that these amendments work in law and in practice.
Access to affordable credit, which is the subject of these two amendments, is now one of the biggest challenges we face in the UK. Millions of individuals and businesses are excluded from fair and affordable credit despite being financially viable. More than 3.5 million people are handling this by taking out high-cost credit. The consumer duty on banks does not result in any attempt by banks to fill this market failure, nor have they been directed to do so by the FCA.
My focus has been very much on SMEs, which need credit to grow as the backbone of our communities and the source of new jobs. The Federation of Small Businesses records that more than half of all small businesses rate the availability of affordable credit as poor. When I talk to conventional banks about these customers, they say to me that they are very open to lending to small businesses, then I quickly find that they mean they will offer high-priced loans backed by property, not cash flow, and they want personal guarantees from the owners of the SME. It is a consequence of a change in the business model of the high street banks, as, in many ways, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, acknowledged earlier. Local banking as we once knew it has disappeared. Decisions are made by bankers or algorithms which do not know the customers or the businesses except on paper. They do not know that Jo has a convincing expansion plan or that Jane always repays her debts. They are detached from the reality of individual banking that is able to take individual proposals into consideration.
Adding to that, small businesses have become suspicious of the banks. The way the banks behaved to customers following the 2008 financial crisis—I mean small customers—shocked many people. They seized assets even when loans were being paid on time and in full, because various property-to-value or loan-to-value ratios had changed with the fall in property values in that era. Paying on time and in full would seem to me to suggest that you are a viable customer, and finding that your loan was called in and the asset seized was really destructive.
Many people thought that challenger banks and new fintechs would be willing to provide credit where conventional high street banks failed. That has not turned out to be true. The new players market themselves primarily to the same pool of SME businesses that the banks seek to service. Indeed, they have now taken a 60% share of that market, because new challenger banks and fintechs typically offer better products and efficiency. However, the access to finance problem has remained and indeed worsened. It has not been resolved by the entry of these new players.
I am pleased that the Bill makes some small moves to improve the situation by expanding the role of credit unions and mutuals and strengthening open banking but, frankly, it does not begin to touch the scale of the problem. My Amendments 28 and 29 follow the pattern of the United States, which dealt with the issue of exclusion head on with the Community Reinvestment Act 1977. In effect, the Act led to the creation of a layer of community development financial institutions, mostly CDFI banks and credit unions, which tackle the problems of exclusion by the big banks.
In the USA, there are now 1,400 CDFIs extending across the whole nation, which manage more than $450 billion in loans, both to small businesses and to individuals. They provide advice, financial education, patient lending and individual assessment. They are also the backbone of economic success in the United States by providing stability in any economic crisis, making sure that disadvantaged communities, including rural areas, are not ignored and growing the businesses of the future. The big American banks, which so opposed the scheme originally because they were required to fund it to remedy exclusion, are now strong supporters, realising that the CDFIs develop their customers of the future.
We have CDFIs in the UK and the British Business Bank, which is an enthusiast, has an ENABLE fund from the Government of £150 million over two years to expand the sector and an ENABLE growth guarantee scheme to reduce borrowing costs. But we still have only some 60 CDFIs in the UK, lending by different estimates something between £250 million and £400 million a year. That is an important contribution, as CDFIs report that 94% of the businesses receiving their loans have previously been rejected by a bank, but, frankly, it is a pathetic number compared to the US.
The Government have set up a UK community finance partnership taskforce to develop partnerships between banks and CDFIs. It is chaired by Bob Annibale, the former director of inclusive finance at Citibank who is a very strong advocate for this agenda, but frankly, I am fed to the teeth of small steps. My Amendment 28 follows the US pattern and would require the FCA to set up a rating system to measure the performance of banks and building societies in providing affordable credit to individuals, households and small businesses, and rating it against appropriate measures to test for exclusion. Rating systems such as this are not a US invention. Similar set-ups are used in the UK by the care inspectorate and the food and health inspectorate.
Amendment 28 would set up the framework of the rating system. Amendment 29 goes beyond that and would enable the FCA to require a proportionate remedy where any bank or building society falls below the threshold required by the FCA. Benchmarking is critical: the language permits the banks to avoid changing their business model. This speaks in a sense to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised earlier, which is that banks have changed fundamentally and we are not asking them to change back. What we are doing with this system is giving them the opportunity to find another way to deal with the exclusion, so the language permits the banks to avoid changing their business model and instead allows them to support other arrangements for affordable credit, including credit unions and CDFIs. As I have said, the model is tried and tested in the United States and is understood by every major bank.
I anticipate that some people will say that this proposal is a burdensome data-gathering exercise for the banks, but it is not. In 2013, this House passed an amendment, drafted by me and my noble friend Lord Sharkey, to set up a voluntary scheme for banks to report most of the relevant data—and by postcode, so it was very granular—to UK Finance. With a few tweaks, the relevant data for the rating scheme proposed in Amendment 28 is already available and in usable format. The problem is that the data has not been used to create a remedy: another example of the way the FCA does nothing in the face of market failure without being dragged kicking and screaming, usually by this House. That is why the remedy amendment, Amendment 29, is so important.
At Second Reading, a number of Peers spoke out in support of CDFIs and credit unions. Many of us recognise that the high street banks will never return to their local roots and that dragging them to lend when it does not fit their business model means poor service. New challenger banks and fintechs have not filled the gap. The Government are committed to a growth agenda. I can think of few measures that would drive growth more rapidly and sustainably across all parts of the country to fix the loss of local and community banking than these amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment 29 (to Amendment 28)
Baroness Kramer
“(4A) Where a relevant deposit taker receives a score or rating below a minimum threshold prescribed by rules made under this section, the Authority must require the deposit taker to take proportionate remedial action to improve its rating.(4B) The Authority may—(a) make such rules or issue such guidance applying to designated persons as appear to the Authority to be necessary or expedient, and(b) give a direction under this section to a designated person if it considers that it is desirable to give the direction;for the purpose mentioned in subsection (4A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment to Baroness Kramer’s amendment gives the FCA a duty to ensure, through rules and guidance, that relevant banks and building societies which fall short of a minimum threshold performance in providing access to affordable credit are required to take proportionate steps to remedy the situation.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 30 in my name, which would introduce a fiduciary-style duty on firms in their dealings with consumers and small businesses.
This group is about affordable credit and consumer protection. The problem that we see time and again is not that firms set out to behave badly but that good intentions drift under pressure to increase revenue, under pressure from internal incentives and, sometimes, under pressure from government to deliver growth. When that drift occurs, the cost is pushed on to consumers and, as I said earlier, passing costs on to the people is not growth in any meaningful, national sense.
Motor finance, the example that keeps on giving, shows this clearly. The FCA did not intend to create misalignment, firms did not intend to breach the law, but because the rules were not anchored in a well-understood legal framework, the system drifted. The FCA’s rules permitted the non-disclosure of commission unless asked. The statute required disclosure. The gap widened over time and nobody noticed until the consequences were enormous.
We see similar patterns in insurance add-ons and premium finance arrangements. These products did not begin as bad faith practices, they began as convenience, but over time, margins accumulated, incentives shifted and the products drifted into a place where the consumer’s interests were no longer the anchor. That is not malice but drift, the same drift that we saw in motor finance, and it happens when rules are not anchored in well-understood legal principles. This is what happens in a rules-based system—that is what we have, however we may pretend—rather than a principles-based system.
Parliament has been here before. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has already explained, when this House supported my noble friend Lord Sharkey’s proposal of a duty of care, the intention was to create a principle, a relationship-based obligation, that firms must not exploit unequal bargaining power or information asymmetry. What emerged instead was the FCA’s consumer duty. Is it valuable? I suppose so, but fundamentally it is a rules-based construct, shaped in part by industry pressure for something that their compliance departments could tick. Rules can be changed, narrowed or reinterpreted. Principles such as duty of care and fiduciary duty are legally understood, durable and resistant to drift.
My amendment does not attempt to rewrite the consumer duty. It would simply provide a well-understood statutory anchor—a benchmark against which to assess products and detect the kinds that end up exploiting imbalance. The test becomes, “Is it fair?”, and not merely, “Is it the next step on a path that might already have drifted?” In other words, it is about fairness versus incrementalism.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a shareholder and a director of financial services companies in asset management and wealth management.
I have considerable sympathy with the objectives that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is seeking to advance. Access to affordable credit is a genuine problem in this country, as in many others, and the Committee is right to view financial exclusion as a problem. However, I am unable to support Amendments 28 and 29 on the grounds that the proposed solution will not solve the problem and may in fact exacerbate the issue that the Bill is partly designed to alleviate: excessive and complex regulatory demands on our financial institutions, which are making us less competitive.
My first concern is one of basic commercial economics. Banks and building societies are not lending to certain sections of the community, however deserving they might be, not because of a lack of understanding of the opportunity or a lack of data; they are not serving those clients at scale because the risk-adjusted returns of lending to higher-risk borrowers at affordable interest rates, and indeed the compliance risk of so doing, do not work commercially. A rating framework published by the FCA will not change that calculus, but it creates yet another compliance exercise, another box to be ticked and another issue to be managed without addressing the underlying economic reality that makes such lending unworkable.
My second concern is the risk of unintended consequences. A rule that would rate banks on their willingness to provide credit to financially-excluded populations—in some cases, very high-risk borrowers—could create an implicit incentive to lend more to people and companies who cannot really afford the loan. The amendment contains no credit quality safeguard and no minimum standard of affordability assessment, yet banks could be incentivised to lend just to improve their ratings. The pressure to improve ratings would not be cost free, of course. In practice, banks will not be carrying out this lending for solid financial reasons, so if they feel forced to extend credits into markets with reduced or zero margins, they will seek to restore those margins elsewhere, through higher charges on other products, reduced rates on savings or increased lending spreads in other parts of the business. The cost will not disappear; it will be redistributed invisibly to existing clients, who also deserve protection.
Moreover, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the stated purpose of the Bill, which is to reduce regulatory burden, not add to it. Yet here we are, being invited to add a new mandatory framework, new data collection requirements, new publication obligations and new performance ratings, all enshrined in primary legislation. This is precisely the regulatory ratchet: the cumulative, seemingly endless new measures that damage our competitiveness. The Financial Services Regulation Committee of this House, chaired by my noble friend Lady Noakes, concluded in its report last June that:
“The cumulative burden of regulatory compliance in the UK is perceived to be disproportionately high, diverting resources that could otherwise support … growth”.
As a serving practitioner in the sector, I strongly agree with this finding. Diverting lending from growing businesses to those effectively in financial need is not going to improve our economy. If anything, it will lead to loan losses for the banks and encourage excessive borrowing from those who cannot afford it, while piling even more costs and regulatory obligations on financial firms. We should resist the urge to reach for intervention every time a market imperfection is identified. Not every problem has a regulatory solution. Indeed, those solutions can often have unintended consequences that increase bureaucracy and undermine growth, so I cannot support the amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support Amendment 28, to which I have added my name. As we have heard, the amendment would require the FCA to establish a framework assessing banks’ and building societies’ provision of affordable credit. I spoke at some length at Second Reading on the importance of equal access to credit. I welcome what is already in the Bill, as I did then, but we can and should do more.
We are witnessing a crisis of deepening economic inequality in this country. For the most vulnerable communities, it is worsened by a lack of choice. Struggling to meet their most basic day-to-day needs, long-term financial planning is not an option for many families today. Daily life is a battle to put food on the table and to keep the house warm in winter, though perhaps not today. It is often the most impoverished who are forced to accept riskier loans, to turn to loan sharks—many of those operate in my diocese of Manchester—or to enter credit agreements that they are unable to pay back. In doing so, they find that they are paying a poverty premium, which then exacerbates and ratchets the problem round and round, deepening the financial injustice.
As I said earlier, I am trying to be more overtly religious in my speeches on the Bill today, so I assure the Committee that this is not merely a modern phenomenon. I could point to specific places in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures where specific rules are set out to ban the most egregious practices around unfair credit arrangements—things like extortionate interest charges, or the taking of essential items like protective clothing or workers’ tools as a pledge for credit.
Yet the alternative to unfair credit cannot be no credit but instead must be fair and affordable credit. Across the country, in churches, food banks and charitable organisations, the impact of financial exclusion on human dignity—another important Biblical concept—and well-being is being made apparent. We also see how certain communities are at a particular disadvantage: this includes if you are a migrant without a long-standing credit history, or an adult with little financial literacy, unable to navigate complex financial systems on your own, or a family experiencing living pay cheque to pay cheque—and about 10 years ago we passed the point at which most families in poverty began to be working families, rather than families in which no person is in work. The services that community institutions provide to such communities are essential but are not enough. In order to truly flourish, individuals and households facing financial insecurity need access to credit which gives them choice and independence and creates opportunities for them to become full participants in economic life.
One thing I learned when I worked on responsible investment for the Church of England’s national investment bodies was the phrase “social licence to operate”. That is an important part of this conversation today, though I have not heard it mentioned yet. The banks—not only those which were bailed out so expensively to the taxpayer less than 20 years ago—are required to operate not simply as best turns a profit, but as fits the needs for the society in which they are working. That requires a willingness to provide social goods, not merely the most profitable products to the most eligible customers.
What is set out in Amendment 28 will not only enable us to measure where affordable credit is and is not reaching people but will lay the foundation to make targeted improvements. I am told that the banks already have much of that data and that it is simply a question of making it more available by providing and publishing it. With a clearer understanding of the barriers that minoritised communities face, we can work beyond this Bill toward financial policy which tackles financial exclusion at its very root, creates new opportunities for families in debt, and promotes economic growth on a wider scale.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Massey said earlier on these amendments, and in particular on Amendment 28.
When people talk about affordable credit, what they mean is subsidised credit, because the terms on which financial institutions are prepared to advance money to the kinds of individuals and organisations which have been referenced so far are always provided on a risk-adjusted basis. That reflects the likelihood of default and the amount of loss given a default, which drives pricing and causes people to say that they cannot afford the prices at which a product is advanced to them. We must be clear on this: we are saying that some groups in society need to have access to credit at below a risk-adjusted rate. A fairly simple question is whether we think we should impose on banks the requirement to subsidise one way or another—whether through the vehicle of community finance organisations or directly by charging lower non-risk-adjusted rates to certain groups. My answer is that it should not be; the banks already have quite considerable costs imposed on them, such as the banking hubs which we discussed earlier and which would not be set up for pure economic reasons, or the provision of basic bank accounts. There must be a point at which we stop saying that the banks can just provide more things to groups of people who could not otherwise afford access to them, so I am very much opposed to Amendments 28 and 29, which are an unreasonable imposition.
On Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, I am very unclear as to how she sees her amendment relating to the consumer duty, which has been in existence only for a couple of years, and the full effect of which we have not yet seen. I assume the noble Baroness is trying to set up an actionable right for consumers, although she is not explicit in saying that. I think that would be taking regulation one step too far. We already have the complicated arrangements of the FCA overseeing consumer requirements with its enforcement powers to set up a parallel ability of giving individual consumers rights of action under a rather ill-defined fiduciary duty, and this amendment would be an unwise addition to the regulatory landscape.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles, for bringing these amendments—and to the right reverend Prelate for his reference to scripture. They raise important questions and will facilitate a useful debate about access to finance, the responsibilities of financial institutions and the right way to support small businesses and underserved communities.
I will begin with Amendments 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and in the case of Amendment 28 also in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. These amendments seek to require the FCA to establish and maintain a framework for assessing and rating banks’ and building societies’ performance in providing access to affordable credit, including for underserved groups. Amendment 29 would go further and require firms falling below a minimum performance threshold to take proportionate remedial action.
Access to financial services and appropriate credit is of course extremely important. That is particularly true for small and medium-sized businesses, micro-businesses and those parts of the country where access to finance can be more difficult. If we can improve the flow of capital to productive businesses, we can simulate growth, increase employment, allow firms to develop and generally improve the health of our economy. Many of the most successful businesses in this country began as small enterprises. They require confidence, access to working capital and a banking system willing to support their growth. When credit is unavailable or available only on unreasonable terms, good businesses can be held back, investment delayed and opportunities for employment and innovation lost.
However, my concern is with the mechanism proposed. I am not convinced that this can or should be done from a centrally mandated position. Banks and building societies have to make lending decisions on the basis of risk, affordability, regulatory capital, commercial judgment and the circumstances of the borrower. They are complex assessments, not straightforward public policy levers that can simply be pulled from the centre. If banks are going to make these decisions on the basis of their commercial interests, in many cases they will already have done so. Where lending is not happening to the extent that the noble Baroness would like, there is a reason for that. It may relate to risk appetite, capital requirements, information gaps, the lack of security, regulatory burdens, compliance costs or wider economic uncertainty, but the answer, it seems to me, is to work out why that is the case and then address those underlying barriers.
The answer should not be to move towards a system in which the Government through statute begin to direct the lending priorities of banks from the centre. Once we go down that road, we risk blurring the line between commercial banking and public policy allocation of credit. That is not a small step. It could have unintended consequences for financial stability, risk management, and ultimately for consumers and taxpayers. This would also send a worrying signal that the UK is a jurisdiction in which private interests are essentially subordinate to political objectives.
I support efforts to promote investment into SMEs, micro-businesses and underserved communities, but I do not think the right mechanism is one enforced by the Government in statute through ratings, thresholds and mandatory remedial action. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain what work the Government are doing with banks and financial service providers to improve access to affordable credit, particularly for SMEs and underserved groups. I hope he can reassure the Committee that this work is being done with those organisations rather than over them.
I turn briefly to Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and follow the words of my noble friend Lady Noakes. This amendment would introduce a fiduciary duty requiring firms to act in the best interests of retail customers, including small businesses. It would include duties around avoiding exploitative practices, ensuring suitability and fairness and taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.
I understand the concern that sits behind this amendment. We all want financial services to treat customers fairly, we all want to prevent exploitative practices and we all want suitable products, clear terms and proper regard to foreseeable harm. Those are important principles. However, I am against imposing a broad fiduciary duty of this kind across regulated financial services. The concept of fiduciary duty carries with it a particular legal character and a potentially very wide set of implications. If applied broadly to all retail customer relationships, including small business relationships, it could create significant uncertainty about the legal obligations of firms, the interaction with existing FCA rules and the extent to which ordinary commercial relationships are being recast as fiduciary ones.
We are also concerned that this step could lead to a serious increase in the regulatory and compliance burden, which would fall on firms that are already struggling. Indeed, there is already a substantial framework governing conduct, consumer protection, fairness, suitability and foreseeable harm. The question for the Government and the FCA should be whether that existing framework is operating properly and proportionately, not necessarily whether a new overarching fiduciary duty should be imposed on top of it.
My concern is that such a duty could invite litigation, uncertainty and defensive behaviour. It might also make firms more reluctant to serve marginal or higher-risk customers if they fear that any adverse outcome could later be characterised as a breach of fiduciary duty. That would be the opposite of what many of us want to achieve in this group, which is broader and better access to financial services. Indeed, it would make providers and regulators more risk-averse.
These amendments raise an important debate about access to credit, the treatment of customers and the role of financial institutions in supporting growth. I support the objective of improving access to finance for SMEs, micro-businesses and underserved communities and hope to hear support for this from the Minister, but we should not seek to achieve that by central direction of lending decisions or imposing broad new legal duties whose consequences would be uncertain and work against the Government’s broad objective of simplifying regulation and reducing burdens.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 28, 29 and 30 are aimed at increasing access to finance and ensuring that the customers of financial services firms are protected. I recognise the intention behind these amendments. However, I do not believe that either solution is workable.
On Amendments 28 and 29, I agree that data on access to finance and holding the sector to account are important. However, these proposals would introduce a new, prescriptive and burdensome framework on the FCA and firms that I am not persuaded would deliver the desired output.
Amendment 28 would require the FCA to establish a framework to monitor, assess and publicly report on certain banks’ and building societies’ performance in providing access to affordable credit. Amendment 29 would require the FCA to take action against firms that do not meet a minimum standard. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, this approach resembles the United States’ Community Reinvestment Act 1977, but we should not assume that it would have the same effect here. Our starting point is different: we are working nearly 50 years later, in a digital age, with a far more diversified credit market. In any case, lenders already publish significant data. Chapter 7 of the FCA’s Conduct of Business Sourcebook requires extensive disclosure on personal and business current accounts. We also have the FCA’s Financial Lives Survey, the SME Finance Monitor and the British Business Bank’s annual SME finance publications, among others.
Amendment 29 would require the FCA to act against firms that do not meet a minimum lending standard. Striking the right balance on access to credit has long been a challenge. We want consumers to be able to access credit where it supports financial resilience and businesses to secure the finance needed to grow, but inappropriate credit can lead to overindebtedness, with serious consequences. The amendment could, in effect, compel lending to more vulnerable groups or SMEs. Even a well-designed regime could be a blunt instrument, with a risk of unintended outcomes. It would also represent a significant intrusion into firms’ commercial decisions.
More fundamentally, it is difficult to see how firms could increase lending and take on greater risk without raising prices to reflect that greater risk. If firms do not price risk appropriately, it opens us up to financial stability risks. The FCA would be placed in the invidious position of having to mandate affordable credit, while the mechanism required to expand provision could increase costs and potentially increase risk for the borrower and the firm. That runs directly counter to the intended objective for vulnerable customers and SMEs.
Although I cannot accept these amendments, I stress to noble Lords that the Government are not complacent about financial inclusion or the availability of SME finance. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, asked me to set out what the Government are doing, and I am happy that noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned several of these interventions already. The Government published their Financial Inclusion Strategy last autumn, and we are supporting practical interventions for consumers, including a small sum credit pilot enabling mainstream lenders to test lending to customers outside their usual risk appetite. Monzo was announced as the first participant in the scheme earlier this month.
We have launched a transformation fund for credit unions, alongside common bond reforms in this Bill, to strengthen their lending capacity. We are also advancing targeted SME finance measures to improve competition and supply, including enhancing the consumer credit data sharing scheme through Clauses 41 and 43 of this Bill. We are supporting up to £150 million of lending through the Community ENABLE funding programme over the next two years. We are establishing a CDFI taskforce and working with industry to improve bank referrals. Indeed, tomorrow I am meeting several large asset managers as chair of the place-based impact investment scheme. We will set out next steps on open finance later this summer. This has significant potential to support SME lending across a wide range of providers, alongside broader work with the Bank of England on capital and ring-fencing.
I highlight community development finance institutions, which I know are a priority for the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. In addition to the CDFI taskforce and the Community ENABLE funding programme that this Government have funded, the sector benefits from Fair4All Finance’s affordable credit scale-up programme, which has committed more than £40 million in social investment in England to date. The financial inclusion strategy further includes measures to strengthen community finance, including promoting partnerships with mainstream lenders. Taken together, these measures support access to finance in the UK in an appropriate and responsible way.
Amendment 30 would introduce a new fiduciary duty on firms when carrying out FCA-regulated activities. It would place specific legally binding requirements on firms. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is vital for firms to act in a way that delivers good outcomes for consumers. However, I believe that FCA regulation is able to achieve this, and I am concerned that this new duty would risk creating overlapping requirements, causing confusion and reducing consumers’ access to finance.
The FCA’s consumer duty is designed to set a high standard of protection for retail customers by requiring firms to act to deliver good outcomes in line with the outcome sought by this amendment. It requires firms to put consumers’ needs at the heart of their business, including by acting in good faith, avoiding foreseeable harm and supporting consumers to pursue their financial objectives. In practice, this means that firms must design products and services that meet consumers’ needs, provide fair value, communicate clearly and offer effective support.
I am concerned that the requirements set out in this amendment would risk making more vulnerable customers more expensive and risky to serve, which would reduce their access to products such as credit and insurance. Introducing a novel statutory fiduciary duty, the precise scope of which would fall to be settled through litigation over a number of years, would create significant legal uncertainty. That uncertainty would carry a cost, which firms would be likely to manage by withdrawing from, or repricing, services for higher-risk customers. I recognise that there is some precedent for a fiduciary duty in trust-based pension schemes. However, the dynamics of the market are very different from wider consumer financial services. Typically, employer pension schemes do not choose which individual customers to serve, and the fiduciary duty applies at the membership level.
I genuinely understand the importance of lending for all parts of the economy, and I understand the need for borrowers to be protected, but I am convinced that the Government are taking the right set of actions, and I am afraid that Amendments 28, 29 and 30 would bring significant unintended consequences. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for signing Amendment 28 and for speaking so eloquently in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Massey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are both involved in the world of finance and meet international financiers. I will give them a challenge. When they meet American financiers and bankers, whether here or in the United States, will they please raise CDFIs? The noble Lord, Lord Massey, will find that basically everything he said flies completely in the face of the US experience, and I say the same thing to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Lord Davies of Brixton
(1B) Among other things, rules made under sub-paragraph 13(1) must provide in specified circumstances for the applicable time limit to end at a later time where—(a) in the opinion of the Financial Ombudsman, the failure to comply with that time limit was due to exceptional circumstances;(b) the complainant only became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) of material facts or detriment to them relating to the act or omission complained of after the expiry of that time limit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends Clause 6 to ensure that the ten-year longstop is the default position for Financial Ombudsman complaints, in line with the preferred option in the Impact Assessment and as opposed to the six-year provision in current FCA rules (DISP 2.8).
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
This extensive group of amendments is focused on the role and functioning of the Financial Ombudsman Service—the FOS. We have already had a taste of that debate with group 2, but I am concerned that there is not going to be enough time for me in my 15 minutes—perhaps the Whip is already thinking that I should get on with it—and I will not be able to finish it all. I have said that I will take the opportunity, if I have not been able to ask my noble friend the Minister all the questions that I want within my allotted time, to ask further questions when we get to Clause 8 stand part.
This group of amendments deals with three issues: time limits for taking cases to FOS, the proposed system for the referral of issues to the FCA and, significantly, the changes to the “fair and reasonable” test. This is a lot to deal with, and in fact it is about the interaction between these three different changes. They might appear separate, but their overall impact has led to real concern that the interests of consumers are not being given sufficient attention.
I must pay tribute to the support that I have received from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services, of which I am vice-chair, as well as Which? Money and Fairer Finance. They have all expressed concerns that consumers’ interests are being adversely affected, and those concerns most definitely need to be addressed.
Starting with Clause 6 and my Amendment 31, I am concerned about the changes to the 10-year longstop on complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The case for some kind of time limit is not unreasonable in itself. Firms do not wish to face indefinite exposure to complaints about events that happened decades earlier, and I understand why the Treasury wants certainty on that point. But Clause 6, as drafted, creates a hard structural barrier that applies regardless of when the consumer could reasonably have known they had grounds to complain. That is the flaw. It is not that a longstop exists; it is that it takes no account of discoverability. That matters most for long-term products such as pensions and mortgages, areas where I have personal and professional experience and where consumers often do not find out for years, sometimes decades, that they have been poorly advised or missold something.
The Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill suggest that allowing complaints years later creates problems with data retention. I do not think that holds up. The appropriate rule, rule 9.5.2 in the FCA’s Conduct of Business Sourcebook, sets out the record-keeping requirements for firms that give personal recommendations on certain pension-related transactions. The rule as it stands requires firms to retain their records that were the basis of a personal recommendation indefinitely in cases of pension transfers, pension conversions, pension opt-outs and FSAVCs—which, for those who are not up on the jargon, are free-standing additional voluntary contributions. For other types of advice, COBS sets shorter retention periods, but these four pension categories are singled out precisely because of the long-term nature of the harm that can arise and, originally, because of the personal pensions misselling scandal of the late 1980s and early 1990s, a scandal that is too often forgotten but that led to £13 billion being paid in compensation.
The practical significance for the Clause 6 argument is that the justification for 10 years does not stand up. Firms advising on pension decisions are already legally required to hold the records, so the 10-year rule does not serve that data problem. The “indefinitely” formulation is worth noting. Most compliance obligations come with a defined shelf life, so the fact that the FCA made an exception here reflects a considered regulatory judgment that pension transfer advice is different from other forms of pensions advice. The consequences can take many years to materialise, and records need to be available when the problems are eventually seen.
Of course, I am most familiar with the issue in relation to pensions, but it is not just about pensions: endowment mortgages are a good past example where problems that arose for which compensation had to be paid were found outside the 10-year period. For the very products most exposed to long-delayed discovery of harm, firms already have the data that they need to defend themselves—they have to have the information that is being required.
It is worth asking how this is being played out against real cases. I believe, and I would be interested in a response from the Minister on this, that if a strict 10-year limit without proper exceptions had been in place during the PPI scandal, it would have blocked the mass redress exercise altogether. The worst mis-selling happened between 1998 and 2005, but public awareness did not peak until after 2011.
This was not a case of deliberate concealment; it was total misunderstanding and wishful thinking on the part of the people being sold to, but compensation was still due. A rigid longstop could well have disqualified millions of older claims in law before most of the consumers involved would have known that they were affected. I would be grateful if the Minister could say how these new arrangements will affect such cases and, as I mentioned, endowment insurances, appropriate personal pensions and the discretionary commission scandal in car finance, which is more recent.
As it stands, Clause 6 gives the FCA a power to create exceptions to the 10-year limit, but the legislation does not say what those exceptions must be at a minimum, so there is no statutory obligation on the regulator to build in protection for the consumers most likely to need it.
My amendment goes further than that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, by writing two specific circumstances into primary legislation itself, rather than leaving them to be worked out later in the FCA rules. First, it is just cases where the consumer faced exceptional circumstances, such as serious ill health or other incapacity, so people will know that they have a special claim in those circumstances. Secondly, there are cases where the consumer could not reasonably have known about the financial detriment within the 10-year window. These could be exercised on a discretionary basis, but my argument essentially is that those cases should be laid down in statute. It does not preclude the possibility of other exceptions being made, but for consumers it is a question of trust, and that trust requires consumers to know that those exceptions will be available. Putting these exceptions in the Bill removes the ambiguity, gives firms the certainty that they are after and makes sure that deserving consumers are not shut out of redress by an accident of drafting rather than a deliberate policy choice.
On Clause 8 and the powers of the ombudsman, I want there to be a proper debate about what is actually being changed here, and I look forward to guidance from my noble friend the Minister. The question underneath this debate is a simple one. What is the ombudsman for, and why do we have one, instead of just relying on the courts for people to get good tests? For the FOS, the “fair and reasonable” test is not something that has been put in and invented by the FOS itself; it comes from Section 228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and provides that:
“A complaint is to be determined by reference to what is, in the opinion of the ombudsman, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case”.
What the test displaces is important. The court applies the law strictly: the relevant statute, regulations, contract terms and case law. That is what the courts do. The ombudsman is not bound to decide a case the way a court would. That is the whole point of having the ombudsman—it is not a court that is able to take a view as to what in the overall circumstances is fair and reasonable.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I have to advise noble Lords that if Amendment 31 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 32 or 33 because of pre-emption.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 33, 35, 37, 42 and 43 in this group. All these amendments, and my Clause 7 not-stand-part question, relate to the FOS and its regime. I will try very hard not to repeat too much of what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was saying a moment ago. The proposed reforms of the FOS regime are extensive and fundamental, but there is nowhere a clear and convincing explanation of why such fundamental changes are necessary. In fact, I see no real evidence at all of the need for reform on the scale being proposed here.
What we see, looking at the far-reaching proposals in the Bill, is an assault on the four key pillars designed into the FOS by Parliament: independence, speed and simplicity, time limits on bringing complaints, and the “fair and reasonable” test for determining those complaints. Taken together, Part 2 replaces each of those pillars with subordination to the FCA, a rather undefined change to time limits, and a heavy qualification of the “fair and reasonable” test amounting to its entire abandonment. This raises the question of why such a radical reform can be seen as necessary and/or beneficial. At Second Reading, I asked the Minister what evidence there was of systemic failure in the current operation of the FOS, and for evidence, for example, that the FOS was acting as a quasi-regulator. I have had no reply.
The obvious question in all this is: who benefits? The answer is: not the ordinary consumer. My amendments are aimed at eliminating, or at least reducing, the weakening of consumer protection. To that end, my Amendments 33 and 35, to Clause 6, address the time limits for complaints to the FOS, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has dealt with extensively; I agree with most of what he said. What my amendments offer as an alternative to his is that they are perhaps not quite as strong—that might be their virtue. It is often very difficult to get things written into a Bill; it is sometimes easier to deal with them via secondary legislation, as I do rather obliquely.
In Part 2, the Bill proposes other very substantive changes to the way in which the FOS operates. One of these changes, in Clause 7, sets out the circumstances under which the FOS must notify the FCA of a matter relating to a complaint, under which the FOS must request an opinion from the FCA as to the interpretation of FCA rules. It then sets out in detail how consultation should take place on the matter. There really is detail: five whole pages of the Bill set out in great detail the various stages required in the referral process. It adds complexity for no obvious gain and subordinates the FOS’s judgments to the FCA’s. I have no doubt that the byzantine array of subclauses or qualifications will, overall, introduce greater complexity for no foreseeable benefits and will greatly increase the workload of the FCA. The FCA is already under pressure and is planning to absorb the PSR. The last thing we need is the creation of new systems, rules and powers that show no clear promise of benefit, or at least no benefit to the retail complainant.
On necessity, we have to take into consideration whether the current FOS methods are faulty or unproductive. I have seen no compelling evidence that this is the case, only a rather unconvincing summary of the consultation responses. The FOS received 214,000 new complaints in 2025-26. It is projecting a resolution of 207,000 complaints in the coming year, of which 206,000 concern banking and consumer credit companies. It has a target of 70% of cases being resolved within three months and 90% within six. It does not seem as though it is having difficulty operating, and I am not aware of any significant problems for the average consumer. I hear from the industry that the FOS acts inconsistently and that it has strayed into becoming a quasi-regulator, but I have seen no evidence of that, and I am unconvinced by the simple assertion. Taken as a whole, Clause 7 in effect subordinates the FOS to the FCA, removing yet another foundational pillar: independence. We should remove Clause 7.
I turn now to the proposed amendments to Clause 8. I will speak to Amendments 37, 42 and 43, which deal with how a complaint to the FOS is to be determined. This is a controversial matter; the Bill proposes very significant changes. This has already provoked calls to have the whole clause removed from the Bill, and I recognise the strength of feeling behind that.
How the FOS decides on complaints is absolutely critical to its operations and to their general acceptability. At the moment and historically, the FOS rules on complaints on the basis of what is fair and reasonable under all circumstances. The Bill changes that. It says:
“A complaint may be determined in favour of the complainant only if, in the opinion of the Financial Ombudsman … at the time the disputed act or omission occurred, either … the act or omission did not comply with an FCA rule applying to the respondent, or … there was no FCA rule applying to the respondent that related to the act or omission, and the disputed act or omission was not fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case”.
This adds one of two requirements not present now, in addition to the “fair and reasonable” test. In essence, it removes the FOS’s current and critical independent status and reduces the FOS’s scope to a subset of FCA rules. If you ask who benefits from all this, the answer, it seems to me, is not likely to be the consumer.
The small print of the Bill makes the situation for the complainant even less attractive. The Bill specifies a long list of other requirements to be considered in making a determination, most of them tilting the scales in favour of FCA rule-based compliance. This long list includes
“any other matters specified in regulations made by the Treasury”
and the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions. Here, we are a very long way from the “fair and reasonable under all circumstances” test.
The net effect for the Bill’s proposals will inevitably be to increase bureaucracy and to increase a remoteness from practical circumstances and a reliance on box-ticking procedures. It will convert the independent FOS into a compliant subsidiary of the FCA. We have not seen spelled out any evidenced justification for such a radical narrowing of the FCA’s reach and independence. I ask the Minister again to provide the evidence that supports these radical changes. By “evidence”, I mean hard data, not simply a headcount of consultees’ opinions, as interpreted by HMT.
As I noted at Second Reading, the UK’s financial sector thrives not merely because it is competitive but because it is trusted. For it to be trusted, consumers must have confidence that, when things go wrong, there is an independent, accessible and effective route to redress. We have one of those already: the FOS. My Amendments 37, 42 and 43 would remove the new bureaucratic and complex restrictions, qualifications and subordinations in the Bill. In their place, the amendments would restore a simple and clear operating framework. They would restore the primacy of the “fair and reasonable” test, and they would update the list of things that the ombudsman must or may take into account.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 34 again concerns symmetry of enforcement and redress periods. The Bill introduces a 10-year hard stop on complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service, but the problem is that the 10-year figure is already riddled with exemptions: for long-dated instruments, for latent harms, for products with extended maturities and for situations where the consumer could not reasonably have known they had a claim. The Government have already conceded that the 10-year period cannot sensibly apply in a wide range of cases. I have a concern that, once Parliament writes “10 years” into statute, that becomes the headline. Consumers may assume they have 10 years, even when they are in one of the many categories where the long stop does not apply. That creates a real risk that people will time themselves out because they believe the headline rather than the detail.
Then there is the deeper structural issue that I have referenced before: firms’ enforcement rights do not end at 10 years. They can enforce debts, pursue arrears, securitise portfolios and benefit from long-tail revenue streams well beyond that period. Yet the consumer’s ability to challenge an unfair relationship or to bring a complaint may fall away far earlier. That is the same kind of asymmetry that I raised before. My solution is that at least the starting point should be that the duration of rights, remedies and enforcement powers for firms must be aligned with the duration of rights and remedies for consumers arising from the same act or relationship.
I have addressed only that aspect of asymmetry in my amendment; I have not attacked the 10-year hard stop and the impact that that might have on consumer perception. My amendment would not interfere with the exemptions that the Government have already accepted. It would simply ensure that, where a firm retains enforcement rights beyond 10 years, in various circumstances, the consumer retains the corresponding right to challenge the fairness of that relationship for the same period—in other words, symmetry. I need not say any more, as we have been around this loop, but it is the same argument in a different place.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords across the Committee. I have noted the variety of concerns expressed on this part of the Bill. As noble Lords have heard, my party has announced proposals to remove the Financial Ombudsman Service and replace it with a new financial adjudication service. That proposal is not before the Committee in this group, but we have an agreed amendment; we will have the opportunity to debate it properly at a future stage.
I start by speaking to Amendment 32 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham. The amendment would retain the existing six-year longstop rather than extending it to 10 years, as Clause 6 would do. As I have already said, I am concerned about this move, albeit for different reasons to some other Peers who have spoken. I accept that there is a balance to be struck here: consumers must have access to proper, effective and fair redress mechanisms. Where a consumer has suffered detriment because of misconduct, poor practice or a failure by a firm, there should be a clear route through which a complaint can be considered and, where appropriate, redress can be provided. However, this does not mean that time limits are unimportant. On the contrary, time limits are an essential part of a fair system. Claims can be heard fairly only when sufficient information is available to both sides to allow them to mount a proper case. That means records, correspondence, product documents, internal decision-making, staff recollections and the wider factual context in which the relevant decision was made.
The further back in time a complaint goes, the more difficult this becomes. Evidence may be incomplete and documents may no longer exist. The people involved may have left the organisation, systems may have changed, products may no longer be offered and the regulatory context may have moved on. A complaint may still be sincerely brought, but the ability of the firm to respond fairly and fully may be materially impaired. That is why limitation periods exist: they reflect the basic principle of justice that, after a certain period, it becomes harder to determine matters fairly and reliably. That principle applies in the courts, and I believe that it should continue to be properly reflected in the ombudsman’s framework. I am concerned that extending the longstop from six years to 10 years risks pushing the system beyond that fair balance.
I have noted the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, in particular his references to pensions and endowment mortgages. I will be interested in the Minister’s response on how those products are dealt with and whether the exemptions are intended to cover that area.
On this occasion, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey—although we often agree on other matters—because there is a genuine concern in the industry about vexatious or speculative claims. We should not be naive about this. There is a whole claims management industry dedicated to identifying and pursuing potential claims. Some of those claims may be legitimate, and consumers should not be denied redress where redress is due, but others may be weak, opportunistic or based on limited evidence. If the period is extended significantly, the volume of such claims may increase, so firms will have to devote more resource to investigating and defending matters from many years ago.
All this has a cost and makes all concerned more risk-averse, so it becomes more difficult for providers to accept customers at the margin. This matters for not only firms but the wider economy. We cannot stimulate growth, support lending, encourage investment and improve productivity if banks and financial services firms are pouring ever more resources into fighting historic claims, rather than serving customers, lending to businesses, supporting economic activity and innovating. There is a real opportunity cost here.
My noble friend Lord Roborough is unable to be here today, but I understand that his Amendments 38 to 41 are intended to probe whether the reforms in the Bill provide sufficient certainty for regulated firms that, where they have complied with the relevant rules and requirements, the Financial Ombudsman Service will not be able to go substantially beyond that framework in finding fault or imposing redress. This is not to question the proper role of the ombudsman in cases such as car finance commissions, where the courts have confirmed the relevance of undisclosed conflicts of interest; rather, it is to test whether the current “fair and reasonable” jurisdiction risks giving the FOS a quasi-regulatory role, including through inconsistent interpretation, the retrospective application of standards or decisions that go beyond the rules in force at the time. This is the core issue that has been raised time and again: the FOS needs to be reined in, but does the Bill do it?
At the same time, I recognise the number of views on this question. It is for the Minister to show that the proposed changes do not weaken the ability of consumers, including vulnerable consumers—particularly those in serious circumstances, such as terminal illness—to obtain fair redress. I have been told, for example, that there is a variance between companies over acceptance rates in such cases. The Minister might want to look into that.
Serious concerns have been raised. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this group. My own concern remains that, as drafted, the Bill shifts the balance too far. It extends exposure to firms in a way that may appear consumer-friendly at first sight but risks generating delay, uncertainty and large volumes of contested claims. The six-year longstop strikes the right balance, so why 10 years? What evidence has led the Government to conclude that six years is insufficient? Can the Minister break that down by product or financial services type? What assessment has been made of the impact on firms, on complaint volumes, on the claims management sector and on the resources of the ombudsman itself? How will the Government ensure that extending the longstop does not simply create a larger backlog of older and more difficult cases?
I would be grateful if the Minister could also address the practical point about record-keeping. Do the Government now expect banks and other firms to retain detailed customer records for 10 years in anticipation of potential FOS complaints? If so, what assessment has been made of the cost and operational burden of doing so? I speak as a former company secretary in a large company; I know about the problems in keeping data. Indeed, what about doing it retrospectively?
I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the points I have made on the possibility of retaining the six-year longstop. I very much look forward to his response.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard today, the Financial Ombudsman Service—the FOS—plays a vital role in providing quick, informal and impartial dispute resolution between customers and their financial services providers. It offers an accessible route for dealing with complaints that is designed to act as an alternative to resolving cases through the courts, which can be costly, lengthy and a process that often does not work for firms and consumers. The Government are clear that an effective ombudsman provides consumers with confidence in our financial services sector and is a key element of an effective system.
The Government’s review of the FOS found that, although the FOS fulfils its role in the majority of cases, in a small but impactful minority of cases, it has acted as a quasi-regulator. That conclusion was supported by the Financial Services Regulation Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in its report, Growing Pains: Clarity and Culture Change Required, which was published in June 2025. It recognised that the FOS’s
“actions have regulatory impacts by creating precedents that the FCA requires firms to follow”,
and that this
“generates an unacceptable level of uncertainty for firms, stakeholders, and investors”.
I want to be clear that the review was not suggesting that the FOS was acting improperly; rather, it concluded that the way in which the legislative framework operates made such issues unavoidable by creating a disconnect between the FCA’s rules and the FOS’s decisions, giving rise to unpredictability and a lack of certainty across the regulatory environment. That unpredictability is damaging for everyone and harms consumers’ confidence in the financial services products and services they rely on, as well as firms’ confidence to invest and innovate in the UK.
There is a large number of amendments before us. I will start with Amendment 31. This proposal would substantially extend the timeframe for bringing complaints to the FOS and would require the FOS to spend even more of its time and resources investigating, considering and attempting to resolve historic cases than it does today. We know from current experience that this would substantially increase costs while delivering comparatively limited increases in redress awarded. Further extending the timeframe beyond 10 years in an open-ended way to accommodate a complainant’s reasonable awareness of an issue would increase uncertainty for firms around historic liabilities, reducing appetite to invest in the UK’s financial services businesses.
The Treasury’s analysis of data from the FOS on historic cases is clear: they are more likely to be withdrawn or abandoned and have lower success rates than the average, often due to limited evidence and information being available. The Government’s analysis concluded that complaints to the FOS that are over 10 years old cost firms, on average, more than £18 million per year in case fees but deliver only £600,000 per year in redress for consumers. This is not a proportionate or balanced approach, nor is it consistent with the FOS’s quick and simple purpose. Extending the timeframes would slow down the FOS’s resolution of cases that are more recent and have a higher chance of being upheld, delaying consumers access to the redress they are owed.
Turning to Amendment 32, the Government considered carefully the options for different time limits to be set in legislation, including a six-year limit, and published their analysis in the impact assessment. Although this is a matter of judgment, the Government concluded that a 10-year time limit would strike the appropriate balance between consumer protection and providing certainty to firms, with a six-year limit resulting in too many people losing access to redress. However, I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the new limit introduced by the Bill is designed to act as a backstop to the existing limits set in rules made by the FCA. In most cases, the time limit will remain at the existing six years, with the 10-year backstop kicking in for cases where the customer could only reasonably have become aware of the problem at a later date.
On Amendments 33 and 35, the Government agree that, where the cause for complaint may take longer to come to light, such as with pensions, it is important that complaints can continue to be brought to the FOS. This is why the Bill gives the FCA discretion to make exceptions to the time limit in specified circumstances, where it is appropriate to do so. The Government carefully considered their approach to defining these exceptions and determined that the FCA is best equipped to develop proportionate and fair exceptions and to define these in its rules, given the FCA’s supervisory role and oversight of the sector and the level of technical detail that is required for the definitions.
The noble Lord is right to recognise the careful balance needed between ensuring that we do not undermine the certainty that this reform is intended to deliver while maintaining consumers’ trust and confidence that they will have access to redress when things go wrong. The Government are working closely with the FCA as it develops these exceptions and the FCA will set out its proposals in due course.
Amendment 34 relates to cases where there is an ongoing relationship between the consumer and a firm. Some complaints may be about acts or omissions that continue to occur or have effect in the context of an ongoing relationship between a consumer and a firm. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 does not place a restrictive definition on “acts” or “omissions”, so there is no reason why such an ongoing act or omission could not be the basis for a complaint within the time limit. The Government’s reforms in the Bill will not change the FOS’s discretion to identify the act or omission to which a complaint relates for the purposes of applying relevant time limits. It will continue to be for the FOS to make those judgments, based on the circumstances of the case and in line with the rules set by the FCA.
I will now explain the Government’s purpose behind Clause 8 and why it should stand part of the Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Sharkey, asked about the evidence base behind the Government’s policy. The Government’s review found that, in a small but significant minority of cases, the FOS has acted as a quasi-regulator. This means that, in some cases, the FOS has held firms to a standard that is different from those set by the FCA. The majority of responses to the Government’s consultation on the proposals to reform the legislative framework in which the FOS operates were broadly supportive of aligning the FOS’s fair and reasonable test with the FCA rules.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Can the Minister clarify something? Is he saying that, provided you comply with an FCA rule, you are then always fair and reasonable? That is what I am taking away from this. I can list so many examples, such as Libor and mini-bonds—all kinds of things—where the perpetrators ticked every single compliance box. I am curious to know.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I apologise for taking a moment to ask my officials a question; I want to make sure that I give the right answer. Where the FOS has complied with the FCA rules, it still has the discretion to make judgments, as long as it believes them to be fair and reasonable.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Certainly. We are trying to align the FOS’s “fair and reasonable” test with the FCA rules, but it retains some discretion.
I apologise for taking another moment to consult my officials. For clarity, where the FOS has aligned with the FCA rules, it has to believe that that is the case, and that determination has to be upheld.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
For absolute clarification, “fair and reasonable” must be interpreted by the FOS as a standard that is met if there is compliance with FCA rules. I just want to understand because we can then go back historically and see where FCA rules might not have been perceived as fair and reasonable. It is interesting.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
To pursue that, are we being misled by the use of the word “rules” here? There is guidance as well as rules. The principles are not rules, but the principles have to be followed, and they include things such as treating the customer properly. Is that right? There are some general principles within what the FCA lays down—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I am not sure that is what the legislation says; I think it says “rules”.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
Looking at the legislation itself, it seems clear that if the act or omission is in breach of the FCA’s rules or the consumer duty that absolutely qualifies it as being okay. There is no subordinate reference to “fair and reasonable”.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I will take the opportunity to write because this definitely needs clarification. The note that I have says that in cases where the omission being complained about is governed by FCA rules, if the firm has met its obligations under those rules, the FOS will be required to find that it acted fairly and reasonably. All the FCA’s handbook is relevant here, including the principles for businesses and, therefore, the consumer duty. There will be coherence between those determinations but only when the FOS believes that the fair test has not been met can it challenge the FCA. I will write to noble Lords because this is an important point that needs a definitive answer. I apologise for that.
On Amendments 37, 42 and 43, as I have set out, the reforms to the FOS’s fair and reasonable test are designed to preserve the FOS’s existing discretion in areas not covered by FCA rules. The Bill specifies the matters that the FOS must take into account when making determinations, taking this out of FCA rules and making it subject to parliamentary oversight. The matters listed include the law, relevant guidance, codes of practice and further materials published by the FCA or other regulators. This provides greater clarity around how the FOS makes its decisions. As I explained earlier, the Government’s view is that where there are relevant FCA rules, there are benefits from ensuring that FOS decisions are consistent with them. I will write to clarify further in case I have created confusion in this conversation.
On Amendments 38 and 41, the Government recognise the important role the FOS plays within the wider financial services regulatory environment. The reforms included in the Bill are about making sure that the FOS and the FCA are able to carry out their respective roles effectively, co-operating where necessary but maintaining their separate responsibilities. These amendments would go further and require the FCA to become involved in the determination of individual complaints. This is a role that the FCA is not designed or equipped to undertake. It is, and should continue to be, the role of the FOS as the independent, impartial dispute resolution service.
Turning to Amendments 39 and 40, the Government’s review of the FOS concluded that the “fair and reasonable” test works well in the majority of cases to enable a quick and fair resolution of complaints. Removing the “fair and reasonable test”, as proposed by these amendments would undermine the FOS’s quick and informal role and put in its place a more legalistic approach based on strict adherence to the FCA’s rules. This could introduce additional costs and delays, and reduce the FOS’s effectiveness as an accessible and simple alternative to the courts.
I turn to Clause 7 and the new referral mechanism, which will require the FOS to seek a view from the FCA where it considers that a matter relating to a complaint may indicate ambiguity in the FCA’s rules or have wider implications for consumers and firms. As well as enabling the FOS to make decisions that are consistent with FCA rules, the referral process will ensure that systemic questions and issues are identified at an early stage and the FCA can consider whether a regulatory or supervisory intervention may be appropriate, rather than continuing to consider each individual complaint separately. Alongside the new reporting requirements provided for in Clause 9, this will improve understanding of the FCA’s rules and the standards expected of firms, in turn improving confidence in financial services and ultimately reducing the number of consumers who experience poor treatment, which all noble Lords will agree is preferable to providing redress after the fact.
Given the important role that the FOS plays, this is a clearly a matter of huge interest, and there is a range of views on exactly what the best system would look like. Notwithstanding that, I will write on the specific things that I might have caused confusion about.
I have listened carefully to the representations. The Government’s view is that the reforms set out in the Bill strike an appropriate balance, improving the clarity and consistency of redress arrangements while allowing the FOS to continue to make fact-specific decisions on individual complaints. They ensure that both the FOS and the FCA are equipped to fulfil their respective roles and responsibilities so that consumers can have confidence in the key financial services on which they rely, and so that firms understand what is expected of them and can act on it. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
As one always says in this situation, I will read what the Minister said with care. I have to admit that I was a little disappointed on the “fair and reasonable” test, but on close analysis it may prove to be better. In particular, I hope I will have a copy of the letter. It is clear that the rules include the principles, such as:
“A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct”.
Is it the ombudsman who would decide what was the proper standard of market conduct, or is that one of the issues that will have to be referred to the FCA? I am not expecting an answer now, particularly as—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Davies. My understanding of the principles is that they sit at the top, and the rules are derived from them. But this is a focus on the rules, so it is only as derived. I do not know, and we will get an answer.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
That is what the Minister will need to make clear in the letter. I urge him to make that point clear. Who decides whether the principles have been followed—or is that one of the issues that have to be referred to the FCA under Clause 7?
On time limits, I am disappointed that the Minister did not address the specific cases that I addressed. Some figures were provided—I will start a war on people providing figures in this sort of debate, because they whistle past your ear and it is very difficult to make a quick assessment. The problem is the counterfactual: if the existing system did not exist, would those same figures apply? The Minister has effectively said that, under this change of rules, some people who previously would have received compensation will not do so. That is absolutely clear from the Minister’s statement, and that is reasonable because the providers will save an even larger sum of money. But of course that is under the existing system. We have to think about what those figures would be under the new system.
Again, I hope the Minister will write to me about the specific examples, which could be large sums of compensation—in the case of inappropriate personal pensions, £13 billion was paid in compensation. Would that have been possible under the revised rules? I say that because £13 billion is quite a figure to miss out on for ordinary policyholders. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We are about to move on to the last group of amendments and we have 35 minutes to go. I hope we can finish this group before we finish at 8.45 pm. If we do not, unfortunately we will have to break mid-group and reconvene on the same group on Wednesday, so it is in noble Lords’ hands what we do.
Amendment 46
Baroness Kramer
“Reimbursement of fraud: liability of technology companies(1) The FCA must make rules providing that, where a person is to be reimbursed in respect of losses arising from an authorised push payment fraud, the cost of that reimbursement is to be borne, in whole or in part, by any relevant technology company on whose service the fraud was initiated, facilitated or communicated.(2) Rules under subsection (1) must provide for—(a) the apportionment of the cost of reimbursement between relevant technology companies and payment service providers, by reference to the extent to which each contributed to the fraud occurring,(b) a process by which a payment service provider that has reimbursed a victim may recover the apportioned cost from a relevant technology company, and(c) the information that a relevant technology company must provide to the FCA and to payment service providers for the purposes of the rules.(3) In making rules under this section, the FCA must have regard to the principle that the cost of reimbursing victims of fraud should fall, so far as is reasonable, on the persons best able to prevent the fraud.(4) In this section—“authorised push payment fraud” means a transfer of funds executed by a payment service provider on the instruction of a payer, where the payer was deceived into giving that instruction;“relevant technology company” means a person who provides—(a) a user-to-user service or a search service within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2023,(b) an electronic communications service, or(c) any other online service by means of which an authorised push payment fraud may be initiated, facilitated or communicated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the FCA to make rules placing liability for the cost of reimbursing victims of authorised push payment fraud, in whole or in part, on the technology companies on whose platforms the fraud originates, rather than solely on payment service providers, and to apportion that cost according to who is best able to prevent the fraud.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will take that as an encouragement to speak only to my amendment, so I shall just say that the other amendments in the group from the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Hunt, make a great deal of sense to me, but mine is slightly different. They are dealing with the issues of reporting, review duties and requirements; I am addressing the same underlying issue of authorised push-payment fraud, coming from the perspective of who needs to act to prevent that and be on the hook when there is abuse.
The tech firms—and it is primarily the US tech giants—are now major players in the payments system. They are not merely an inanimate part of the plumbing; the way that they set up and police their systems, or fail to, makes them significantly responsible when their platforms are used to initiate, facilitate or communicate fraud. With AI, the risks become yet greater for ordinary people unless proper guardrails are put in place, so we have to look ahead, not just put in place protections for current circumstances and the past.
The financial incentive for tech firms to ignore fraud is huge. Some analysts have estimated that in 2025, in the UK alone, scam ads generated income of £3.8 billion for the tech companies. My amendment dealing with authorised push-payment fraud deals with a sector of that, but a huge one: authorised push-payment fraud in the UK exceeds £576 million a year. Under present legislation, victims are reimbursed most of that money by the banks, but the techs who have provided the mechanisms are off the hook. I think that is preposterous, because the techs are typically best placed to prevent the fraud.
Amendment 46 would require the FCA to apportion reimbursement by reference to which part each player contributed to the fraud occurring. I strongly suggest that, if passed, this amendment would lead to the tech companies suddenly finding that it is in their interest to prevent APP fraud. As I said, I have great respect for the other amendments in this group, but the payment system is a complex one. There are now many new participants and everybody, not just the banks, should be playing their appropriate role in providing both protection and reimbursement. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group on the subject of fraud and scams. I have also added my support to the lead amendment, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and to which she has just spoken. Most of my amendments arise, at least in part, from the abolition of the PSR and the absorption of its activities into the FCA; I will quickly run through each of them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has already explained the need for her Amendment 46, which would require the FCA to make rules to ensure that the tech or communications company on whose platform or service the fraud arises is responsible for a proportion of the cost of reimbursing the victims. Whether or not the mechanism in her amendment is the right one, the principle here is obvious. At the moment, it is the banks that must compulsorily fully refund victims of fraud. There is some sense in the banks having to reimburse victims, because almost every fraud goes through some sort of bank account to allow the fraudsters to cash out. It is clear that the mandatory reimbursement requirement has incentivised banks to do more to protect customers. However, we also know that fraud does not originate from banks’ services. According to UK Finance’s latest report, some 66% of scams arise on online services and a further 17% originate via telecoms. Let us be clear: the highest proportion of that arises on Meta platforms.
Despite voluntary charters, this is not improving at all. Your Lordships’ Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee, of which I was a member, recognised this in its report nearly four years ago; if the Minister has not read it, I recommend it as some bedtime reading. It said:
“Until all fraud-enabling industries fear significant financial, legal and reputational risk for their failure to prevent fraud, they will not act”.
We were right. Nothing has changed since then to change that conclusion. If anything, matters continue to worsen as technology such as AI starts being used by criminals. It is time that the platforms were at last forced to step up and take financial responsibility for the losses that arise from their platforms, not just leaving it to the banks to pick up the full liability. I say this to the Minister: in your answer, please do not tell us that the Online Safety Act will solve this. It is too limited; it covers only directly paid-for advertising and is unlikely to make much difference.
The Government’s fraud strategy recognises all this. It says that,
“if industry partnership and market incentives alone remain insufficient to drive improvements, the Government will take legislative action within this Parliament”.
This has been going on for years. The voluntary online fraud charter was signed three years ago. Nothing material has improved. Fraud is still around 45% of all crime, and the percentage arising on tech platforms has not fallen; if anything, it has risen. The Bill is the perfect opportunity finally to take action on this and not leave it until thousands more people have fallen victim. We know that tech companies will not take action unless they have to—they continue to prove that—which is why the Government are at last taking action in respect of child protection. This is no different. It is now time to act without further delay.
My Amendment 47 would introduce a requirement for the mandatory reimbursement rules for APP fraud, which came into force in October 2024, to be reviewed after three years of operation. It is unlikely that we got everything right at the first attempt, so a review of how effective they have been in meeting their objectives of protecting consumers and incentivising the banks to improve protections—as well as, importantly, whether there have been any unintended consequences—must make sense.
I have tried to set out in the amendment—I will not go through all the detail—the key matters that were discussed when the requirement was introduced in 2022-23 as the matters that ought to be reviewed. I would have also included the tech platforms, but I did not want to duplicate the amendment that we have just discussed.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who sadly is not with us at the moment, on his Amendment 58, which would add specific fraud prevention duties on payment service providers. I also have a lot of sympathy with the principle behind his Amendment 125, which would introduce a financial fraud prevention secondary objective to the FCA, although I caveat that by saying that I am not sure that adding yet more objectives to the regulators is necessarily the right way to go.
My Amendment 59 is designed to ensure that the FCA continues to collate and to publish the fraud data that the PSR has been collating and publishing for the past few years. This has been extremely valuable. It has identified several PSPs that were clearly not taking their fraud prevention duties seriously and led to action being taken against them. The pressure of shining a light on some of the bigger players has clearly incentivised them to step up and improve their systems. The information identifies very clearly which PSPs are protecting their customers best and which are doing it worst, which is important information for consumers when choosing a bank or payment provider.
To give just one example to show the value of this reporting, the last report by the PSR identified that, for every 1 million transactions received by Guavapay, 109,744 were APP scam payments—that is more than 10%. As a result of that information, the company has been forced to close by the FCA. In the meantime, consumers would have been able to see that this was an unsafe operator if the report had been issued in a timely manner—an issue that I will come to in a second.
This reporting was started as a result of efforts by Members of the House during the passage of FSMA 2023, and it followed undertakings by the then Minister. But there are already signs that, since moving the PSR’s activities into the FCA, this has started to slip. As I said, the last report of this nature was for the period up to 7 October 2024, when the mandatory reimbursement requirement was introduced. That was not published until February 2026, some 16 months later. My amendment would add a time limit of three months for the publication of these reports. No further report has been published since, so I hope that the Minister will recognise the value of this reporting, and that he will confirm that it should continue and that this amendment—which does not create any new burdens at all but just continues the status quo—should be accepted.
Amendment 64 would reverse the deletion of Clause 72 from FSMA 2023—it was the clause that introduced the requirement to introduce a mandatory reimbursement requirement. In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government explain that this is being removed because it has already happened. But Clause 72 does not only introduce the requirement; subsection (9) also includes the ability
“to vary or revoke a relevant requirement”
or
“to impose further relevant requirements”.
So I am not sure that deleting it in full works—that is something to look at. Most importantly, can the Minister confirm that the mandatory reimbursement requirement is intended to continue, even if reviewed and amended in the future—particularly in relation to tech companies, which we have talked about—and that this Bill is not intended to change anything in that respect?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, for reasons that will become apparent, I start by referring to my register of interests, including my shareholding in Meta.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend noble Lord Holmes, who is absent, for bringing forward this important group of amendments. I am sorry that this debate is so late and that the Grand Committee is so thin under the new five-hour arrangements—of which I am not a fan—because, collectively, these amendments raise an important and timely point. As online retail platforms and digital marketplaces become more popular and AI makes fraud easier, there has been a concurrent increase in the risk that people face from online fraud, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.
We have seen concerning figures suggesting that Facebook Marketplace is now the single most scammed UK consumer platform. Very large sums are stolen through it every day in the UK, and a very high proportion of UK purchase fraud begins there. We have also seen banks such as Santander taking active steps to block suspected Marketplace transfers to protect customers. Those examples raise very important questions: how easy is it for consumers to obtain redress when they are defrauded in this way? Who holds ultimate responsibility when a fraud is facilitated through an online platform, and how can the regulatory framework ensure that the firms best placed to prevent the fraud have a real incentive to do so? It is also important to consider how changes can be made without introducing new rafts of regulation that put up costs and prices.
Banks and payment service providers have significant responsibilities, and rightly so. They process the payment, have duties to their customers, and have tools available to detect and prevent suspicious transactions. Yet they are often not the place where the fraud originated, and may see only the final payment instruction, by which point much of the harm has already been set in motion. By contrast, technology companies and online marketplaces may be much closer to the source of the problem. They host the listings, provide the communications infrastructure, enable the interaction between buyer and seller, and in many cases have access to data which could help identify suspicious behaviour before money ever leaves a consumer’s account.
Amendment 46 is based on the principle that fraud should be paid for by those best placed to prevent it, not simply those who happen to process the payment at the end of the chain. If platforms know that they may share liability where fraud is facilitated through their systems, they will have a much stronger incentive to identify fraudulent listings, remove scam accounts, improve verification, share data and co-operate with banks and regulators, and indeed help consumers to avoid fraud, as we can do a lot ourselves as consumers. This is not about saying that technology firms should always be liable in every case, nor is it about absolving banks of responsibility. Yet it recognises that the current model may place too much of the burden on one part of the system, while allowing other actors, including very large and profitable tech companies, to avoid the financial consequences of fraud which often begins on their platforms.
The goal should be to stop fraud before it happens, which means better consumer warnings, transaction monitoring, real-time data sharing, and use of technology by all relevant firms. It also means transparency. If particular platforms, channels or types of transaction are consistently associated with fraud, that information should be visible. Sunlight is an important tool of accountability, which is why Amendment 59 is valuable in principle. As the experienced noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has explained, regular publication of data on APP fraud performance, including where fraud originates, would help Parliament, regulators, firms and consumers to understand the real shape of the problem. It would put pressure on firms whose systems are repeatedly linked to fraud to improve their performance.
Before we take a definitive view on these amendments, I would be grateful if the Minister could address several questions. First, what is the Government’s view on the principle of shared liability for APP fraud across the wider ecosystem, including technology companies and online marketplaces? Secondly, is there a place for greater transparency on APP fraud performance? Thirdly, what discussions have the Government had with tech platforms about fraud originating on their services, and what more does the Minister believe those firms should be required to do? Fourthly, does the Minister accept that online platforms should have stronger incentives to prevent fraud where they host the marketplace, the listing or the communication through which the scam takes place? Finally, how do the Government envisage tackling this problem? Do they have plans to introduce legislation on this issue, or do they believe that changes within the existing framework will be sufficient?
APP fraud causes real harm to individuals, families and businesses. It can undermine confidence in digital payments and online commerce, which is increasingly the direction of travel. It also imposes costs on the wider financial system. I recognise that this may go even wider than our Bill, but this is an important group and I look forward to the Minister’s responses, and to seeing how we can improve this important area.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and to noble Lords for tabling these amendments and to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. The scale of fraud and the devastating impact of that crime on victims remains a concern for this Government. The Government take the issue of fraud very seriously and are dedicated to protecting the public and businesses from this appalling crime.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, both gave far better speeches then I could, and covered the whole area substantially. I am grateful to them, but this gives me a few moments to reply.
Did the Minister say that the financial responsibility that will fall on tech platforms is the cost of prevention, detection and removal, and does he consider that all they need to do? He did not answer the question on shared liability or full reimbursement, and I find that reasonably preposterous, to tell you the truth. If these firms were effectively putting in place prevention, detection and removal, we would not have very much APP fraud, and therefore they would not be making very much reimbursement. We are not asking them to double up what they pay but to pay effectively.
There is a lot more that the Government need to take note of on this. They must also remember that the victims are among the most vulnerable people in our society, as well as others who think of themselves as capable and then find they have fallen for a scam.
I suggest that something far more vigorous is required, and it must be effective in making the tech companies respond, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, the history is that tech companies simply absorb the various requirements on them and make little move to act, because of the income that comes when they simply look the other way.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
HS2 Ltd: Consultants
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government how much HS2 Limited paid consultants in the last year; and on which aspects of the project they worked.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, HS2 Ltd spent £77.8 million on consultancy in 2025-2026. This targeted advice was used to support the fundamental reset and its scope and cost. This is a significant undertaking in terms of complexity, pace and scale, and could not all be done in-house. Under new leadership, HS2 Ltd is being transformed into a simplified, more cost-effective company, with more than 300 back-office roles already removed and an absolute focus on delivery.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, first, I express my condolences to the family of the train driver who died in the accident last Friday, and, of course, to the relatives of those who were injured. I am not going to say any more, because that is for another day.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer, but my figure for how much the Government have spent on consultants is £22 million, with a further £18 million to £19 million over the next 12 months. I have to ask my noble friend, what are they doing for their money? They are on a cost-plus contract, and the design has long since been since been finalised. What are they getting for their money apart from wasting taxpayers’ money?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I should say from this Dispatch Box that the Government, too, are immensely saddened by the events in Bedford last Friday. Our sympathies are wholly with the relatives of the deceased driver and all those affected by the accident. The Secretary of State for Transport will be making a Statement later in the other place.
In respect of the spend on consultants, the spend in the 2025-26 financial year is for a fundamentally different purpose than any money previously spent on consultancy for HS2. The company was not in control of the contracts it had let or of what work had been done. The effort to find out what work had been done for the money that has been spent—roughly two-thirds of the original budget has been spent and only one-third of the work has been done—is testimony to the way in which the project was managed. Getting control of it means finding out what was done, and that is what this money has been spent on.
Lord Redwood (Con)
When will we have a realistic timetable and budget to complete the works on this much-delayed railway line?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The recent Statement by the Secretary of State for Transport in the other place said that the project—with Mark Wild as the new chief executive and Mike Brown as the new chair of the new board—is now expected to cost between £87.7 billion and £102.7 billion. The first trains are now expected to run between Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street sometime between May 2036 and October 2039, and the full scheme, including Euston Station and the connection to the west coast main line at Handsacre Junction, is expected to open between May 2040 and December 2043.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, may I invite my noble friend the Minister and everyone else in the House to join me in 2037—I repeat: 2037—at the opening of HS2 to save 30 minutes getting to Birmingham? At the moment, that has cost us, as we have heard from the Minister, £102 billion. To cancel it would be £58 billion. To save further money, they are reducing the top speed by 25 miles per hour. Frankly, you could not make this up. It seems that the potential saving of some £50 billion could be better spent, not least on a few submarines. I invite my noble friend the Minister to think very seriously about cancelling this white elephant.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Right. My noble friend has come into this long-running play hopefully after the intermission but certainly after the first act. The point of HS2—you could say it is badly named—is to produce a serial improvement in train capacity between London, the West Midlands, the north of England and Scotland. That is the purpose of the scheme, and the result will be far more capacity, both on the new line and released on the old line in places such as Milton Keynes, to allow the economy of Britain outside London to reach its full potential in Birmingham, the north of England and stretching as far as Scotland. It is not just a high-speed line. You cannot judge the value of the expenditure merely on the elapsed journey time, though it is handy that the line is faster. Having started it, in whatever position it is in—we inherited it in a very bad position—the best thing to do is to finish it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, as someone who has spent most of my life living in the north of England, I strongly agree with the Minister that we need very considerably to improve the capacity of railway lines to the whole of the north of England, north-west Yorkshire and the north-east. That clearly justifies completing the line, to Yorkshire as well as Manchester. The Minister has explained that the circumstance in which these consultants were brought in was entirely exceptional. May I tempt him, however, to talk about the Government’s use of consultants, which has expanded over the last 15 years? Does there not come a point, in dealing with outsourcing contractors and public procurement, when the Government should be insourcing some its capacity to examine what outside contractors provide, and not so often outsource it to consultants, who charge a good deal more than civil servants do?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly thank the noble Lord for his clarity about the purpose of HS2. I am not the best person to stand here and talk about consultancy expenditure in government in general, but I sympathise with him about getting long-term work done, because the cheapest way of getting it done is to get people to do it on an employment basis. However, if we look at what has had to be done by Mark Wild, under the supervision of Mike Brown and the new board, we see that a company that does not know how it spent its own money and what work was done for it, in circumstances where there are currently cost-plus contracts, is in need of serious help. That serious help, frankly, can be established in the short term only with the use of consultants.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I also express my condolences to the family of the driver who lost his life in the tragedy on Friday—happily, a very rare event on Britain’s railways. On HS2, one of its principal contractors has warned that the Government’s steel tariffs are “ill-timed and unhelpful” and will “exacerbate” existing challenges facing HS2. Why have the Government chosen to make HS2 even more expensive by putting these tariffs on imported steel?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Fortunately, nearly all the steel for HS2 has already been purchased so, although it suffers from many things, it will not suffer from changes in steel prices going forward. If the noble Lord looks at either social media or at pictures, or even goes to see the route, he will see that a vast amount of steel has already been erected on the route to Birmingham.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, given the purpose of HS2, why was phase 2a, running to Crewe, cancelled? It was a very short section—some 30 miles or so—and would have provided a very valuable link to the west coast main line.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord needs to look at the Benches across from me, because phase 2a of HS2, which would have run from Handsacre to Crewe and then on to Manchester, was cancelled peremptorily by one of the previous Conservative Prime Ministers at virtually no notice and without some of the consequences being either foreseen or requested afterwards. This Government are keeping the land that has already been purchased, and we are thinking carefully about what needs to be done north of Birmingham to Crewe and to Manchester.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, first and foremost, as some who uses the railway line from St Pancras to Derby, I say to the Minister that everyone shares the thoughts of the Government, and I am sure the Minister will come to the House as soon as he has any interim information on what the Rail Accident Investigation Branch reveals.
As far as HS2 is concerned, the Minister is absolutely right to say that it is more about capacity than speed, as has always been the case. However, there is no doubt that there is a huge number of lessons to be learned about how these contracts are dealt with, from some of the things that have gone terribly wrong. Bearing in mind reports in the Times last week about how much more infrastructure costs in this country than in the rest of Europe, will the Government look at those reports in detail and see what lessons can be learned?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord and his knowledge, and I know that he travels regularly on the Midland Main Line. I am sure that I will be standing here as soon as there are some concrete facts on the accident.
The noble Lord is right: the reports suggest that we certainly do not build major projects very cheaply. I say to him—I hope he is familiar with this anyway—that we can do large projects. The Transpennine Route Upgrade—which nobody talks about, which will cost at least £13 billion to £14 billion and is in hand now on a railway that is operating every day—is on time and on budget. It is worth reflecting that the claims that this country can no longer do these things are not correct. We can do them, but they need to be thought about and planned properly—you do not start the job until you know what you are buying—and then managed cleverly by people who know what they are doing, in partnership with contractors. The result will be that we will show that we can do a big project on the railway in the north of England.
NHS: Dementia Treatment Trials
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Murphy
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to assess and prioritise investment in trials of new dementia treatments in the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, across the last five financial years, the Government have spent more than £555 million on dementia research, including into dementia diagnostics and trials of potential treatments. We are working for Britain to be at the forefront of transforming treatments and a world leader in dementia trials expertise. We are prioritising that through investment in the UK Dementia Trials Network and the Dementia Trials Accelerator.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for that update. Dementia is now the most prevalent mental disorder in the country and the leading cause of death in women. I think she will agree with me that, at the moment, only 30% of dementia cases ever get diagnosed. If we are to benefit from some of the new developments in treatments, which I recognise are not yet as efficacious as we would like, there has to be some more investment in ensuring that people get an early diagnosis, so that patients can not only be linked into trials as they come up but get the help and social support that they—and their families, of course—will need. Does the Minister have any plans to increase the dementia diagnosis rate?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We do indeed, and I certainly agree with the noble Baroness. A timely diagnosis is absolutely vital to make sure that people with dementia can access everything they need, live well and remain independent for as long as possible. We are committed to recovering the dementia diagnosis rate to the national figure of 66.7%, and as of 31 March the figure stood at 66.3%. That is an increase from the time before and we will continue, through developing the modern service framework, to drive that upwards.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, dementia is projected to reach 1.4 million people by 2040, yet Alzheimer’s Research UK reports that up to 45% of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed. Will the Government commit to a national dementia public awareness campaign to support risk reduction and healthier ageing?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Encouraging people to age well and healthily is indeed part of our whole drive in terms of prevention and moving away from sickness. As part of this, it is absolutely crucial that we have the NIHR and UKRI, which are the relevant arms of our health service where we are investing in that dementia research. Causes, diagnostics and prevention in order to get treatment, care and support, as the noble Baroness says, are absolutely crucial. I would include carers in that too.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, while accepting the importance of early diagnosis and the improvements that are being made, does my noble friend agree that families—and she has mentioned carers—are often reluctant to seek a diagnosis? They think that these are only small symptoms of confusion and do not want to go for the full diagnosis on dementia. Would the public awareness campaign, mentioned from the other Benches, also include encouragement to families and carers to seek that diagnosis?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right: we want to encourage people to come forward for diagnosis and care. On the point that my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made about an awareness campaign, I will raise that with the Minister for Care.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, NHS England has said that implementing some of the new, promising drugs that exist, when they get clearance from NICE, is going to be one of the biggest challenges the NHS has faced in its 75 years. Is the Minister confident that the steps that she has set out for improving diagnosis are up to that challenge, so that we can reduce the proportion of dementia patients who do not receive a diagnosis—around a third—to much smaller levels?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, indeed. I am feeling positive about the way we are moving forward, about increasing research and about developing a frailty and dementia modern service framework by the end of this year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has called for. On the question of drugs, to which the noble Lord has referred, I can confirm that NICE is currently evaluating two licensed disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease; it will meet to consider that on 8 July.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, if our intention is to increase the diagnosis rate of early dementia, normally what we would do is to find a screening test that would identify people at risk of any disease. There is one called Mini-Cog; it takes three minutes to administer and uses word registration and recall and a clock to diagnose early dementia. Why do we not use that as a screening test, easily implemented by trained people to increase the rate of diagnosis of dementia?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That will be considered. We have the Dame Barbara Windsor dementia goals programme, which very much aims to speed up the development of new treatments for dementia and neurodegenerative conditions by accelerating innovations, including in clinical trials. I agree that we need diagnosis that is effective and thorough, and the point that the noble Lord raises will of course be considered in all that.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, Wes Streeting was absolutely right when he said that prevention is better than cure. The onset of dementia can be delayed by regular exercise and eating healthily, but the facts are that one in three adults is not taking the recommended NHS guidelines for exercise. Ultra-processed foods provide more than half the total energy intake in UK adults, and the National Institute on Aging has suggested that what we eat, such as fruit, vegetables and whole grains,
“affects the aging brain’s ability to think and remember”.
Fixing this will not only make the population healthier, saving the NHS tens of billions of pounds, but prevent the onset of dementia. Surely it is time to act at pace.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I believe that we have upped the pace. It is very important, as I know the noble Earl is aware, to go with evidence-based solutions. Indeed, when I speak to the point about an evidence base, that is why we have several research initiatives, including, as I mentioned, the dementia trials network and the trials accelerator. Both of those are speeding up the set-up of early and late-phase clinical trials. We have already gone well under our ambition of 150 days to set up, at 122. We are positioning ourselves well to be a global leader in a way that I am sure the noble Earl would want us to be.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that, while the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is quite keen on screening tests, we can both agree that screening tests have all sorts of major disadvantages, such as false diagnosis or unclear diagnosis? If we are not careful and do not have a test that is really reliable, we could end up with much more unnecessary worry for people who, for all sorts of reasons, believe that they have dementia when actually they are simply being a bit forgetful. That is important for health.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very fair observation that probably applies to many situations. When we talk about diagnosis, we are talking about getting the right people diagnosed, and quickly. That is why the modern service framework, as I mentioned earlier, will be developed and is being developed with partners and those with a particular interest. That will make sure that any interventions not only improve dementia care but improve diagnosis and the waiting times for diagnosis.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, it is welcome that the Government seem to be setting national targets for dementia diagnosis. But targets are valuable only if they are accompanied by timeframes, not simply for diagnosis but for a treatment plan. Will the Government consider proposals such as from Alzheimer’s Research UK, which talks about an 18-week target for diagnosis and the development of a treatment plan for each patient?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We will indeed consider that, and we are very grateful to Alzheimer’s Research UK and other organisations for working with us to get to the right place.
Master’s Level History Scholarships
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decline in the number of scholarships available for the study of history at master’s level.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the study of history is of immense value, as it helps students to understand Britain’s past and that of the wider world. It also equips students to think critically, weigh evidence, sift arguments and develop perspective and judgment—all vital skills. Decisions on scholarships, bursaries or other financial awards are matters for individual providers and relevant funding bodies, but the Government provide support for postgraduate master’s study across all subjects, including history, through the postgraduate master’s loan.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her constructive reply. I should declare an interest as the founder of the accomplishment scholarship in history at Queen’s College, Oxford. This year is the 250th anniversary of one of the huge achievements of the Enlightenment. This anniversary does not require a party in Washington or a new ballroom at the White House, and it is British. I am talking about the publication of the first volume of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon’s masterpiece. Since then, Britain has produced a succession of brilliant, world-leading historians: Macaulay, Carlyle, Trevelyan, AJP Taylor, CV Wedgwood, Eric Hobsbawm, Simon Schama, Bettany Hughes, Antony Beevor, Peter Frankopan and our esteemed colleague on the Benches opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to name but a few. The educational pipeline to this greatness has come under severe pressure for funding reasons in the last few years, and it is essential that we steward history as a discipline through these challenging times. Does the Minister agree that history is a foundational subject? I think she does. Does she agree that it is the cornerstone of a civilised and democratic society, and will she ensure that government actively promotes the study of history in UK universities so that it can and will stand on the sunlit uplands—I am thinking of the Malverns on a summer’s day—as a beacon to the world for decades to come?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I agree with my noble friend, and I congratulate him on the personal commitment that he has made to supporting studentships in history at his former college. I feel confident that noble Lords across the House will be rushing to their copies of Gibbon to brush up on that bit of history. He is right. As I said in my opening response, history has a fundamental place at all levels of education, because it provides us with the ability to understand the history of our nation and of the world and the context in which we are operating now, and it develops critical skills, all of which are fundamentally important in our complex and contested modern world. I look forward to working alongside my noble friend to ensure that Britain’s leading position in the study and development of history scholarship is maintained.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that the decline in scholarships will disproportionately affect people from lower-income backgrounds? If she does, what steps will His Majesty’s Government take to make sure that people get to study based on talent and not their ability to pay?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
If the noble Lord is making the case that it is not just at undergraduate level in universities that we need to promote wider access but at postgraduate level, I strongly agree with him. We made that point in the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, and we have already begun work to support, for example, the promulgation of successful best practice in opening up access to postgraduate study. We want to do more on that issue.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the wider, hugely worrying trend is the loss of humanities and arts courses more generally at the higher education level, one effect of which, as has been said, has been to widen the class divide in the study of those subjects. Do the Government have a strategy to reverse those long-term trends?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is important, first, to ensure the financial sustainability of our higher education sector, which this Government have taken action to do by increasing the maximum tuition fee cap. It is also important, as we set out in our White Paper, that universities are able to think carefully about what they want to specialise in and the way in which they collaborate—something that has not happened enough in our higher education sector—to maintain access to important subjects such as history and humanities. In doing that, we will make it more likely that access to these important subjects can be maintained for students at all levels.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I join from these Benches in congratulating noble Lord, Lord Barber of Chittlehampton, on all his work to support the study of history. Higher education resources, however, are under strain, and the IFS has reported independently that some courses have persistently poor outcomes and very high student loan write-off, of up to 70%—not history, but some other creative courses. What steps will the Minister take to ensure any future cuts are made first to those courses, rather than to the core disciplines and humanities, such as history?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness will be very pleased to know that we made an announcement this morning—which, for some unknown reason, did not get quite the attention I would have hoped—precisely about her point. For a vast majority of students, going to university is worth while for their learning and lifetime earnings, but there are some courses which are not providing that opportunity. We have already enabled the Office for Students to investigate and challenge where provision is not of a high enough quality; we will link any future increase in tuition fees to quality and we will take further action to enable the Office for Students to limit the availability of courses which are not providing students with what they deserve in the future. We will have more to say about that when, perhaps, more people are listening.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, under the last Government, social mobility went backwards. Does the Minister agree that we have to reverse that policy if we are not to see the tragedy of lost talent?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I agree with my noble friend, and that is why, throughout our education system, we have to tackle the elements that prevent children and young people fmaximising their potential in life from the very early stages. This is why we are investing in early years; it is why we have set a target to ensure more children are ready to benefit from school when they get there; and it is why we have focused on getting children back into school. It is why we are taking action to improve access to all routes of learning for young people post-16, and why we are widening access and participation in higher education for all students who can benefit from it.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was very encouraged by the Minister’s excellent Answer to the excellent Question from the noble Lord, Lord Barber. We do indeed need to remember where we are from, and history is a manual of what works and what does not. Can the Minister think of a single example—anywhere in human history—of where a wealth tax has raised more revenue than it has driven away, or where rent controls have ever failed to reduce the amount of rental properties, or where tariffs have ever made an economy more competitive?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My study was rather more in the area of economics than in history There are some interesting examples of where some of those have worked, but I am not going to rise to the noble Lord’s challenge. On the whole, I agree with his analysis about most of those proposals.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, we have rightly been very proud of our universities, but we have to secure their future, as the noble Baroness said. How are we supporting universities in this new era? What are we doing to ensure that we encourage those from overseas to come to study and research here, that they are not put off by an unwelcoming environment, as is so often the case, and that they are not counted in the immigration figures? We do not want the United Kingdom to decline and fall.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the subject of history, it is well worth noting that today is the Windrush anniversary, and we should recognise the significance of that element of our history. We remain in this country and in our higher education system welcoming to international students. That is why we have many universities in the top flight of international universities. We are continuing to see and welcome students who want to come to this country to study and, in doing that, to make a contribution to our universities and those they study alongside.
Home Ownership: First-time Buyers
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote home ownership for first time buyers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are reforming the broken home-buying and home-selling system to slash delays, cuts costs and stop sales falling through. Last week—it was on Friday, so it may not have got the attention it deserved, like my noble friend’s announcement—we published a road map setting out actions the Government are taking. Our new changes will cut home-buying times by around four weeks and save first-time buyers an average of £650.We are supporting first-time buyers through a range of routes, including shared ownership and the lifetime ISA, while addressing the root causes of unaffordability by increasing house supply and investing in affordable homes.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the announcement on Friday. The Minister listed a number of schemes to help first-time buyers, but actually none of them has moved the dial, leaving many young people who are renting and want to be owner-occupiers paying more in rent than they would with a mortgage. Recently, the Prime Minister said:
“For my family growing up, the roof over our heads was everything. But for so many families today, home ownership is a distant dream. My Government will make it a reality once again”.
Would it not be a fitting part of his legacy if, within the next few weeks, he was able to make an announcement that brought those dreams closer?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are already doing that. We made that announcement on Friday. From speaking to lenders, we know that many first-time buyers are not aware of all the innovative mortgage products that might help them, or that recent mortgage reforms may help them get on the housing ladder. I had a meeting with the Building Societies Association just a couple of weeks ago, and I met again with the round table that developed this road map last week. It is true that mortgage brokers can help potential homebuyers to find options that may be suitable for them. There are some fantastic new products coming forward. Anyone who read the Metro last week may have seen a wraparound from Lloyds saying it was introducing £5,000-deposit mortgages, back for the first time since 1996. So things are moving and changing, and the road map will help that even further.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I return to my previous contributions on building housing on land acquired at agricultural prices, which is of particular benefit to young buyers. Can we look at developments in Hammarby in Sweden and Nijmegen in Holland, where there have been major housing developments in both locations on land acquired at reduced cost? All I ask is that we look at these precedents and consider whether, with a review of land title on housing sold on such land, we could similarly build in the United Kingdom and help young buyers.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am always happy to look at any innovative ideas, wherever they occur. If there are those in Europe, I am happy to have a further look at them. We are making sure that we work harder on land availability through our partners in this programme. Some young people are currently paying far more in rent than they would have to pay if they had a mortgage. So making sure that finance is accessible and that properties are accessible is very important to getting this moving.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that a rather surprising and paradoxical way of helping first-time buyers is through making it easier to build for last-time buyers: those who want to downsize or right-size? Then you get two for one: you are helping the elder person but also providing, through the chain of lettings and purchases that follow, something for first-time buyers as well.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for all the work he did on the Older People’s Housing Taskforce, which we will be producing our response to. The Government are committed to enhancing provision and choice for older people in the housing market through freeing up other homes. The new home-buying and selling process will reduce the friction that sometimes occurs and creates barriers to moving. The better upfront information it provides will support households to ensure that the home meets accessibility needs, for example, and that hidden costs, which often really concern older buyers, will be transparent right from the start.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, shared ownership promised a real lifeline for first-time buyers to get them on to the property ladder, yet soaring service charges, crushing maintenance bills and toxic lease clauses are trapping families in unsaleable, unmortgageable nightmares: I exaggerate not. What urgent steps are the Government taking to rescue and reform this scheme and protect hard-working buyers from financial hardship?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right. The Government recognise that some people who entered shared ownership have faced real challenges. We have introduced new expectations for landlords to improve the customer experience, which include giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, making sure that there is greater transparency and fairness on costs, ensuring that fees do not generate a profit and giving customers the ability to opt out of fees for optional services, which often was not pointed out. We are continuing to consider what more can be done to improve that experience for all our shared owners.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, despite a housing crisis, we are seeing housebuilding plummet as affordability collapses and first-time buyers are reluctant to extend themselves in a period of economic uncertainty. This is particularly the case in London, with an average house price of £661,000. The Minister talked about hidden costs; those houses attract a £23,000 stamp duty. Does she agree that we need to stimulate housebuilding and that removing the economically destructive stamp duty tax would be a good start?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There are exemptions from stamp duty for first-time buyers, so that is not the case for them. First-time buyers benefit from paying no stamp duty land tax up to £300,000 and are able to claim relief on purchases up to £500,000. The Government are working closely with the Mayor of London. I will meet the deputy mayor for housing this week to talk about what further steps we can take to help the building of homes in London. It is not true to say that no housebuilding is moving forward. We had an increase in growth in the first quarter of this year.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, home ownership is important, but social housing must play a central role in meeting the housing needs of young people. Over the past year, government decisions have put the social housing sector in a much better financial position, so can the Minister confirm that enough funding will be made available in the first years of the social and affordable homes programme to match the ambitious bids that have been made to build the homes we so urgently need?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her recognition of the huge amount of funding—£39 billion, which is the biggest in a generation—allocated by the Government for social and affordable homes to be built. At least 60% of those homes will be for social rent. On 28 January, we published the update to our five-step plan to deliver a decade of renewal. We have had a significant number of bids for the first round of that funding, which will give councils and social housing providers the certainty they need, with the rent convergence procedure we have also introduced. Bids closed on 15 April and we look forward to those houses being built.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, the fact that the average age of first-time home buyers has shot up from 26 to 34 is not just bad news for mobility and well-being but very bad news for economic growth. Does the Minister agree that it is time to replace stamp duty with a less crude and transactional tax?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have already set out the relief on stamp duty that is available for first-time buyers, but I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we try to encourage more young people to purchase their first home, where they can afford to do so. The Building Societies Association is running a fantastic campaign called “Think again!” which explains to young people how they can do that. Financial institutions are making sure that young people understand that the mortgage rules have been changed. I urge anyone who thinks they may be able to afford it to go and see a mortgage broker. Lenders have changed, for example, how they deal with intermittent employment and so on, so it is much easier to get a mortgage, and people should understand that they can use a record of rent payment as a guarantee for their mortgage.
Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the sentencing of Peter Wai and Bill Yuen for assisting a foreign intelligence service, what plans they have to (1) protect Hong Kongers in the United Kingdom from transnational repression; and (2) to review the status, privileges and immunities of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Question. I assure her that any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. This trial has shown that anyone working to assist a foreign state to undermine our security will face the full force of the law. The Foreign Secretary has also made it clear to the Chinese Government and directly to the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office that this activity is unacceptable and clearly counterproductive to our relationship.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but given that one of those convicted under the National Security Act for spying on pro-democracy activists was an immigration officer and special constable, himself sentenced to 10 years, can my noble friend assure me that his Government will take greater steps to ensure that no such agents are working under such a guise? Can he also assure me that the Government are taking all possible action to protect Hong Kong citizens living in the UK, especially those with a bounty on their head, from harassment or even worse from the Chinese Government?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As my noble friend indicated, the two individuals concerned received significant prison sentences of eight years and 10 years for their offences. Immediately following the arrest, officials in the Home Office took steps to bolster protections across Home Office systems. This has included further strengthening access management and monitoring of systems, expanding the use of enhanced integrity checks and reviewing conflicts of interest policies. In addition, the Prime Minister set out to the House in April that Sir Adrian Fulford will undertake a review of national security vetting, which will report in due course.
My noble friend asked about Hong Kongers generally and transnational repression. The Government take the safety of individuals who may be at risk from transnational repression extremely seriously. We have recently updated GOV.UK guidance on transnational repression for individuals, and counterterrorism policing in particular has rolled out training across all UK police forces, including upskilling of 999 call handlers to improve front-line identification and response.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I welcome what the Minister just said about the updating of some of the guidelines but will he return to the report that the Joint Committee on Human Rights published exactly 10 months ago, which called for the highest enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to apply to the Chinese Communist Party regime, along with Russia and Iran, but also raised concerns about people such as Chloe Cheung, a young woman from Hong Kong who has a 1 million Hong Kong dollar bounty on her head? Surely, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said about the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, this is a relic from the past and it is high time that this spy hub was simply closed down.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised the foreign influence registration scheme. That was introduced less than a year ago. As he knows, we have designated initial nations accordingly. It is still a relatively new tool. We have not made any final decisions as to whether we will place other countries on the enhanced tier, but we keep that under close review at all times. The noble Lord would not expect me to announce any further reviews to this House at this time, but we will announce any changes to Parliament in the usual way. It is not acceptable for individuals to have bounties placed on their heads, and the Government, as I said, take the safety of individuals who may be at risk extremely seriously, and there is always support when there are threats tailored to specific circumstances, such as those that the noble Lord mentions.
The noble Lord has looked at the Hong Kong trade office. The purpose of that office is to promote trade with the Hong Kong special administrative region. It is a legitimate activity, which may continue. However, as has been shown in this case, where people conduct state threat activity we will hold them to account. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador on 8 May and explained that the behaviour was unacceptable, and we will continue to take action when required.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. However, these convictions do not come in isolation; they follow a series of recent incidents involving alleged Chinese state-linked activity in the UK, including espionage prosecutions and reports of surveillance directed at dissidents and members of the Hong Kong community. At what point do the Government conclude that these incidents represent not isolated events but a systematic challenge to the United Kingdom’s national security, requiring perhaps a more robust response than has so far been forthcoming?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect to the noble Lord, we will take action, where required, against the Chinese authorities. We assess that China poses a significant threat in a number of areas, from cyber attacks to foreign interference, espionage targeting our democratic institutions and transnational repression, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. We are also alive to the fact that there are common areas of interest with the Chinese Government on the international stage. China still presents the UK with opportunities as the world’s second-largest economy and the UK’s current third-largest trading partner. It is not inconsistent to challenge at the same time as examining where British interests lie as a whole.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, Peter Wai was a UK Border Force officer and a special constable, but it has also been reported that he was a director of a private security company. A third defendant, Matthew Trickett, who died before the trial, was an immigration officer and a director of a different security company. It seems to me that it is a conflict of interest to be both an immigration officer and running a private security company. Can the Minister explain what is now going on to make sure that we do not have these conflicts of interest in our important Border Force employees?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has mentioned an important point. The former Security Minister, my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis—who held the post until he was appointed Defence Secretary a couple of weeks ago—commissioned Home Office officials to undertake a thorough examination of whether there is a case for further regulation of the sector under the Private Security Industry Act. Those working in private investigation do important work, but their specialist skill sets make them attractive targets for foreign states to exploit.
As I mentioned, we have bolstered our robust security vetting regime, which will protect assets and information as a top priority for government, and we have commissioned Sir Adrian Fulford to undertake a review of the vetting issues. I await his recommendations; it is important we have consideration of those things. I say again that eight- and 10-year sentences show that the National Security Act is working and that there are significant penalties for those who dare cross the legitimate line of their employment.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reveals the other side of the coin in relation to a resident of Hong Kong who is a United Kingdom citizen, who has been “convicted” under the Chinese national security legislation—namely, Jimmy Lai? When was the last time that either the Minister’s department, or, if more relevant, the Foreign Office, let the Chinese ambassador in London or the Chinese Government in Beijing know that his improper incarceration is offensive and will have some bearing on the status of the Hong Kong trade office here in London?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the question. As I mentioned in my initial replies, to my knowledge, the Foreign Secretary last had contact with the Chinese authorities through the embassy on 8 May, when she made significant representations. It is the role of the Foreign Secretary to make representations in relation to prisoners elsewhere. I will go back to the Foreign Office to inquire whether there has been further contact since 8 May, but that is my understanding of the last contact.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, while I am not aware that there was any religious element to the incidents referred to, we know that many Hong Kongers have come to this country seeking religious freedom and, indeed, many thousands have joined our churches. Can the Minister give reassurance to those people that the freedom of religion and belief will be honoured here?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I certainly will give the right reverend Prelate the assurance that freedom of religion and expression is essential in the United Kingdom. Residents of this country should know that, whatever nationality they have, the Government take the safety of individuals extremely seriously; that we will not tolerate transnational repression; that we will use legislation to take action where it has surfaced; that the prison sentences, in this case for espionage, of eight and 10 years are significant; and that we keep all matters, such as the foreign influence registration scheme and all the other measures we have, under continuous review.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talks about things that are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, but the Chinese Communist Party is using the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office as a tool for its repressive activities. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to it as a relic of a time when it was a valid trade and economic office. The two front men have recently been caught, but there is a whole apparatus behind them. Why is the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office still being allowed to exist as a smokescreen for those repressive activities?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office exists to promote trade with the Hong Kong special administrative region, and that is a legitimate activity. If there are allegations of criminality, or where there is proven criminality, the Government will take action, as has been the case with the two individuals who are now serving time in prison for their crimes. I can only reiterate that we take this matter seriously. The Foreign Secretary summoned the Chinese ambassador on 8 May. She explained quite clearly that that behaviour is unacceptable. We will continue to monitor it and, if need be, take action.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I raised the issue of the new proposed Japanese super-embassy—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
—sorry, the Chinese super-embassy—on 29 January 2025 and articulated the very serious concerns that a number of us had about the efficacy of the decision to let that go ahead. The Minister will know that since then, there are still very considerable concerns about the impact of the embassy with respect to financial infrastructure near the City of London. Despite that, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, allowed it. Is the Minister in a position to tell the House whether his view is that the Government will now resile from contesting the judicial review brought by the Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association and scrap the decision to build the new super-embassy, which is a threat to our national security?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The security services were involved throughout in the advice given to independent authorities on the development of the embassy. The Secretary of State has taken his decision. The decision stands, but we are confident that the merger of embassies into one super-embassy and the advice we have taken from the security services mitigate against the threats that the noble Lord is concerned about.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
When it came to recent so-called spyware lawsuits, various Governments tried to claim state immunity. Can the Minister just update the House on the Government’s view on this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If proof is given and the state is taking action, the Government will consider what action we will take against that state. We have a number of potential tools at our disposal. The FIRS is one tool, which we can always examine and keep under review. The state threats Bill will be before the House tomorrow. When that is passed in due course, we will consider what action we can take. Our security services advise Ministers on every occasion about what the threats are and what action we can take. As has been proved in this case, the National Security Act provides a vehicle to take action against individuals who have committed offences. The two individuals are spending eight and 10 years in prison as a result of that action. We will not take any action that undermines the security of the United Kingdom.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I have not yet heard an answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on conflict of interest. Is it acceptable for a Crown servant—an immigration officer, a Border Force employee—to be a director of a private security firm? If not, will it now be stopped?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord has put that question. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we are keeping all matters under review. We have commissioned Sir Adrian Fulford to look at vetting. Let us wait for the responses to that review. They are very important points. We will reflect on them at all times, but I have set out to the House what I can today in response to my noble friend’s Private Notice Question.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In our report on transnational repression, published some 10 months ago, one of the recommendations was that those perceiving themselves to be the victims of transnational repression should have access to a dedicated reporting mechanism. The Government indicated that they were favourable to that, but we have not heard any further on what progress has been made. Perhaps the Minister could update the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have had a number of requests on that matter. We have considered carefully, in conjunction with counterterrorism police, how best to encourage reporting and ensure that reports are received and treated seriously. The existing functions have been found by the counterterrorism police to be effective and efficient. We are looking at how we can improve the training and support of call handlers and particularly trained officers dealing with crime reporting on a 24/7 basis. Translators and language support are embedded within the existing reporting mechanisms. We will keep things under review but, in essence, we are meeting the objectives of the review that the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Alton of Liverpool, requested.
Built Environment Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, may I begin first by paying testament to the tireless advocacy of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on behalf of the victims of grooming gangs, and the tremendous courage and persistence that she displays in public service? She has warned again this week that fear of accusations of racism played a significant part in preventing professionals from protecting these girls—these children—from abuse and rape. One year on, her criticism is not about announcements or process or lists of things to do; it is that the Government have failed to grasp the cultural problems underlying all this. Will the Government finally heed the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and commit to legislate to make ethnicity data collection mandatory, first for police forces and secondly for children’s social care services dealing with child sexual exploitation? If not, why not?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for the confusion—it is one of those days.
First, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, to her new role. I wish her every success in holding the Government to account and raising those issues. I hope that she enjoys the new role and does it as successfully as possible. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her report and for her continued interest and comments on this.
The central point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has raised is around the ethnicity and nationality of grooming gang offenders. She is right that we have not yet got a reliable picture, because the underlying data has been incomplete and inconsistent. That is why the former Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper, the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, has written to all chief constables setting clear expectation that suspect ethnicity data must be recorded. But the noble Baroness is right that we need to do more, and that is why we will legislate to mandate collection as soon as possible. The police reform White Paper that we published in January said that we would set out our intention to create a framework to mandate data, and this will be taken forward through the upcoming police reform Bill. I cannot give an introduction date for the police reform Bill, but when it comes—it has been announced for this Session of Parliament—that will be done as part of the Bill’s proposals.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, drew attention to the fact that victims may have had convictions for underage prostitution quashed yet they still remain criminalised for offences such as drug possession, which have been forced on them by their abusers. Will the Minister commit to broadening the Government’s approach to quashing convictions so that survivors are no longer haunted by criminal records that are a direct product of the despicable abuse and exploitation they have already suffered?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness has a very strong point. It is horrific that the law has historically treated children, including victims of grooming, as capable of being child prostitutes when they were and are sexually exploited children. We have already legislated to introduce a disregard scheme for those who were cautioned or convicted of on-street prostitution offences as children, and we have also invested £100 million to tackle child sexual abuse. The independent Criminal Cases Review Commission recently referred its first grooming gang case to the courts. That is an important step, and obviously we will keep all these matters under review.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, many of those convicted under the provisions of the grooming gangs were actually taxi drivers, and yet they are a category of people who have to pass all sorts of checks before they are able to pick up—particularly vulnerable young women. How did they escape those checks and how were they allowed to perpetrate these crimes over such a long period?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an important point. I do not know the answer to why that was the case specifically, but it is an important point that people who are providing licensed taxi services are sufficiently vetted and have that level of scrutiny to ensure that they are appropriate people to undertake those roles. We have established, as the noble Baroness knows, the grooming gang inquiry under our noble friend Lady Longfield. That is currently working its way through its work and objectives, and I have no doubt that the type of issue that the noble Baroness has raised will be examined as part of that inquiry.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised a very important question to do with the quashing of convictions, and I am delighted and very proud that the Government are dealing with the quashing of convictions for prostitution. However, there are other offences which, in the view of many people, need to be quashed, because they are having a blighting effect on the future lives of these young people. I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell me that the Government are going to look at wider quashing of offences.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an important issue that has been raised. I can give my noble friend the assurance that we will keep that matter under review. We have taken initial action in response to the initial inquiry, and we will continue to look at it in future.
Referring back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I may say that the Department for Transport will legislate to address the important issues raised in the report, tackling the inconsistent standards of taxi and private hire vehicles. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 includes the provision to set those national standards. I apologise for not giving her that answer immediately—it is not my direct brief—but I hope that helps the House.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we have time for questions. We will hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches and then the Cross Benches.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, in 2011 or 2012, I asked a Question on behalf of Barnardo’s—and I declare an interest as vice-president—about child sexual exploitation and how children were encouraged by their abusers to delete the evidence on their mobile phones that could lead to prosecution and that the children were not believed by the authorities. What provisions are in place today to collect such evidence that could prosecute evil perpetrators of child sexual abuse?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The point the noble Baroness has made is extremely important. In the 14 or 15 years since she asked that Question, the police’s ability to collect information and to analyse data in a way that can lead to prosecution has significantly improved. There is a range of mechanisms now where deleted data can be recovered. If there is an evidential trail, that can be looked at. I have just taken note of a range of government reviews about how we can manage and use particularly AI to improve the analysis of information, so that the manual element is still there at the end but there is a great deal of consideration of how we can collect that information and analyse it in a much better way. So I hope that, since she asked that Question, the situation has improved.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, this yet another inquiry is long overdue; I think we all accept that, but we understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, is committed to ensuring that it works as well as it can. Does the Minister agree that it is incredibly important, for social cohesion and for public confidence in our justice system, that the first public servants who were involved over that very long period a long time ago will be called to give evidence and to provide statements? Does she have the statutory powers to do that in the way that the inquiry is currently framed?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The terms of reference for the inquiry are set out and the scope of the inquiry has been developed, and included in that are legal obligations to protect relevant information that was used by responsible individuals at the time. The conduct of the inquiry, with due respect, is a matter for my noble friend Lady Longfield to establish. It is not for Government to set out the terms of the inquiry. I have every confidence that she will address the issues that matter to this House. Self-evidently, the noble Baroness has raised an important issue to ensure that those who participated in issues that cause failings have an opportunity to explain and are held to account.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of the most vulnerable young people are those who are in care. Too often, we see young people put in care homes many hundreds of miles away from where their kinship relationships are, making them even more vulnerable. Will the Minster say what can be done to stop the practice of young people being moved to the poorest parts of the country, to the cheapest care homes, where they are made the most vulnerable of all?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an important point. It is not directly within my gift to be able to answer that question, but I will make inquiries with my colleagues in the Department for Education for the right reverend Prelate. Whether people are moved to a poor area or a wealthy area, the issue of child sexual abuse is unacceptable, and the purpose of government policy is to ensure that sufficient safeguards are put in place, that criminal sanctions are there to be used, that the preventative measures that we have talked about today already are developed, and that the lessons from the inquiry conducted by my noble friend Lady Longfield are implemented as a matter of urgency. I will reflect on what he said, but the important point is that child sexual abuse is unacceptable wherever it comes from.
Sporting Events Bill [HL]
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(ca) Schedule (Industrial action provisions) (“the industrial action provisions”),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this first group of amendments in our debates in Committee on the Bill, not least because I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I was physically present but mentally less so, as I had just arrived back on a red-eye flight from the United States—in part, visiting Miami—which was preparing for a major sporting event of its own. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Markham, who spoke for these Benches at Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister too for the discussions we have had about the Bill, including when I was overseas.
It is a pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to her place. She has joined your Lordships’ House since Second Reading. We look forward to her maiden speech in due course and to her adding her expertise to our scrutiny of sporting measures and much more.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests, particularly the hospitality I have received attending sporting events over the past year.
In moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendments 7, 54 and 57, which are also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. Taken together, these amendments seek to establish provisions relating to industrial action as a core part of the sporting events framework that the Bill ushers in, with the intent of preventing strikes taking place during a sporting event to which the framework conditions have been applied.
Amendment 1 is, very simply, an enabling amendment that would introduce the industrial action provisions. Amendment 7 would ensure that wherever an appropriate national authority applies one or more parts of the framework to a particular event by regulations made under Clause 2, it must at the same time apply the industrial action provisions. It is not an optional extra or something to be applied to some events and not others; rather, it is a mandatory part of the framework itself.
Amendment 54 would insert a new clause requiring that any such regulations specify a period during which these provisions should apply and that this period should be no shorter than the span of the sporting events framework for that particular event. That is to say, it must run from the day that any one of the framework provisions first takes effect to the day that the last provision ceases to have effect.
Amendment 57 would insert the substantive new schedule itself, creating offences for transport workers—covering airports, buses, light rail and passenger railway services—and relevant local authority workers who take strike action during the specified period, alongside offences for organising, permitting or inducing such action. The schedule would create an alternative civil route, allowing the appropriate national authority to impose a financial penalty rather than pursue a prosecution through the courts.
The Committee might ask why all this is necessary. The Government are seeking in the Bill to build a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise, event by event, each time we play host to a major sporting event and welcome people from across the globe to these shores.
The Bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights against unauthorised association, but it does not at present provide protection against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event: the disruption caused by industrial action. Noble Lords will recall that the build-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games was repeatedly shadowed by the threat of strike action from the then general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey. Even the then leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, said:
“This is a celebration for the whole country and must not be disrupted”.
In 2022, when Birmingham hosted the Commonwealth Games, ASLEF and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the Games. In May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports similarly voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth Games, which are due to take place next month. We hope that that has been averted now by a hastily agreed pay deal but, as the unions involved well knew, such a walkout would have had a significant disruptive effect on the operation and commercial viability of those Games.
These are not abstract risks; they are, sadly, recurring features of recent experience under Governments of different compositions, both in the UK and in Scotland. A Bill which seeks to create a comprehensive framework for hosting major events, with a reduced role for Parliament in scrutinising them, simply cannot leave this to chance.
Some noble Lords might think the penalties suggested in our amendments too severe. There are fines without an upper limit on summary conviction in England and Wales, a maximum fine of £50,000 in Northern Ireland and of £20,000 on summary conviction in Scotland, and financial penalties of up to £20,000 under the civil route. I want to highlight that directly, because these are not arbitrary figures. These penalties have been deliberately aligned with those the Government have suggested for the ticket touting offence and the advertising and trading offences elsewhere in the Bill. If the Committee accepts that conduct which threatens the commercial integrity of a major sporting event merits fines of this order then I hope it will also agree that we should not treat conduct which threatens to close down the event entirely any less seriously.
I also draw the Committee’s attention to the safeguards built into Amendment 57. This is not a blanket or indefinite restriction on the right to strike. The prohibition applies only for the specified period tied to the duration of the new framework for a particular sporting event. It applies to transport workers nationally since they are, by definition, mobile, but to local authority workers only in the area where the event is being held. Of course, the ban applies only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework at all. The schedule also provides a full enforcement code, notice of intention, the right to make representations, a final notice with reasons, and a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, the sheriff or the county court, as appropriate, mirroring the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Fuller has raised a very important issue about the ability of event organisers to staff these major events effectively. I have added my name to his amendment and look forward to hearing him outline it. I may return with further comments in winding up.
As we heard at Second Reading, this country competes hard and successfully for the privilege of hosting some of the world’s greatest sporting events. Having secured that privilege, we owe it to the athletes, spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that the events can run smoothly and as planned. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the premise behind this Bill is that we need to help the organisers of the really big events put on a really good show and ensure that the country itself sweeps away those showstoppers. It recognises that putting on these events requires a national effort. My amendment seeks to ensure that the organisers can be assured of an adequate supply of labour and human capital to make the games, or relevant tournament, a success in the few weeks every decade that the circus rolls into town.
I am reminded that sport is a game of chance. That is why we like it. The uncertainty makes it so alluring. Your favourite does not always win and often there is an upset. That is the whole point. Especially in tournament play, a team’s life can be measured in terms of hours, in the case of a stage 1 knock-out, or weeks if they make it all the way to the final. There are no guarantees in this game.
Back in 2012, one of the key resources for the Olympics was labour. There were 70,000 Games makers. The Minister for Sport at the time, Hugh Robertson, said:
“The 70,000 Games Makers made such a big contribution to London 2012 and the country as a whole. They helped showcase a modern, diverse and fun Britain and warmly welcomed visitors from all over the world”.
Quite.
It was not just the unpaid volunteers and their 8 million hours of effort that made the Games so memorable. On top of that was an army of others who contributed to that success—paid employees involved in broadcasting, catering, cleaning, merchandising, ticketing, security, bar work, selling ice cream and so forth. Shall we say that about 150,000 people in total were engaged to make that event a success over a staggered month, once the Paralympics are taken into account? It might even have been more. We celebrate that and, indeed, without their efforts, there would not have been a celebration at all. People worked around their normal lives to give what time they could, and it worked.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to intervene for the first time in Committee on this group of amendments is rather an odd one. I had not looked at it when we started out. I also feel that, if you are bringing a games into a country, you are going into an existing framework of laws and rights. If you bring something into a structure and you are going to bid for it, you should take into account whether you can deal with industrial relations. We have done it a couple of times.
As to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I suggest that you know when you will be working at a games or a championship because you have a schedule of events. It is not a randomised thing. You might have extra time in a championship in one of the big team games, but it is a finite amount of time. We do not play until sudden death. With weather like this and rugby union at the moment, it probably would be death if we played too long.
These amendments are a good probe to get a feel of what is happening, but if you are taking on a project you are taking it on with the risk of industrial relations. Trade unions will flex their muscles, but do they have a right to flex their muscles? Do we have a right to say no? I suggest that there is a real question here. Although it is a valid question to ask, I suspect the answer is that you have to take a few knocks when you are doing this and accept a few uncertainties to get it. If you cannot take some action or make something that will accommodate this, you really are not fit to hold a games.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, for these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for speaking to this group. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to your Lordships’ House; I look forward to future conversations with her on this Bill and other related matters.
The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would have the combined effect of introducing a framework to prevent transport and local authority workers engaging in industrial action during specified periods linked to sporting events. This would include creating offences relating to participation in, and the organisation or inducement of, such action. In their manifesto, the Government committed to repeal the minimum service level legislation and other restrictions on the right to strike, and we did this in the Employment Rights Act 2025—so, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear, we have existing laws relating to industrial action.
These amendments seek to reintroduce significant restrictions on the ability of workers to take industrial action. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 demonstrated, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Instead of banning strike action, the Government want to bring in a new era of industrial relations that is built on collaboration and co-operation across parties. We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations fit for the 21st century, including an industrial relations framework that establishes firm expectations on how workers and employers should conduct themselves. This includes engaging with one another and working together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Our industrial relations framework will build on our legislative agenda and provide guidance on how employers, workers and unions can work together to deliver positive and effective industrial relations, including during periods of industrial action.
Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would mean that the right to guaranteed hours, the right to reasonable notice and the right to payments for shifts moved, cancelled or curtailed at short notice do not apply at major sporting events to which the provisions of the Bill have been applied. The flexibility offered by zero-hours contracts and contracts with a minimum number of hours can benefit both workers and employers, but it is our view that without appropriate safeguards this flexibility can become one-sided. The zero-hours measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 aim to end one-sided flexibility by ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability.
I do not think the noble Lord will be surprised to hear that I disagree with him on this being an appropriate amendment. Any exclusions or exemptions at this stage would pre-empt the Government’s consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts, which is currently open. In this consultation, the Government seek to gather insight through the input of stakeholders, including on potential exclusions and exemptions. We need to ensure that the views of all stakeholders are first taken into account before any decisions on exclusions and exemptions are made. We intend to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives and finances. We would be keen for sporting event stakeholders to participate in the consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts to inform the development of the policy. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, will not press their amendments.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their comments. As the noble Lord said, there is an element of risk here, but, as we know, this is a proven risk. In 2012, 2022 and earlier this year, we saw the deliberate targeting of major sporting events by trade unions to exert some political pressure, and I was sorry not to hear criticism from the other two Benches about their doing so. We agree that trade unions have the right to make their protest, but I would hope that noble Lords reflect that targeting games such as these, which try to rise above politics—at a geopolitical level as well—should not be targeted in the way that we have seen in the past.
The risk balance has shifted a bit because of some of the changes the Minister outlined. The changes brought in by the Employment Rights Act 2025 do cause problems, which your Lordships’ House scrutinised well and highlighted as that legislation went through. I see that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is in his place; he made very strong points from the Cross Benches about some of the perverse effects that Act of Parliament may have. However, even if one accepts the argument the Government were making there, sporting events of this nature are very different. These are temporary, one-off events where people are able to work, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, in a life-changing way for an event that comes and goes, for which the employment is not there any more.
If we do not make the sort of changes to the Bill we have suggested, we worry that the practical effect will be perverse. Rather than offering more secure work, organisers will simply offer less work and circumvent the guaranteed-hours duty by relying on short fixed-term contracts and outsourced or overseas suppliers, or on asking more of unpaid volunteers, rather than the flexible part-time and casual staff who have made the delivery of previous games such a success. We might return to this in some form on Report. I hope we can keep the discussions on this point going, but for now I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Foster of Bath
“(f) Schedule (Sports rights provisions) (“the sports rights provisions”).”
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in addition to moving Amendment 2, I will speak to the 11 other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Addington. I declare my interests as the chair of Peers for Gambling Reform and of Action on Gambling.
Together, my 12 amendments cover just two issues. The first is illegal gambling relating to events covered by the Bill, and the second is ensuring that venues hosting events covered by the Bill are free of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. The Minister has been taking a very keen and welcome interest in tackling the gambling black market. My first group of amendments, relating to sports data, is, in fact, going to help her, because data is the new gold in sport. While still dwarfed by TV rights, the use and sale of data is increasing dramatically. It is currently estimated to be worth $5 billion globally—an estimate that is expected to increase threefold by 2031.
This data is used in a number of remarkably different ways—from sports teams wanting to understand their players’ performances to event organisers providing fans with knowledge to help them create and choose their fantasy football team, for instance. Crucially, however, it is also used by betting companies to help them manage their risk but also to provide their customers with in-game gambling options using real-time data—data that can, because of latency issues, arrive sooner than from a TV feed. This becomes increasingly important with the rise of gambling on the so-called prediction markets. Therefore, to monetise this value, organisers of events covered by the Bill already sell global data rights to organisations known as aggregators, which gather the data and then sell licences for it. They use things like AI camera systems in the gathering of that data. In the current World Cup, Stats Perform serves as FIFA’s first ever official and exclusive world betting data distributor.
These licences are voluntary and are difficult to enforce. At Second Reading I explained, for example, how relatively easy it is for data scouts to go into stadia where events are taking place, collect data and send it on without having permission. This leads to an economic loss to the sport and to those who have licensed the data to then sell on to betting companies, but it also has significant integrity implications. If data can be manipulated by unscrupulous data suppliers, so can the betting markets themselves. In the other licensing agreements such as broadcasting rights, we are used to understanding how and why we need to protect them and have introduced new legislation over the years to help reduce piracy, but this is less true of data piracy.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, if no one else wants to follow the noble Lord, I will add my support to the case that he is making. Like him, I raised this at Second Reading, and I agree with every word he has said, so I do not want my noble friend the Minister to think that this a one-man show of someone who has specific views on gambling. We have to be aware of the significant pressure felt by those who get caught up in gambling. Predictive events and things of this kind are difficult to keep on top of, and it is hard to know what the next challenge might be. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord have a deal of validity, whether or not they are exactly what we should be doing, and I hope that the Minister can respond constructively to a genuine concern.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I wanted to allow some time to raise and discuss the important issue of gambling advertising—I was hoping for more discussion of it. I note that I support Amendments 37, 41 and 44. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, has already made the case on gambling very strongly, and it was something I raised at Second Reading, so I will speak chiefly to my Amendments 42, 45, 49 and 52, which are about fossil fuel advertising. They seek to ensure that sporting events covered by the Bill are free from advertising and sponsorship by fossil fuel companies. We could hardly have picked a better day to be debating these amendments, given the heatwave that the UK is currently facing. One significant impact of that heatwave will be on many sporting events. Many people’s intention to do all sorts of physical activity will be, for very good reason, curtailed in the coming week.
In the Bill, we are talking about highly valued, important events, and they should not be used as platforms to boost the reputation of damaging industries whose products are driving the events that we are currently experiencing. Sponsorship is not philanthropy. Companies invest in sport because they know their association with trusted institutions improves their public image and strengthens their social licence. With this Bill, we have the opportunity to ensure that the biggest events in this country that we host do not become a vehicle for greenwashing. We note that young people are a significant part of the audience of many of these events, and that they are the people who will have to bear the consequences for the longest time.
As I raised at Second Reading—and it became very much a basis for these amendments—this is not something we are dreaming up. Britain would not be able to claim to be world-leading should the Minister say, “Yes, I entirely agree with you” and adopt all my amendments. France became the first European country to ban advertising for fossil fuel products in 2022. The Hague has introduced a legally binding ban on fossil fuel advertising in public spaces. As I said at Second Reading, a number of councils have already shown leadership. Today, we are seeing leadership arriving in Westminster from the rest of the country; this is a place where we could find some more leadership on that. The UN Secretary-General has called for restrictions on fossil fuel advertising similar to those applied to tobacco.
I move to my next set of amendments, which are related but different. Amendments 43, 46, 50 and 53 are about the advertising of less healthy food. There is a huge and similar kind of contradiction of promoting sport as a route to health and well-being while simultaneously allowing sponsorship from products that undermine those outcomes. These and other amendments seek to ensure that sporting events covered by the Bill are free from advertising and sponsorship for less healthy food and drinks. We are talking here about the major ultra-processed food and fast food brands, which are, sadly, major suppliers of the British diet; we are all paying the price for that.
The gap is that Ofcom does not regulate sports sponsorship deals; we have regulations about junk food advertising, but not about sponsorship. Therefore, Ofcom cannot do anything about watching a sporting event and being bombarded with advertising for McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Budweiser and so-called sports drinks like Powerade. Those brands appear everywhere. We do not see adverts for tap water, though it would be quite nice if we did—let us put that down as a thought. This creates a health halo effect: products are conceived and often advertised as compatible with a healthy, active lifestyle when their nutritional profile is anything but.
Public health bodies and parliamentary research have consistently identified marketing as a key driver of childhood obesity. The Government already have policies on direct advertising to act in this area, and historically we saw the bans of cigarette advertising that had to be continually strengthened. We need to see the same thing for ultra-processed and other unhealthy foods. We have an accepted principle that the marketing of less healthy food to children is a legitimate public policy concern. These amendments address an inconsistency in public policy. Sport should be used to inspire healthy lives, not as a platform to promote the consumption of foods we know will shorten people’s lives and make them less healthy.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, in relation to these proposed amendments, I have sympathy with a number of points, particularly as they relate to gaming. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made very clear the logic behind what he is asking for in these amendments.
Unfortunately, on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, while I am extremely sympathetic to the issue of climate change, and I will not buy all sorts of things in plastic or plastic bottles and the like, I worry because we are talking about adding things to an ever-extending list; every time we get to a major sporting event, we will look at whether we should add on other things that operate in other countries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just spoke about an established principle, and I think that is a far better route by which we should operate in terms of these international sporting events. In other words, our established principles of advertising as they operate in this country should be the principles by which the major sporting events should operate. We cannot spend our time trying to run ahead of policies we have, whether in relation to age-related matters or food and drink-related products.
I have spoken critically on a number of occasions in this Chamber about Coca-Cola and its sponsorship of major sporting events. However, it is a very difficult road we will go down if we start adding on one thing after another—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
To make it clear, when I was talking about an established principle, I was talking about the fact that we have restricted advertising of these products—particularly to children. Therefore, it is a question of how far that restriction goes; it is not about doing something new.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification; I was not absolutely clear on whether she was talking about the established principles or extending the limits in some form or another.
I want to make an observation on a comment the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, made on the last group of amendments. I think I heard him refer to sporting events as ones of “chance” on two occasions. There are a fair number of medallists in this Chamber today who may think, “Well, it wasn’t chance that got me a gold, silver or bronze medal”. Equally, when I refereed rugby, it was very rarely viewed as chance that one team or the other won—though there was the odd chance that the referee might have made an error at the time.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that I did not mean chance as in random, because I accept that in sport the harder you work, the luckier you get.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend is a doughty warrior when it comes to showing us the harms of gambling—and not only the harms but some of the gambling which is, let us face it, a threat to the integrity of sport if it is not regulated very carefully. Nothing destroys a sporting event like not having faith that the outcome is a fair one. Let us remember that.
In the digital world the harms done to individuals by gambling reach further. This is something we cannot forget when we talk about this. I am pretty sure the Minister will not have done. Indeed, if her officials tried, I should imagine they would not last very long. We have to try to get to a situation where we have some understanding of what is happening here, and the difference that makes to the events themselves, even if we are looking only the sporting value.
The use of data in sport is a fascinating story unto itself, but gathering that data and using it is something that we are only just starting. Most of us are discovering a world that is developing, and then this comes up and we say, “Really? That is how you have done it?” Indeed, those with heavy training schedules, especially in the recent past, undoubtedly had a great deal of data controlling what they ate, how long they were out, and what they were doing. I can dimly remember somebody talking about it, and us ignoring it, but there we are—the world moves on.
I hope that when the Minister responds to these amendments, she gives us a full view of what the Government seek to do generally in this field, as well as specifically in this Bill. We have a series of considerations here. With advertising, smoking is the obvious case: it was an accepted part of advertising and it has been removed. How are we working that in? How are we going forward? Is it a general principle we are talking about or specifics? What are the limitations as we move forward? Let us face it: if you have the Olympics at moment, you have Coca-Cola. It is not a health product, I think anybody would agree. It might be much less damaging in some of its forms than others, but it is not a health product and nor are the other soft drinks that go with it.
I hope the Minister will give us some idea of what the Government’s thinking is and where they are going. They may save themselves a little time if they can say which other legislation will affect this. This is a big subject we are touching on with this Bill. An idea of what the overall picture is, and where the Government think they are going, would be an important thing to take away from all this.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this boils down to a question of balance and proportion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments and for sparking this debate. I know they are sincere and consistent in raising concerns about each of the areas that they have highlighted through their amendments, but I think some of the remedies they are suggesting are disproportionate and too strict.
Not everyone feels the way that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness do about gambling, for instance. Indeed, many people find, without having any gambling problems, that it enhances their enjoyment of sporting events. Many people in this country gamble without developing gambling harms, and it is right that we have protections in place to maintain that. As the Gambling Commission found with its recent advertising campaign advising people on the dangers of a workplace sweepstake—which came across as a bit po-faced to many sports fans—that question of balance always has to be carefully looked at and struck, while maintaining the protections for more vulnerable people.
I veer more towards what my noble friend Lord Hayward outlined: looking for established principles, rather than a list that we would continue to add to as times and tastes change. I suppose this is one of the problems with a framework Bill, where we are trying to anticipate social mores and debates that might come. Previously, in generations past, we have been able to have these debates each time we have been lucky enough to host a major sporting event, and have had these discussions in the context of the social and political views across the country at the time. So it is a useful debate, but we are not attracted to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have tabled in this group.
As we look at these issues, we would like to see greater attention paid to the illegal unlicensed market in gambling, which is a real and growing threat. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, touched on this. Staking with illegal operators is now estimated at £16.6 billion, more than three times its level in 2019 and roughly double what it was just two years ago. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that His Majesty’s Treasury could lose up to £500 million if recent tax changes push more consumers towards unlicensed sites. One in six gamblers—some 2.8 million people—says they are already aware of at least one unregulated brand. Among the under-25s, one in five has used an illegal site already and as many as 420,000 schoolchildren may be engaging with the illegal betting market. Advertising spending by unregulated operators is forecast to exceed £1 billion by 2028—more than half of all gambling advertising expenditure in this country and up from just 16% in 2019.
While we do not agree with all the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has tabled, we would like to see greater action from the Government on this growing problem in the country. They have recognised this; in February, the Secretary of State announced plans to stop unlicensed operators sponsoring Premier League football clubs and to establish a cross-industry illegal gambling taskforce. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, who is the Gambling Minister, said at the time:
“We will not hesitate to act where we see people being put at risk”.
Since February, we have still not seen that consultation launched. The industry—including operators, which are asking for tougher action against their unlicensed rivals—is still waiting with bated breath. Can the Minister update us on the important work being done in connection with the major sporting events across the world that we will see this summer as well as for future sporting events that we are lucky enough to host here in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling these amendments. I also thank the noble Lords who spoke to them.
Amendments 2, 5, 6, 61, 65 and 67, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, seek to regulate sports rights provisions. Sporting bodies are free to enter into their own sponsorship and broadcast arrangements. In recent years, through these arrangements, the gambling sector has made a significant financial contribution to sports including football, rugby, horseracing and snooker. Of course, I recognise the strength of feeling in this area, which my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton spoke to and clearly shares. However, I hope noble Lords can appreciate the Government’s desire to balance the sport sector’s commercial freedom with our ongoing efforts to reduce both gambling harm and the shift towards illegal gambling highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I agree with him that any action we take in this area should be proportionate.
We take the relationship between gambling and sport very seriously, particularly given its potential impact on children, young people and the vulnerable. I will come on to soft drinks later but, in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on what this Government are doing on gambling harm, since 2024 we have made a number of significant reforms to gambling regulation with a view to tackling gambling harm, building on the White Paper developed and published by the previous Government. We have introduced a statutory gambling levy, which will provide for the first time independent and sustainable funding for research into and the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms. This has more than doubled the money from the previous voluntary levy. Each year, 20% of funding will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling-related harms, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is aware. This includes a research fellow within DCMS to look specifically at gambling advertising, bringing together the evidence to see what appropriate steps might be taken. Currently, as the noble Lord is aware, we have no plans to limit gambling advertising further than it is already—clearly, it is already regulated.
We have also introduced online slot stake limits and reforms to marketing rules and we will continue to press operators to improve their self-exclusion schemes. In relation to sport and advertising particularly, we welcome publication of sponsorship codes of conduct from all major sports, as well as the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from the start of the 2026-27 season. We have further confirmed that we will consult as soon as possible on the banning of unlicensed sponsorship within sports: in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I am very keen, as the Minister, for this to start as soon as possible. I will write to him if we can give further detail on when that will come.
The Government are committed to tackling gambling harm and clear that we must be evidence-led in our policy-making. We will consider next steps to further raise standards in consideration of the evolving evidence base.
In the same vein, moving to limit these commercial partnerships without considering the potential significant impact on the sports and broadcast sector would in our view be inappropriate. The existing regulatory framework for gambling advertising and sponsorship is robust. All operators advertising in Great Britain must hold a Gambling Commission licence and abide by advertising codes enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority. Operators found to be in breach of these codes can be referred to the Gambling Commission for further enforcement action, which may include licence reviews or fines. The Commission has taken a range of enforcement actions on the back of referrals from the ASA, including ones resulting in fines for a range of issues where the ASA has found that the behaviour was particularly egregious.
In relation to the point on the prediction market made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in order to operate in Britain, any prediction market requires a licence from the Gambling Commission. We monitor potential impacts of prediction markets carefully. I do not have a response on the extensive points that the noble Lord made on data, but I am happy to meet him to go through that. Therefore, with full respect for this important subject, I do not believe this amendment is necessary, or that this is the right vehicle for changes to gambling legislation. This is a narrowly defined Bill, aimed at attracting and delivering major sporting events.
I turn now to Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which deals with the important issue of shielding children and vulnerable people from harmful or age-restricted advertising. This is a priority for this Government. Event owners will have to comply with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements in relation to advertising. While there is no specific definition of advertising that is harmful to children in the existing advertising codes, the codes require that children be protected from advertisements that could cause physical, mental or moral harm. The codes also set out the responsibilities of advertisers in relation to age-restricted advertising such as gambling and alcohol advertising. Both through work related to the statutory gambling levy and wider government efforts, my department will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders to examine the evidence base on the impacts of young people’s exposure to age-restricted advertising such as alcohol and gambling advertising, taking into account the impact on the advertising, media and sports sectors.
Returning to the advertising provisions in the Bill, the advertising offence is designed primarily to protect event owners’ commercial rights by preventing businesses carrying out unauthorised advertising in a restricted zone. However, any activity by event sponsors must be in accordance with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements, including those regarding protection from harms.
I move on to amendments 41, 44, 47, 48 and 51, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. They would make it an offence to carry out gambling advertising activity in a restricted advertising zone created by regulations under the Bill. These amendments require a court to share certain information with the Gambling Commission following the conviction of a person who committed an offence under the Bill by carrying out gambling advertising activity. They would also prevent any authorisation under the Bill being granted in respect of gambling advertising.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her support for my remarks. I neither accuse her nor imply anything about who her support will be for the next leader of her party. I merely point out that almost everything she said is word for word what Mr Andy Burnham, now MP, said only two weeks ago.
I am also grateful to others who have spoken. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, subsequently by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and then picked up by the Minister, that we should be basing our decisions on principles: I entirely agree with that remark. But it seems to me there is one principle that we have accepted in this country for a very long time: that public health issues need to be dealt with at public level. The Government have accepted issues around unhealthy food, to put it like that, as a public health issue. They have also accepted, as the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, that gambling has to be treated as a public health issue. Therefore, I genuinely believe that we have got a principle that all noble Lords on all sides could get behind in relation to these amendments.
I genuinely accept that the Minister is keen to keep the Bill as narrow as possible, but she pointed out in her remarks that the Bill is about protecting the rights of the event organisers—her very words. I therefore do not understand why we are placing measures in the Bill to protect rights in terms of ticketing, advertising and so on, yet she is not prepared to put a similar protection for the rights of event organisers in relation to their sports data. It seems that there is an absolute equivalence with all the other rights that we are protecting. Failing to do that in the way I am proposing means that there is a real opportunity for the growth of the black market, which she is keen to prevent. I ask her to look again in detail at this particular issue. It has been very carefully thought through. A lot of people have been engaged in work on this, and I hope that we come back to it at a later stage in our deliberations.
On the black market, we need to be very careful to be alert to the fact that a lot of the growth in the black market is coming from people who have withdrawn themselves from gambling using a programme called GAMSTOP, and suddenly, because of all the advertising for a big event, they want to gamble again. They are not allowed to on the legal market, so they end up going to the black market, which is why we now have advertisements that say “not on GAMSTOP”. It is wrong to allow that to happen. I hope that the Minister will look at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Markham
“(f) Schedule (Delivery authority provisions) (“the delivery authority provisions”).”
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring that, further to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hayward, if I was ever to win anything significant, it would definitely be by a massive stroke of luck.
The Government’s clearly stated intention for the Bill is to create an event-agnostic framework that can be applied to certain future sporting events without requiring new primary legislation. The Government have been very open in their belief that the Bill will cover all those possible scenarios. Our amendments seek to probe to see whether this is the case. The amendments are made in the spirit of helpfulness, as I know are the other amendments made by my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter.
By way of an example, say we wish to bid for one of the major and very large events, such as the Olympics or the World Cup. The delivery of those events requires significant cross-sector effort, bringing together national governing and representative bodies for the sports, such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association; local government, including the host cities; and central government departments. We might need to construct new stadia or event spaces, purchase land and improve public transport links, for example.
Hosting such an event would potentially require the creation of a specific body to co-ordinate and oversee the event’s organisation. This is the approach that we are all very familiar with and something that we had to do with the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, with which we created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The ODA was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting ventures, and the infrastructure and transport planning—all things I was very familiar with as a previous chair of the London and Continental Railways, which developed a lot of that work.
The Bill, however, does not provide a mechanism for the Government to create a delivery authority for a sporting event, should it become necessary. If Ministers needed to establish such a body for future events they would require primary legislation. Of course, this is an outcome that we all wish to avoid and it is the Government’s stated intention. If it transpires that bespoke primary legislation is indeed required for a future sporting event, what is the purpose of the Bill that we are trying to pass?
Amendments 2A, 6A, 58A, 58B and 61A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, seek to rectify this shortcoming by creating a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary. In drafting these amendments, I have taken inspiration from the provisions in the 2006 Act, which established the Olympic Delivery Authority, and amended them so that they can be applied generally to any event to which the framework applies. Amendments 58A and 58B seek to allow the Secretary of State to establish transfer schemes to the delivery authority and for the authority to be dissolved by order.
Amendment 61A seeks to insert a new schedule into the Bill. The first part of this proposed new schedule would provide for the establishment of a delivery authority and sets out the authority’s general functions. Those are to
“prepare for the sporting event … make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management … of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event … ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and … ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the … event”.
Part 2 of the proposed new Schedule sets out the constitution of a delivery authority, including membership of between seven and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part 3 would provide procedural rules of delegation by the authority and seeks for the Secretary of State to require the authority to submit a report on the authority’s progress, which must be laid before Parliament. Part 4 would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance, if necessary, subject to the affirmative resolution of the Bill.
I am aware that other provisions may be needed in secondary legislation. I will not pretend that we have all the detail behind this right, but we are trying to set out likely scenarios in which we would have to set up such a delivery authority and the things that would need to be considered. We are trying to build those into the framework. We ask the Government to come back more thoroughly on the schedules that would be needed, but we hope these are helpful by way of example.
I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make. If the Government believe that this Bill, when passed, will never need further primary legislation then it needs to cover all the possible requirements for future events. If we hope to host some major sporting events in the future then we may well need a delivery authority to support such an event. These amendments would allow the Government to do just that. I beg to move.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, my amendment covers a slightly different area. It seeks to ensure that cultural events affiliated with a sporting event are part of the Bill’s scope. We on these Benches support the Bill’s aim to create a legislative framework. However, past experience has shown that cultural events such as the Cultural Olympiad were hard to include and very much seen as an afterthought. Those of us who witnessed and participated in the events in 2012 will argue that they were far from that; they were integral and magnificent—the opening and closing ceremonies, and the cultural coming together across the UK.
The Bill’s current wording refers to events “sporting or otherwise” and
“held in connection with the sporting event”.
This is a probing amendment that seeks assurance from the Minister that this is the case and asks her to consider making the reference to cultural events more explicit.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 3 and 4 are in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Although it is a pro bono position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.
The purpose of these amendments is very simple. They seek to give the appropriate national authorities, rather than just the Secretary of State, the power to apply the unauthorised association provisions and all the transport provisions that are included in this Bill. Appropriate national authorities, as defined in the Bill, are the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations. These amendments would widen the scope to designate the five parts of the sporting events framework set out. Their aim is simply to future-proof the Bill so that powers can be conferred by the appropriate authority if there is a reasonable case to do so.
For example, if greater powers were devolved in relation to transport provision then the legislation would enable devolved authorities to apply these powers without needing to change primary legislation again. There simply is nothing more behind them than that. These amendments are part of a package of amendments that I have tabled or signed that seek to extend the scope of the Bill to include major, regular, UK-based events and to ensure greater flexibility in the potential use of the framework provisions. I will explain in more detail my arguments for doing this when we discuss group 6.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on starting with a question that should be asked. When we have done the big games in the past, there were infrastructure measures that had to happen, but they do not seem to be in the Bill. So how do they fit in? It is that simple. I probably should have had my name down somewhere—my fault, sorry. But it is one of the things that we really must get out about how the Bill is going to work. Is it something we tag on to this, or is it something we expect to be smaller secondary legislation, or is it part of the whole that we are doing here?
As I said, we have always had to discuss this before—well, we have done it twice here; the other times, it was Scottish legislation. If we need a proper planning structure to build stuff, how is that fitting in? It does not seem to be that obvious. If the Government have a scheme coming, let us hear about it, because it is one of the things that has been of great benefit. In Birmingham, we learnt how to do it quickly; in London we learned how to do it well with lots of planning. Where do those two structures fit into what is going on here? It is a very reasonable series of questions that have been asked, and I hope the Minister has a very reasonable set of answers.
Most people who are taking part in this wish the project well. There is a lot of nodding going on here, so if we have got that going on, let us find out how that happens. If there are further questions, let us find out what inspires them, and let us see what we can do. This is something which might be very good. Let us confirm it is, or at least that it sounds like it is.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I apologise. I did not get in to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I did not want to interrupt.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
I remind the Chamber of my interests. I am chair of Sport Wales, and I am also part of the Laureus World Sports Academy, which is a group of ex-athletes who come together to raise money to put back into sport.
I have my name on Amendments 3 and 4 but support others in this group. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, I think the Bill is too tightly defined. If we are going to bid for major games in the future, it would be useful to have in this Bill everything that we might possibly need. We have huge experience from various national bodies and organisations in this country—I have previously been a board member of the London Marathon, so I have seen that—and it would make sense to use the expertise that they have.
The noble Lord, Lord Markham, talked about transport. One of the massive successes of the 2012 Games was the transport. It was an incredible experience for disabled people. A huge number of staff were available at various train stations and interchanges. The planning for that started years ahead of the Games, thanks in no small part to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the work he did when he was commissioner at TfL. These are the things that we have to get right. The world of bidding is going to change. If we get the Bill right, it sends a strong message to the international community that we take bidding for major games really seriously and it is something that we want to do.
I joined your Lordships’ Chamber in 2010 when we were considering the then London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill. Although there was a lot of support for it at the time, that Bill was tidying up things that had happened earlier. It makes sense that if we could just slightly widen the scope and think about other measures that are needed, it would save us a lot of hassle and stress in the meantime, and it would make sure that the world knew that we are ready to bid for the biggest sporting events.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As it is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I declare my technology interests as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons and Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director at Avalanche BVI Inc and the Avalanche Foundation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, it seems that I am too slow to compete with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who never moved that quick on a rugby field. Nevertheless, he still has some pace when it comes to putting down amendments.
Before I speak to my Amendments 90, 92 and 93 in this group, I commend the remarks of other noble Lords. If this Bill’s purpose is to have a situation where we are well set when we come to bids for mega events such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the FIFA men’s and women’s World Cup, and so on, we need to ensure that the Bill includes everything that we can know at this stage. If we take a principles-based approach throughout, that gives us the best opportunity. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson pointed out in the form of my noble friend Lord Markham, we know now that gaps exist because we understand from 2006 the need to put in place an ODA, as it was then. As my noble friend Lord Markham said, these amendments may not be word-for-word perfect, but the principle behind them is sound. We are either doing this Bill to have everything that we know at this stage covered to put us in that pole position to host these events, or we are not. There needs to be a distinction when we are going through the Bill between adding provisions—baubling as the Government might call it—and enabling it to be full to its stated purpose. I believe that much of the debate in this group of amendments goes to that second critical point: to make the Bill as fulsome as it can be to achieve its objectives.
Amendment 90 is very much in that vein. It would exclude registered charities from the provisions of the Bill when they are acting under the restrictions of their charitable status. The amendment clearly sets out that if a charity is engaged in a commercial activity or for commercial reasons has a connection with a third party, that obviously would not be included. It also sets out the potential for government to consider a limit. If it is a mega charity, perhaps the provisions of the Bill should apply. This was an issue which we faced very clearly when we were doing the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is a cardinal principle when you are involved with these mega events. You have to protect and defend the rights of the marketing partners without whose funding, support and value in kind these events could not happen. It is in no sense trespassing one centimetre on the right of charitable organisations, of which we have such a flourishing community across the UK, particularly local charities, to pursue their charitable objectives without transgressing the provisions of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point.
Similarly, Amendment 92 looks to a social value assessment. This is not extending the provisions of the Bill; it is merely intensifying the impact that these events can have. Again, at London 2012, we looked at everything through a social, economic, environmental and cultural lens. The provisions I have set out in proposed Amendment 92 give some illustrations of social value, but they are in no means an exhaustive list. In reality, it does not impose greater restrictions on an event; it enables it to state its value, through commercial and sporting, into that wider social, environmental and inclusion potential—all positive for the games themselves. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my three amendments.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Grey-Thompson, for these amendments. Amendments 2A, 6A, 58A, 58B and 61A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would allow for the establishment of a delivery authority to prepare for and manage the delivery of a sporting event. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this is question that is worth asking. I am grateful for the opportunity to reply, and I hope I can give the noble Lord some reassurance on this point.
Although we recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are necessary. The nature and scope of delivery models for major sporting events are determined based on what is appropriate and proportionate to the needs and requirements of each specific event, including funding and the set-up of governance to support oversight. Establishing a delivery authority is one way to do this. Indeed, it is a method that the UK has relied on before, including, as a number of noble Lords noted, for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
However, setting up a delivery authority with the proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering the major sporting events that are likely to fall within the scope of the Bill. Similarly, it is rarely necessary for delivery models to be established on a statutory basis. For example, for Euro 2028, a special purpose incorporated company was established by the five relevant football associations to deliver the event—a proportionate approach, not least because Euro 2028 is relying overwhelmingly on existing stadia and infrastructure without the need for bespoke statutory powers.
However, where a different form of oversight is rightly required, the Government can establish an appropriate delivery body subject to appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny, as the Olympic Delivery Authority regularly was. In the case of London 2012, the delivery authority was created to take on certain powers as a result of a specific set of requirements that it had to deliver. The hosting of those Games required dedicated oversight with powers to co-ordinate different authorities, given the scale of public expenditure required, including significant investment in the construction of infrastructure such as new venues. I understand that we have seen a shift in what the IOC requires. For example, it now encourages hosts to use existing infrastructure.
In the Government’s view, these amendments are not necessary given the very limited eventualities. The requisite ability to establish delivery bodies already exists to a sufficient degree.
Amendments 3 and 4, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, would enable the devolved Governments to apply the unauthorised association and transport provisions in the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that we need to get it right. However, I assure your Lordships’ Committee that we have worked closely with the devolved Governments on the provisions in the Bill. Where the provisions are within their devolved competence, we have ensured that they can be applied unilaterally, as is the case with the ticket touting, advertising and trading provisions.
The unauthorised association provisions are reserved and are not within the devolved Governments’ legislative competence. However, they extend UK-wide. The Secretary of State will be able to apply them to events taking place anywhere in the UK, including where no part of the event is taking place in England.
The transport provisions in the Bill relate specifically to transport in England and can be exercised only by the Secretary of State. Transport is devolved, with each Government responsible within their jurisdiction. We explored whether devolved Governments wished to apply the transport provisions in their jurisdictions, and it was confirmed that they were not required.
In England, the provisions are necessary to facilitate the co-ordinated delivery of certain large-scale sporting events that require integrated planning, clear responsibilities and co-ordinated action across boundaries. For UK-wide events, transport planning is co-ordinated through established intergovernmental and operational mechanisms.
Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would insert into the Bill a definition of “sporting event” to include associated events such as qualifying rounds, ceremonies, fan zones, official viewing areas and cultural events. I completely agree with the spirit of this amendment in that major sporting events are often about much more than what happens on the field of play. I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for meeting to discuss this.
Lord Markham (Con)
I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords and thank the Minister for her comments. I welcome the general support from noble Lords. I hope the Minister can see that this is all brought with the constructive view of making sure that this framework legislation can be comprehensive enough to work.
I must admit that I remain to be convinced. The points raised by my noble friends Lady Evans and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are quite serious and need to be covered. At the same time, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for widening it to include cultural events, which was done very successfully in the Commonwealth Games by Andy Street. It is definitely worth while trying to bring that into this.
I would like to challenge the Minister further, if I may. She said it was not required because it is possible that these delivery bodies will not be required and there are only two examples where they were. However, her very admission of the fact there have been two occasions where they have been required surely makes the point. Why would we not want to put it into enabling legislation? Why would we not have it in place so that it is possible? It is no problem; if you do not need it, you do not need it, so you ignore those bits. However, if we are in the circumstance, which has happened twice before, where you need a delivery body, all of a sudden you need primary legislation. That begs the question: what is the point of having this framework legislation at all?
The whole point is that we are trying to have enabling legislation to cover all those eventualities. Noble Lords must admit that these are very real eventualities as it has happened twice already. I would hope that, unless the Minister can say with absolute 100% certainty that we would not need such delivery bodies in the future, she will reflect on those points before Report and think about embracing such amendments. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Moynihan
“(2A) Before making regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must take all necessary steps to comply with any relevant host contract.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the appropriate national authority will comply with a host city contract or a host nation contract before making regulations applying the sporting events framework.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, a former chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 through 2012, and, throughout those seven years, a member of the International Olympic Committee, which had oversight of the Games. I was very sorry not to be present at Second Reading. I was not a Member of your Lordships’ House at the time, but I am delighted and honoured to be back in a different capacity. I read the Second Reading debate with interest, as well as the Bill and the Explanatory Notes.
Let me say from the outset that I share with the Government the view that every possible assistance should be offered to bring major international sporting events to the United Kingdom, and this Bill can and will send a signal that we are keen to encourage international sporting events to come to the United Kingdom. However, this Bill is event-agnostic. It is seeking to provide a common legislative framework to assist that process, but it is very unclear which events are covered by that process: an issue that I know my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park will address in future amendments.
I support the comments made by my noble friends during the debate on the earlier group of amendments and I contend that there will be a need for primary legislation. Because there will definitely be a need for primary legislation, should we ever bid for the Olympic and Paralympic Games to come to the United Kingdom, or hold a FIFA World Cup here, it is incumbent on the Government at least to accept the principle that there will need to be primary legislation at that time.
I will start with a very important point. There seems to be an underlying theme to the Bill: that it is for the Government to decide whether we host international events. Let us take the Olympic Games. It is for the British Olympic Association, as an independent organisation, to decide whether we will bid for the Olympic Games. On many occasions in the past, the association has held a competition between different cities to encourage one or a number to come forward before choosing the preferred city. Once the association has identified the city, it then sits down with the mayor, as it did with Ken Livingstone in the early years of this century.
There was a major debate about whether the Olympic Games should be in the West End or the East End of London. It was wisely decided—not least because Ken Livingstone urged this point and said it was conditional on his support—that the regeneration of the East End of London could be achieved by hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. That regeneration, which would have happened anyway at some stage in the future, was accelerated to 2012, because it had to be done by that date. At that point, there was a discussion with the then Government. With the Government’s support, those involved, particularly those from the British Olympic Association, were able to table a request to the International Olympic Committee to host the Games in London in 2012.
The first and most important point is that it should be recognised that the role of the Government in hosting international Olympic events, or international sporting events, is one of support for the bidders for those events. In tabling my amendments, I am reinforcing that point. This is a simple enabling measure. It provides a route for government support to be channelled through secondary legislation. I simply say to the Minister that if, when we host the Olympic Games in the future, the idea is that it is going to be debated on the Floor of your Lordships’ House for one hour, covering all the detail that will be required for what was, in 2012 figures, north of £10 billion of investment, it is inconceivable that Parliament would not sit back and accept that.
At the moment, I just remind the Minister that it would require a statutory instrument as per this Bill to be debated on a regret Motion, and that regret Motion would be limited, as it is at the present time, to an hour in your Lordships’ House. Therefore, if we are going to put all the framework in this Bill into regulations, I really do not believe that that is sufficient time for Parliament to consider all the many issues that will be required if we were to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in the future.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I think in the excitement of thinking we might have another Olympics and Paralympics, it is easy to forget the huge amount of work in—the reality of—bidding for these Games. For me, 2012 was the best eight weeks of my life, but it is easy to forget that the process of even getting to bidding was a massive risk. A lot of people put their careers on the line in saying that we should bid. Most of the way through bidding for 2012, we were told that there was no point in bothering because it was Paris’s turn; amazingly, we were able to turn that on its head.
When you go to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, it is easy to forget that legacy at that point was not defined as we look at it now. If a handout amendment is actually a real thing, I think one of the successes of Olympic Park was in looking at it as a mayoral development corporation—I had an amendment to the Localism Bill—and about having the foresight to see what was required and what the park would look like 10, 20 or 50 years beyond the Games. That is why we need to be quite bold with some of the things that we are doing in this Bill. We are way beyond sport for sport’s sake. Certainly, Amendment 20, where the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would change “is likely to bring” to “will bring”, is really important, because we can do so much through the power of sport.
Back in 2000 Nelson Mandela said:
“Sport has the power to change the world”—
that is quoted everywhere. The bit that gets forgotten is what he said afterwards: that sport inspires, unites the youth and breaks down racial and societal barriers—better than Governments, he said. We should not underestimate the power of sport. We should be thinking about legacy. If we are bidding for anything, we need to build in legacy right at the very beginning, when we are talking about bidding for the Games, because the value for money and the return you can get on it is significant. We should be thinking about schools programmes, which 2012 did brilliantly—coaching, clubs and facilities. An increase in participation is such a tiny part of what we are trying to do. We should be bold and say, “Yes, actually, we demand that there is a really strong legacy as part of anything that we bid for”, so that we stop having these spikes when everyone loves football for a bit or rugby for a bit, and it actually genuinely changes the way we participate.
This group of amendments covers this, with the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, in terms of who we are trying to get to, to be physically active. We should look at these amendments and maybe think of a slightly different form of wording but be really bold in what we want for the United Kingdom and beyond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to support all the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. It is such a pleasure to have him back in your Lordships’ House. The boat is now being steered again. He made so many points that were completely on point. It is worth reiterating that there is only one city on the planet which has hosted the Olympic Games three times in the modern era, from 1896, and that is London. Another city will equal us in two years’ time, and that is similarly impressive. There will be a need to consider future bids, be they in London or in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The points that my noble friend makes are exactly right. The scale of the funding, never mind all the other issues he raised, will be of parliamentary interest, to say the least. He cites some excellent examples from other parts of the world, and he is right to celebrate the sporting ambassador who has stridden across the world for decades: John Coates, who has done so much for sport, not just for Australian sport but for world sport. My noble friend’s points to that end were very well made.
Lord Addington (LD)
I managed to avoid false starting the two Paralympians this time. We are back to asking whether the Bill is wide enough to enable itself to do what it has to do within the known requirements of hosting an Olympic Games. It probably looks about right for a championship that is using existing infrastructure. Even if the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games want us to use that where we can, you may well have to construct something new and possibly something temporary. All these elements have been in both of those things and at very different scales. But if this is going to be something new, in the case of the Olympics particularly, it seems to change what it wants over time, because it is an evolving thing.
The London Olympics changed the expectation of how much change and benefit you could bring. It actually has been a solid thing, and that was based on many, many hours in Committee—I know because I was there—when the Government of the day said, “Let’s get this right, or at least get a framework, or at least ask, even, as a training exercise, what it would look like”. I think half the time the Government did not expect to have to implement it, but that is merely the observation of somebody who sat there through Committee. So there will have to be something new, and where in the current thinking does it fit in, if we have to do that?
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, enjoyed his little sabbatical, but it is better to have him back. I say that as one who dodged that. But where are we going to get that little bit of interaction? If it is needed, where is the space for it? You cannot know. You can hope and you can prepare the ground, but if we have to do something different, where is the flexibility? I think there would be, shall we say, around the House, a degree of sympathy if you had to change the Bill to bring a little bit of flexibility in here, if it was needed. I do not think too many people would object.
In this debate we are trying to find out whether we need to do something else. If the Olympics change, if the Commonwealth Games change or even if the World Cup changes and we want something else in there and still think it is worth doing, how do we accommodate that? In this Bill, where do the Government say that there is the flexibility to say that this bit will not apply and that we have to do something else? To future-proof the Bill, to an extent, we will have to do that. We got some of the answer to that in a previous debate, but I look forward to hearing how much more thought the Government have put into doing this. It is a real question that we need an answer for, and the Bill probably has to have a degree of flexibility put in at its heart. We want this to succeed. The Bill will have completely failed if we have to go back and redraft something else. We do not want to do that. What is the Minister doing to prevent that?
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, what an honour it is to follow such distinguished experts in this field: my noble friend Lord Moynihan—like other noble Lords, I am delighted to have him back—my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It is yet another example, if ever we need it, of how lucky we are to have such a range of expertise in this Chamber.
The points in this debate are very similar to many of the points made on the last groupings. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, while we want this framework agreement to work, is it possible to make it wide enough to cater for all the eventualities that we are talking about? As my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned, there is new technology coming along. They were mentioning AI in the Paris bid—think how much it has moved on from then. There are new rights that need to be taken on board, whether LGBT rights as it was last time or some new rights going forward. There are new funding arrangements that are very likely to be put in place.
I struggle to see how we can set this all up in an all-encompassing framework Bill, and I think I speak for all noble Lords when I say that an hour’s debate on some sort of secondary legislation will not be able to cut it in these instances. I do not believe I can add very much to the expertise that we have heard already but, as others have said, this must leave a sports legacy, so I am thoroughly behind the points that have been made. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s points, because there is a lot to consider here.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for tabling these amendments. I am grateful to him for taking an interest in the Bill, and it is genuinely good to see the noble Lord back and elevated to the Opposition Front Bench, albeit in another department. How could the noble Lord go to another department? The contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have been noted by a number of speakers today. We are privileged to have the expertise of the noble Lords and the noble Baroness, who have taken part in the process and been part of that work to define the vision required to win bids.
I hope I can give all noble Lords reassurance that legacy matters to this Government and, as a former London Assembly member, I am clear on the physical legacy that this city received from the 2012 Games. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as to whether it is wide enough as a framework, we believe that it is and I will go through the amendments in turn. I hope I can give noble Lords some reassurance.
Amendments 8 and 13 seek to ensure that the appropriate national authority will comply with a host city contract or a host nation contract before regulations applying the sporting events framework can be made. There are numerous agreements and contracts to which this could apply and, in our view, it would not be appropriate or necessary to make the time that regulations would be made and brought into force contingent on compliance with them all. The framework is designed to bring into effect commitments made by national Governments at the point of bidding for an event. The regulations applying the sporting events framework are therefore the closest equivalent to complying with a host nation contract, in so far as one exists; they provide the means for Governments to meet their guarantees to event owners.
Compliance with a host nation contract and the creation of regulations to apply the framework are the same stage of the process, so one cannot come before the other. Host city contracts are made by a combination of local authorities and event delivery companies directly with event owners. These relate to local event needs and are signed in advance of the event. It would not be appropriate to make a national authority a signatory of that agreement, when the provisions contained within it are for local delivery and the national authority is not responsible for delivering them.
In some cases, the appropriate national authority may extend provisions in the framework to enable a local authority to fulfil its hosting agreement—for example, to enable the local authority to take enforcement action against unauthorised advertising and trading in a restricted zone. But, as with the host nation contract, any host city contract that relies on this framework would be complied with only at the point when the regulations are made, thereby making this amendment redundant.
On Amendments 18, 20 and 21, I understand that their intent is to further narrow the conditions for applying the framework, requiring an event to be of significant international interest, to bring economic but not social benefits and to have a sporting legacy in the United Kingdom. However, the Government do not agree with this approach. While major sporting events generate international interest and build the UK’s standing around the globe, they also deliver other significant and wide-ranging benefits, as was widely acknowledged during Second Reading. These are not restricted only to economic benefits, nor the sporting legacy of such events, although I agree that that is significant. They bring sport to different communities and demographics; they improve opportunities to increase participation in sport and physical activity; and they generate moments of collective experience that contribute directly to social cohesion and advance our national story.
The Bill is drafted to ensure that these kinds of major sporting events can still be captured by the Bill and that while international interest is one important factor, it is not the only factor on which an event could access these provisions. International interest is a broad category and may be shaped by many factors, including global and regional politics, changing media trends and the diplomatic ambitions of the Government. This amendment would need a highly specific definition of international interest for it to be required as applicable. Those thresholds would be entirely arbitrary, set at a point in time and potentially irrelevant or outdated soon after. What is deemed significant international interest can vary significantly. For instance, particular events may generate extremely high interest in certain parts of the world and relatively little in others. The test of international interest as currently framed provides flexibility to consider a range of factors on a case-by-case basis.
I am happy to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords further on the points raised in this debate. I know and appreciate that all noble Lords taking part in the debate want the Bill to deliver what we intend. However, for the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in the debate, particularly my noble friends in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I did not live up to their expectations; I was first of the losers, getting only a silver medal at the Olympic Games while they had many gold medals to their names—albeit that I got a silver medal by 0.6 of a second behind the East German eight, who subsequently sued for the damage that the drugs they took during that event had done to them. But that did not prevent them retaining their gold medal. To be honest, all sports men and women know that it is the event on the day and the memory of that event that matter most.
“(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not have effect for a period that is longer than the specified period.(5B) In subsection (5A), the “specified period” means a period of time that must—(a) begin no earlier than the beginning of the period of 21 days ending immediately before the day on which the sporting event begins, and(b) end no later than the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the sporting event ends.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would establish a maximum period in which the sporting events framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 9 and in doing so, I also speak to Amendments 10, 11 and 12, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. These four amendments address two related but distinct concerns about the regulation-making powers conferred by Clause 2 of the Bill: first, how long those regulations can remain in force in relation to any particular sporting event; and, secondly, the parliamentary scrutiny to which all such regulations should be subject.
Clause 2 allows an appropriate national authority to make regulations to implement the sporting events framework for a particular event. What it does not do is place any limit on the period for which those regulations may be in effect. We believe that is a clear omission. The framework is designed to apply to specific and time-limited events, so it would be strange and, we submit, improper if regulations made for a particular event remained on the statute book indefinitely or for a period bearing no relation to the duration of the event.
Amendment 9 seeks to address this issue by applying the same temporal limit that Parliament has already judged appropriate in comparable legislation. The approach we have taken mirrors precisely the time periods used in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 and the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020. That is a pre-event period beginning no earlier than 21 days before the event starts, and a post-event tail of no more than 5 days after it ends. Parliament has already, therefore, debated and endorsed this model; it is tried and tested, and I see no reason why we should not adopt it here today. I hope the Minister will agree.
Amendment 10 is a probing amendment to be looked at alongside Amendment 9. It proposes a single flat period of 50 days as an alternative limit. We have tabled this to invite the Committee to discuss whether a straightforward numerical limit would be a preferable way of proceeding. We think 50 days is a generous period; the London Olympic and Paralympic Games, between them, spanned 45 days, the UEFA European Championship runs for approximately one calendar month, and the FIFA World Cup takes 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. A limit of 50 days would therefore give Ministers considerably more time than any of these events actually require in practice; it gives a generous margin, while providing Parliament and the public with the reassurance that exceptional powers do not quietly become permanent fixtures of our regulatory landscape.
I imagine the Minister will cite the need for flexibility in her response, and I understand that this framework needs to be flexible for different types of events. If the sporting event framework cannot be applied, administered and wound down within 50 days, however, I would be interested in hearing what event she has in mind that might require a longer period than this. If flexibility is the key, then Amendment 9 provides the perfect solution.
Amendments 11 and 12 address parliamentary scrutiny of these regulations. As currently drafted, the Bill applies the affirmative procedure only to the first set of regulations which apply to the framework of a given event. Subsequent regulations that may amend, extend or otherwise modify the framework as applied are subject only to the negative procedure. Amendments 11 and 12 would remove that distinction and require all regulations made under Clause 2 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The rationale for this is straightforward: the regulations we are discussing will implement a framework which represents a quite significant infringement on the rights and obligations of businesses, organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events—as my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned in the previous group in relation to the Olympic Games in Paris, where they took in expansive issues such as AI and facial recognition. Parliament should have the opportunity to properly debate and approve all such regulations, not merely the first wave of them. I hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time-limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not still be in place.
The delegated powers memorandum, published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, justifies the limited use of the affirmative procedure because it is assumed that subsequent regulations will
“contain operational or technical detail or provide for unforeseen changes in how an event is to be delivered. To ensure there is an efficient mechanism to apply or amend such provisions at a later stage of programme delivery, the government considers that the negative procedure is appropriate”.
However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House has pointed out, there is no limitation placed on the scope of subsequent regulations. The first set of regulations may apply only one aspect of the sporting event framework to an event, but the Government may change their mind; the second set may simply apply the rest of the provisions. Given this, there is no logic in inviting Parliament to agree to the initial regulations applying the framework, while allowing the subsequent and potentially very significant modifications to pass without scrutiny.
If the Government’s argument here is simply one of administrative convenience, I gently suggest that that is not an adequate reason for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers of this nature. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, once again, if it comes to sporting events, I have a bit of reminiscing to do. I can remember a very good little row we had on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill about changing local taxation; it was a bedroom tax that some people saw as a way of solving local government finance problems in Birmingham. It was then pointed out that there were only two weeks allowed for this process. I think it would have been quite a high surcharge that would have benefited the hoteliers of Wolverhampton and Coventry if it had been brought in.
If we get an idea about timescale, it becomes very important that it is adequately placed, and that is in the tradition of what we have done. Making sure that that continues to apply means we are taking a new piece of legislation and applying it to a tradition of what we have done in legislation: there are shorter periods needed for things, and these are exceptional circumstances. If we are going to do that, we are fine. Not allowing these things to become permanent is a fair point here, because they are very unusual things. Indeed, the entire premise of the Bill is that we are doing stuff for extraordinary circumstances.
I hope that the Government will give a reply that reassures the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary, but I think it probably was worth while to give us the idea of the aim of it. These are short-term measures.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for introducing this group of amendments, seconded by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords taking part today, and say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that I would have been very distraught if such an avid Leeds United supporter had been lost to the Chamber—to be continued, I am sure.
These amendments—which I think are probing, especially Amendments 9 and 10—relate to the maximum period that the framework provisions in the Bill can be applied to a sports event. Amendment 10 would limit to 50 days the maximum period that any regulations applying the framework provisions in the Bill could be in effect. Amendment 9 limits provisions in the Bill to being in effect no more than 21 days before an event begins and five days after an event concludes. We do not consider, as the noble Lord probably predicted, such a blanket approach to be workable in the context of an event-neutral Bill.
Application of the provisions must be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the requirements of each event. These will inevitably have varying geographical and temporal application. The advertising and trading offences are heavily localised and will apply only to places which are used for, or in connection with, a sporting event, and the surrounding areas. The timing of these provisions will correspond with how and when venues are used during the competition period. None the less, where it is practicable to build in time limits—as these amendments seek to do, albeit in a less targeted way—we believe we have already done so. That is why, for example, the Bill already sets clear time limitations on the periods that the advertising and trading offences can be applied. These time limitations build on lessons learned from previous events. The advertising and trading offences in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 could apply for no more than 21 days before the event’s opening ceremony. Under Clauses 8(6) and 11(6), the advertising and trading offences under this Bill can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of a sporting event and end no later than five days after the event concludes. For the majority of locations, we expect the offences will come into effect a day before a place is used for, or in connection with, an event and end on the day that any activity associated with that place finishes.
When it comes to the period during which the ticket touting offence or prohibition on unauthorised association can be applied, the Government do not consider it is appropriate in the context of a framework Bill to limit or prescribe this on the face of the Bill. This could mean that we are unable to deliver on our commitments to event owners and apply the provisions when they are genuinely required. For instance, application of the ticketing offence for each event will be driven predominantly by when tickets to the event are first expected to go on sale or be made available to the public. For some events, this is likely to be over a year in advance of the event taking place—I hope this specifically answers the point that the noble Lord made. As a principle, the Government expect provisions to be in place no longer than is necessary to protect commercial rights and the interests of fans. On top of that, we want to ensure that there is appropriate time to raise awareness of the offence before the event and be clear with the public about what it means for the sale and resale of tickets. The Government expect any prohibition on unauthorised association to be in place no longer than is necessary to prevent the commercial exploitation of an event. We expect this period would correspond with the awarding of host rights and delivery of the event but would be considered on a case-by-case basis in consultation with event owners taking into account lessons learned from previous events.
Finally, any temporary traffic regulation order made under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes set out in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 5 to the Bill can be in place for no more than 28 days before the beginning of a sporting event and end no later than five days after the event concludes. Any temporary traffic regulation notices may remain in effect only for a maximum period of 21 days.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, particularly the reassurances she has given and the explanation about ticketing powers, transport restrictions and so on. As she rightly said, these are probing amendments, but they are probing with a purpose. The Bill seeks to take some quite sweeping powers, in some cases restricting people’s liberties, the operation of commercial businesses and much more. We want to make sure that where those powers are taken, they are not on the statute book for longer than they need to be. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, these are exceptional measures for extraordinary circumstances. That is important to get right, so we will take another look at the Bill in light of what the Minister has said and make sure we are satisfied that that is the case. We think we are being generous with a 50-day limit; if the Olympic and Paralympic Games can take place within that window, it is hard to envisage a major sporting event that might need longer. We will take that away and look at it further.
On Amendments 11 and 12 and the point about secondary legislation, I am grateful for what the Minister said about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I look forward to hearing what the Government say in detail, ahead of Report, on its concerns about the Bill here. I am not sure I quite agree that Parliament will have the opportunity for a full debate; at the moment, secondary legislation is limited to an hour, and we have heard repeatedly, even today, of the significant issues that need to be looked at each time we are legislating for the hosting of a major sporting event. So, we have some concerns there.
We certainly would be concerned if there was a two-tier structure of the first set of regulations and the subsequent ones, which could be very significant. I hope the Government will continue to look at that ahead of Report, because I am pretty sure we will return to that, certainly given the criticisms of the committee. With that, I thank the Minister for her reply, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.
Lord Addington
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, seek to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events, specifically those events which are regularly held in the UK, but may benefit from the provisions in this Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we have a series of amendments here seeking to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events at home from some of the benefits of this Bill. There are some good things here. We saw that they were beneficial—the traffic arrangements and other special things—but why not extend them to events happening only within the country, such as Wimbledon, if we want to make those changes, or to things that happen regularly? Six Nations rugby is an example where we are coping, but we would need new frameworks and structures for anything that would expand it. We also have half an eye on what happens with big cultural events.
We are taking short-term measures for short-term functions which could be expanded and could help. That is the essence of these amendments—trying to push a good idea a little further. The Government have got a good idea here. Let us do something more with it. Let us make sure that every big sporting event—and every cultural event, why not?—has access to the governmental changes that could help it be run better. I could expand on this for a long time, but I would end up repeating myself. It is a good idea. Let us make sure it touches more of the world. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17, 19 and 22 to 25 in my name, on which I am again grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and support Amendments 14 and 16 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to which I have added my name. These amendments share a simple purpose: to correct what I believe is a significant gap in the Bill. They seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major, regular, UK-based sporting events—those woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from their potential benefits.
That is the problem before us. As drafted, the Bill risks overlooking the very events that define Britain as a global sporting nation and deliver exactly what Ministers say they want this legislation to achieve: economic growth, international prestige and community pride. As I set out at Second Reading, Wimbledon, the Open, the London Marathon and the British Grand Prix are among the most recognisable sporting events in the world, and they are ours. Yet, as things stand, they fall outside the Bill’s scope and the greater protections that it is looking to afford. This is not just surprising; it is a missed opportunity.
I am grateful to many of the major sports organisers across the sector, from cricket to golf and motor racing to tennis and running, that have engaged with me and other noble Lords on this issue and provided clear and compelling arguments as to why regular, established, UK-based events of national and international importance should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage or overlooked by what is supposed to be a framework piece of legislation designed to support the UK’s sports sector. Their message is consistent: while the Bill is welcome, its current scope is too narrow. My amendments attempt to address that gap carefully and proportionately. This is not about opening the floodgates. The extension I propose is explicitly limited to events that are large, regular, UK-based and, crucially, likely to be of “international or national interest” and
“likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it”.
Following my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s observations, perhaps “likely to” is not the right drafting, but I nevertheless believe they would be a sensible and targeted refinement.
Amendment 25 proposes a further criterion that the Government may wish to consider, recognising something equally important that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, touched on: the role of major UK events in driving participation and sporting legacy. It would require the Government to consider how an event contributes to increasing physical activity, particularly among underrepresented groups—women and girls, disabled people and ethnic minorities. That is not an add-on; it goes to the heart of what sport can and should achieve.
To be clear, these amendments would not place a specific obligation on the Government automatically to extend the provisions in the Bill. They would not create automatic entitlements. What they would do is provide the power to act through the framework set out for iconic homegrown major events where there is a public and agreed interest to do so. That is what future-proofing this Bill should look like.
Let me illustrate the case with one example: the British Grand Prix, which will take place in just a couple of weeks. It is the largest weekend sporting event in the United Kingdom, expected to attract around 570,000 spectators this year. It is the largest Grand Prix on the international calendar and, in 2025, generated £167 million in economic value over a weekend. By any reasonable measure, this is an event of national sporting significance. But we do not have guaranteed long-term security for it. We cannot and must not assume that we will retain this iconic race and all the wider economic benefits it brings. Silverstone has to work hard year after year to ensure it remains on the racing calendar. We must not forget that there have been moments when the British Grand Prix’s future at Silverstone has been in doubt. If that were to happen again, it would rightly be a matter of national concern—or certainly in my house.
The question is whether we equip the Government with the tools through the framework provisions set out in this Bill to act early or wait until the event is potentially lost and only then consider how we might be able to bring it back. As the Bill stands, I fear the position is closer to the latter. My amendments are strongly focused on allowing the former. I suggest that is the more prudent course.
We see similar issues elsewhere. This summer, we are staging the ICC Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. We have already seen examples of ambush marketing and breaches of intellectual property and commercial rights for the ICC and its venues. These are not abstract concerns. They have real financial consequences and a real material impact on the current and future value of commercial rights, at the very time when the ECB is working hard to secure greater reinvestment and growth in the women’s game. Again, this is precisely the kind of challenge that the framework is designed to address, but it cannot do so effectively if key UK-based events fall outside its reach.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister and her officials for the constructive discussion we have had since Second Reading, and I welcome the continued engagement that I know they are having with the sector. I hope that, between now and Report, we can continue to work together to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the needs and realities of modern sport in this country. The underlying point is simple: our great homegrown sporting events are not just spectacles but strategic national assets. They contribute to our economy, our global standing and our shared sense of identity. This Bill gives us an opportunity to support them more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not inadvertently left behind. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical way to achieve that. I very much hope the Government will take that opportunity.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 19 and 22 to 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, to which I have attached my name, and I thank the Minister for sparing time to discuss these. I said when we met that there are a number of sports organisations that are feeling a bit unloved at the moment. These are events that have a global reach and help cement our standing on the world stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, mentioned the London Marathon. I think I competed in 17 of them—it is quite hard to remember when you get to that many. I know I did one more than my husband. I also commentate on the wheelchair race for the BBC. The marathon is not just the race itself. Anyone who walks up the Embankment at 6.30 pm on the Sunday will see people valiantly keeping going, to try to make it to the finish line. On Westminster Bridge the next morning, you also see the hundreds of people who have competed standing there with their medals, wanting to take a photo in front of Big Ben.
Beyond that, the impact is quite significant. It puts London on the map as a city, and it brings a huge amount of tourism. People stay in London for days afterwards, thanks to the many good deals that the marathon has negotiated with various restaurants and different companies around the city. We need to think about this in a slightly different way. That is positive chemistry and association that you cannot buy. It is because people feel amazingly good about putting themselves through 26.2 miles around the city.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 25, because it is really important. Mostly, athletes will mention something they saw at another event that inspired them to do sport. That is probably because they are asked about it a lot. But we cannot underestimate this—it is not just about people seeing these moments in time and doing sport. They will do lots of other things, and 2012 was a brilliant example of that, such as people who have gone into the creative industries because of what they saw.
The Minister talked about wanting to change the health of our nation, which is incredibly important. To quote a bunch of statistics, Women in Sport has said that 80% of women in the UK are not fit enough to be healthy. That has a massive impact on jobs, pensions, life—everything. It means hitting frailty at an earlier age. ukactive has said that we have a generation of children who are more likely to die before their parents because of inactivity. This is really worrying, and we have to do something quite radical.
It is not necessarily the Bill’s responsibility to do that; we need some joined-up government. We need to look at physical literacy in primary schools and progression steps. We also need to look at the cost of the pathway for athletes who aspire to compete at the highest level. SportsAid data, which is probably a little bit out of date now, shows the average cost of the pathway for a teenage athlete is £10,000 a year. I imagine that is significantly higher now. There are a lot of families who cannot afford that, but what we can do is broaden the base of participation.
I am particularly interested in Amendment 25 and what we can do to encourage more disabled people to be active. Activity Alliance has said that disabled people not only find it hard to be physically active but that they are actually quite worried about how it is perceived if they are physically active, so we need to look at this in a different way. I was not a product of special education—thank goodness, because it meant I actually received an education, when a lot of children who went through special ed did not. As much as the world has moved on in many ways, that was actually really good for enabling disabled children to be physically active. Mainstreaming, which is much better for education, has actually made some of those things much harder. I receive emails at least monthly, often weekly, about how disabled children in schools are not able to take part in PE.
That is not a problem for this Bill—it is an issue for the Department for Education. But unless we are more explicit about what we are trying to do and how we are trying to change some of these stubborn inequalities, we are never going to move it on. In Wales we are incredibly lucky that we have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, which gives us a very useful framing for what we are trying to do to encourage young people to be active. The Sport England campaign, This Girl Can, was ground-breaking. For the first time, it showed real women doing sport—as opposed to Olympians or Paralympians, who look slightly different. But we cannot expect just an advertising campaign to radically change what we do, so any way we can think differently about developing a fit and healthy nation that truly stays engaged in physical activity is really worth exploring in more detail.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I echo the comments of my colleagues across the Chamber in relation to this set of amendments, although I tend to disagree—or will clarify—in relation to one of the amendments. This is an enabling Bill. Surely, therefore, it should provide the opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said, for major sporting events which wish to make use of the Bill—whether it is the RFU, the LTA or whoever—to be able to come forward and say to a Government, “We wish to use this Bill for the following reasons”. Surely that is the objective of this legislation.
The point has been made a number of times already that sporting frameworks change, and we cannot guarantee that the Olympic Games, European Championships, et cetera, will be the same in 15 or 20 years’ time, or whenever it may happen to be. Structures of international competition change. If ever there was an example of one—and I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, did not refer to it—it is the announcement in the last few days that the London Marathon is going to move from one day to two, with the objective of having 100,000 participants.
It is about the level of attraction from around the world. Most people look at the London Marathon and say, “Oh, it’s just the London Marathon”. It is not; it is part of an international body of marathons, a set group of them. If there are 100,000 participants next year, we are going to have many hundreds of thousands of visitors. There are transport and all sorts of other implications. Surely, if this legislation is anything, it should be available to that sort of sporting evolution, because it is so positive both for this nation and for fitness in general.
I wish to make a brief observation in relation to the amendments, where they cite certain categories of people. I just ask, for reasons most people in this Chamber would recognise and which I identified at Second Reading, that where there is specific identification of women, girls, the disabled and ethnic minorities, we either use the classifications of the Equality Act or just stop at
“removing barriers to physical activity”.
I speak, as I identified on previous occasions, as the founder chairman of the world’s first gay rugby club, a structure that now has 100 clubs around the world and an international structure where we compete on a regular basis. Certainly, I know only too well the difficulties and the challenges associated with bidding and with organising international competitions, with people coming from other parts of the world.
We had the European championships in Birmingham less than a year after the Commonwealth Games. The competition, the Union Cup, was the largest sporting competition in the Midlands after the Commonwealth Games over the following 12 months. There are international competitions all the way down—they restructure and they reorganise. But I ask that we remove barriers to physical activity for underrepresented groups and stop at that point, rather than trying to cite specific examples, because we risk excluding some groups or others, and I know that is not the intention of those who have proposed these amendments.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hayward. Were I to imagine myself—as I never would—on the Bishops’ Bench, in approaching this set of amendments I would be very much reminded of the parable of the prodigal son.
The Bill rightly sets out a whole raft of provisions for mega sporting events that come to the United Kingdom on occasion. Events already listed by my noble friend Lady Evans, such as Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix, and so on, do their thing year in, year out, staging world-class events which are far greater than sporting celebrations and competitions, with economic, social and cultural benefit which goes far beyond, for example, Wimbledon, SW19.
In asserting the principles in the Bill that have to be in place when it comes to international bids, it seems odd that at least some of these provisions would not be available to those extraordinarily impactful sporting events that are the very fabric not only of our sporting nation but of our culture. I ask the Minister to consider, if not implementing these amendments, the essence behind them and to how it could be threaded into the Bill. Further to my noble friend Lord Hayward’s comments on frameworks, why would the Government not want that to be available to the sporting events that wish to avail themselves of some parts of it? Ambush marketing is ambush marketing, whether it is targeted at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games or the Wimbledon Championships every year.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Evans and I have a lot in common—we both support Norwich City Football Club, and we show our allegiance to it—but I disagree with her in her amendments. I did not contribute to the last debate, but it is safe to say that it confirmed what I think we all know: that, while this may be an enabling Bill, if we actually capture one of these global events, we will need to have specific legislation anyway. If that is the case, we will not be doing any more than virtue signalling in the Bill. The conclusion that all the noble Lords have made is that the Bill is incomplete and half-full. I will not say that it is half-baked, but there is plenty more work to be done on it.
However, if the Bill is incomplete, I do not think that it is the right thing at all to extend it in scope to other events, because the mission creep brings politics into sport. Of course, it is very difficult to keep it there, but it brings politics into sport by law. It will prevent somebody who is interested in public discourse from having an opinion and gives them leverage over the event. It will sanitise so much of the activity that goes on around the game. It will make unlawful things that are part and parcel of what we do—certain trade, advertisements and things such as that; it stops innovation—for Wimbledon, the rugby union, the rugby league, the Grand Prix, the Open, the Test match, Premier League and, if we listen to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, cultural events such as the Proms and Taylor Swift. Where does this end?
I am concerned that, however well-intentioned it is, it could backfire. My noble friend Lady Evans talked about a gap to be filled. I see it a different way; I see this creating a chasm between the fans and the men in blazers, who want this for their own narrow purposes. We have grown the well-trusted and well-organised events of global repute that we host without the benefits of the Bill. While it is an enabling Bill and has very important new rules for traffic wardens, I am not sure that having more traffic wardens is enough in and of itself.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way, but just for clarification, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lady Evans, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I made absolutely clear that it is not a case of the Bill encompassing these competitions; it is the sporting authorities asking that they might make use of some of the facilities of the Bill.
Lord Fuller (Con)
We are ending up in a mission creep by introducing new offences for individuals—we will talk about ticketing later on.
I realise I have a minority view, but I want to express it, and I should do. There is a misdirection with all these amendments that by putting them on a list, the Government can keep them here. I just do not think that is a reasonable assertion. The organising bodies, such as the British Automobile Racing Club, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon have to work hard, need to live off their wits and need to want to keep these events here. By putting them on a list and bringing them within scope, it will potentially upset the events that we know and love by bringing them into the political space. I just think that that is the wrong thing to do.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, maybe I can set my noble friend Lord Fuller’s mind to rest. Along with colleagues in the shadow DCMS team, I have spoken to a number of the major sporting bodies, which are keen, as some of our noble friends said, to avail themselves of some of the opportunities of the Bill if the scope could be broadened to allow them to do so. That is the key test: where they wish to do so. My noble friends are right, as we have been throughout the Bill, to talk about some of the restrictions and burdens that come with it, but it is very clear that there is an appetite in the sporting world beyond the one-off events—such as the Olympic, Paralympic or Commonwealth Games, which we host from time to time—for some of our major sporting events that happen on a more regular basis to be included in the framework and for us not to be playing second fiddle.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, challenged us to be a bit bolder in the Bill, and this has been a very good group of amendments and debate that have encouraged us to do that. We heard a huge number of examples of the major sporting events, which bring delight to people across this country and across the world on a regular basis. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and particularly my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for bringing their amendments, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to see if we can be bolder and give those advantages to many other sporting organisations as well. My noble friend Lady Evans described these events as the ones that that define Britain as a major sporting power. It would be unthinkable to imagine some of them disappearing from our calendars.
I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work with the London Marathon Foundation. As my noble friend Lord Hayward noted, it is marvellous to see that the London Marathon will extend to two days next year, including many more people. Of course, it is competing with so many other marathons around the world. People come to these shores because they want to run on the streets of London and because it is such a well-organised marathon, but we are competing constantly with the potential for people to go to other cities and parts of the world.
There would be consternation in my house if Formula 1 did not include a race in the United Kingdom. The UK is one of only two nations to have hosted a Grand Prix every year since Formula 1 began in 1950, and for that not to be the case is unthinkable. I am glad that Silverstone is secure through its current contract until at least 2034, but that requires hard work by the organisers. There is constant competition. This is a sport whose global popularity is increasing. We have to keep on our toes and make sure that we continue to deliver the brilliant events that people are expecting. As my noble friend said, the British Grand Prix attracts more than 500,000 people annually, generates £100 million in local economic impact each year and contributes to a wider Formula 1 ecosystem in the UK that is worth over £12 billion annually. When one thinks of how many of the teams are based in the United Kingdom, the supply chains and R&D that ripples from that, just to take one sport for as an example, we can see the benefits. The key question is how we can broaden the Bill, if possible, to allow those that wish to do so to take advantage of some of that boldness—
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I anticipate that the Minister may say that it is quite difficult to broaden this without being specific. I have one thought, having listened to this debate and been very supportive of what has been said. If, for example, the R&A for the Open golf wanted to avail itself of the benefits of the sporting events framework that we are putting into legislation, would it not be possible to distinguish between the international federations that recognise these events as international events on their calendars?
Take Wimbledon, the marathon or golf’s Open Championship. All are recognised by the relevant international federations and placed on their calendars. If we are looking for a way to put this into legislation, it might be worth considering defining it along those lines, overtly avoiding the problem that everybody might be able to apply for their own event. That would rule out, for example, the Boat Race. I can see significant problems with the transport provisions of the Bill if they were applied to the Boat Race and the whole west of London on Boat Race day. I give that as an example and a helpful contribution that I hope the Minister can take away and consider.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank my noble friend, who has rowed in the Boat Race, for his constructive and very good challenge. We are looking for a way of broadening the Bill in a rational way. He is right to draw the distinction with events that are internationally renowned. As my noble friend Lady Evans says, these are the ones that define our well-earned sporting reputation for being able to host such major events on the global stage. Whether it is done through that or another metric, this is well worth looking at in greater detail as we head to Report.
My noble friend Lord Fuller asked where this all ends, but the question really is: where does this begin? We are promised a major events strategy from DCMS. I understand that the Government have taken the legislative slot that is available and proceeded with the Bill now. They are right to do so, but it is a shame that we did not have that strategy in advance of this Bill. It would have informed some of the debates here and answered some of the questions that noble Lords have raised on cultural events, music events and ticketing provisions that apply there as well. Perhaps the Minister can say a bit more about when we might see that major events strategy, how it is designed to feed into this framework and the thinking that has gone on in her department in drawing up this Bill in advance of that strategy. It is slightly unfortunate that we are discussing it this way around because of the legislative time available.
I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. If we can work constructively, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan and others suggest, we can take the opportunity to be a bit bolder and help the organisers of major sporting events—which do so much to enhance the soft power and renown of this country—to do so even better in the future.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, for these amendments and for their time to discuss an important topic. Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I genuinely appreciate the spirit in which he and others have tabled these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, gave a remarkable list of recurring events that we have in this country and highlighted the value—including the economic value—of events such as Silverstone.
I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the Government are committed to supporting our domestic sports sector and the UK’s sporting calendar, building on the strong partnerships and existing frameworks already in place. This work will be underpinned by the UK-wide major events strategy, which—in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—my department intends to publish within the next 12 months. This will set out our priorities for major events taking place across the UK, covering major events in all sectors—cultural, sporting and business. I hope that the process of undertaking this strategy makes some of those sporting organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, says feel unloved now feel that this puts them front and centre of our minds and priorities at DCMS.
The time-limited provisions in the Bill are designed to attract specific one-off events that require the Government to make commitments to event owners during the bidding process. It is not possible to secure the hosting rights for these events without making such commitments. Global competition to secure these events is only increasing. For the UK to remain competitive against this global competition for the biggest international events, we need to show that we are event ready to meet event owner requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, made a point around the Cricket World Cup. The nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, the ICC Cricket World Cup is the type of event that could meet the conditions, depending on the exact circumstances of the event. In contrast, events that are hosted on a recurrent basis in the UK do not generally have the same externally set mandatory requirements as events that hold competitive international bid processes.
As the Bill was developed, we worked closely with some of the biggest recurrent sporting events to understand the demand for these provisions. While there was some interest in the advertising and trading provisions, we found that there was no clear or consistent evidence base on the negative economic impact of the status quo for the inclusion of a breadth of successfully recurring domestic events. Where interest was expressed, we also found that there was insufficient appetite from the sector to fund the enforcement action that would be required of local authorities should these provisions be extended to them. We are continuing the discussions with relevant bodies that have taken place since Second Reading.
No assessment was provided during the discussions prior to Second Reading of the likely enforcement burden. Given that these are criminal offences, enforcement by any organisation other than a public body would not be appropriate or proportionate. None the less, I am genuinely grateful for the constructive ways in which noble Lords have raised points regarding the potential for us going further and for highlighting the importance of recurrent sporting events. They have a significant, cherished and valuable role for the nation.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about the London Marathon potentially having 100,000 athletes and accompanying visitors—I will not be taking part and am more likely to be an accompanying visitor—shows the scale of these domestic events. I would welcome further discussion with noble Lords on this matter and will continue to listen to views from the sports sector. Upon reviewing any new evidence, I will consider carefully what steps would be appropriate and practical.
On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, around better facilities for women and girls, the Government’s £400 million investment into grass-roots facilities will continue to support increased participation for women and girls through a place-based approach across the UK over the next four years. We will more than double priority access to grass-roots football pitches for women and girls in England as part of plans to honour the Lionesses’ victory at UEFA Women’s Euro 2025, as well as dedicating flagship sites to the Lionesses. The Football Foundation has also launched the Lionesses HERe to Play fund, providing small grants to create welcoming, safe and accessible facilities for women and girls.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and others also highlighted provision and access for people with disabilities or other protected characteristics, which I look forward to debating in a future group in Committee on Wednesday. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his suggestion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the point about how we encourage physical activity and, critically, make sure that we do not just have elites and then the rest who are not fit and healthy. The development of grass-roots sport outside school and how we encourage physical activity is critical for this Government. This year, we are already investing £85 million through the multisport grass-roots facility programme to build and upgrade high-quality grass-roots sports pitches and facilities in the communities across the UK that need them most. This is part of a total package of at least £400 million that will be invested in new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities in communities right across the country.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it just goes to show that, if you are speaking on a lot of amendments, you should try to get your mind on the right one. I thank everybody who has taken part. This has actually been a very good debate in terms of the policy going forward, with possibly one exception, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is getting to know his colleagues very well. We have established a consensus that there are a lot of good things proposed in the Bill, such as the idea you must preserve certain things because they are a good unto themselves economically, culturally and socially. I wish I had tried to match the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, with a list of events, because hers was pretty impressive—I have a few in there as well.
There are some very good ideas here, although possibly not the whole list. Certain things about traffic on a regular basis probably going through might be extremely useful. An event structure, if it comes up and if we eventually get round to it—and who knows what is coming in the next 12 months—might be an interesting thing to bring in. As the noble Baroness said, people are not saying this is a bad Bill. They are saying it is a good Bill and asking, “Can we actually take some of its benefits and push them out to somewhere else?”
The traffic issue is one that really catches my mind, getting people to and from events, and if you have traffic controls, making sure that there is something in place before the big events happen. This is probably happening in other ways, but this is a nice regular way of doing it. If the Government are prepared to engage on that, even on a long-term basis, and say they will use some of the capacity, that would be something which would make people’s lives easier, you would get more out of it and you would ensure economic potential. That is rough; there are variations.
The idea is that some sporting legacy and encouragement should go through. That is the thing the Olympics got wrong. We had a wonderful event but we had no physical sporting legacy, certainly not towards grass-roots level. There are a couple of veterans here of the committee that looked at it. It is the thing we failed to do. With all that success, this is what we failed to do, because we know it does not happen by osmosis. You have to have some actual involvement. I hope we will go back to this later on in the Bill. But that is one of the things that we have got wrong that we know about. I hope that the Minister, in further discussions on the Bill and going forward in this area, takes on board what has been said, because there is much here that we would like to expand on.
Irritating a Government by saying “Yes, we agree with you and can we have a bit more please?” is actually one of the nicer ways of irritating a Government. Every now and then, we manage to do it to all Governments—may this Government have more of it. This is something we are engaging in to get the best out of. Generally speaking, it has been a very positive debate, and I will withdraw my amendment. I hope we will address this again at a later stage, with more information. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Bonham-Carter, adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to make the sporting event free to air.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
In moving Amendment 15 I shall speak also to Amendments 26 and 79. We on these Benches think that we should consider events that are in scope of this Bill as part of the free-to-air listed events regime for audiences in the UK, so that those who wish to follow a sporting event but cannot obtain a ticket due to cost or availability can still follow the event without incurring extra costs and potentially having to pay for a subscription; and, secondly and really importantly, because it will encourage and expand the audience for such events. Watching a sport you do not know can spark interest and participation. There are more chances that this will happen if the event is not behind a paywall.
The Minister mentioned the Lionesses. Thanks to the BBC championing and broadcasting women’s football free to air, enabling the public to watch the Lionesses’ triumphant journey in both European and world tournaments, there are new audiences in stadiums, as well as on screens; and, most importantly, it has inspired women and girls to take up the sport. Similarly, there is the legacy of Channel 4 and the Paralympics, and I refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said earlier about encouraging and enabling disabled kids to get involved in sport.
It is in the power of the DCMS to review listed events—the “crown jewels”, as they are known. The amendment I am proposing would create an opportunity to revise the list, and this follows a concerning trend where fans’ rights to enjoy events on free-to-air television have been gradually eroded. For the first time, the finals of the Champions League—football is the sport of the day—Europa League and Conference League were all behind a paywall. If the Government intend to host such great sporting events in the UK, as we have been discussing today, the British public deserve the right to be able to watch them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to follow the Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, who is very much the leader of your Lordships’ House in this space. I am here having signed Amendments 15 and 26 to show cross-party support, so I will be brief.
As the noble Baroness set out, we have seen a gradual erosion of people’s access. We often discuss access to the right to participate in sport, but there is also the access to being part of the whole sporting experience and to view major events live. Free-to-air broadcast is what keeps major sporting events genuinely public, rather than turning them into elite viewing that is available only to those who can afford subscription television or other sources. If access depends on payment, watching sport becomes unevenly distributed, with lower-income households at a clear disadvantage. In practice, that particularly excludes, or risks excluding, many children and young people from the shared experience of watching major sporting events with their peers and their communities. Free-to-air coverage ensures that money is not a barrier to participation in what is a common cultural space, where sport is experienced collectively rather than privately. That broad access is something that gives sport extra public value, and that is why it is important to protect it as something that belongs to everyone, not just those who can pay.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with the proposed amendments for a number of different reasons; first, because the terminology “free to air” is a complete misdescription. You have to pay £180 for your TV licence. It therefore is not free—that is, for the 88% of the population who choose to pay for their TV licence. The number of people who choose not to pay for a TV licence has been rising for many years. I say 88% because the latest figures published say that 12.5% of all viewers do not pay for a television licence.
Secondly, there is the question of competition. The essence of sport is competition. It is a very odd state of affairs whereby one says that broadcasters can compete but, by the way, we will restrict the competition in certain fields. We were debating in the previous set of amendments the question of assisting people who face disadvantages in society. Again, it is a very odd state of affairs whereby one broadcaster might be willing to pay much larger sums to broadcast a particular event, and in that process guarantee substantial funds to the underrepresented groups, but they are not allowed to because the event concerned is a crown jewel. So not only do you lose out because the broadcasting may be inferior; the funding might be inferior as well.
Thirdly, my concern is that the crown jewels were a product of a different technological era. Sport is now broadcast on a whole range of different platforms, and none of us in this Chamber knows what the platforms are going to be in five or 10 years’ time. Therefore, to decree in this piece of legislation that you can have certain sporting events, and I noticed that it suggested that they might be extended only on—I will use the jargon although I have indicated that I do not agree with it—a free-to-air basis, when multiple levels of platforms will probably be available in a few years’ time does not recognise the changing technological world in which we live and which the sporting world will have to adapt to.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 26. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, makes an interesting reference to free-to-air. As well as not knowing what platforms are going to be available, we do not know even what events there are going to be. The Olympics and Paralympics are going to change radically in the next few cycles, not least because of the impact of global warming. In quite good timing, there was an article this morning online on the Broadcast Sport website which talked about the changing world of events. Rights holders have more choices about where to go to put their events on, and they can ask for more money. It has been estimated that FIFA is going to make about £3 billion from organising the World Cup. Where is that money going to go? If you look at something closer to home such as Wimbledon, it puts a considerable amount of money back into the grass roots, which is incredible.
How people watch is going to change as well. The same article on Broadcast Sport was saying that even if you are watching a live event, you are probably checking your phone at least 10 times during that event to see what else is going on and what other comments are being made. We should be looking at how we make available these major sporting events. A number of people are disappointed that the Commonwealth Games is not going to be readily available, certainly on BBC TV. Everything that Team Wales does is going to be shown on S4C. There will be two hours’ live coverage a day, which is amazing—in Welsh, which is really important in terms of continuing to develop the Welsh language. I am sure there will be lots of other home country athletes competing who will be seen within those time slots. I do not think we can underestimate the importance of being able to watch the Games.
If we look back through history—we have been talking about this today—when the BBC covered the Sydney Paralympics in 2000, one of the decisions behind putting the Games on at teatime was so that schoolchildren could watch the Games. That developed a much better understanding of disability and the Paralympics. It got an age group of children watching sport that they probably would not have been able to see before. Whether it is free to air or however we define that, it is important that the public in the widest possible sense are able to watch these events in real time without spending some quite significant sums sometimes on monthly fees.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Broadcasting is such a critical part of the sporting experience. For most people broadcast is the sporting experience. When Andy Murray was performing so fabulously on Centre Court at Wimbledon, I believe there were 15,000 seats available, yet millions could enjoy and experience that extraordinary event from the edge of their sofa. This is another area where the Bill is unfortunately silent when it comes to innovation. I believe there are solutions which can offer new paths forward to enable spectators to enjoy their favourite sport and these events through various media.
I will give two examples. I declare a previous interest in that I was deputy chair of Channel 4 Television at the time. When Emma Raducanu went all the way through to the final and won the US Open, we were able to do a deal at 24 hours’ notice with Amazon, which was the rights holder at the time, to have the US Open on Channel 4 free to air. But it is not free to air, as my noble friend Lord Hayward points out. It is a domestic UK broadcaster which was not a rights holder, but because of thinking differently, getting into discussions and a broader relationship with Amazon, it was able to secure those rights without in any sense cannibalising the rights that Amazon had paid for. A similar deal was done with England men’s cricket when it was in India that winter. I give just those two examples because they illustrate that there has to be flexibility and innovation in terms of both the deals that can potentially be done and the various media by which spectators are able to enjoy and support these tremendous events.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, after so many events going on, free-to-air means not hidden behind a paywall. It is something you do not have to make a very big payment to. Okay, there is the licence fee. To the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I say, “Yes, touché. Well done, good point”. But the fact of the matter is that if you do not have to specifically pay to see them, people can get to these great sporting events and, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has just pointed out, you create a national memory of them, something which you can refer back to. It is the water-cooler moment that does not go away. It is a point of bonding which you do not get anywhere else.
I hope that when the Minister responds she will give us some idea about how we are going to carry on with this, because it is a changing world. The first time I discussed this, we knew it was going to be on X number of channels, and Sky was only just starting to come into it. But we have been able to watch, at least in the form of highlights. What is the defence? It is a big deal. We must make sure, for these huge events, especially when national teams or the big games come up, that we respond across the board so that people can come down. I hope the Minister can say something reassuring on this because, let us face it, it is one of the reasons why it is worth bidding in the first place. It is now beyond those who go and buy tickets and has been for a long time.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hayward issued a useful corrective. Just as there is no such thing as government money but only taxpayers’ money, there is no such thing as free-to-air broadcasting; we pay for it through some means or another. It is a timely reminder in a year when we look again at the BBC’s royal charter and the licence fee model, which pays not just for the BBC but is required for viewing any of our public service broadcasters.
We are in many senses overdue a debate about the listed events regime by which we try to pick those crown jewels of sporting events. We would have had one during the passage of what became the Media Act 2024, but because that was taken in wash-up, we did not have the debate that perhaps was needed then. I hope that as we look at the royal charter for the BBC, we can look at this in some detail. Maybe the Minister can say a bit about that either now or at subsequent stages on the Bill.
This was looked at at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Davies of Devonport, who spoke powerfully about the fact that if public money—taxpayers’ money—is spent on hosting major sporting events, we want as many of those taxpayers as possible to be able to see, benefit and be inspired by them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was right about the importance of visibility and prominence, particularly of the Paralympic Games, which has done so much to change people’s perceptions of those with disabilities and brought so many broadcasters and commentators with disabilities on to our screens when so many people are watching with great pride and excitement.
Like the noble Baroness, I share some sadness that the Commonwealth Games will not be broadcast on the BBC this year, for the first time since the Games began in 1950. The live rights have gone to TNT Sports and only highlights will be available on a public service broadcaster—Channel 5. One thinks of seminal moments such as Roger Bannister’s “miracle mile” and the people who will not be able to be inspired by moments such as that.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. It links very much to the debates we need to have over the BBC’s royal charter and paying for our public service broadcasters. Again, this hits at the problem we have in the Bill. We are trying to set up a framework anticipating what the world will look like many years hence in many different ways that have a knock-on effect for sporting life in this country.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their amendments. Amendments 15 and 26 seek to add a further condition to the Bill’s framework, requiring any qualifying sporting event to make live coverage free of charge to the UK public. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, about the importance of having, for example, the Lionesses on the BBC and the Channel 4 coverage of the Paralympics.
I and the Government recognise the intent behind these amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the UK, including where broadcasting is concerned. Indeed, during the debate on the football regulator, one of the discussions we had was about what made a spectator and what made a fan. For most people, it is not watching it live but instead watching it largely on television.
However, unfortunately, these amendments are not ones that the Government can support. The central issue is that they would make the application of this framework dependent on broadcasting arrangements having already been secured on free-to-air—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, which was repeated by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Parkinson, that it is not free-to-air but rather it is free-to-air once you have paid your licence fee or an equivalent free-access basis.
Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events are commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of broadcasting rights. Those organisations are operationally independent of government, and rightly so. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports, future events and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, grass-roots sports. She cited the example of Wimbledon, but there are other examples from across the piece. This amendment would place tighter controls over their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue for an indefinite period.
There is also a practical concern. The timelines for agreeing broadcasting rights will not always align with the bidding processes and other requirements that this framework is intended to support. Making the framework conditional on those agreements already being in place could therefore create delay, uncertainty and unnecessary rigidity. Other bidding nations may not be subject to such restrictions, potentially making the UK less competitive.
The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is a breadth of free-to-air coverage of sporting events for licence fee payers. I agree with all noble Lords who stressed the importance of people seeing sport. The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible by prohibiting exclusive broadcasting of the event without prior consent from Ofcom.
In response to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made about people being potentially excluded by dint of their economic circumstances, the listing of events ensures that broadcast rights to that event, if offered, must be made available on fair and reasonable terms to the free-to-air channels received by 95% of the population.
The Government believe that the current listed events regime works well and strikes a perfect balance between encouraging free-to-air access to a number of sporting events for audiences and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue to invest in the growth and development of those sports. I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the ability to talk about having seen major sporting events is a bonding event, which can exclude people who are not able to take part in that. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders for specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to sports coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.
Amendment 79 seeks to ensure that where the Secretary of State gives financial assistance under Clause 25 in respect of a sporting event, she must require the recipient to take all reasonable steps to ensure that live coverage of that event is made available free of charge, either directly or on a platform accessible without subscription in the United Kingdom. The Government fully recognise the importance of broadcasting certain sporting events to attract significant audience interest and make events as accessible as possible. We appreciate the sentiment that, where public support is involved, sporting events should be as widely available to the public as possible. However, again, this amendment is not one that the Government can accept.
The first reason is one of principle. Clause 25 is a funding power, intended to support the effective delivery of sporting events. It is not a broadcasting regulation power, nor is it intended to be used to direct or shape the outcome of commercial negotiations over media rights. Broadcasting arrangements for sporting events are matters for broadcasters, event organisers or the holders of the broadcasting rights, all of whom are operationally independent of government. It would not be appropriate to use the Bill or this funding power to intervene in those negotiations indirectly through grant conditions.
Secondly, funding decisions, event planning and broadcast rights negotiations do not always proceed to the same timetable. As a result, the amendment could create delay, complication and uncertainty in the use of Clause 25 support.
Thirdly, there is a risk to workability. If organisers or recipients cannot be confident about satisfying such a condition at the relevant point in time, it may make financial assistance harder to administer and could reduce the flexibility that Clause 25 is designed to provide.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank everyone for taking part in this debate—except possibly the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who is making me have to think of a different way of saying “free to air”. I am, of course, disappointed but actually not surprised by the Minister’s response. She has given me valuable time but I hope we can explore this further.
To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, the crown jewels debate got cut off at the knees. We have charter renewal coming up. I totally respect what everyone says about the future and things changing every day, but we need to discuss this because it is important that we share these things. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that the paywall is the paywall and means that things become niche rather than shared; that is the thing we are really trying to overcome here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it may seem surprising that I oppose Clause 5 standing part of this Bill, given the fact that I have argued many times in your Lordships’ House for taking tough action against the abuse of the secondary market in ticketing. The reason I do is that I think this is in the wrong Bill. Going back to 19 November, just last year, the Government announced that they would introduce new rules to prohibit tickets for concerts, theatre, comedy, sports and other live events being resold for more than their original cost. They made a significant policy announcement that the British Government would introduce new rules to ban ticket touting. They then said they would introduce a Bill in this Session. They did not. They introduced a draft Bill that would make it illegal to resell a ticket at more than its original cost, cap service fees, make it illegal to resell more tickets than you are entitled to buy, place obligations on resale platforms, and empower the Competition and Markets Authority to impose tough fines. Whether we get the legislative timetable for that is yet to be seen.
In this Bill, for potentially three or four events in the next 10 years, there is very tough action, which I support in principle but it should apply to all sports, cultural, arts and music events, and it should be in primary legislation, as promised by the Government. It is simply inconsistent to put some extremely tough and onerous measures—which I fully support—in this Bill for three or four major sporting events that might take place over the next 10 or 15 years and not fulfil their clear obligation to the country to introduce primary legislation as soon as possible to cover this in detail.
We are in danger of having a series of different restrictions on secondary market sales. The original one covered football and was brought in for a completely different reason—it was about segregation of football fans. More recently, we have had further legislation in an excellent Private Member’s Bill, which was introduced in the last Session. There is no reference in this legislation as to how that would be implemented with major international events that we are trying to attract to this country.
Then there is the London 2012 Act, which had the full support of the House at the time. It looked specifically at relevant legislation for hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in this country and criminalised the abuse that we saw in the secondary market for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. I am in no doubt at all that the technology that will be used in ticket touting in years to come will change rapidly. By the time we next host the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, we will need to consider in detail legislation that will be very different from this Bill.
It is inconsistent not to introduce primary legislation to cover this in detail for cultural events, music events and festivals, as well as the overwhelming majority of sporting events that are not covered by this Bill, but just for the three or four international events that we are trying to attract to this country over the next 10, 15 or 20 years. It is that inconsistency which concerns me most of all and is why I object to Clause 5 standing part of the Bill.
Very briefly, and less relevantly, because it would be appropriate for me to put my arguments forward on the significant abuse of the secondary market another time, it is sad that the CMA is the nominated enforcement agency here. I recommend that the Government seriously consider removing it. It has prosecuted no one. It has done very little. It has looked into all sorts of cases and achieved far less than National Trading Standards, whose work has led to people being jailed. National Trading Standards is on a £13 million budget—a very small budget—but has been particularly effective. It has taken down social websites and been really effective in this area. I regret that the Government feel that the CMA will be more appropriate.
Next, if we are talking about specific international events then I am concerned about FIFA. When it came to the World Cup that we are enjoying at present, FIFA decided not to take specific measures in the host nation contract with the US, Canada and Mexico, partially, no doubt, because of the interests of President Trump, who has no appetite to ban touting in the US. But at the same time, FIFA has now set up its own retail site and is taking 15% off the seller and 15% from the buyer. How that fits with this legislation is an interesting question, particularly if it changes its approach to ticket touting in the future. I have no doubt whatever that FIFA will want to protect that source of income post the current World Cup.
It is important that DCMS is seen to be very even-handed in considering this important issue. It is taking very tough action in this Bill but, as I have mentioned, for potentially three or four events and not for the world of sports and the world of music. Those involved in those industries are desperately keen to see tough action taken, as the Government promised, but there is little evidence that they are going to pursue that. Yet Eric Baker, CEO of StubHub and Viagogo, has been publicly professing how happy he is that he has kicked the can down the road and educated the Government, which is why the Bill is not currently before Parliament. I hope that is incorrect. I hope there is no evidence to that effect and that what he is saying publicly is erroneous. As I understand it, he has had five meetings with the department, yet there have been no meetings for those who, quite rightly and understandably, feel very strongly that very tough action should be taken against the abuse of the secondary market, which is what I am focused on here.
Finally, we should make sure that football is included in this. It is an Olympic sport and would need to be covered by this legislation, clearly. There could not be separate legislation for football if we were trying to attract an international sporting event, either a FIFA or IOC event. We should also be very cautious about how it applies to debentures and hospitality. Unpicking that for touting will be a significant challenge.
I want to state on record that I am absolutely in favour of the direction that the Government have taken in this Bill, but I think it is in the wrong place. It is in the wrong Bill at the wrong time, and it should be more appropriately introduced before Parliament as the Government promised. Parliament should be allowed to determine what that should look like, and then the decision of Parliament should be implemented in the context of this legislation moving forward.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 31. I wish to associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. This is an unnecessary provision in the wrong Bill. At Second Reading, I posed the question: what is so bad about somebody who has bought a ticket to the match but suddenly finds they cannot go and offers it for sale to friends on Facebook that justifies a 50 grand fine?
You have a spare ticket. Perhaps mum has fallen over at home so you cannot go. Perhaps the girlfriend you had planned to go with is now seeing somebody else. Perhaps you have gone down with some sort of food poisoning or perhaps even gramps, who you had planned to sit next to, has died. It happens. In all those circumstances, there are draconian penalties for moving on that ticket. The ticketing activities are enumerated in Schedule 1: selling an event ticket, offering for sale an event ticket, exposing for sale an event ticket or advertising that the ticket is available for purchase.
The £50,000 fine is a level of punishment that outweighs the typical criminal penalties for shoplifting, burglary and serious breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I am not sure there is an equivalence between passing on a ticket and negligently permitting an employee to fall to his death from height. How have we found ourselves in a situation where the state ranks the desire to cut your losses as worse than all these crimes? It is two-tier justice.
Why are we compounding the sadness of the girl whose boyfriend does not want to go to the game with her any more? We are going after the wrong people. Can we not just get a sense of perspective and materiality here and recognise that somebody who buys six tickets for them and their rellies is not a member of a crime family? My amendment would limit it to six tickets for an event and provide a carve-out to the penalties in the Bill—the abuses that my noble friend has referred to.
At Second Reading, I explained that the organisers and selected ticket agents have not done enough to stop the bots and their industrial hoovering up of the tickets. We all want to ensure that real fans get a fair shot at going to the game; that is common ground. The truth is that the sellers have not tried hard enough to stop this. The truth, as my noble friend has just alluded to, is that the status quo suits them just fine. They can carry on as they are, clutching pearls, pretending to be concerned by the bots while trousering all the cash and filling the cash box on day one. This Bill, if passed, means that they do not even have to try to fix this problem. We are letting them off the hook by law.
There are all sorts of technical ways of matching claimants to people. If we cannot authenticate individuals, the economic basis of society—whether for banking, passport applications or driving licences—cannot proceed. This is a problem that has been solved. Indeed, if it had not been, the hated ID card scheme would be even more dead in the water than it is today.
I went to a wedding last weekend, and a lady I met—I was with my wife, but there was another lady—told me that she had been banned from Tinder for having two profiles, an A one and a B one. She was banned for life. If Tinder can see through multiple personalities, it should not be so difficult for Ticketmaster. If Tinder can suss out the dupes and the fakes, why can agencies such Ticketmaster—others are available—not do so? It is a simple question and one that needs to be answered by the Government before they go after the jilted girlfriend or the grieving son.
My approach would be to ensure that the organisers go the extra mile to authenticate ticket purchasers in the secondary market. The Government’s solution is victim blaming, going after the little guy—the buyer whose mum fell over at home and has a black eye. The Bill has this the wrong way around. Why should we go to the millions of fans when the organisers have the tools to sort it out, if only they could be bothered? Instead, we are being asked to give them the legal cover not to bother to fix this scourge at source. It is just not good enough.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 28A. The Bill usefully sets out that regulations in relation to ticket touting will be brought in for sporting events. But a number of organisations, including UK Music, are understandably asking the Government to completely fulfil their manifesto commitment. In this sense, I am coming to the issue from a similar place to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, although I disagree with his remedy. It is right that we should do this because we need to end exploitative ticket touting across all types of events. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and I have been on the same side on this for many years.
Like many on these Benches, I am delighted at the progress that has been made on ticket touting for sports events, but I am puzzled about the wait for legislation covering music and other events. What makes it more puzzling is that music and sports events often take place in the same venues. This week, my wife will go to listen to Harry Styles; a few weeks ago, I could have gone to the same Wembley venue to watch the cup final. So I am sure that the Minister will understand why there is a measure of disappointment, particularly among music fans, event organisers and performers, none of whom derive any benefit from the current situation.
According to YouGov research commissioned by O2, online ticket touts are costing UK music fans at least £145 million a year. For some time, UK Music has been calling for legislation that includes a resale price cap to prohibit someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original ticket value, service fee limits to ensure that price caps cannot be undermined by inflated fees or hidden charges placed on consumers, and volume limits to make it unlawful to buy more tickets for an event than one individual is permitted to buy on the primary market. Taken together, those measures would create transparency for ticket purchasers and create a more level playing field for consumers.
My amendment 28A would simply require the Secretary of State to review the ticket touting provisions in Clauses 5 and 6 within 12 months of the Act coming into force and report to Parliament on their effectiveness. This review would provide an important opportunity to assess whether similar protections should be extended to the music sector and music events. I am conscious that a draft Bill is to be published in this Session, but I am also conscious that these things have a habit of slipping and falling foul of other priorities. We have yet to see the terms of the wider legislation, so can we better understand why sport has come forward first, and what makes the challenges of policing this area different or more complex for music?
Music fans face many of the same challenges as sports fans: tickets being acquired in bulk and resold at inflated prices, and genuine fans being priced out of events. The draft Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, means that music fans will continue to face inflated resale prices and unfair ticketing practices while they wait for reform. If the ticket touting provisions prove effective in the sporting context, the review should urgently consider whether comparable measures should be applied to music events, ensuring greater fairness and consumer confidence in protections. I have tabled this amendment to try to achieve a speedier route to having equity across all sporting, cultural and music events, because those who support those events—music fans, sports fans, or whatever—deserve that equality of consideration.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and to take part in this group. I am physically and actually right behind my noble friend Lord Moynihan on these issues: it is a good provision, but it is the wrong position. It offers a solution that is fine for those critically important but few events that it will cover, but, for the vast majority, it is a tantalisingly close yet elusive solution across the rest of sport, music, culture, et cetera.
“World in Motion”, 1990; “Football’s Coming Home”, Euro 96: music and sport have always been inextricably linked, yet the Bill has not only missed the opportunity to bind these together with effective ticket touting provisions, it has also unfortunately set out a solution for the very few—which, understandably, is extraordinarily frustrating for the many. The provision is also unfortunate because it is very analogue and does not seem to speak to ticketing, touting and abuse as they are today—never mind how they will be in five, 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, when thinking about an Olympic Games and Paralympic Games bid in the 2040s.
I will speak to Amendments 27, 89, and all the amendments in my name in this group. I will start with Amendment 89, which proposes an accessible ticketing duty on all these events. For this, I use “accessible” in the broadest sense of the word. This goes to discussions that we have had in earlier groups around ensuring that we get the right principles threaded into this legislation. When we were putting together the ticketing strategy for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, all the weight of history was on us: all the rules, structures and expectations of what had gone before at all the previous 29 Olympic Games. Of course, there was a lot of good and a lot to follow in that, but, equally, we were the first people to be delivering an Olympic Games and a Paralympic Games in London in 2012. We not only took that incredibly seriously but took it for what it was: a once-in-a-generation opportunity. So we should seek to test, stretch and develop those principles that have been set out in all the documentation and history from previous Games.
Ticketing was a clear example of this, and it is one that I brought out in my amendment. We wanted hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren to have the opportunity to come to the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and not pay a penny for their tickets, but we were also fundamentally committed to the value of the Games, the sports and the event. So we had a key principle: no free tickets. That is completely the way to structure these things. You do not drive engagement, fans and greater inclusion by thinking that you just need to give away free tickets. The way to structure it is to have tickets available to schoolchildren, as was the case in London 2012.
My amendment is broader. It would make tickets available to local organisations, to disabled people and to other groups—the list is not exhaustive—and have the face-value price of those tickets paid out of a portion of the most expensive tickets for those events. It worked effectively and inclusively at London 2012, and those people who were paying for the highest-priced tickets were delighted that part of what they were paying for was to enable hundreds of thousands of young people to come and experience Olympic and Paralympic sport, often for the first time in their lives, and certainly for the first time in their lives at London 2012. Taking a principle developed there, it would make sense to thread an accessible ticketing duty into this Bill.
On the tickets themselves, as I say, this is currently an extraordinarily analogue Bill at a time when tickets have become extraordinarily complex, more enabling and potentially exclusive in digital token form on digital ledger technologies. We have the ability to do so much more with tickets. First, we can drive out fraud and touting through having the tickets in an immutable form. Secondly, we can attach whatever we choose to that ticket. Say that somebody has particular access needs, food allergies or whatever it might be—you can put that in as part of the digital token representation of their ticket. We can make the ticket so much more powerful, inclusive and connected to the event. It could potentially drive fan engagement: tokens, merch, exclusive benefits, interviews with the players or interviews with the competitors. Whatever you choose, that is all available with ticketing technology that exists today, yet the Bill is silent on this.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I tried to add my name to Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but I was slightly too late for the printing of the Marshalled List. I think there is something important in this amendment in terms of thinking about who is able to have access to major games.
If you look at the 2012 programme, there was a massive commitment right from the start to no free tickets—the sponsors paid for them. It was not just the joy on the children’s faces when they got to go and experience the events, but it was something that they will remember for the rest of their lives. It was also tied into the school programmes that were being run at the same time. As I have said before, 2012 was also the only time that I have ever been able to go and watch a sporting event where I was able to sit with more than one member of my family. With the ticketing, if someone could not sit in a high stand or needed to be at the end of a row, they also thought about how they linked that up to accessible toilets; those are all really important things. I think Wembley Stadium is the only place I have ever visited that actually understood some of those issues as well. I think there are 147 accessible toilets at Wembley Stadium, which other venues should definitely aspire to. Other things that you could do include “Pay your age”, which 2012 did really well.
As a spectator who is a disabled person—the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, mentioned smarter ticketing—you are constantly having to explain what you need, where you want to sit and who you want to sit with or check whether you actually have a guaranteed accessible seat. Again, it is about showing the world what we do and what we care about. We should be looking at ticket touting wider than this, because it is an issue not just for the events that this Bill may cover.
Another issue in this group of amendments, which I also mentioned in my meeting with the noble Baroness the Minister, relates to thinking about disabled people not just as spectators. I was commentating on a major event in a new-build venue, and it turned out that the commentator’s position was not wheelchair accessible, so I was not able to do my job properly. I spent half the time commentating in a completely different position. As a commentator, it helps if you can have some interaction with the other people that you are commentating with, so we had to move to a venue quite a considerable distance away to be able to do the last event that I was commentating on. There should be something in here about a guarantee of what accessibility means—perhaps not necessarily on the face of the Bill but just an understanding that we can do so much better. If we are going to be building new venues, whether it is for the Olympics, the Paralympics or more football clubs, we should make sure that disabled people have the ability to access events in a fair and equitable way.
I support the other amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. He has more experience on this than anyone else in the Chamber from his work at LOCOG and beyond, and we should be listening to the things that he is asking for.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, but the main thing about the amendments on ticket touting is that everybody agrees that something should be done. There is one principal disagreement going on here. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is basically saying, “Do not do it here; do it properly somewhere else” and lots of the rest of us are saying, “No, do it here, get it done and carry it on”. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, agreed with that. From my Benches, we tried to get an amendment down that included this and we did not actually hit the target; we were told that we were out of scope of the Bill, so I salute his drafting—I take it that it is his; if it is not, he can just take the compliment.
However, when we go through this, we have got a lot of other issues here, such as disability accessibility. I do not know how many dozen times I have discussed that, and we still do not have it right. I hope the Minister will be able to say something reassuring about an ongoing process for that.
Just to refer back to my amendments, I said to myself, “Oh yes, that was it—National Trading Standards, yes, good idea, I thought I had an original point there, but the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, used it in his first sentence”. We have something here that says, “It isn’t working. Can we know what will be done?” The small series of options that we have in this Bill is actually managing to annoy people, oddly, because they are not big enough and they are not going far enough, and we do not have anything else that is immediately coming. We have a pocket of legislation around this Bill, which we have not seen even in draft, and that is one of the problems here. I hope that the Minister can start a process that could be finished by Report, when we get an idea of what we are going to get on ticket touting and where it is going to come in, if we are not going to do it here—and this would have been an opportunity to bring in everything under this Bill, so we had something that would actually work.
There are some other smaller amendments. A charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting—yes, I would hope that that would be the case. But to have some clarity around some of the issues that we have raised, is the maximum penalty enough? One of the amendments in my name suggests
“leave out ‘£20,000’ and insert ‘an amount not exceeding 10% of the person’s annual global turnover’”.
Some of these organisations are so big that £20,000 would basically be the cost of doing business.
Could we have an idea of the whole picture? At the moment, the Government by doing a nice thing in this Bill are annoying everyone, oddly. I do not envy the Minister in her response. The Government may well have good intentions, but the old cliché that this might well be the thing that paves the road to hell might well be true with this.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for introducing this group and thank noble Lords for their contributions. This whole debate shows that it is a complicated area and begs the question whether this is the right Bill for it to be in. At the very least, we need another Bill very quickly to cover all the complications that it brought up and apply it to music and cultural events as well as those brought up here.
The point about FIFA was a very good example, with the US World Cup. It shows how difficult it is to try to create a catch-all Bill when we know how fast the environment is moving, and that FIFA might change its rules, as it has done for this World Cup—let alone when you come to some of the technological advances that my noble friend Lord Holmes brings up, and trying to cater for those today in a Bill when we know just how quickly AI and other technological advances are going.
My own amendments are modest in nature, in terms of trying to enable the charitable resale of tickets. At the same time, I think that they introduce an interesting conundrum. If we are saying that we are very happy for a charity auction to get a good price—and generally we want it to get as good a price as possible—we are saying that we do not mind profiteering in principle as long as it is for a good cause. Again, that brings some interesting complications into this matter.
On our amendments around a genuine resale market, as our amendment tries to show and as that of my noble friend Lord Fuller tries to show, there are genuine and legitimate reasons to want to resell your ticket, and the legitimate platforms have a good role there. It should be legitimate that they charge a reasonable service fee—I think that the 10% mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is probably a reasonable indicator there. But there is a proper function that they can play, and we would much rather that they played those roles rather than driving it under cover to the ticket touts, where you can get the real price gouging, for want of a better word.
Probably what this debate shows, like many of the others tonight, is that it is a very complicated area. To try to get it all into one catch-all Bill becomes more and more complicated. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are going to cater for this issue and for many of the others.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Addington, and my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lady Keeley for their amendments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for giving notice of his intention to oppose the question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I count myself as among those who were slightly surprised at this, but I appreciate having heard the noble Lord that this is because of his consistent opposition to the many ills associated with the secondary ticket market. However, I do not accept that it is not appropriate for these measures to be in the Bill—but I shall go on to that later.
Amendments 27 and 89 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require the Secretary of State to introduce an accessible ticketing quota in regulations, and that related information must be included in a register held by authorised ticket sellers. We are determined that when the UK hosts major events, we lead by example in ensuring they are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience. That is why we have worked with UEFA on its approach for Euro 2028, which seeks to put fans first with transparent and accessible ticketing principles. It was interesting to hear the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on accessible ticketing. Noble Lords may be aware of another example, which is in my speaking notes, of UEFA’s track record in this regard for Euro 2024. UEFA partnered with the Kaizen Foundation in Germany for the 10,000 Smiles project, which provided free tickets through sponsorship to children in host cities from underprivileged backgrounds and for children and adults with disabilities up to 21 years old.
Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, introduces an exception to the ticket touting offence for a person selling an event ticket as part of an auction provided that the proceeds go to charity. While I recognise the spirit, the framework approach calls for proportionality to be reconciled with the requirements of event owners and the guarantees provided by Governments. We will do this through introducing appropriate exceptions to the ticket touting offence in regulations on a case-by-case basis. It may not be appropriate to do so where an event has an official charity partner with an exclusive right to raise proceeds through the auction of event tickets. Where this is the case, charities looking to raise money for themselves would be able to apply for authorisation to auction tickets. This request would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Amendment 28A, tabled by my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lady Keeley and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, would require a review of the impact and effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions within 12 months of Royal Assent. The first use of these provisions will be for Euro 2028, with tickets expected to go on sale after the final tournament draw in December 2027. We are committed to an evaluation of the application of provisions in the Bill within 12 to 18 months of Euro 2028. We therefore do not believe that this amendment is workable or necessary.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her quite extensive, albeit rapid-fire response. Many of us will read it in greater detail and come back with any questions after we have had that opportunity. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that, while we might have disagreed on my recommendation that we oppose Clause 5 becoming part of the Bill, he at least recognises that it is effectively a probing amendment. The reason I put it down in those terms was that there were many good amendments that were already tabled on this subject. I wanted to highlight a really important point: by simply placing it on the face of this Bill, given the Government’s commitments, we lacked consistency across the country.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
That is my point exactly, and that is why this is an important debate to have had this evening. I congratulate the noble Lord on his observations and comments.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am grateful for that intervention: I echo everything he said: everything he said, in terms of detail, is to be supported.
The second point is this: we have to be incredibly careful, in discussing this subject, about the autonomy of world sport. We are looking at major sporting events and we are seeking to encourage UEFA, FIFA or the IOC to award the right to host those events in this country. We are not telling UEFA, the IOC or FIFA what to do; that is not the way world sport works. I hear in the response from the Minister, “We expect them to do this”, “We expect them to do that” and “We expect them to do otherwise”. We can expect as much as we want: it is UEFA, or the event organiser, that decides.
What I was pleased to hear, in that context, was that this is clearly drafted with the agreement of UEFA for the Euros 2028, in the same way that there was unique legislation introduced for London 2012 to reflect what the IOC wanted. That is why the contribution from my noble friend Lord Holmes was so valid. The IOC listened carefully to what LOCOG—the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games—had discussed in great detail. They had discussed the need to criminalise the secondary market from selling tickets, to criminalise touting, so they could totally control the ticketing operation for London 2012, which they did highly successfully, not least because it allowed them to make tickets available to schools as my noble friend Lord Holmes said. They looked holistically at the overall ticketing for that event, unlike FIFA for the World Cup in the United States at the present time.
It is incredibly important to recognise that, when we are talking about appropriate arrangements for ticketing in the Bill, we are talking about sitting down and listening to what the organisers of these major international events want, in association with the organising committee, and putting in place appropriate legislation for that. It would be very different if we hosted the Olympic Games in the future. We would need to come back with event-specific legislation—a point I keep making. It can be easily remedied on the face of the Bill, and all these issues could be put to one side if the Government recognised that, in addition to this framework, they will require, possibly, event-specific legislation to host major international events here—as I desperately hope they will—in the future.
My concern was that we are being tough on touting on the face of this Bill for a small number of events that the Bill relates to. We may have found a way, in government, to talk tough and do nothing for the vast majority of people who are really concerned in this country about the abuse of the secondary market, and about the need for the Government to legislate. To bring forward a draft Bill, having said they were definitely going to legislate, with no commitment to implement legislation in a future session of this Parliament is not what the arts world, the music world, the sporting world, and the likes of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and myself—
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would not normally intervene. However, I was clear that we are going to introduce a draft Bill and will introduce legislation in due course, so I feel the noble Lord is going slightly beyond my response. I am happy to sit down and talk to any noble Lord about the ticket touting measures coming up, but I cannot accept that we are not taking it seriously, as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
That is an extremely important and welcome intervention, but the Minister said “in due course”. Can she commit that that means during this Parliament?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I cannot commit to a timescale, but I have offered to have a meeting where we can discuss that in further detail.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
To fail to commit for the whole of this Parliament, when we have years to run, is disappointing, given the strength of the comments made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers in recent months. It is vital that the Government indicate by the time we get to Report whether they will legislate during this Parliament.
The public have longed to get legislation on to the statute book to protect people from being ripped off and turning up at many concerts, having paid a lot of money to bring their kids down from wherever they live, to find out that they have a forged ticket. That must be stopped. We must have tough legislation. That is why I share with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the need to legislate on this and why we were so pleased that the Government were willing to come forward with legislation that Parliament could consider. To know that this might not happen in the current Parliament would be deeply disappointing.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My noble friend emphasises the importance of tackling touts in a broad piece of legislation that does not cover just these events. Could he also emphasise, as my noble friend Lord Fuller raised, ensuring the obligation of those selling the tickets to maximise the controls to avoid touting?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I absolutely endorse that comment. As my noble friend, who has sat with me on this subject many times over the past five years, will know, ever since the Waterson report and many others, I have sought to table and introduce legislation—sometimes successfully—to give far greater clarity and visibility on tickets and to make sure that when people sell tickets, they follow the conditions that the organiser of the event has brought forward. If the organiser has set the condition that it should not be sold on the secondary market, it should not be. We have needed legislation to be introduced in order to achieve that.
I am absolutely tough on this subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knows. I have the privilege of co-chairing the All-Party Group on Ticket Abuse. We have to take action on this. I really hope that, following the Minister’s response, she will be able to go away and consider before Report an absolute commitment that this Government will honour their word and introduce legislation not during this Session but during this Parliament.
Lord Addington
“(5) Where the regulations designate a person to grant advertising authorisations in relation to a sporting event, the regulations must require that person, in determining whether to grant an authorisation, to have regard to—(a) the impact of any proposed exclusive authorisation on small and medium-sized enterprises trading in or near the restricted advertising zone,(b) the desirability of ensuring that local and small businesses have a reasonable opportunity to benefit from the sporting event,(c) whether any proposed exclusive arrangement is proportionate to the legitimate commercial interests of the event organiser, and(d) whether there has been reasonable and proportionate communication with small and medium-sized enterprises trading in or near the restricted advertising zones, of any exclusive authorisations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that, in the case of exclusive advertising rights for a certain sporting event, small and medium-sized companies are not unfairly harmed.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is really a probing amendment to try to get at some of the hardy perennials, shall we say, when dealing with Bills that take on big sporting events. That is, when you have a big sporting event, you have a big advertising structure and restrictions being imposed on the local traders, which the local traders think are not fair. It sometimes gets slightly absurd. I cannot help but remember—but I am trying to forget—the Olympic kebab van that operated in the East End of London and which was restricted by the Olympic Games. It became a case of why they did not know and why there was not some smaller operation to lessen the impact on their business.
In the rest of the group, we have amendments dealing charitable situations. The situation here is about how we are going to make it a little easier for small and medium-sized businesses to operate properly within these structures. What are the duties on those organising the big events to let them know what is going to happen and mitigate any harms to them?
This amendment is a way of trying to find out the Government’s thinking on this, because it is one of those things that comes back and niggles again and again when you have a big event. I hope we can at least find out what the Government’s thinking is about how we are going to make sure that we make life a little bit easier for these small units, which should be beneficiaries, so that they actually get some benefit from this. That is all I am trying to do here. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this group of amendments. I will speak to the two amendments in my name. The first, Amendment 39, is incredibly straightforward and simply seeks to exclude charities from the restricted advertisement zone, as set out in the Bill. It replicates the wording from the London 2012 Act of 2006. I am very interested in the Minister’s response to that wording.
My second amendment in this group, Amendment 63, seeks a retrospective on the enforcement action to assure it from an equality and inclusion perspective. It simply sets out equality enforcement assessments so that the data is there and can be reviewed, s actions can be taken where there are disparities, and there can be learnings in real time for that event and for other events that will be hosted across the country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether I could briefly help out the noble Lord, Lord Addington. There was also a case in 2012 when a lady decided to do knitting patterns of the mascots and made a Games maker. It is incredibly important that the rights and brand of these major events are protected. I think I am right in saying that they issued her a warning for knitting one and trying to sell it at her local church. They then recognised the importance of stepping back from that, because they became hugely popular, were a lot of fun and did not impact anybody.
However, a line has to be drawn between what we are seeing quite a lot with FIFA in terms of ambush marketing versus somebody just doing something that is quite nice. There is some merit in these amendments to make sure that local businesses are protected and are able to carry out their day-to-day work without threat of legal action.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 56 in the group. The Bill unashamedly tries to snare and capture the large global events that can make a national impact in our country, but national impact and national scale also have local effects. One of the purposes of hosting these big events is to transform the local economies, drive investments and spread love and enjoyment in the local communities that act as hosts. It is naive to think that this is front and centre of the organisers’ minds. The promoters of the global events line up their sponsors, sports rights and big global brands, and there are pallet loads of merchandise to shift. We know that money follows sport, and the Bill makes sport all about the money by law. I am concerned about the powers to designate zones around stadiums or other undefined places—which might be fan zones, I suppose—where local trading will be made illegal.
At Second Reading, I gave the example—and it was on “Yesterday in Parliament” actually, which I was very pleased about; that was my first time—I gave the example of the 10-minute walk from Twickenham station to the Allianz Stadium down Whitton Road, where every type of food is available, from licensed food vans to stalls set up in front gardens, where the enterprising home owners have demolished their garden walls. There is not just food; there are old boys selling tat, and there is the little guy with his roadside kebab van and the youth club, with its pop-up gazebo, frying chicken wings. It is all part of the grittiness, but all these places have a licence. The way in which the Bill bans this trading means that little of the money will be assimilated in the local economy. That is not right, because the people who are hosting these events should have a right to expect that some of the benefits will be retained locally.
I accept there needs to be some sort of control, so that it does not become a scrum—Twickenham to one side—and we need to have minimum hygiene standards and sensible limits, so we do not get overwhelmed. That is why, over decades, a series of local licensing decisions by the local authority has evolved. It is tried and tested, it has public safety and hygiene at its heart and it has allowed an ecosystem of local traders to flourish. The Bill casts all that aside. Even if you have licence, you will be excluded from participating in a whole-community effort to host a big event. The local little doers will be cast to the wilderness. How does this help the local economy? Why have we got it in for the Cubs and Scouts who are trying to raise money for the jamboree?
My amendment is simple. It would protect the ability of the local council to ensure that at least some of the benefits of hosting an event are retained locally and are not outsourced to national firms or multinational burger corporates. I want to ensure that local flavours are part of the mix and that fans are not just force-fed cardboard burgers and gassy lager served in soulless stadium concourses. Under my proposal, it would be up to the council to strike the right balance between the local needs and the rights holders in exchange for issuing licences. In a local territory, the council will hold some of the cards. The Bill gives the organisers all the cards, and that is no good. It is an affront to the bloke who prefers a cheap kebab to an overpriced burger or a bucket hat to a baseball cap, or the fan who fancies ale rather than lager. If the council gets it wrong, there are elections to sort that out.
At Second Reading, I was grateful that the thoughtful noble Lord, Lord Mann—who is not in his place—supported the principle of locals being able to get in on the act. He was on the side of the working man, the local charity, the youth group and its pop-up gazebo. I say: let us empower them all. They collectively, over decades, have created so many different rituals and traditions associated with going to the game, more so than the game itself. Families, groups of fans, clubs and societies work with the community in a sort of foreplay that heightens the pleasure of the big event itself. I know that the Minister would not want to deny fans their pleasure, so I ask her to accept my amendment, so that everybody gets to enjoy themselves in the way that they want to, but, most importantly, so that some of the benefits are retained in the community, which is potentially so inconvenienced by the disruptions of hosting it. The economic benefits must be retained locally.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Fuller in his expression of concern about the impact on small businesses. Sadly, many noble Lords will know me as a statistician who spends all his time looking at opinion polls and numbers in one direction or another and then commenting on them. I have spent inadequate time looking at the impact assessment, to which no reference has been made yet in these debates. Despite my apparent facility for statistics, all I can say about the impact assessment is that my head hurts. I found it incredibly difficult to comprehend page after page of low-impact, central-impact and high-impact estimates.
I will comment on one section. I could comment on others, but I address my comments overall. I find it very difficult to understand the impact that each of the different events would have in terms of positives and negatives, because they are aggregated in a very odd way. Page 41 of the impact assessment refers to the impact on street traders. It says:
“The low estimate reflects that 50% of traders will be able to continue to trade due to potential mitigations”.
Therefore, 50% of the traders will not be able to continue trading—and that is the low estimate. It goes on to say:
“The central estimate reflects the likelihood that 75% of traders in the affected area will be unable to trade while the provisions are in place. The high estimate serves as an upper bound where all traders operating in areas where prohibitions apply are unable to trade”.
We are therefore talking about a very substantial impact on businesses. We debated earlier the duration under which these provisions would apply, but we are talking about potentially every single street trader in those relevant areas. There are pages identifying the numbers of traders affected, whether it be at the Everton stadium, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, at Hampden Park in Glasgow or wherever you choose to name. There are numbers and numbers of street traders. That is their livelihood. If these events are running for several weeks, which is likely to be the case, they are losing their livelihood for that period.
I therefore share my noble friend Lord Fuller’s concerns about the impact that is identified—but identified in such a complex way that it is incredibly difficult to understand what we are talking about.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My noble friend has painted a picture and enumerated it with examples of sports stadiums. Under the Bill, there is to be a zone cast around the stadium where trading will be banned. But there are other provisions that have other events; for example, fan zones. Has my noble friend considered that fan zones could be in town centres? Town centres could be sterilised from trading. Has he considered that the net may be cast much further than just street traders, to other organisations too?
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that intervention and for identifying other areas. I tried to make it clear that I had taken only one element of one page of an impact assessment. It was on page 41. The impact assessment is over 90 pages long, with central, low and high estimates in all sorts of different categorisations There is no overall assessment of cost potential for any small or large business or the impact on the economy.
There is lots of explanation that tells us how wonderful it is going to be week in, week out, because of the benefits of sport. That is right—we have all recognised that—but there is an indistinct identification of the potential costs to some small and very small businesses, and we really should recognise the potential implications for all concerned.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in many senses, we have outperformed a World Cup football squad tonight, because we have hit the target ahead of schedule for this first day in Committee, and we have done it without a hydration break.
Let me begin with the two amendments I have tabled in this group. It is an important group on which to end our debate, because it deals with the significant impact of the Bill on the restrictions on commercial interests, small as well as big, a point that my noble friends have rightly accentuated. My Amendment 40 seeks to create an exemption for charities from the advertising offences in the Bill, applying only where a charity is advertising wholly or partly for the purpose of promoting itself or a specified list of charitable services. I hope the Minister will be attracted to it. It is word for word taken from the provisions in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Advertising and Trading) Regulations 2021. If it was suitable then, why not for the new framework that we are seeking to set out?
Amendment 55 similarly relates to charitable exemptions. Paragraph 1(2)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Bill states that a “Trading activity” includes
“appealing for money or other property (whether for charitable or other purposes), with the exception of begging”.
That means that the offence of trading in a restricted trading zone applies to charitable fundraising but not to people who are begging. I wonder if the noble Baroness can explain why it has been drawn up in that way. Surely we do not want to restrict people from collecting for good causes where that can be done in a way that is consistent with the sporting event, particularly when we consider that charities historically have been exempted from the advertising offences when we have hosted sporting events of this nature in the past.
I have tried in doing that to follow the example that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond has taken with his Amendment 39. As he said, that mirrors the approach taken in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which provided carve-outs for community and educational uses, and I congratulate him on the way he set that one out.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, undersold his Amendment 38 a little. It concerns the impact of exclusive advertising authorisations on small and medium-sized enterprises and, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has done, it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to what the Government’s own impact assessment says about this, because it is rather revealing. The final stage impact assessment, published by the department, acknowledges candidly that the provisions most likely to affect small and micro-businesses are the trading provisions of this Bill, which could prevent established street and market traders operating as usual in and around restricted zones. It recognises that there may be
“small disproportionate impacts on local traders relative to the broader business community”.
Therefore, it acknowledges that the greatest potential impact will fall on street traders in affected areas—as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, the people who add to and enhance the enjoyment of many people going to sporting events. The impact assessment promises that
“careful consideration will be given to how best to mitigate these impacts when making regulations on a case-by-case basis”.
That is a candid admission, but candour in an impact assessment is not the same as a legal safeguard in the Bill. Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks to translate the Government’s own stated intentions from the impact assessment into an enforceable obligation. I think that one is worth the Minister looking at carefully in her response this evening but perhaps also as we consider all the issues we have looked at today between now and Report. I am grateful to noble Lords for all their amendments in this group.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham, Lord Fuller and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their amendments.
Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would require a designated person to have regard to additional factors related to small and medium or local enterprises when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. We share the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that such businesses are not unfairly impacted and that they are able to benefit from the sporting event where appropriate.
In the interest of proportionality, we intend to minimise the impacts of the advertising provisions on existing businesses by introducing exceptions to the offences in regulations. These exceptions would be based on existing advertising controls to allow usual advertising on business premises. Businesses within a restricted zone wishing to display advertising that is not subject to an exception may be able to seek authorisation to do so—for example, from the event organiser or local authority. Where an authorisations process is in place and the proposed activity does not undermine commercial sponsors, businesses with an existing licence to advertise should be given precedence.
Before making regulations, the Secretary of State or devolved authority must consult with the relevant authority and any other persons. This could include local businesses. Guidance setting out the advertising restrictions that will be in place must also be made available.
Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would create an exception to the advertising offence for certain non-commercial entities. We recognise the vital work each of these does for local communities. In most cases, they will not be affected by the advertising provisions in the Bill. I will say more on charities shortly, but I stress that the advertising offence will capture charities and other non-commercial entities only if they are advertising a business, product or service in a restricted zone. Where such entities could be affected, we will look to provide an appropriate exception in regulations. This will ensure that the interest of any charity partner in an event, if there is one, can be taken into account where necessary. Generally, this means providing exceptions in regulations on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they are proportionate, workable and event-specific. Again, guidance will be made available, making clear how non-commercial entities could be affected and the options available to them.
Amendment 40 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, creates an exception to the advertising offence for promoting charities and certain charitable services. We share the spirit of this amendment. However, as this is a UK-wide framework, exceptions must be workable across the four nations. These separate jurisdictions have differing laws defining and regulating charities. To ensure that exceptions related to charities can be applied effectively, these will need to be brought forward in regulations drafted in accordance with local laws, taking into account the interests of any charity partners. Charities will be captured by the offence only where they are promoting a product, business or service. As I stated in relation to a previous group, exceptions will always be provided for advertising certain charitable services—for example, crisis mental health support services such as a hotline. To highlight our intention in this area, the Bill explicitly states that exceptions to the advertising offence could be made for the purpose of promoting charities or services provided by charities.
Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would remove appealing for money or other property from the definition of “trading activity”. I believe it was this amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke to when she talked about knitted items and proportionality in relation to that. That was a good example and the type of example I have been putting to the Bill team to test. I understand that this amendment is looking to probe why charitable fundraising is within the scope of the trading offence. The trading offence is designed to regulate activity that could disrupt the easy and free movement of spectators and provide a mechanism to control the number of traders, including charity collectors, operating within a restricted zone. For this reason, a number of local authorities already regulate charity collections in public places. Although I am sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment, a blanket exception for charitable fundraising could undermine these objectives. For example, an event may have an official charity partner which may need to be given priority over a fundraising activity in a restricted trading zone.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is nice to end on something like agreement. I thank the Minister for her reply. It seems to me that we are accepting that there is a potential problem here and just about finding a solution. I must admit that the impact assessment is the sort of document I look at, cower, then drop. So, I will possibly take the sage-like advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and buy him a beer to get a good interpretation of it next time.
There has been a problem here. I see that the Government are trying to move towards dealing with it. But it is also a case of trying to make sure that those people who are going to be affected by it know, so that they can start to take mitigating measures themselves. I am not absolutely sure whether the Minister covered that well enough in her reply. Okay, this is the start of a process, not the end, but I think that we should have a look at this, because it is an irritant: it is a bit of grit that is not producing pearls.
We should try to get rid of it and do the best we can. We have enough information and experience now to be able to do something better than what we have at the moment. Let us have a look and see how we can get round to it.
I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister on this in future because I think we can make something better than we have at the moment. With that caveat, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.